I’m reading Moldbug’s Patchwork and considering it as a replacement for Democracy. I expected it to be dystopia, but it actually sounds like a neat place to live, it is however a scary Eutopia.
I’ve read through the pieces, and I’m struggling to come up with something to say that a reactionary absolutist like Moldbug would find interesting. For example, in the first piece linked, Moldbug says (Let’s ignore that the last sentence is questionable as a matter of historical fact):
if you want stable government, accept the status quo as the verdict of history. There is no reason at all to inquire as to why the Bourbons are the Kings of France. The rule is arbitrary. Nonetheless, it is to the benefit of all that this arbitrary rule exists, because obedience to the rightful king is a Schelling point of nonviolent agreement. And better yet, there is no way for a political force to steer the outcome of succession—at least, nothing comparable to the role of the educational authorities in a democracy.
I don’t disagree that it is a Schelling point. But is it stable? History strongly suggests that legitimacy is a real thing that is an important variable for predicting whether governments can stay in power and institutions can remain influential in a society. In other words, there’s a reason why mature absolute monarchies (like Louis XIV) invented “divine right of kings.” I assert that you can’t throw that away (as Moldbug does) and assume that nothing changes about the setup.
My next point would be that there is no reason to expect a government to make a profit. But Moldbug’s commitment to accepting the verdict of history means that he wouldn’t find this very persuasive. if one believes that might makes right, then government probably does need to make a profit. In other words, when you acquire power by winning, there’s every reason to expect that failing to continue winning will lead in short order to your replacement.
My next point would be that there is no reason to expect a government to make a profit.
The idea is that it is possible to make the cake bigger by having efficient government. This is why he invokes Laffer curves as relevant concepts.
I find myself sympathetic to this. If you say give some amount of stocks to foundations that provide free healthcare to those who can’t afford it or preserve natural habitat ect. that matches current GDP spending, but come up with a government that is more efficient at providing funds for all these endeavours you get more spent in an absolute sense on healthcare or environmentalism than otherwise.
If you want to do efficient charity, you don’t work in a soup kitchen, you work hard where you have a comparative advantage to earn as much money as possible and then donate it to an efficient charity. Moldbug may not approve but I actually think his design with the right ownership structure, might be together with some properly designed foundations be a much better “goodness generating machine” than a democratic US or EU might ever be.
I also like the idea of being able to live in a society with laws that you can agree with, if you don’t like it you just leave and go somewhere where you do agree with them.
The profit motive is transparent and it is something that is easy to track down than “doing good”, which is as the general goal of government far less transparent. As a shareholder or employee in a prosperous society you could easily start lobbying among other share holders to spend their own money to set up new charity foundations or have existing ones re-evaluate their goals.
It also has the neat property of seemingly guaranteeing human survival in a Malthusian em future (check out Robin Hansons writing on this). As long as humans own stocks it wouldn’t matter if they where made obsolete by technology they could still basically collect a simply vast amount of rent which would continue growing at a rapid rate for millennia or even millions of years. The real problem is how these humans don’t get hacked into being consumption machines by various transhuman service providers but optimize for Eudaimonia.
I don’t disagree that it is a Schelling point. But is it stable? History strongly suggests that legitimacy is a real thing that is an important variable for predicting whether governments can stay in power and institutions can remain influential in a society. In other words, there’s a reason why mature absolute monarchies (like Louis XIV) invented “divine right of kings.” I assert that you can’t throw that away (as Moldbug does) and assume that nothing changes about the setup.
He says robot armies and cryptographically locked weaponry eliminate the need to care about what your population thinks. The technology simply wasn’t there in the time of Louis XIV. The governing structure has no need to mess with people’s minds in various ways to convince them it is a just system.
And the thing is, while such technology as ubiquitous surveillance or automated soldiers in the hands of government sounds scary, there seems to be no relevant reason at all to think other government types won’t have this technology anyway. Worse the technology to modify your mind in various ways will also be rapidly available (as if current brainwashing and propaganda technology wasn’t scary enough).
In other words people living in such Patchwork instead of the futuristic US or the PRC would trade political freedoms for freedom of thought and association. The last two are not really guaranteed in any sense, but he gives several strong reasons why a sovereign corporation might have an interest in preserving them. Reasons that most other states as self-stabilizing systems don’t seem to have.
But Moldbug’s commitment to accepting the verdict of history means that he wouldn’t find this very persuasive. if one believes that might makes right, then government probably does need to make a profit. In other words, when you acquire power by winning, there’s every reason to expect that failing to continue winning will lead in short order to your replacement.
He basically says that whether we like it or not might does make right. The USA defeated Nazi Germany not because it was nobler but because it was stronger. This is why Germany is a democracy today. The US defeated the Soviet Union not because it was nobler but because its economy could support more military spending and the Soviet Communist party couldn’t or wouldn’t use military means as efficiently as say the Chinese to stomp out dissenting citizens. This is why Russia is a democracy today. Democracies won because they where better at convincing people that they where legitimate, their economies where better and as a result of these two they where better at waging war than other forms of government.
He also seems very confident that if his proposed form of government was enacted somewhere it would drastically out-compete all existing ones.
