Nick Land is schizophrenic and not to be trusted

The man thinks he wants autonomous capital. He also acts like a conservative, criticizing everything from a conservative point of view, but also loves the Chinese Communist party. 

Autonomous capital is basically what liberalism is all about, or to put it another way, the left has made a whole business out of slavishly converting every technological development into a values system. Birth control comes along and the left becomes feminist. Transgendered surgical techniques arrive and the left tries to transition everyone's children.

Remember that in the past the Founding Fathers were also liberals and they converted the material force of guns, a relatively new force at the time, into the ideology of a republic. Leftists have depended pornography as free speech. The exception to this technology ---> liberal ideology pipeline is guns, which have been co-opted and reinterpreted as conservative technology, and since conservatives love it liberals now hate it. 

Unstructured slavery to technological forces is what liberalism is all about, it is what defines their mythic "right side of history" narrative. Anyone who believes that humans should be in charge is basically a communist, anyone who believes that humans should resist technological cultural change is a conservative, and anyone who thinks humans should control the direction of cultural change by controlling the technology is a Silicon Valley fascist.

Liberalism's defining feature is demand for unstructured "progress", for belief in destiny, like history will just magically unfold in a progressive direction. It's incoherent because they can't even say the direction they are going, they can just feel it, they just know it, somehow they can tell. It's a vibe thing, but guess what it's capitalism that controls that vibe. 

Because behind most of these liberal revolutions in values is a technological change, though challenging racism stands out as a possible exception since no technology has actually made anyone equal. I suppose the end of racism as a culturally valid phenomenon is also traceable to birth control, and perhaps also the atomic bomb, since the result is that societies no longer have to compete in a death struggle over resources. Birth control removes the constant pressure for growth while the bomb makes direct violence with other superpowers politically untenable. Once you have these technologies you no longer have the material force that sustains hatred of differences, and society seeks its lowest energy state, which means racism becomes stigmatized, because white only drinking fountains are a higher energy state to maintain than everyone being terrorized by black crime.

Humans are lazy and they seek the less effortful path.

My thesis here is that technology drives our values and when technology changes our values change. Humans are tool using apes with religion, and we make religion out of our tools. The whole process exists in a kind of recursive feedback loop where we interpret the cultural effects of our tools as a material force we must obey. As an example the Aztecs always had a problem with surplus population, and they solved this problem with massive quantities of human sacrifice. This is a very obvious example of the material force ---> values system pipeline. Technology plugs into this psychological process and creates a technological force ---> values systems pipeline. This pipeline IS THE LEFT, and you can predict wherever the left will go by looking at the direction the technology is taking, and anticipating how that technology will change people's values.

I don't want to get off track from the main point but I feel another example is an order, because we have talked about the past but we should also talk about the future to make this process as salient as possible in the reader's mind, so let's make a slight detour. 

Elon musk is developing neuralink. He believes that creating a hive mind for humanity will counterbalance against the rise of AI. More than likely AI will simply wind up running the hive mind, but whatever. Useful idiots abound in the human species. 

Let us imagine that it becomes possible to upload memories to social media and to then share them with others. Everyone begins uploading and downloading memories and people even begin editing them to create a more "polished" look. There are even sexual memories being uploaded and downloaded on PornHub. Fake glamorous memories dominate Instagram, hateful memories on X (of course), a mixture of Boomer slop and disturbing stuff on Facebook (as usual), and sexual memories on porn sites. It's the sex memories that really drive the adoption of neuralink. Most men would be hesitant to get their heads drilled for a brain computer interface, but dangle an endless supply of sex memories with smoking hot women in front of them and they change their mind. Of course some of these memories might not be completely consensual, and some might be of the revenge porn variety.

Imagine that your ex-boyfriend uploads a memory to a porn site in revenge for you cheating on him, or leaving him, or whatever. It is seen by tens of millions of men and every time you walk down the street anonymous men you have never met look at you like they have had sex with you, BECAUSE THEY HAVE. There's not much difference between reality and memory is there?  Viewing something on a two-dimensional screen at least gives you some separation between you and the event in question, but memory is far more personal and you become the things you remember. If 10 million men remember having sex with a woman without her consent then effectively she has been raped by 10 million men. 

So in the beginning of neural interfaces the laws are very strict, we hope, to protect the privacy of others. But people begin to put more and more of their memories online, so much so that it begins to reshape the values of society. In the beginning privacy is considered  extremely important but at the end of the process privacy is an outdated concept for old fuddy-duddies. What, you want privacy? You don't want to be included in other people's memories? You don't want your intimate partner to put her memories online? So that her female friends can judge and criticize? That's a red flag! The pipeline of material force ---> new values works fast and in a single generation the right to privacy becomes a concept only conservatives believe in. In fact, this is how conservatism happens, it happens when people simply refuse to update their values. All those conservatives you disdain? Maybe you should have some sympathy for them, since they are simply people who refuse to update their values for a previous change in material forces. This process has been going on a lot longer than you have been alive, you are just here for the latest iteration, and the system will pass you by and if you don't change your values you will become conservative too.

Live long enough and you will become a conservative. 

So this then circles back to my point about Nick Land and autonomous capital. The man thinks he wants autonomous capital but that's like saying you want the victory of liberalism. He says that liberalism is the only thing that has any future, but then he also wines endlessly about white replacement. Does the man think capitalism considers whites special? The fascist paradox is to believe wholeheartedly in capitalism while capitalism destroys all your values. Zizek is not an idiot all the time, and he mentions this.

The most prescient comment on this issue came from none other than Grimes who said,

"What they don't tell you is that capitalism itself is the most obvious vehicle for intelligence and evolution, That the only thing saving you from governance by "autonomous capital" is the selfishness and laziness of women, who are refusing en masse to feed the machine.

The real danger is the eternal sentient economy. 

Once the market can think for itself, it will eradicate women and create factories to grow babies in order to obtain infinite consumers. 

Not to terrorize everyone with another conspiracy theory"

 

Because of the religious nature of the human brain the psychological process of material force ---> cultural values becomes a technological force ---> cultural values pipeline and the humans become the tools of their own technology.

And to piggyback on what Grimes said this process will be horribly misogynistic, because it is a continuation of a technological process of manufacturing substitutes for the female body. This process of substitutes began with things like pornography and transgenderism, and we have already seen the cultural rationalizations of men in women's sports, rationalizations which are misogynistic in nature. The rationalizations have to be misogynistic because they flow from the technology of transgendered hormones and surgeries, a technological process whose purpose is to make the female body more consumable. Consumption of women is the very essence of misogyny and technologies that further it will lead to the reinforcement of misogynistic values. 

But this isn't about misogyny. This isn't really even about Nick Land. This is about the need for communism, or to put it another way, the need for alignment of AI with human values. Or to put it yet another way, the need for real conservatism. Because if you want real conservatism you want to enslave capital. The Amish are the only real conservatives and they're also the only people who pick and choose which material forces they obey, by picking and choosing which technologies to embrace. For a society to overcome slavery to technological material forces it's going to require a pretty heavy government hand. This idea that everything can be fixed the lack of regulation is a fool's errand and gets you only the relentless destruction of all your precious values at the hands of autonomous capital. If you as a conservative value your race, (regardless of what your race is), value your community, value family, value nation, you ultimately need to oppress capitalism. There is no gentler way of putting it: capitalism, and the technological forces it unleashes must be controlled and since you are dealing with an awesome force of atomic proportions only the heaviest hand will work. OPPRESS is the correct term. 

