The only way I could see of seriously addressing the problem while remaining true to progressivist principles would be a global eugenics program overseen by a democratic world government.
This is a good illustration of the difference between how Progressives and NRx approach problems.
First a Neoreactionary would point out the obvious problem with this approach: you have democratic governments attempting to implement eugenic policies which will affect what the future voters will be like. Thus this system has a very strong and undesirable attractor, namely the politicians eugenically breed the kind of people who will reelect them.
The NRx approach to dealing with proliferation of low time preference people is to reduce/eliminate the welfare state and let them die out as a natural consequence of their own short sighted behavior.
The NRx approach to dealing with proliferation of low time preference people is to reduce/eliminate the welfare state and let them die out as a natural consequence of their own short sighted behavior.
As far as I can tell, people with low time preference didn’t die out in the past, when welfare states were smaller (when they existed at all). Which suggests to me that the NRx approach wouldn’t achieve the goal set by its proponents.
I can’t tell if you’re trying to be sarcastic, but it very well might.
A unelected king has an interest in the success and prosperity of his kingdom. An elected politician has that interest only as long as he can ensure he keeps getting elected. Thus giving him a tool for getting reelected that’s at best orthogonal to the good of the state is a very dangerous thing to do.
A unelected king has an interest in the success and prosperity of his kingdom.
No, an unelected king has an interest in the amount of success and prosperity that can be extracted from his country and transferred to himself and (possibly) his heirs. The rulers of North Korea live like, well, kings, and their country has a lower GDP per capita than Bangladesh and Sudan.
But they aren’t Kings. In particular there is nothing in the North Korean “constitution” that says the son of the previous ruler will inherit. This means they must spend all their effort scheming to have the family stay in power. Also because of this they behave in a more short sighted manner than they would otherwise.
This is indeed true—military dictatorships, including the Roman Empire, tend to be notoriously insecure and horrible at dealing with succession—but even European monarchs have had plenty of disputed successions and civil wars.
but even European monarchs have had plenty of disputed successions and civil wars.
That’s because you’re taking the highlights from over a millennium of history over multiple countries. Herearea few examples from MoreRight of systematically going through all Kings in a dynasty and evaluating them.
In particular there is nothing in the North Korean “constitution” that says the son of the previous ruler will inherit.
OTOH, same applied to Venetian doges and yet as far I can tell medieval/early modern Venice wasn’t a hellhole by medieval/early modern standards, so that’s not all that’s going on.
This is a good illustration of the difference between how Progressives and NRx approach problems.
First a Neoreactionary would point out the obvious problem with this approach: you have democratic governments attempting to implement eugenic policies which will affect what the future voters will be like. Thus this system has a very strong and undesirable attractor, namely the politicians eugenically breed the kind of people who will reelect them.
The NRx approach to dealing with proliferation of low time preference people is to reduce/eliminate the welfare state and let them die out as a natural consequence of their own short sighted behavior.
As far as I can tell, people with low time preference didn’t die out in the past, when welfare states were smaller (when they existed at all). Which suggests to me that the NRx approach wouldn’t achieve the goal set by its proponents.
Getting rid of elections will really help with that,
I can’t tell if you’re trying to be sarcastic, but it very well might.
A unelected king has an interest in the success and prosperity of his kingdom. An elected politician has that interest only as long as he can ensure he keeps getting elected. Thus giving him a tool for getting reelected that’s at best orthogonal to the good of the state is a very dangerous thing to do.
A sane and competent king has an interest in the success and prosperity of his kingdom.
An insane or incompetent one is there for life.
Unlike an elected politician.
No, an unelected king has an interest in the amount of success and prosperity that can be extracted from his country and transferred to himself and (possibly) his heirs. The rulers of North Korea live like, well, kings, and their country has a lower GDP per capita than Bangladesh and Sudan.
But they aren’t Kings. In particular there is nothing in the North Korean “constitution” that says the son of the previous ruler will inherit. This means they must spend all their effort scheming to have the family stay in power. Also because of this they behave in a more short sighted manner than they would otherwise.
If you think Kings never do this, you know little about history.
This is indeed true—military dictatorships, including the Roman Empire, tend to be notoriously insecure and horrible at dealing with succession—but even European monarchs have had plenty of disputed successions and civil wars.
That’s because you’re taking the highlights from over a millennium of history over multiple countries. Here are a few examples from MoreRight of systematically going through all Kings in a dynasty and evaluating them.
OTOH, same applied to Venetian doges and yet as far I can tell medieval/early modern Venice wasn’t a hellhole by medieval/early modern standards, so that’s not all that’s going on.