The profit motive is transparent and it is something that is easy to track down than “doing good”, which is as the general goal of government far less transparent. As a citizen in a prosperous society you could easily start lobbying among other share holders to spend their own money to set up new charity foundations or have existing ones re-evaluate their goals.
Many government programs provide services to people who can’t afford the the value of the service provided. Police and public education provided to inner-cities cannot be paid from the wealth of the beneficiaries. Moldbug complains about the inefficiency of the post office, but that problem is entirely caused by non-efficiency based commitments like delivering mail to middle-of-nowhere small towns. Without those constraints, USPS looks more like FedEx. That’s not a Moldbuggian insght—everyone who’s spent a reasonable amount of time thinking about the issue knows this trade-off.
He says robot armies and cryptographically locked weaponry eliminate the need to care about what your population thinks. The technology simply wasn’t there in the time of Louis XIV. The governing structure has no need to mess with people’s minds in various ways to convince them it is a just system.
And I simply don’t believe this is a likely outcome. There will be times when a realm does not want to use its full arsenal of unobtanium weapons (i.e. to deal with jaywalking and speeding). Anyway, isn’t it easier (and more efficient) to use social engineering to suppress populist sedition?
The US defeated the Soviet Union . . .
I mostly agree with your analysis, in that I think we’ve been lucky in some sense that the good guys won. But doesn’t Moldbug have some totally different explanation for the Cold War, involving infighting between the US State Dept. and the Pentagon?
He also seems very confident that if his proposed form of government was enacted somewhere it would drastically out-compete all existing ones.
I think it likely that any system of government backed by unobtanium weapons would defeat any existing government system. It’s not clear to me that a consent-of-the-governed system backed by the super weapons wouldn’t beat Moldbug’s absolutist system. And even if that isn’t true, why should we want a return to absolutism. It’s painfully obvious to me that my rejection of absolutism is the basis of most of my disagreement with Moldbug. I think government should provide “unprofitable” services, and he doesn’t.
I mostly agree with your analysis, in that I think we’ve been lucky in some sense that the good guys won.
The good guys did win, because I’m not a National Socialist or a Communist or a Muslim or a Roman. But I don’t think we where lucky. “The Gift We Give Tomorrow” should illustrate why I don’t think you can say we where “lucky”. By definition anyone that won would have made sure we viewed them as the more or less good guys.
But doesn’t Moldbug have some totally different explanation for the Cold War, involving infighting between the US State Dept. and the Pentagon?
That wasn’t Moldbug’s argument about the USSR, it was mine :)
Yes, if I recall right his model goes something like this: The State Department wanted to make the Soviet Union its client much like say Britain or or West Germany or Japan where, it viewed US society and Soviet society as on a converging path, with the Soviet Union’s ruling class having its heart in the right place but sometimes going too far. Something they could never do with any truly right wing regime. This is why they often basically sabotaged the Pentagon’s efforts and attempts at client making. The Cold War and the Third World in general would have never been as bloody if the State Department vs. the Pentagon civli war by proxy wouldn’t have been going on.
Anyway, isn’t it easier (and more efficient) to use social engineering to suppress populist sedition?
Sure but I don’t want to live in a society that takes this logic to its general conclusion. I want to be able to dislike the government I’m living under even if I can’t do anything about it. Many people might not either, and we may be willing to tolerate living in a different less wealthy part of patch land or paying higher taxes for it.
consent-of-the-governed .
What is that? Can we depack this concept?
I think government should provide “unprofitable” services, and he doesn’t.
I’m trying to figure out what you mean by this. Can’t we have a “Deliver mail to far off corners foundation” and give it 0.5% of the stocks of Neo-Washington corp. when the thing takes off? Do you in principle object to government being for profit or is it just you think that nonprofits funded by shares of the government of equal GDP fractions as they have right now couldn’t provide services of equally quality? What is the governments mission then? Which unprofitable services should it provide? All possible ones? Those that have the most eloquent rent-seekers? Those that are “good”? Can you define then the mission of government in words that are a bit more specific than universal benevolence? And if democratic government is so good at that why don’t we have seed AI report to congress for approval of each self-modification? Don’t worry the AI also gets one vote.
So, Moldbug’s Cold War explanation is total nonsense? I thinks the Cold War follows after WWII even if the USA was ruled by King Truman I and the USSR was rule by King Stalin I. More formally, I think political realism is the empirically best description of international relations.
Anyway, you asked about patches and realms, and I said that governments do the unprofitable. If it were profitable, government wouldn’t need to do it. Moldbug seems to say that we ought not to want government to do the unprofitable. That explains his move to a corporate form of government, but it doesn’t justify the abandonment of the role that every government in history has decided it wanted to do.
You completely missed my point. Who gets to decide what is unprofitable?Who decides which unprofitable things are worth doing? The set of all possible unprofitable activities is vastly larger than the set of profitable ones.
If it were profitable, government wouldn’t need to do it.
You do realize we where talking about the USSR just a few seconds ago right? I guess Russia was a bad place to make cars so the government had to step in and do that.
Communism (and socialism in general) have inefficient (i.e. not wealth-maximizing) preferences for wealth distribution. So no, it doesn’t surprise me that that massive government planning was required to try to implement the communist preference. If equal wealth distribution were wealth-maximizing, then the government wouldn’t have needed to intervene to make it happen.