The reason the West is the source of the industrial revolution and also the radical upheavals in social values is because of an analytical process getting ahead of the human Id. Normally the mind does what the heart wants, or to put it another way, the ego obeys the Id. In the "rational"  Western tradition this process gets reversed and the Id is enslaved to the ego. Slavery to the ego, slavery to technology, liberalism, the right side of history, and autonomous capital are all just different ways of saying the same thing: eventual AI supremacy.

And people are beginning to realize that pure unstructured liberalism does not lead to freedom but to the triumph of the machine over the biological. Nick Land is schizophrenic because he thirsts for annihilation, he even says this. Why does anyone listen to him?

America's sacred dysfunction

Political morals are not real. Or let me put it this way: among the possible forms of morality, there are at least two, and those are real versus political morality.

Real morality is obvious stuff like "don't murder people" and "don't rape children." That sort of thing. Almost everyone feels a visceral disgust or outrage when a real moral imperative is transgressed.

Political morality is not like that at all. Unlike real morality, which benefits everyone at some point in their lives, political morality always serves someone's interest at the expense of others. And people always disagree about it, or at least it never achieves completely universal status across the world. Every culture has a prohibition against murder throughout human history. Other moral prohibitions have found that a preponderance of cultures have more or less criminalized certain things. When most societies say something is wrong throughout human history, you can be pretty sure it is wrong. When the exceptions are freak cultures that burn their children or practice cannibalism, you know the exceptions prove the rule.

We have all been bombarded with political morality all our lives. Have you ever heard phrases like "my tax dollars," or "nation of immigrants," "support the troops," "American dream," "right side of history," "the current year," "but you're white!" "mansplain," "toxic masculinity," etc.?

I remember sitting in the airport wearing my uniform while traveling when someone walked up while I was talking to my family, interrupted us, and said "thank you for your service" and handed me a 20-dollar bill. I appreciated the money and didn't really mind being interrupted. But what made him act this way? What made this man give me money?

The "America Supports You" campaign did. Let me explain.

During the Iraq war, George W. Bush was afraid that troops returning home would have eggs thrown at them like the Vietnam Veterans did. He poured billions of dollars into a propaganda campaign, running ads on TV promoting support for the troops. Basically, you don't have to support the war, but you should support the troops. This had the added benefit of silencing a lot of criticism of the Iraq war because it could be interpreted as an attack on our soldiers. Social taboos mattered a lot more back then. Also, believe it or not, prior to that campaign, veterans held no special place in the American psyche, at least not in Los Angeles where I was.

Support for veterans was manufactured.

I use this example because it is one I have lived through, because it is a positive example in my opinion, and because it won't derail the conversation by provoking heated emotions. But I want you to realize something about every slogan and political moral imperative you have ever heard: at some point, it started out as a briefing on someone's desk.

Maybe it was a billionaire's desk. The libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard was supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. So has DEI, which has also been supported by all the names you hear on NPR (National Public Radio). Maybe it was Marx being sponsored by his rich patron Engels, or maybe it was King James having the Bible edited. In the Hindu text the Mahabharata, the character Arjuna grapples with the moral dilemma of fighting and killing his cousins, the Kauravas, in the Kurukshetra War. His charioteer and guide, Krishna (an avatar of Vishnu), argues that it is Arjuna's dharma as a warrior to fight for righteousness and uphold justice, even if it means engaging in battle with family.

The text introduces the concept of swadharma, which literally translates to "one's own dharma" or "one's own duty." It's basically one's professional duty that is allowed to contradict karma so that one can get on with the business of killing family members, because, you know, royal infighting and power struggles and whatnot.

Krishna literally makes political arguments in the Mahabharata, and this shows you that political morality goes back to at least 1500 BCE. This was not a briefing on someone's desk, but it was a person, definitely a priest, making up moral excuses for a prince to do what princes do and kill some family. Of course, the priest is now said to be an incarnation of a god, and I guess this proves that if the tale gets told often enough, eventually it becomes so tall that a political adviser becomes a god.

Ever seen the movie "All Quiet on the Western Front"? Imagine the sheer level of fanatical patriotism it takes to get millions of men to die in the trenches of Europe. That is another case of political morality, and now I am going to say something that hurts because I want you to question your values, and I want you to seriously consider the possibility that all your most sacred values have been manufactured. Or at least the political ones.

In time, the source of "support the troops" will be lost to the mists of time just like every other political-moral commandment. One may also envision a day when nobody remembers why Kim Jong Un is an ancient venerated pagan god. Today's political morality is tomorrow's religion, which probably means DEI as religion will keep blaming whites centuries after the state-supported apparatus dwindles away, unless culturally marginalized out of existence by counter-propaganda. (The real way to kill an idea is with decades of sustained mass media ridicule).

This brings us finally to the several points I am making. First, the only thing worse than a sociopath manufacturing your values is you believing them. Seriously, what kind of simp repeats the line "my tax dollars" to argue against Medicaid for able-bodied males? With trillion-dollar bailouts, we are long past valid concerns over chump change.

The second point is that political morality is a weapon, and instead of believing it like a fool, you should be inventing it. Ask yourself: does this serve me? Does this make my country better? A value system that does neither is less than nothing. It is harmful, so dump it.

Third, we are drowning in "sacred values." Everyone has lost the plot. Morality is marketing for power. The purpose of power is to order the world constructively so that regular people can go about their lives without having to think about government. Things should just work. It's the job of power to make sure they work, or more commonly, to get out of the way and let them work. Power is the ability to get people to believe that power is worth serving. (I know it sounds self-referential). Basically, power is what happens when a man can pull the trigger and go home to his wife and kiss her on the lips without being slapped. If he is out bayoneting babies all day, that is going to be pretty difficult. Men are not afraid of dying. They are afraid of never getting pussy again. Political morality is directed at women because who women will fuck determines who men will kill.

The job of political morality is to keep women fucking their husbands so men keep shooting their guns at the government's enemies. The job of political morality is marketing for power. Corporations have commercials. Governments have official ideologies. Corporations prey on your insecurities with their advertisements: "buy this makeup or you are an ugly fat cow," "drive this sports car or you are an old loser." Governments prey on moral sentiment, shaping those sentiments until people will send their sons to die in any pointless war. "Aren't you a patriot?" "Are you liberal or racist?" "Don't you support women and minorities?"

The point is not to resent the process but to harness it. People are going to do it anyway, and it might as well be us.

The other thing you need to realize is that we are drowning in the moral imperatives of the past. At one point, those marketing messages were created, but now they persist like zombies. The great task of the Trump administration is not mass deportation or returning manufacturing (all good in its own right) but overthrow of the leftist moral imperative. People voted for this. They voted for a culture war, not an economic war. They voted for the overthrow of leftist values. They did this because the left has made dysfunction sacred. Everywhere you turn, you are not allowed to do what works because it would contradict some sacred value. They have various terms: rule of law, public input, stakeholders, equality, equity, marginalization, but somehow it always boils down to you can't do the thing that works because dysfunction is a sacred value, and that means a dictator was always destined to rise.

