I’ll grant this, though I don’t know how existing rules about insider trading would conflict with beliefs about society itself becoming officially the object of trade and profit.
and Neocameralism should in theory provide more freedom of speech than I currently have.
If I understand Moldbug’s neocameralism, it would give the government the perfect right to behead you if it doesn’t like your taste in shoes—because in Moldbug’s view there’s no difference between the right to do something and the power to do something. And Moldbug advocates in favour the government having complete and total power over all its subjects.
He just argues that the government won’t bother exercising such power because it wouldn’t be profitable for them to do so. But unfortunately Moldbug’s view that a government totally in control wouldn’t bother to control people’s thoughts goes in contrast with pretty much everything we know about history. He arrives at a purely “logical” conclusion which just isn’t backed up by historical experience.
Not that I wouldn’t love cities that would be individually run as corporations—e.g. this . It’s the Neocameralist vision of them having absolute power of life and death over their subjects that scares the hell out of me.
I note that Moldbug’s example of Singapore as a well-run state which is run on non-Universalist and non-Democratic principles was hilariously backed by a Singapore resident’s letter which was so terrified of being seen to criticize Singapore, that even in his mostly-praiseful letter he felt he had to use the name “Narnia” instead of the name “Singapore”. Such freedom of speech in a well-run authoritarian state...
I’ll grant this, though I don’t know how existing rules about insider trading would conflict with beliefs about society itself becoming officially the object of trade and profit.
If I understand Moldbug’s neocameralism, it would give the government the perfect right to behead you if it doesn’t like your taste in shoes—because in Moldbug’s view there’s no difference between the right to do something and the power to do something. And Moldbug advocates in favour the government having complete and total power over all its subjects.
He just argues that the government won’t bother exercising such power because it wouldn’t be profitable for them to do so. But unfortunately Moldbug’s view that a government totally in control wouldn’t bother to control people’s thoughts goes in contrast with pretty much everything we know about history. He arrives at a purely “logical” conclusion which just isn’t backed up by historical experience.
Not that I wouldn’t love cities that would be individually run as corporations—e.g. this . It’s the Neocameralist vision of them having absolute power of life and death over their subjects that scares the hell out of me.
I note that Moldbug’s example of Singapore as a well-run state which is run on non-Universalist and non-Democratic principles was hilariously backed by a Singapore resident’s letter which was so terrified of being seen to criticize Singapore, that even in his mostly-praiseful letter he felt he had to use the name “Narnia” instead of the name “Singapore”. Such freedom of speech in a well-run authoritarian state...