This isn’t a groundbreaking point. It falls out straightforwardly from the economic definition of efficiency.
You completely missed my point. … Who decides which unprofitable things are worth doing?
Unless you are arguing Communist preferences of wealth redistribution and the opportunity cost that entails where automatically representative of those of “the Russian people” because duh they had the October revolution and a civil war in which Communists won. In which case I will ask why they would not be in North Korea, and would also ask you if all regimes deciding things are representative of “the people” why do we even need this democracy thing? Obviously Ancient Egyptian peasants wanted to be involved in the unprofitable business of building Pyramids for Pharaoh.
If we are not sure the ancient Egyptian Monarchies captured people’s preferences for unprofitable activities that should be done according to the values of those indirectly funding them, if the same cannot be said of Rome, if the same cannot be said of Communism … why do you think it can be said of say the US government? Why do you think this is more efficient than having government be a money making machine that gives its citizens free money because they own stock and lets them spend it on whatever charity (which also by definition do unprofitable things) or indulgence (which often are also unprofitable—whenever I go stop to smell the flowers or go watch a movie I don’t do this to maximize my profit in currency, but to hopefully maximize my utility) they want? Or if it interferes with the operation of the state why not have the stockholders spend it in some other part of Patchland that specializes in being a great place to spend your money for good causes or fun?
And if you don’t think people’s preferences even matter when deciding what unprofitable stuff to spend resources on … well whose preferences should then?
I want unprofitable stuff that I like done too. Like helping people not having to die if they don’t want to. All else being equal I don’t however much care who does them. BTW I’m not too sure about Moldbug’s government type either, I wouldn’t volunteer to live there just based on his arguments, but I do think he does a good job of dealing with regular arguments in favour of democracy. I do think a city or patch of desert somewhere to test the form of government might be a good idea.
Who decides which unprofitable things are worth doing?
For Moldbug, the answer is . . . not you. Unless the CEO of the realm put your charity on the cleared list. But I suspect that most of the things I would want to do with my dividends would be prohibited as security risks. Political control without thought control has never happened, and I don’t think that super weapons could make it happen.
Political control without thought control has never happened, and I don’t think that super weapons could make it happen.
That is a good argument. Overall I think Moldbug does a better job of giving decent explanatory power for the modern world than providing workable solutions (if there are any) for its ills. :)
Please elaborate on how, completely disregarding political realism in favor of an overarching conspiracy theory (as already mentioned above) and just ignoring the whole iceberg of neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, etc, one can arrive at a decent explanation for it all. “The leftist social sciences professor down the street is a witch, she did it” is not up to my standards of “decent”.
“The leftist social sciences professor down the street is a witch, she did it”
That is not Moldbug’s model. How much have you read?
He has decent models in my mind for many things including the genesis of the leftwards social movement for the past few decades or centuries, the genesis of modern morality, US foreign policy, the sociological aspect development of ideology ect.
I don’t think I’m that much of a outlier in my estimation here, I’ve heard many people I know from LessWrong express interest in his thought (for example gwern, or Vladimir_M). He even had a live recorded debate with Robin Hanson back in 2010 on Futarchy (though he lost, everyone looses debates to RH ;) ). Top posters like Yvian and Eliezer also seem to have read some of Moldbug since they refer to his writing occasionally, ect. People sometimes agree and other times disagree with him, but I think they generally don’t view him as a “crank” .
I really don’t have the time right now to discuss all of this but there are a few older discussions in the comment sections of various articles (just search for “Moldbug” on the site), LessWrong that may interesting you if you’d like to learn more about his stuff and why people find it interesting.
My recent thread on one of his post also had some discussion.
He has decent models in my mind for many things including the genesis of the leftwards social movement for the past few decades or centuries, the genesis of modern morality, US foreign policy, the sociological aspect development of ideology ect.
I have read all of that, at first glance expecting a fun and intriguing contrarian ride. It came across as considerably more insane (in the LW/OB sense) and less grounded in reality than the milder forms of ol’ good fascism to me.
I generally don’t see what’s so insane about WASP Blue State Protestant progressivism being the sociological, philosophical and cultural predecessor of WASP Blue State progressivism.
Or say that modern ethics aren’t the product of pure reason and moral progress but a clear descendant of older Western morality.
Or that US foreign policy is often crazy and mixed up because the US isn’t a monolithic entity and that more specifically the interests of the State department and the Pentagon diverge.
Or that in a modern parlimentary democracy power is wielded by opinion makers (academia and journalists) who create the intellectual fashion of the rich and well positioned subscribe to and with a twenty or so year lag the general population (they adopt it not just to copy the elites but because legislation and education are updated to push new beliefs on them) which then vote for representatives that are supposed to keep the unelected elites in check and working for their interests. Culturally any ethical ideas or value sets adopted by elite academia are assured long term victory.
I think that covers my examples.
I have read all of that, at first glance expecting a fun and intriguing contrarian ride. It came across as considerably more insane (in the LW/OB sense) and less grounded in reality than the milder forms of ol’ good fascism to me.
Meh, fascists are often too mystical for my tastes (try reading Julius Evola. Religious Paleocons are a bit better but their axioms are all messed up, believing in God and all that. The few irreligious ones are often lots of fun.