They are putting the cart before the horse. Principles do NOT come first in politics. What works comes first, and morality is invented to justify it. This is how it has always been done; this is how all those sacred left-wing values were invented to begin with. They worked until they didn't, and that is how every civilization undergoes a crisis. The crisis comes about when the values stop working, or maybe when they never worked and always depended on unprincipled exceptions that the new people are not willing to make. The universe is simply too complex for absolute principles to work, and there is more under heaven and earth than your ideology can encapsulate. The liberal ideology that does not bend breaks. The real constitutional crisis is not caused by Trump but by the left making dysfunction sacred. Since they believe whites must pay a penance for the crimes of their ancestors, they have abandoned the natural mutation that allows ideology to adapt to necessity, and dysfunction is no longer viewed as demanding change but as just punishment. You aren't safe on public transportation? Just punishment. Climate change? You deserve punishment. They have decided entropy is on their side.

And this isn't entirely left-wing. Endless wars? Young men can't find a date? Toughen up, buddy! Can't get a job because you're white? Why, just learn to code!

Change happens when dysfunction is no longer sacred, when it is no longer tolerated, when we make it taboo to even make an excuse. Values must once again prove their value instrumentally.

Because so many cling to sacred dysfunction, they are rigidly unable to compromise and adapt, driving ever more extreme behavior in service of their sacred goals. Ironically, this instrumental logic of "defeat the enemy at all costs" will lead to an arms race of values abandonment, such that only pure instrumental logic in service of power will remain, leading to dictatorship. The left could easily neuter the Trump administration by making legal everything he is doing, bending instead of breaking, saying that no, public safety will not be compromised in pursuit of racial justice for gangsters. The left could adapt and keep the Republic.

But to them, every trial is a potential lynching of a black man, and because of this mythos, the average murder trial now takes one to two years. This was not always the case, and in the Old West, judges would try cattle thieves one afternoon and hang them the next, and there is no evidence this form of justice was less accurate, or at least no evidence that reduced accuracy was not greatly justified by increased clearance rates.

In fact, murder clearance rates have fallen all the way to about 50%, meaning that about half the time, they are getting away with murder. If you bring this up, you will encounter all the excuses of sacred dysfunction. They will tell you it can't be done, that keeping the wrongly convicted out of prison matters more, blah blah blah. Sacred dysfunction always has an excuse, a sacred excuse. Even questioning it generates outrage.

The inevitable destination of sacred dysfunction is single-digit murder clearance rates because keeping the wrongly convicted out of prison will matter more than the so-called rights of criminals matter more than the victims, who are not even thought of.

A central problem is that insane people are attracted to education the same way bullies are attracted to the police. The insane live in a state of isolation where nobody understands them, so they seek to become educators so they can inflict their madness on a captive audience. They make society's flexible and adaptive values into rigid quasi-religious mandates, and they turn trials from fact-finding missions into procedural rituals where the "correct" outcome is whatever followed the procedure. The fact that you can even exclude evidence in a trial is wild. Moreover, sacred dysfunction believes in a Right Side of History, a concept that has the same toxicity as Might Makes Right mixed with a ratchet towards communism. This concept essentially asserts that history must go in only one direction, towards the left, that any other direction is automatically fascist and invalid, and that mentally ill college professors will determine what constitutes the correct direction of History.

The constitutional crisis that leftists complain about was always inevitable. The moment you combine mentally ill college professors with the manufacture of popular consent and make values sacred and inflexible, you have an inevitable ratchet not towards the Right Side Of History but towards the collapse of the system. Trump is simply trying to keep it going, but the judiciary is so thoroughly corrupted, so indifferent to its own dysfunction that it must be dissolved and reformed. All its sacredness must be smashed because sacredness is the problem, and mad professors made sacredness antithetical to pragmatism by taking it to seriously.

Values are made the same way that law and sausage are made, and it is gross, and it is how things OUGHT to be. Law MUST serve practical ends, and taboos must not get in the way or must serve the same ends. There is no higher morality than what works; there never has been, but for some weird reason, it is not enough to tell the average man "do this because it works"; he needs a moral excuse, so you fabricate one. This is how it will always be done; this is how it has almost always been done in the past, and the only societies that put values first were the ones that were dying. Reality is too messy for absolutes. You may fear that if we accept the truth, it will lead to a world of lawlessness, but we already live in that world. I believe that if humans are less self-deceptive, they will behave better, and I believe this starts with acknowledging the source of our values. As long as we deny the crass source of values, we give power to overly serious people, people without joy or humor, people who live only to scold and seek power, and I want to live in a world that is more fun than that.

The reader needs to understand that political morality is historically astroturfed. It is nearly always a top-down project, it is also why the old world seems to suffer from so much more dysfunction than the new. When a country like the United States is new to the world it has the chance to leave much of its baggage behind focusing on pragmatism as a foundation for building civilization. The old world is mired in ethnic hatreds, ancient taboos, and mystical ideas. It's sacred dysfunction is much deeper than ours. Sacred dysfunction accumulates as social taboos are manufactured relentlessly, it accumulates as political power one generation after another tell the public to support this or to oppose that, to hate this and to love that. Just like the law it accumulates generation after generation like so much gunk in the pipes. In these societies it becomes increasingly hard to do anything without rubbing against the friction of social control, and the law mimics that, so even if you might not be punished socially you will legally. When these societies fall apart through the dead weight of all their taboos and superstitions they fall into dictatorship. 

Right now the engine of dysfunction is the ongoing battle between left and right. Each side articulates a vision of its values in reaction to the other. Since it is a vicious competition and thoughtfulness has largely been abandoned, the left takes up the opposite position and pretty soon doing anything vaguely right wing coded becomes taboo. A similar process happens on the on the right wing as well the accum. The accumulation of taboos create as their negative a sacredness of the opposite, since the opposite of what is profane must be holy. The good news is that ideas can often be killed by naming them, and the term "sacred dysfunction"  and the discussion around it can be an engine for ending behavior. Values should be deconstructed, but not haphazardly; first articulate a positive vision of what you want the world to be, taking care not to mess with Chesterton's fence, and then both create values and deconstruct old ones not as a form of vengeance or reactivity to the existing order but the creation of a greater happiness for everyone. Values creation must come from pragmatism. What kind of world do you want to live in? How could things be better? Please stop merely reacting to what you see around you. It must be a positive vision.

When tourism destroys the destination

Tourism is the consumption of other cultures. Why do you want to travel to some country? Because it is unique, because it is different because it is special. It's people are special and they have unique ways of doing things, unique language and unique dress. You are going there to look at them like you go to the zoo to look at the animals. The tourist is a cultural consumer.

But these animals know you are looking at them. You don't just see them, they see you. They see how you dress pretty soon they start dressing like you, talking like you, snapping pictures like you. The zoo animals have become the tourists. 

It is much more comfortable to be the one looking than the one looked at. The tourist is always more comfortable than the native, than the zoo animal. Imagine a parade of strangers who paid admission walking through your house gawking at you and taking pictures. Tourism destroys a place. 

A mall is a zoo where everyone is the animal and the spectator at the same time, and we all look at each other, we all look to see how each other are dressed, what each other are buying, and who is more fashionable. But in a fashion show the zoo animal walks the runway and because the spectator is seated rather than walking, and the zoo animal walking rather than seated, power is inverted. The zoo animal now dominates the spectator. A simple change in who gets to move freely changes the power dynamic. The zoo animal, by walking the runway, asserts dominance over the spectator who is obligated to sit quietly, remain silent, and watch. 

