Thursday, June 7, 2018

Thoughts on the American Civil War and election-free republics

Whenever the issue of exit is brought up, people invariable point out that the fact that secession was used as a pretext to extend the institution of slavery. This is faulty logic, because there was simply no one fighting for the right position during the Civil War. The right-wing was fighting against the exit of Negros, while the left was fighting against the exit of their masters. This compounded the original error where the North tolerated slavery on the basis of the principle of exit, hypocritically denying exit to blacks while simultaneously supporting it for whites.

The moral action would have been to free the slaves and then kick the South out of the Union. You can't deny exit for them, but you can't make us deny exit for you either, and if you try to re-institute slavery once we leave we will invade you again.

The left is engaged in a similar folly today with free speech, and the right is engaged in a similar trap. The right is using free speech to advocate the destruction of ethical principles, forcing the left to compromise its own principles just like the South forced the left to compromise the principle of exit. Then as now, the right-wing is using a principle to violate a principle. Back then, they used the right of exit (secession) to deny exit to blacks. Now they use free speech to intimidate and silence the free speech of minorities. The answer is not to play into their hands and turn against the principle of free speech, but to answer the exercise of a right (the right to engage in hate speech) with another exercise of speech, (the rational defense of classical liberal values). Yes, we will allow you a platform for your hateful ideas, and no, we will not shout you down, but we will present a reasoned argument for why equality of rights is necessary even if equality of ability is not possible.

Rather than censoring them they should construct a media megaphone for blasting the principles of human rights into every mind. They should double down on classical liberal principles, and not the folly of equal outcome. But they will allow this right to be destroyed also, by allowing themselves to be maneuvered into a position of contradicting their own principles, and then the left will then be authoritarian like the radical right, and there will be no one left to support freedom.

The right breaks an institution and forces the left to bring down the jackboot, affirming the principle of jackboots; a right-wing principle. The right makes an agency dysfunctional and then calls for its privatization, denying that functional agencies were even possible. This would be like the left unionizing a company to bankrupt it, and then claiming private corporations don't work.

The more concentrated power becomes the more insane politics becomes. The right says it wants to end politics, but nothing is more political than the frequent civil wars and religious conflicts under monarchy. The 1950's was more democratic and less political than today, and the government power was less concentrated and intrusive, and yet reactionaries still insist on thinking more concentrated power will yield saner results! Are these people stooopid? Why yes Sherlock, they are.

In communism the government owns all the business and land, and manages it under a one-party state. The communists act like capitalists because when you conquer all the industry in a society the incentives of industry conquer you. Eventually, the communists begin to sell favors and jobs for bribes. Afterward they begin to pass on their jobs to their sons. Eventually all the corruption becomes formalized and certificates of paper are issued entitling the people who bought these government jobs to "rights." There is a holy state religion called "Marxism-leninism" that all must study and obey. The religion is new, so people take it seriously, and the regime is relatively free from corruption.

In a feudal monarchy all the land and industry is owned by the king. The king sells favors and government jobs in exchange for bribes he calls "fees" which sell at a regular price according to a fixed fee schedule. Government jobs can be purchased with bribes and these jobs are called "royal titles." The whole abomination of corruption is made sacred by having so much ancient dust on it, and is controlled by a holy state religion that all must study and obey.

Communism is a cleaner, more bureaucratic form, of feudalism.

Monarchies have civil and religious wars.

Communism has civil and ideological wars.

Christianity believes in the equal ability of all to be saved by Christ.

Communism believes in the equality of all.

Supposedly these are all radically different things.

Republics are political systems controlled by a game that decides who gets power. The game is elections. The Supreme Court is the referee. The Constitution is the rules. The whole thing is worshiped by the American right, proving that people can make anything sacred if it is old enough.

Capitalism is an unconstructed game — by unconstructed I mean that it has no designer because it self-assembles. Near as I can tell there are only three types of political systems on Earth; 1. hierarchies, 2. "games" (or republics), and 3. "anarcho capitalism."

In other words,

Pure hierarchies (dictatorships)
Games controlled by a hierarchy (republics)
Games not controlled by a hierarchy (anarcho capitalist markets).

Left and right are spooks; there is only degrees of game. There are communist societies that act fascist, just like there are "liberal monarchies." The reason you apply the concept of left and right to the world is because the game of democracy produces two players as an inevitable consequence of its internal game rules. Two is the number that accrues the maximum amount of power in a competitive game without merging with the last remaining enemy. If there were three parties one of them would eventually consolidate into one of the two parties, since a larger party would co-opt it to get more votes. Thus, the number of parties is always exactly two, and no more. All other parties either don't matter or are in the process of being absorbed. In parliamentary democracies the third parties always joins either the left or right coalition. There are two parties in a democracy for the same reason that if you played a Chess game with three parties one of the players would join with another against the third, eliminate the third, and then go on to battle each other, leaving only two in the final round.

A game that requires a majority to get things done, or which allows one winner to control the whole system, will always produce either a two-party or one-party outcome depending on how it is set up. It is possible to design an alternative republic where there are no parties, by structuring the game to allow multiple players, and eliminating majority rule. A system can be set up where instead of elections, disputes decide who is elevated to congress. One party sues another. The lawsuit can be "blank" and does not actually have to contain any grievance. The two players fill out rank-ordered lists of who they would like the dispute to be tried by. Each list must contain the names of 50% +1 of the judges in the system. The highest ranking person on both lists tries the suite. Any grievances are combined into the blank suite and tried by the same judges. The system therefore selects for the most neutral arbiter in all cases.

The 100 most popular and respected arbiters, (as measured by the amount of business they get) are elevated to congress automatically, where they write the laws governing the whole system. Federal laws need the direct vote of the people for approval.

There. A republic with no political parties, no elections of politicians, no political parties, and no meaningful politics. The rest of the system is go-ocracy parts 1 thu 4. If you read the article on go-ocracy you will probably also realize that such a system would probably have no welfare state either, since the people elevated to congress don't need votes to get elected, or at least, no welfare state at the federal level. A welfare state might still emerge as a result of people choosing players who offer it, but such a system would be governed by market equilibrium rather than party politics.

No comments:

Post a Comment

All spam will be deleted