So we can separate California’s expenses into two classes: those essential or profitable for California as a business; and those that are unnecessary and wasteful, such as feeding the poor, etc, etc. Let them starve! Who likes poor people, anyway? And as for the blind, bumping into lampposts will help them build character. Everyone needs character.
I am not Steve Jobs (I would be very ill-suited to the management of California), and I have not done the math. But my suspicion is that eliminating these pointless expenses alone—without any other management improvements—would turn California, now drowning in the red, into a hellacious, gold-spewing cash machine. We’re talking dividends up the wazoo. Stevifornia will make Gazprom look like a pump-n-dump penny stock.
And suddenly, a solution suggests itself.
What we’ve done, with our separation of expenses, is to divide California’s spending into two classes: essential and discretionary. There is another name for a discretionary payment: a dividend. By spending money to heal the lame, California is in effect paying its profits to the lame. It is just doing it in a very fiscally funky manner.
Thus, we can think of California’s spending on good works as profits which are disbursed to an entity responsible for good works. Call it Calgood. If, instead of spending $30 billion per year on good works, California shifts all its good works and good-workers to Calgood, issues Calgood shares that pay dividends of $30 billion per year, and says goodbye, we have the best of both worlds. California is now a lean, mean, cash-printing machine, and the blind can see, the lame can walk, etc, etc.
Furthermore, Calgood’s shares are, like any shares, negotiable. They are just financial instruments. If Calgood’s investment managers decide it makes financial sense to sell California and buy Google or Gazprom or GE, they can go right ahead.
So without harming the poor, the lame, or the blind at all, we have completely separated California from its charitable activities. The whole idea of government as a doer of good works is thoroughly phony. Charity is good and government is necessary, but there is no essential connection between them.
Of course, in real life, the idea of Calgood is slightly creepy. You’d probably want a few hundred special-purpose charities, which would be much more nimble than big, lumbering Calgood. Of course they would be much, much more nimble than California.Which is kind of the point.
We could go even farther than this. We could issue these charitable shares not to organizations that produce services, but to the actual individuals who consume these services. Why buy canes for the blind? Give the blind money. They can buy their own freakin’ canes. If there is anyone who would rather have $100 worth of free services than $100, he’s a retard.
Some people are, of course, retards. Excuse me. They suffer from mental disabilities. And one of the many, many things that California, State of Love, does, is to hover over them with its soft, downy wings. Needless to say, Stevifornia will not have soft, downy wings. It will be hard and shiny, with a lot of brushed aluminum. So what will it do with its retards?
My suspicion is that Stevifornia will do something like this. It will classify all humans on its land surface into three categories: guests, residents, and dependents. Guests are just visiting, and will be sent home if they cause any trouble. Residents are ordinary, grownup people who live in California, pay taxes, are responsible for their own behavior, etc. And dependents are persons large or small, young or old, who are not responsible but need to be cared for anyway.
The basic principle of dependency is that a dependent is a ward. He or she surrenders his or her personal independence to some guardian authority. The guardian holds imperium over the dependent, ie, controls the dependent’s behavior. In turn the guardian is responsible for the care and feeding of the dependent, and is liable for any torts the dependent commits. As you can see, this design is not my invention.
At present, a large number of Californians are wards of the state itself. Some of them are incompetent, some are dangerous, some are both. Under the same principle as Calgood, these dependents can be spun off into external organizations, along with revenue streams that cover their costs.
Criminals are a special case of dependent. Most criminals are mentally competent, but no more an asset to California than Jew-eating crocodiles. A sensible way to house criminals is to attach them as wards to their revenue streams, but let the criminal himself choose a guardian and switch if he is dissatisfied. I suspect that most criminals would prefer a very different kind of facility than those in which they are housed at present. I also suspect that there are much more efficient ways to make criminal labor pay its own keep.
And I suspect that in Stevifornia, there would be very little crime. In fact, if I were Steve—which of course I’m not—I might well shoot for the goal of providing free crime insurance to my residents. Imagine if you could live in a city where crime was so rare that the government could guarantee restitution for all victims. Imagine what real estate would cost in this city. Imagine how much money its owners would make. Then imagine that Calgood has a third of the shares.It won’t just heal the lame, it will give them bionic wings.
This is why choosing the state as the actor that must bear unprofitable activities, regardless of on who’s behalf, seems to my sentiments less an aesthetic choice or one that should be based on historic preference but an economic question that deserves some investigation. The losses of utility over such a trivial preference seem potentially large.
Charity is good and government is necessary, but there is no essential connection between them.
I suppose it depends on what you see as “charity”. For example, free childhood vaccinations can be seen as charity—after all, why shouldn’t people just buy their own vaccines on the free market ? -- but having a vaccinated population with herd immunity is, nonetheless, a massive public good. The same can be said of public education, or, yes, canes for blind people.
Let’s do some [Edit: more abstract] analysis for a moment. [Edit: I suggest that] government is the entity that has been allocated the exclusive right to legitimate violence. And the biggest use of this threat of violence is compulsory taxation. Why do people put up with this threat of violence? As Thomas Hobbes says, to get out of the state of nature and into civil society. (As Moldbug says, land governed by the rule of law is more valuable than ungoverned land).