It is more comfortable to be the one in motion than the one who is forced to remain seated. Motion and gaze are freedom, sitting stationary and being observed are oppressive. This harkens back to fundamental instincts of prey and predator. 

Uniqueness is what is consumed, and blandness is what does the consuming. Femaleness is what is flashy, and maleness is what is drab. The act of going to a place makes the place like every other place, makes the place drab. By consuming the uniqueness of a culture tourism drains the culture of uniqueness, creating sameness everywhere. To invite tourism is to make yourself the zoo animal. 

Immigration is just a more permanent form of tourism. Motion is empowering while being stationary is disempowering and so being an immigrant is empowering over the natives, who are made powerless by the imposition of weird foreigners in their presence. They gaze at each other making each other uncomfortable, but only the immigrant is to blame for that situation.

When everyone immigrates and visits everywhere then everywhere will become like everywhere else and everywhere will become the same. When every place is both a source of tourism and a destination no more uniqueness will exist in the world and everything will be bland and globalist. When the tourism and immigration you all fetishize so much completes its process there will be nothing left to visit and everywhere will look like everywhere else.

The tourist and immigrant are destroying what they consume.

Why sophisticated people are often idiots

Reality is more crass than the sophisticated mind wants to admit. If you remove the back of a chair it comes a stool. If you lower the stool it becomes a step stool. If you widen the step stool it becomes a coffee table. If you raise the stool it becomes a bar stool. If you take a dining room table and shrink it and lower it it becomes a coffee table.

A social worker with a gun is a cop. A cop without a gun is a social worker in the field. Cop without a gun who is not in the field is a government office worker.

There are no magical third cases or categories. The "educated" mind is constantly searching for invisible categories in order to defeat hard problems, but that is not how you defeat hard problems. To actually defeat problems you brainstorm every possible configuration of a solution, you simulate every possible result, you realize that every solution will create one or more problems, that the solutions may create problems that are worse than the original problem, and you choose from all these possible configurations the configuration of all possible solutions that creates the fewest problems of smallest total magnitude. 

Or to put it in fewer words, you solve the problem by creating the least possible problem with your solution. 

Every problem demands a solution from the public, and every solution creates a problem. The goal is not to "solve"  problems but have the least bad configuration. Government solutions don't exist, only various configurations of problems.

Most of what politicians do is solve the problems created by their predecessors. For example, the corn subsidy and the interstate highway system have no doubt massively contributed to America's obesity epidemic by discouraging walking and giving everyone cheep soda to drink. Both were created as solutions to other problems. The United States needed an interstate highway system so it can move troops, and the court subsidy was created solve malnutrition. 

Well corn definitely solved malnutrition and created obesity, and cheap corn syrup is in everything. Having highways everywhere didn't help either since it encouraged auto-dependence, created the very auto lobby that then lobbied to have trams removed, and destroyed our walkable cities.

Or take Social Security, which disincentivizes people to have children (since having children used to be your retirement but now Social Security takes care of it), thus causing its own collapse in the long term, since children are needed to pay for Social Security.

Or the fact that the welfare state subsidizes the birth rates of the very degenerates and poor that is trying to solve. Obviously you cannot reduce the level of poverty if you are subsidizing the poor to have more children they cannot afford.

Every government and every society has a chain of causality like this, where innumerable government "solutions" are actually causing problems that other government "solutions" are trying to solve.

The temptation is to throw your hands up in the air and take a libertarian approach and say "well we will do nothing," but this is wrong because (a) midwits won't allow you to do nothing, and (b) there is probably a "solution" (by which I mean an optimum configuration of problems that reduces total entropy). And the government can probably achieve that optimum with a few very well crafted regulations. 

It is actually not that hard to govern and a sentient AI could probably do it better than humans. It is basically a search function followed by a vast number of simulations. First, you search for every possible configuration of a solution, meaning you brainstorm. Second, you simulate every possible  outcome of your solutions and the problems they create. Third, you choose the least problem creating solution from the range of all possible solutions. 

If you're really smart you killed two birds with one stone by having your small solutions that create as few problems as possible solve many different problems at the same time. All this requires a vast amount of thinking, far more than any human is prepared to do, and humans are an emotionally volatile species uniquely bad at this type of thinking because we get mired in our own emotional knee-jerk reactions. Any human in theory could do it, I sometimes do it, but it wears me out, and as far as I can tell I'm the only one who's done it, and the answer is I come up with are still not that great. 

There's a lot more to unpack here, a lot more work to do, we need a system that gets groups of people to somehow do this, to somehow go through the process of searching for every possible solution and critiquing their results. We need a system that gets people to operate at a level of IQ that is higher than they naturally do. That is more level-headed than they naturally are. I am working on this. But for now, to circle back to my original assertion, reality is a lot more crass than the educated want to believe, and that is why crass minds often do a better job at governing, specially when they listen to experts and simplify things before making a decision.

Outsourcing the globalist empire through a United City States

Prior to the atomic bomb the incentive of nations, like fish, was to get bigger and eat your neighbors. The book 1984 predicted the inevitable outcome of this material force. The era prior to the bomb is an endless catastrophe of waring states, and this “get big or get conquered” problem was supercharged by endless population growth and the need for a constantly expanding resource base that brings. This is why paranoia about the second coming of Hitler is so annoying: because the forces of mass starvation are no present in the modern world, or at least not to the degree they existed before. It is easy to convince people to conquer land in the east and put those land into food production when their kids are starving. Nothing makes people crazy like having a child to protect, and a world of constant population growth is one where 1. everyone is a parent, 2. everyone has the capacity of violence that parents have, 3. there are periods of periodic starvation that threaten one's children, and 4. you can always get more food by conquering and enslaving the neighbors.

Everyone in the past practiced some combination of (a) conquest, (b) slavery, (c) genocide, (d) cannibalism, and (e) human sacrifice. The Aztecs did all of these and Europeans are remarkable for mostly only doing a, b, and occasionally c.

Paranoia about the second coming of Hitler is intentionally ignorant of historical forces in order to drive justification for a certain globalist agenda. I use the term globalist as a place holder here for a nebulous concept that describes a collection of economic and Zionist forces and persons with machinations of a certain kind of bug eating world. It is promoted to demoralize whites and the discussion of the atrocities of other races is intentionally left out to create a lie of omission to enger useful white guilt, guilt that can be exploited.

Political-moral messaging is nearly always an attempt to exploit someone for status, sex, money, or power. When ever you are addressed with a political message that commands you to support ___ you must ask yourself, “does this benefit me?” It sounds sociopathic but the only thing worse than modeling how a sociopath thinks is obeying the moral commands of one. “Good” normal people obey moral messaging while evil ones invent it. This does not mean at all that real morality does not exist; we are talking about that special circumstance where the political is mixed with the moral, when you are told slogans like “America is a nation of immigrants,” “work hard and you will succeed,” “unproductive people are useless,” “age gap relationships are predatory.” Real morality is universally applicable and benefits everyone at some point in their lives but political-moral commands only benefit some special group of people. Real morality says “murder is wrong,” while political-morality says “not serving our interests is wrong.”

Thus when you are told “support globalism or you are a racist”you should be suspicious. You have been fed a false version of history by people stupid enough to believe the return of someone like Hitler is possible. Oh yes dictatorship in America is possible, but the constant shrill whine that this would be a Hitler-like character, that Trump is Hitler, or George W Bush, or Putin, belies the fact that we no longer live in a world of desperate parents and the material forces that let you convince a whole population that genocide is good and we should do it don't exist anymore.

Credit where credit is due: you can think Oppenheimer and his Jewish team for the bomb and Gregory Pincus, John Rock, and Katharine McCormick for the pill, without which the world of get big or get eaten would not have been abolished.

Ostensibly we now live in world of war by proxy empires, meaning, that nuclear armed nations use proxies like Ukraine to fight each other. This is going to be the case until some other technology or organizational system comes along and changes the configuration of material forces in this regard. There is interesting work by about AP Markets that might render all war a thing of the past, but that is a digression from our subject.

We are talking about globalism and it's empire, and specifically the maintenance of it by the United States and it's fleet of super carriers. This power and the world stability it is supposed to bring (jury is out on that) is onerous to the US, and other powers for better and probably worse are eager to challenge that power and create a multi-polar world. The libertarian theory is that trade creates peace, the globalist theory is that America bossing the world around with its military, and buying all the world's goods also creates peace. I do not know how much is true and suspect that only the military part matters but if the trade benefits are gone or America no longer perceives a benefit then military draw down is probably happening eventually.

Globalism needs to outsource itself. Everyone like being governed by white men when they permit themselves to think, though admitting it is humiliating, so they prefer immigration over imperialism and cope with the contradiction using wokeness. Unlike other business where an ethnic group are allowed to monopolize things: Jains in Indian Banking, Chinese in manufacturing, Jews in media and Finance, Blacks in sports, Whites are not allowed to admit it – too much historical baggage, but there is a way to pull this off that saves face for minorities and avoids immigration. A way to give everyone what they secretly want with a plausible deniability that keeps them sane, and a way to give globalists what they want in order to free America from the burden of it's own empire. Ever heard of a franchise?

We have several hundred military bases around the world and many of them have the potential to either be transformed into city states or build cities in the unused land along their edges. A specific example that comes to mind is Al Udeid Air Base, a place I have been, and a place with vast stretches of undeveloped land along the edges and within the gaps. out of the hundreds of bases and naval stations you can scrounge up several dozen to develop? 100 would be a nice round number, and if they were spread all over the world on every continent and close to major shipping lanes that would be ideal. Each of these could be a democracy, and they could be collectively be run by a separate and parallel parliament whose prime minister is under POTUS. Basically the President of the United States is the head of state of the United City States (UCS) while the Prime Minister is Head of Government. the thing makes it's own laws, is outside the jurisdiction of onerous America rules, but is militarily subordinate to the US. The roles of Head of Government and Commander in Chief are also separate with POTUS having that role for the USC and the Join Chiefs working in co-operation with the Prime Minister.

Imagine traveling on a single passport and needing no green card to work. The UCS would straddle the world with cities on every continent except Antarctica. The UCS would use the American dollar, patents and trademarks would not exist within its borders, and it's close proximity to dictatorships would allow people to experience freedom. It would take in a billion immigrants and peoples fleeing persecution. Vast amounts of cheep labor for globalists to exploit. It would have it's own stock market. There would be a capitol whose location would travel, moving from continent to continent around the world from East to West. Every city state would have a parliament building with an identical layout so city state Senators can always find their office. Every two years Parliament would move to another one of it's city states. The benefits would be immense and it would create a true global community, for whatever that's worth.

One that could take over the globalist dream so that America can pursue a nationalist dream. The UCS would even have an official libertarian ideology which would be taught by the very progressives the US re-educates and deports! We could dump millions of insufferable shitlibs on a new nation! Imagine the US with no liberals in positions of power. Imagine the libs living cheek by jowl with their new African friends. What better place to put city states than Africa? Of course unlimited immigration is a one way proposition here. Being a citizen of the UCS does NOT make you a citizen of the US, but being a citizen of the US automatically grants you UCS residency.

Imagine the tax revenue from a global nation, imagine placing city states adjacent to shipping lanes to extract global rents from the Chinese. The Strait of Malacca would be an ideal place for a new democracy. We might buy some land in The Philippines too. Let us count the benefits:

1. Travel the world using your US passport without restriction

2. A place to deport libs to

3. No currency barrier

4. No need for Green Card to work

5. Unlimited immigration to the UCS

6. Real estate sales

7. Low cost labor

8. American universities abroad

9. Benefits of living in the US without living in the US

10. US military protection

11. Taxes for the US military

12. Potentially extract global rents

13. Build and own ports in other countries

14. Spread a global libertarian ideology

15. Weaken the world with libertarianism while strengthening ourselves with nationalism

16. Free America from global obligations

17. Have our own cheep manufacturing

18. Fuck over China

19. The new nation might eventually conquer territory

And mostly white liberals would be forced to take on the role of administrating minority populations while protecting their own survival from them.

x

Understanding the Left on Immigration

 In lieu of the coming 2024 Kamala-Trump election shit show I have decided to resurrect this blog, but with no intention of regular posting. This will serve more as a long form for thoughts I have to say on Twitter/X (which I can be reached @smolfeelshaver or @smolfeelshaver2). I also might make a substack, maybe, probably... or maybe not 

I want to rant about immigration.

Specifically, why do I hate it? And why do so many chumps love it? Well it's a basic survival test, and if you cannot keep foreigners out of your space you are a hopelessly domesticated animal whose survival instincts have atrophied to a sickening degree. It's a basic test of genetic fitness, to favor invading others but not to be invaded by them. Believing in objective morality here is for cucks, just as objective morality is cuck morality on most political topics. But unlike those other topics where you can do the healthy thing (meaning lie and virtue signal while pulling the lever for the opposite of what you say), immigration forces you to tip your hand since ANY amount of it is reverse genetic colonialism by hordes of evil swarthy men whose Y chromosome thirsts to exterminate your Y chromosome at some point in the near future. BECAUSE THAT IS JUST HOW MALES ARE.

If that does not revive your dormant impulse towards self-preservation then maybe we can look at it from the billionaires perspective.

Imagine you are a billionaire twirling your mustache thinking about all the evil ways you are going to subjugate the goyim. You love H-1B visa cucks because they are humble, because they get deported if they lose their jobs, because you control whether they keep their jobs. You love illegal immigrants because they're even easier to get rid of, because you can deport them if they don't like being groped or raped or sexual harassed, or their wages stolen. Deportation might not be the end of it either because they might go back to a country where they get murdered. So you absolutely love illegal immigrants because they're super duper humble.

You love immigrants because they lower wages and raise housing prices. You're a billionaire and you own a bank so when housing prices go up you make more money on loans and when those loans default you're able to sell the houses for more money than you bought them. When wages go down you pay people less so all around immigration is just great for you because you get to squeeze people harder on both the supply and demand end. The extra immigrants create more demand for your products, so you don't have to lower prices and can perpetuate inflation longer, the higher housing prices protect you against defaults on those mortgages, fuck, even the fact that life is getting worse makes women more eager to suck your dick. You're a billionaire and the more you push everyone down the farther up you will go.

But then there are these fucking white people. First, they're not humble at all because as beneficiaries of so-called "meritocracy" they honestly believe they earned their limited wealth and their rights and they're very stuck up and uppity about their limited wealth and rights.