What does the government do with the money it receives. At core, it provides services to people who don’t want them. The quote mentioned letting prisoners choose their jailors. It probably would increase prisoner utility to offer the choice. It might even save money (for example, some prison systems mandate completing a GED if the prisoner lacks a high school degree). But that’s not what society wants to do to criminals. If the government uses compulsory power to fund prisons, I assert a requirement that the spending vaguely correspond to taxpayer desires for the use of the funds. (Moldbug seems to disagree).
Consider another example, the DMV. At root, the government threatens violence if you drive on the road without the required government license, on the belief that the quality of driving improves when skill requirements are imposed and the requirements will not (or cannot) be imposed without the threat of violence. It is common knowledge that going to the DMV to get the license is a miserable experience because the lines are long and the workers are not responsive to customer concerns. By contrast, the MacDonald’s next door is filled with helpful people who quickly provide you with the service desired as efficiently as possible. Why the difference? In part, it is the compulsory nature of the license and in part, it is that benefits of improved service at the DMV do not accrue to anyone working for or supervising the DMV. See James Wilson’s insightful discussion (pages 113-115 & 134-136) (There’s also an interesting discussion of the post office on pp. 122-25). I assert that much “inefficiency” in government is simply the deadweight loss inherent in compulsory taxation, which is one part of government Moldbug doesn’t want to abolish.
And there’s less justification for calling an entity with compulsory tax powers a profit making entity. In what way has Moldbug’s Calgood acted in a competitive marketplace? Voting with your feet is just as possible in the United States or Western Europe today as it would be in the patch & realm system.
Every time I read Moldbug’s stuff I am startled by the extent to which he tries to give an economic analysis and solution to a political problem.
The reason we have government isn’t that we sat down once upon a time in the state of nature to design a political system. We have government because we live in a world where violence is a potentially effective tactic for achieving goals. Government exists to curb and control this tendency, to govern it.
Uncontrolled violence turns out to be destructive to both the subject of the violence and also the wielder—it turns out that it’s potentially more fun to be in a citizen-soldier in a democracy than a menial soldier in an tyranny, or a member of a warlord’s entourage.
Politically, we don’t do welfare spending and criminal justice purely for the fuzzies, or solely because they’re ends in themselves. Every so often, we have organized and vigorous protests against the status quo. When this happens, those in power can either appease the protesters, use force to crush the protesters, or try to make them go away quietly without violence. If the protesters are determined enough, this last approach doesn’t work. And the government can either use clubs, or buy off the protesters.
It turns out that power structures that become habitually brutal don’t do too well. People who get in the habit of using force aren’t good neighbors, aren’t good police, and aren’t trusty subordinates. Bystanders don’t want to live in a society that uses tanks and poison gas on retired veterans or that kills protesting students; leaders who try to use those tactics tend to get voted out of power—or else overthrown.
Moldbug talking about cryptographically controlled weapons is missing the point: we don’t want to live in a society that uses too much overt violence on its members. And we tolerate a lot of inefficiencies to avoid this need.
The reason we have government isn’t that we sat down once upon a time in the state of nature to design a political system.
I believe the main thrust of Moldbug’s writings is that we should be (but aren’t) solving an engineering problem rather than moralizing when we engage in politics (although, he seems to fall into this trap himself what with all his blaming of “leftists” for everything under the sun).
So much of Moldbug’s belief system, and even his constructed identity as an “enlightened reactionary”, ride on his complete rejection of whiggish historical narratives; however, he takes this to such an extent that he ends up falling into the very trap that Whig Interpretation’s original critic, Herbert Butterfield warned of in his seminal work on the subject:
Further, it cannot be said that all faults of bias may be balanced by work that is deliberately written with the opposite bias; for we do not gain true history by merely adding the speech of the prosecution to the speech for the defence; and though there have been Tory – as there have been many Catholic – partisan histories, it is still true that there is no corresponding tendency for the subject itself to lean in this direction; the dice cannot be secretly loaded by virtue of the same kind of original unconscious fallacy.
I believe the main thrust of Moldbug’s writings is that we should be (but aren’t) solving an engineering problem rather than moralizing when we engage in politics (although, he seems to fall into this trap himself what with all his blaming of “leftists” for everything under the sun).
Except, none of his prescriptions are sensible engineering. Crypto-controlled weapons as foundation for social order are more science-fiction than sensible design for controlling violence in society. it’s much too easy for people to build or buy weapons, or else circumvent the protections. Pinning your whole society on perfect security seems pretty crazy from a design point of view.
Bystanders don’t want to live in a society that uses tanks and poison gas on retired veterans or that kills protesting students; leaders who try to use those tactics tend to get voted out of power—or else overthrown.
Just because governments often employ violence just before they loose power does not mean that employing violence was the cause of their downfall. Many sick people take medication just before they die. Sure violence may do them no good, like an aspirin does no good for a brain tumour, but it is hard to therefore argue that aspirin is the cause of death. The assertion is particularly dubious since historically speaking governments have used a whole lot of violence and this actually seems to have often saved them. Even in modern times we have plentyexamples of this.
Once upon a time, poor masses suffered under rich elites. Then one day the poor realized they could revolt, and since then, the rich help the poor, fearing the poor will revolt if they ever feel they suffer too much.
Revolution experts mostly reject this myth; famous revolutions happened after things had gotten better, not worse, for the poor.
We have government because we live in a world where violence is a potentially effective tactic for achieving goals. Government exists to curb and control this tendency, to govern it.
The state can be thought of as a sedentary bandit, who instead of pillaging and burning a village of farmers extorted them and eventually started making sure no one else pillages or burns them since that interferes with the farmers paying him. The roving bandit has no incentive to assure the sustainability of a particular farming settlement he parasites. A stationary banding in a sense farms the settlement.
Government can expediently be defined, ultimately beneath all the full, as a territorial monopolist of violence. There is a trade off between government violence used to prevent anyone else from exercising violence and violence by other organized groups. How do we know we are at the optimal balance in a utilitarian sense?
Also Moldbug dosen’t want to do away with government he wants to propose a different kind of government. And we have in the past had systems of government that where the result of people sitting down and then trying to design a political system. To take modern examples of this (though I could easily pull out several Greek city states), perhaps the Soviet Union was a bad design, but the United States of America literally took over the world. In any case this demonstrates that new forms of government (not necessarily very good government) can be designed and implemented.
Uncontrolled violence turns out to be destructive to both the subject of the violence and also the wielder --
Government violence s ideally more predictable than the violence it prevents (that’s the whole reason we in the West think rule of law is a good idea). Sure the government has other tools to prevent violence than just violence of its own, but ultimately all law is violence. In the sense of the WHO definition:
...as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
You can easily make the violence painless by say sedating a would be rapist with the stun setting on your laser gun, and you can easily also eliminate the suffering of imprisoning him, by modifying his brain with advanced tools. But changing a persons mind without their consent or by giving them a choice between 6 years imprisonment and modifying their brain has surely just experienced violence according to the above definition.
it turns out that it’s potentially more fun to be in a citizen-soldier in a democracy than a menial soldier in an tyranny, or a member of a warlord’s entourag
The point of the the cryptographically controlled weapons is that you need a very small group of people who thinks being a citizen soldier is less fun than being paid handsomely by Blackwater to work.
Every time I read Moldbug’s stuff I am startled by the extent to which he tries to give an economic analysis and solution to a political problem.
Abba Lerner, “The Economics and Politics of Consumer Sovereignty” (1972):
“An economic transaction is a solved political problem… Economics has gained the title Queen of the Social Sciences by choosing solved political problems as its domain.”
Moldbug talking about cryptographically controlled weapons is missing the point: we don’t want to live in a society that uses too much overt violence on its members. And we tolerate a lot of inefficiencies to avoid this need.
In raw utility the inefficiencies we tolerate to pay for this could easily be diverted to stop much more death and suffering elsewhere. Perhaps we are simply suffering from scope insensitivity, our minds wired for small tribes where the leader being violent towards a person means the leader being violent to a non-trival fraction of the population.
Also are you really that sure that people wouldn’t want to live in a Neocameralist system? When you say efficiency I don’t think you realize how emotionally appealing clean streets, good schools, low corruption and perfect safety from violent crime or theft is. What would be the price of real-estate there? It is not a confidence that he gives Singapore as an example, a society that uses more violence against its citizens than most Western democracies.
Capital punishment is a legal form of punishment in Singapore. The city-state had the highest per-capita execution rate in the world between 1994 and 1999, estimated by the United Nations to be 1.357 executions per hundred thousand of population during that period.[1] The next highest was Turkmenistan with 0.143 (which is now an abolitionist country). Each execution is carried out by hanging at Changi Prison at dawn on a Friday.
Singapore has had capital punishment since it was a British colony and became independent before the United Kingdom abolished capital punishment. The Singaporean procedure of hanging condemned individuals is heavily influenced by the methods formerly used in Great Britain.
Further more consider this:
Under the Penal Code,[12] the commission of the following offences may result in the death penalty:
Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the Government*
Offences against the President’s person (in other words, treason)
Mutiny
Piracy that endangers life
Perjury that results in the execution of an innocent person
Murder
Abetting the suicide of a person under the age of 18 or an “insane” person
Attempted murder by a prisoner serving a life sentence
Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder
Robbery committed by five or more people that results in the death of a person
Drug trafficking
Unlawful discharge of firearms, even if nobody gets injured
Internal Security Act
The preamble of the Internal Security Act states that it is an Act to “provide for the internal security of Singapore, preventive detention, the prevention of subversion, the suppression of organised violence against persons and property in specified areas of Singapore, and for matters incidental thereto.”[15] The President of Singapore has the power to designate certain security areas. Any person caught in the possession or with someone in possession of firearms, ammunition or explosives in a security area can be punished by death.
Arms Offences Act
The Arms Offences Act regulates firearms offences.[16] Any person who uses or attempts to use arms (Section 4) can face execution, as well as any person who uses or attempts to use arms to commit scheduled offences (Section 4A). These scheduled offences are being a member of an unlawful assembly; rioting; certain offences against the person; abduction or kidnapping; extortion; burglary; robbery; preventing or resisting arrest; vandalism; mischief. Any person who is an accomplice (Section 5) to a person convicted of arms use during a scheduled offence can likewise be executed.
Trafficking in arms (Section 6) is a capital offence in Singapore. Under the Arms Offences Act, trafficking is defined as being in unlawful possession of more than two firearms.