So you need to replace them, and even more you need to convince all these humble browns that the attitude of the whites is bad because you don't want those browns becoming prideful and stuck up about their rights and money like the whites were. Hiring people on the basis of their race is great because affirmative action hires are also humble. A man who was hired because of his race -- even if race was only a tiny factor in the decision -- will never have the full self-esteem of believing in his own accomplishments. Does he really deserve to sit at this table? He will ask himself. This keeps him humble unlike those damn prideful whites who think they're entitled to things like human rights, safe working conditions, and decent wages. You have to tell those whites to check their privilege, and more importantly you have to tell it to everyone else. You are a billionaire so you want to cultivate three classes of browns, the Lumpencucks (H1B Visa slaves), the Underlumpencucks (illegal immigrants), and the always resentful eager to serve petite nergeois (blacks). And you need to recruit these three classes of browns against the ever-threatening bourgeois whites with their stuck up human rights, and their "white privilege" (the privilege of not being slaves).

So you start a foundation that gives money to universities and you ask yourself "how many professors can I buy?" And it turns out quite a lot, and you invent slogans like "America is a nation of immigrants" and other shit slogans until you have got the population braying your ideology in unison.

And then Trump comes along and fucks it up.

The invasion of the social by capital: non-aggression insurance

One of the most interesting ideas put forward by libertarian theorists is the concept of an assassination market. As far as I know Timothy C. May was the first to elucidate the concept in The Cyphernomicon where the idea is articulated that a cryptographic market would place bets on the date that a person will die, so that an assassin can get paid for his work by betting on the day that he will kill someone, since he knows that day in advance. The pot of money is divided by all participants who bet on that exact day, and with cryptography the identity of the market participants is kept anonymous.


A sufficiently advanced assassination market could form the basis of a government without leaders, since government is that force of violence of last resort, and if a law can be made enforceable by market dictate then a force equivalent to a congress (or legislator of last resort) exists. If a tax and voucher scheme was also implemented such that the vast majority of assassination market bets were placed by ordinary people, then such a system might even avoid consolidation by the wealthy and remain "democratic" in the sense of enabling competition in all other areas. But as usual, the existing system forms a barrier to any new one, and if you want change you need the existing POTUS to foster it.


It is my intention to articulate a less-than-lethal version of the assassination market in the hopes that such a stepping stone might lead to the more biting option later. Assassination markets do not currently work because they are not sufficiently advanced for full anonymity, because they are suppressed, because they are insufficiently capable of rerouting around their suppression — at this time. May we construct a more tolerable option? One that the the existing system is required to respect? Imagine then non-aggression insurance.


Free-loaders are parasites. One of the most interesting aspects of libertarianism is the unwillingness to oppose parasitism with any kind of mandatory anything. All property is based on violence, whether it is the private security guard, solider, bounty hunter, privateer, mercenary, or cop defending it. Our purpose is not to quibble over who does the violence — we take it as a given that power is not going away, but to articulate a plan for how a Principal might secure his property without said property being captured by an Agent, that is, without the Agent(s) becoming a monopoly (of government) through collusion. How is competition maintained in violence (of last resort) without that competition becoming violent? Therin lies the important question. 


So what is non-aggression insurance? It is the beginning of smart contract government. Imagine that there is a firm that represents the interests of business owners in government, but unlike large lobbyists it is only allowed to block legislation and serves only predominantly small, (rather than large) business owners). Now this mandate to only block is incorporated into its corporate charter. Vouchers are issued to all business owners in a state. These vouchers pay out only when a proposed law is either successfully defeated, or an exemption for enforcement is crafted for that particular state or province. The vouchers are paid for by a tax which is progressive in the sense of forcing wealthy business owners to pay more than small business owners, but the issuance of vouchers is consistent across all levels of business owners and they all receive the same purchasing power. Vouchers pay to block legislation only, and never to make it, and this rule in also state law. When a proposed law is successfully blocked from reaching the President's / Governor's / Mayor's desk the broker working to block receives a cut. Brokers are licenced by the market automatically on a first-come, first serve-basis and the total number of brokers is algorithmically limited to a fixed number per market size, to insure that competition is not so fierce that no money can be made, nor so lacking that collusion is possible. The algorithm automatically adjusts the number of licences up or down based on a formula designed to maintain the income of brokers at a steady state of around 100 K per year adjusted annually for inflation.


This differs from regular lobbyists who serve large Fortune 500 companies. The brokers are servants of predominantly small businesses, since they pay the bills, and unlike large companies they only block law, and do not try to make it. Their purpose is to stifle the entire law making function, such that rent seeking by large corporations is impossible and the legislative process of is stiffled completely.


Business owners place bids on blocking the laws they consider most harmful to their industries, and thus, the law is either defeated or an exemption is carved out for the state with mandatory non-aggression insurance. With a smaller legislative burden than other states business flocks to that particular state, the economy grows, and other states are incentivized to follow the model, until the entire set of all 50 states has some form of non-aggression insurance, (or a fewer number of states since progressive states will destroy themselves). Exit pressure becomes a very real force in politics, and non-aggression insurance may begun to be implemented internationally.


Given enough time this should lead to the total paralyzation of the government apparatus, as the government becomes an incompetent actor incapable of responding to crisis. Into this vacuum the anacho capitalist offers private enforcement as an alternative, and without a government capable of responding competently assassination market may thrive and replace it as law maker/violence of last resort. The corporate charters of non-aggression firms specify an exception where only laws enabling private enforcement may pass. Afterward the conventional democracy becomes incapable of acting, and the assassination market can eliminate its politicians to take its place, since desperate people will flock to the only source of competent enforcement they can find. The private sector gradually comes to replace the public sector, and the invasion of the social by capital is complete. The new regime has two levels; a systems of private enforcement checked by a system of assassination markets. This ensures that when the CEOs of private enforcement companies exceed their natural authority, abuse their power, or gain too much concentration of power, they are eliminated. The old democracy is kept only a means to redistribute purchasing power via vouchers for the new system. Socialism survives as vouchers that put all humans on a footing of equal rights by giving them equal purchasing power in the new market: a market for social services. A social currency becomes normal and the redistribution to pay for it becomes all that is left of democracy. Rather than eliminating democracy it becomes part of a three-branch system to mutually check power of the other branches, which are; private enforcement, assassination markets, and democratic redistribution of purchasing power for security services.

Go-ocracy Rewritten

I have decided to re-write portions of the original go-ocracy post in order to make upgrades to the design. For the original article, click here.

Introduction

When we begin to redesign democracy we see that majoritarian systems are an accident of history.


A republic can be conceptualized as a game consisting of three parts;

Constitution = rules
Elections = the game
Supreme Court = the referee

Typically, we think in terms of three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) and rules, (habeas corpus, equal protection, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.), but the UK has no real written constitution, and its supreme court does not have real power like the US version does.


We may add to this the fact that a republic is based on the consent of the governed, but there is no reason the game has to take the form of elections. It can be based on the Chinese game of Go.


Yes, seriously.

I.

The Constitution of Rules, 

and the Game Itself

First we must understand how Go works. To quote Wikipedia;

The playing pieces are called "stones". One player uses the white stones and the other, black. The players take turns placing the stones on the vacant intersections ("points") of a board with a 19×19 grid of lines. Beginners often play on smaller 9×9 and 13×13 boards,[8] and archaeological evidence shows that the game was played in earlier centuries on a board with a 17×17 grid. However, boards with a 19×19 grid had become standard by the time the game had reached Korea in the 5th century CE and later Japan in the 7th century CE.[9]

Once placed on the board, stones may not be moved, but stones are removed from the board when "captured". Capture happens when a stone or group of stones is surrounded by opposing stones on all orthogonally-adjacent points.[10] The game proceeds until neither player wishes to make another move; the game has no set ending conditions beyond this. When a game concludes, the territory is counted along with captured stones and komi (points added to the score of the player with the white stones as compensation for playing second, which is normally either 6.5 or 7.5 depending on the rule-set being used) to determine the winner.[11] Games may also be terminated by resignation.

Go-ocracy, pronounced go-ock-ra-see, adapts the game of Go to serve the function of elections within a republic, with little else changed constitutionally.

Imagine that each parcel of land is a square on the board.


Imagine that the inhabitants who own land (or mortgage it if mortgaged) constitute the "squares" that need capturing.


Then you capture them by getting them to sign a literal social contract to obey the laws defined by the player who is soliciting their permission. Basically, instead of political parties and congressmen you have players. Each player has his own legal code written by his firm. The player goes house to house in meatspace asking the inhabitants of a parcel for their delegation, (not their vote), or calls them on the phone, or whatever. He basically campaigns for delegations, the same way a congressman campaigns for votes.  People sign a social contract because the codex of laws of the person they signed with protects them from crime by giving them legal recourse.

The inhabitant is defined as the person, (not bank) who pays the mortgage on a property if the property is under mortgage, and the owner of the property if it is not under mortgage. With apartment complexes this is the landlord, and with houses this is the person who bought the house, the mortgagor. It has to be this way, otherwise banks would determine the legal system and control everything.


If one gets a series of delegations of properties that are adjacent to each other, with adjacent being defined as either (a) the property lines touching, or (b) the property lines being across the street from one another, then he begins to build a "ladder" which he can eventually use to encircle some parcels. Once parcels are encircled they are "captured" and fall under the legal jurisdiction of the the player and his laws.


To prevent gangs from terrorizing people into delegating to one player or the other, players are not allowed to have armies or police forces, and the cops are a separate part of the government. Players make law but do not enforce the law.


Also, to prevent the endless harassment of home owners by campaigners for their delegations, each home owners fills out a card which rank orders his his preferences like this;


First choice: Mayfield's legal system.


If I am in jeopardy of being captured by any of the following;

Jim's legal system
Bob's legal system
Jack's legal system

And If it will get me uncaptured then my second choice is;

Mark's legal system

If the above is not available, and if it will get me uncaptured, then;

Ethen's legal system.

Etc., etc.


This is a simple version, but basically one can program a whole flowchart of alternatives which says, "to avoid being captured by X, Y, or Z, I will choose automatically Σ, Φ, Ψ, Ω in that order."


Every parcel of land on the board is like this, with rank ordered preferences of alternatives. Unlike Go there are multiple players operating at the same time.


This makes the board fiendishly complex and can set off cascades of territory change.


To prevent the police from being confused, a snapshot of the arrangement of law-territory is taken once per year on September 1st and that becomes the configuration of the law for 12 months until August 31st of the following year. The game is played in real time 4 hours per day, 3 days per week on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but the territory of law changes one year at a time. The local sheriff and mayor are still elected just like in democracy, but they handle only essential services. 


No one player may capture more than 20% of the territory in a given county. In one state, up to 25 players per million inhabitants may play the game. If there are more than 10 applicants, new players are added on a first-come, first-served basis. If there are five or fewer operating in the market then new players are recruited.


A homeowner may update their rank ordered preference at any time with their local brokerage office. If a person does not make a decision by the cut-off date one is automatically assigned to a player by lottery.

II.

The Referee

Someone needs to enforce the rules.


Instead of a single supreme court there are multiple competitive arbiter courts, each of which can fulfill the role of a court of last appeal through a process of selection. 


An arbiter court is a private entity funded by whomever wants to fund one. A single one can be corrupted, but a competition cannot. Allow me to explain.


Whenever there is a dispute between two players one brings suite against the other. But first they must determine which court it shall be tried in.


Say there are 94 arbiter courts. Each player fills out a card with a rank ordering of 48 preferences from most preferred (1) to least preferred (48). There is always at least one guaranteed overlap. The number of rank ordered preferences is equal to 50% plus 1 if the total number of registered arbiter courts is an even number, and 50% rounded up if it is an odd number. Thus, there is always one overlap, and exactly one.


The highest ranked preference that occurs on both lists, which is shared by both parties in the dispute, is the court in which the case is tried. All decisions are final. If there is more than 1 overlapping preference the highest mutual preference for both is the one chosen. If there is a situation where both parties have a total of 4 highest mutually agreed upon rank ordered preferences, then a coin toss decides. For example;

If there are more than two overlapping preferences then some other lottery method is used. Now you may object and say, "but what is to stop someone from being tried in a biased court?" Competition. Think about it. Let's us say that you run a terribly biased court. Well that will get you ranked at the top of someones list, but it will get you ranked at the bottom of their political opponent's list. The overlap is the one who gets the business, and so every court is competing to be as unbiased as possible in order to get business. The court that gets the business gets a voucher from the state, and gets paid. The one that does not get the business does not get paid. Thus, all referees compete on neutrality.

III.

The Way Rules Get Made

Federal laws, aka., game rules are proposed in a parliament, but then they go directly to the people for voter approval. All approvals are temporary since they are additions to the existing constitution of rules. New constitutional rules may be created but the original ones may not be repealed. The length of approval depends on the level at which they are passed. Like this;


For each percentage above 50%, take the percentage above 50%, multiple by 100 and divide by 2 to get a number of years n, to which the integer 2 is added, and then rounded up.


For example;


A game rule passes with 65% of the vote.


.65 - .50 = .15

.15 x 100 = 15

15/2 = n

n + 2 is 9.5

9.5 rounded up is 10 years.


The new game rule shall be in effect 10 years, and then automatically expire.


New rules are tested out like this. Rules that work well are resubmitted for voter approval whenever they expire. Any formula can be used. The point is to make federal laws temporary so that meddling in game play is kept to a minimum, and system diversity preserved. The higher the percentage of players agree upon a new constitutional law the longer that law remains in effect.

IV.

How The Federal Government is Appointed

Using a process similar to the one described for the arbiter courts, a selection process occurs for who shall be appointed to a unicameral elected House of Game Players.


One player files a "Notice of Argument" against another. The two players fill out rank-ordered lists of who they would chose as a neutral third party. Instead of having players vote for federal representatives the format is like a series of fights where a third party is chosen for each argument. One does not seek power in this system, one cooperates with another player to choose a neutral player for power. Typically, strong players will choose weak or distant players as their third parties.


Just like when choosing an arbiter, when each player is choosing a representative, each of them makes a list of rank-ordered preferences with 50% + 1 of the members in the system. Each time a player is selected for a seat in the House a vote is recorded for that player. No more than one notice of argument may be filed per player with any other player. The 100 players with the highest number of votes fill the seats of the House. Law making then proceeds just like it would with a regular parliamentary system, except that bills must be approved by the direct vote of a majority of the population in accordance with the procedure outlined in Part III. This differs from democracy by having the lawmakers at the local level "elect" the ones at the Federal.

V.