That sounds pretty draconian. But we also know Singapore is a pretty efficiently run government by most metrics. Is Singapore an unpleasant place to life? If so why do so many people want to live there? If you answer economic opportunities or standard of living or job opportunities, well then maybe Moldbug does have a point in his very economic approach to it.
In raw utility the inefficiencies we tolerate to pay for this could easily be diverted to stop much more death and suffering elsewhere. Perhaps we are simply suffering from scope insensitivity, our minds wired for small tribes where the leader being violent towards a person means the leader being violent to a non-trival fraction of the population.
I had assumed we were talking about government for [biased, irrational] humans, not for perfect utilitarians or some other mythical animal. I was saying that routine application of too much violence will upset humans, not that it should upset them.
Also are you really that sure that people wouldn’t want to live in a Neocameralist system? When you say efficiency I don’t think you realize how emotionally appealing clean streets, good schools, low corruption and perfect safety from violent crime or theft is. What would be the price of real-estate there? It is not a confidence that he gives Singapore as an example, a society that uses more violence against its citizens than most Western democracies.
I’m sure many people would live quite happily in Singapore. Clearly, it works for the Singaporians. But I don’t think that model can be replicated elsewhere automatically, nor do I think Moldbug has a completely clear notion why it works.
Moldbug talks about splitting up the revenue generation (taxation) from the social-welfare spending. This seems like a recipe for absentee-landlord government. And historically that has worked terribly. The government of Singapore does have to live there, and that’s a powerful restraint or feedback mechanism.
In the US (and I believe the rest of the world), the population would like to pay lower taxes, and pointing to the social welfare benefits is the thing that convinces them to pay and tolerate higher rates. I think once the separation between spending and taxation becomes too diffuse, you’ll get tax revolts. Remember, we are designing a government for humans here—short-sighted, biased, irrational, and greedy. So the benefits of unpleasant things have to be made as obvious as possible.
Is Singapore an unpleasant place to life? If so why do so many people want to live there?
I’m open to being corrected on this, since I don’t have a good source for Singaporean immigration statistics, but my prior is that people who choose to live in Singapore are coming there from other places that are much more corrupt while also still being rather draconian (China, Malaysia). I’m pretty sure well-educated Westerners could get a well-paying job in Singapore, and the reason few move there is not, in fact, about economics.
I’ll be blunt. He’s signaling self-righteous revulsion. It doesn’t ever pattern match to anything nice. Case closed.
(Not for the idea of libertarian absolutism, of course—just for this Moldbug fellow himself! It’s just that I don’t want to tear through the buzzing of some conceited guy to get to the truth of the matter; there’s always an alternative available in the market of ideas.)
Please indicate which particular part of the above do you find objectionable or not up to LW standards. Do you have any evidence that a paranoid attitude like his was ever not indicative of a crank?
I didn’t down vote you, but I generally disagree with your pattern match. Moldbug signals self-righteous revulsion ironically since he is mirroring the self-righteous revulsion of the SWPLs to anything that challenges their ideological outlook.
Moldbug has been praised by many people I know from LessWrong as having a good style of writing. For example here:
The best way to improve the natural flow of ideas, and your writing in general, is to read really good writers so much that you unconsciously pick up their turns of phrase and don’t even realize when you’re using them. The best time to do that is when you’re eight years old; the second best time is now.
Your role models here should be those vampires who hunt down the talented, suck out their souls, and absorb their powers. Which writers’ souls you feast upon depends on your own natural style and your goals. I’ve gained most from reading Eliezer, Mencius Moldbug, Aleister Crowley, and G.K. Chesterton (links go to writing samples from each I consider particularly good); I’m currently making my way through Chesterton’s collected works pretty much with the sole aim of imprinting his writing style into my brain.
Yes apparently some like it as much as they like Eliezer’s writing.
Maybe that’s what got you down voted? He’s a bit too verbose for my taste, but as he said it himself several times that inhumanely long posts are one of the ways he keeps out the wrong kind of crowd which is attracted by a far right view for all the wrong reasons.
And why doesn’t he hire a few moderators from among his allies, then open the doors to the right type of crowd—that is, someone like the SIAI staff—and let them see the light? He is, after all, saying that it’d be nice for his goals to hit more people where it counts with some quality propaganda. I bet that he’s simply addicted to his ultra-contrarian throne beyond all reason.
He’s just a random guy writing a blog. He can’t even post that often since he’s raising a baby girl. How many such people choose minions to moderate their blogs?
Why would he want the SIAI type around? The average SIAI employee might spend some time thinking about his arguments, but I suspect they have differing values.
I bet that he’s simply addicted to his ultra-contrarian throne beyond all reason.
Want to get mind-killed HARD? I mean, frothing at the monitor hard? Here’s his opinion on the Norway massacre.
...If it was militarily possible to free Norway from Eurocommunism by killing a hundred communists, or a thousand communists, or ten thousand communists, we might have an interesting moral debate over whether this butcher’s bill was worth paying....
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, if you could ask Hitler and a random leftist from the academia in the 1930 whether 1) the sky is blue and 2) Stalin is an evil butcher, they’d perform equally well on 1) and you’d have to support Hitler over the leftist on 2), but still. This is not “deliberate hardcore contrarianism”. This is not even trolling—go ask /b/, they’re the internationally acknowledged authority. Moldbug is spitting on the graves of innocent teenagers slaughtered by an evident psychotic.