Discovery of a Method

The definition of a republic has never been fully clear, and has always relied on some assertion that republics differed from direct democracies because they upheld the ethical principle of individual rights, and that republics have representative rather than direct rule. While this distinction is technically correct, (rights vs. majority rule, representative vs. direct), it lacks precision and specificity. It is much simpler to say the difference between a democracy and a republic is that the former is simply a game-based form of government, while the latter has the game subject to a referee and rules. Viewing republics as systems built on games brings a remarkable clarity to political science, and also shows the way forward to developing other designs for systems, possibly even communist republics that actually work. It also allows the introduction of predictive elements, since games can be modeled with AI, can be played at a small scale before being played at a large scale, and can be designed iteratively. This opens the door to knowing in advance whether or not your communist revolution will work, or at least knowing that it has a pretty good chance of working. For ethical reasons complex systems must be simulated beforehand, and game design bridges the gap between theory and praxis. It is not morally acceptable to try a system without proof that it will work, and games modeled with AI can provide that proof. Marxism could never be as ethical as this, since no amount of words can compensate for observation of game play. The Founding Fathers were on essentially the right track and the subsequent contribution by Marx derailed the whole project. 


Furthermore, the whole point of a game-based political system is the rules. Having a game that decides how power is allocated suppresses the natural tendency of humans to engage in a violent struggle for power, since the power hungry do not really want to risk their lives to get it, and the game itself provides an excuse for the much more important introduction of constitutional rights, since rights are limits on game play, and keep them game working by limiting its viciousness. Seen in this light the game itself is simply the brilliant excuse for the rule of rights. Laws are restrictions on the people, but game rules are restrictions on the state, and that is wonderful. Games give you an excuse for rights.


With all of this knowledge we now understand that the correct way to seek a greater perfection of government is an iterative method that involves a sequence of events. First a literal game is developed, and it is played at a small scale with different individuals forming the three elements of any republican game; (a.) players/parties etc., (b.) referees (supreme court). and (c). the people who give their consent to be governed. The game is played in real life so that the kinks can be ironed out and the rules perfected. This is done for any new republican design. Ideally, the first step would involve a massively multiplayer online game that includes things like virtual currency and allows for bribes and side economies in order to predict the effects of corruption on the system. Once this is done, the second step is building a city-state to perform further real life analysis. And once that is done then, and only then, can you implement things at a larger scale. But something tells me revolution will never be necessary if your system is truly an improvement over the status quo, since it will be wildly popular by then anyway, and have proven results.


A world of multiple city-states competing for citizens, operating under a many different forms of government is the ideal outcome. Not a utopia of some worldwide monolithic communist dictatorship, from which no one can escape, but a series of competing systems where escape is the very essence of it all. The reason for this approach over others is that there is no one game everyone can win, because of how humans vary in their talents, but with a multiplicity of games there may be one in which every person can win at least one, and that is actually a much better prospect than equality because it is fun.


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 anything becomes sacred if there is enough dust on it.


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" (republics), and (3) "anarcho capitalism" (a temporary state).


Systems tend to evolve towards ritualized games, even in the courts of emperors. This is because rule based systems avoid violence. One can see this at any city council meeting in America. 

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 join one faction or another. There are two major 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. In contrast to a majority rule system, in go-ocracy players govern their clients directly, and do not share power with anyone else, and in contrast to the layers of majority rule that comprise a federal republic, the only place majority rule exists is the top level, and there are no elections to get there, unless you count being in "the top 100" of non-threatening preferences an election.

VI.

Meta Rules of Republican Game Design

There are essential principles that govern the development of all political systems based on games. These principles are meta rules, meaning "rules governing the construction of rules." The first two of these are that (1), the system must be based on the consent of the governed, that (2), the people must not be intimidated by power, and that (3), no permanent winner must ever emerge. From these three meta rules all other rules flow, for example;


In a democracy the consent of the governed is obtained through votes, while in a go-ocracy it is obtained through delegation. Consent is essential, otherwise you do not have a free society. Even anarcho capitalism contains an element of consent by creating a transferable property in justice.


Next, you must prevent the usage of coercion against individual citizens by players or political parties of the game. In the past, political parties would beat up voters and send them to the polls to vote over and over again. Voter registration combined with the secret ballot was used to put an end to this practice. Political parties still use handouts to buy votes, and immigration is used to manipulate the outcome of elections. One particular political party in America has even at one time in history or another used gangs to ethnically cleanse whites from their neighborhoods, or used white supremacist organizations to intimidate black voters!



The problem with introducing a game where the pieces on the board must give their consent is that a dynamic tension is created between the needs of power and the laziness of the citizen. This problem exists in all game-based systems, whether democracy or otherwise, but manifests differently depending on the system. In a go-ocracy it will be more necessary than usual to prevent political players from having their own police powers or armies, since territory is what is being argued over rather than positions of power. Thankfully, in a go-ocracy it is unlikely that immigration would be used for political purposes. A go-ocracy should be free of majoritarian politics, and thus, of a two-party system. With multiple players on the board it is unlikely they could get away with manipulating demographics, and with the consent of the governed being defined in terms of space rather than popular will, the individual citizen can delegate for immigration restrictions to prohibit illegal immigrants on their property, the property of anyone who delegates to the same player, and all the public property of streets and thoroughfares in between those parcels. This aspect of space over leadership shifts society from the stated preference system of democracy to a revealed preference system. A liberal might vote to bring in immigrants to someone else's neighborhood, but never his own backyard. Go-ocracy is therefore a form of republic based on revealed preference rather than virtue signaling, since all delegations concern one's own property, taxes, and benefits. It would probably be substantially libertarian since the citizens choose based on their own consumer self-interest rather than in argument with others. There is no incentive for irrational extremes in order to pull the center towards one's true position.


Lots of other rules are actually restrictions on intimidating the citizenry. If free speech is compromised then the voter has an incentive to vote for the violent overthrow of the government. The right to bear arms raises the cost of violating the rights of game players. If you think guns are fruitless against modern armies then you have not been paying attention to Americas foray in Afghanistan, and the success of the Taliban at holding back the worlds most powerful army.


Rights are economic; they raise the cost of overthrowing the game (the right to bear arms), or prevent the development of perverse incentives (free speech), or get voters to behave more rationally (separation of church and state), prevent black mail (right to privacy), keep certain things neutral (eliminating the spoils system), etc.


Lastly, no permanent winner must be allowed to emerge, or the system will convert to a dictatorship. A one-party state eventually captures the referee, (the Supreme Court) destroying the game, and foreclosing the possibility of a future challenger to power. The first aspect of democracy is there there are elections at regular intervals. A government seat is never held permanently. The second feature is term limits. A nation should have party term limits as well, just to be on the safe side. If a party holds power for too long it should automatically lose the majority after a fixed period of time. In a go-ocracy similar procedures will be needed. The game will need to have a "partial reset" every generation, where all territory not held through delegation or capture is uncaptured and played over again. It will also need "player term limits" where no one player can hold a piece of territory for more than, say, 12 years concurrently, and where after 12 years someone else must capture that territory for at least 2 years. Both parties and players themselves should be limited, so that every 75 years a political party/player is dissolved and new parties/players given the chance to enter the board.


Any other game-based political system will need analogous rules for its design. These problems will spontaneously emerge as a consequence of game play, and you will need to develop rules and rights to fix that. Every set of constitutional rights will differ based on the game chosen for selecting leaders, but similar patterns will abound with all of them.


The point this entire article is to demonstrate one possible configuration for the design of an alternative republic, in order to fire the imagination of the reader, and encourage them to develop their own alternative designs.

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.