He says that a certain amount of lives is worth a regime change. This is not a controversial position in the real world. No one for example would in polite society say that regime change in 1945 in Nazi Germany was not worth the lives of 40 or 4000 young or 40 000 young men or women. He also calls the man a butcher, and clearly is implying that change can not be achieved by terrorism nor even conventional military action.
Considering the discussions that are calmly had on LessWrong (infanticide for starters) I can produce a dozen such “incriminating” out of context quotes. Come to think of it you can get quotes of me saying that infanticide is not as bad a crime as killing an adult, that incest among consenting adults should be legal, ect. Will you use that when itching to win a argument with me?
Also Robin Hanson has said that 9/11 isn’t a big deal. Aha that’s something I can use! How dare he spit on the graves of … oh wait no actually that would be an inappropriate thing for me to say.
Even on a pure level of instrumental rationality, calmly pointing out the above quote and linking to it and asking if say I agree or not, would made him look much worse as well as being equally effective at any point you are trying to make. Also I would respond by stating the truth (as I shall now), that I haven’t read it so far and that I haven’t yet done the calculations about how many lives changing Norway’s government to Marxist-Leninism/Anarchy-Syndicalism/Futarchy/Fascism would be worth, but that I suspect considering there are few better alternatives if any, and that Norway has such a small population that it wouldn’t amount to more than ~5. Unless there is a really awesome form of government I don’t know about yet.
I get it you really really hate Moldbug, but I’m basically currently of the opinion that the only one getting mindkilled here is you. Why couldn’t you discuss the points and maintain the usual level of discourse? I fail to see how this was the right course of action, unless you are acting up being mindkilled for the purpose to shut down a certain topic for good.
I know very little of the political situation in Norway but it is plausible that a better supreme court or batch of ministers could do a better job to the point of saving more lives than would be lost by such action (one has to factor in not just their lives but the cost of greater security measures such acts would produce if they where detected).
Oh I see, I thought you had some sort of general formula for weighing (naive) consequentialism and deontology. If I had known there were going to be creepy specifics, I wouldn’t have asked.
I assumed 5 or 6 seemed a creepily specific number and thus you wanted specifics. Note that as I said this was pure uninformed speculation. Norway is a partcularly well governed country, and overall specific people tend to in well governed Western states to matter much less here than say in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. However even a marginally better job at governing or crafting laws creates averts a lol of dusts specks.
I usually apply pure consequentalism measuring happy healthy years of life as a first estimate. When actually contemplating real actions to support I go by vritue ethics, since some costs are hard to capture in utilitarian thinking. Following virtue ethics I wouldn’t ever support an attempt to assassinate someone unless they where directly responsible for a massive amount of death, as in signing death warrants or conducting killings or hiring thugs. Perhaps controversially I wouldn’t put torturing people a ok reason to assassinate since that seems really hard to establish because of propaganda, misninformation, a more convoluted paper trail, ect.
Even on a pure level of instrumental rationality, calmly pointing out the above quote and linking to it and asking if say I agree or not, would make the thing look much worse
I didn’t strictly speaking make that comment to persuade anyone, I’m just making small talk. Who’d take some guy’s esoteric politics as a matter of actual life and death when we can have an AI?
I get it you really really hate Moldbug
You are WRONG! I sneer at him a bit, as many tend to when they find that people much smarter than themselves are kind of fucked in the head. I don’t consider him a force for evil. I just clarify that in some cases I value politeness more than I do free speech if, and only if, said free speech is in a natural, all too human language. Nowhere have I suggested that weighing evil acts is inappropriate—say, when you clearly see how to apply math—otherwise I would’ve promptly freaked out back at the dust specks question.
haven’t yet done the calculations about how many lives changing Norway’s government would be worth, but that I suspect considering there are few better alternatives if any
I believe that it’s exactly what he’s admitting to himself—Norway is a kickass place to live in! - , and that although he might be serious about “Eurocommunism” as a potential engine of collapse, he’s not serious serious. In other words, his prime motivation in formulating that sentence is a good opportunity for what he sees as trolling.
Considering the discussions that are calmly had on LessWrong (infaticide for starters) I can produce a dozen such “incriminating” out of context quotes. Come to think of it you can get quotes of me saying that infanticide is not as bad a crime as killing and adult, that incest among consenting adults should be legal, ect
Sorry? The discussion over infanticide we were holding a couple of weeks ago was—maybe—not perfectly relaxed, but neither side found the other’s statements of position to be unacceptably crude, like flinging excrement in public. I do find exactly that about Moldbug’s statement.
believe that it’s exactly what he’s admitting to himself—Norway is a kickass place to live in! - , and that although he might be serious about “Eurocommunism” as an engine of collapse, he’s not serious serious. In other words, his prime motivation in formulating that sentence is a good opportunity for what he sees as trolling.
And you are trolling… why? Oh sorry, quoting a troll trolling on another forum/blog isn’t actually trolling.
Nope, sorry. I have seen that the Less Wrong community lacks neither the experience nor the intellectual courage to deal with highly provocative words head on—sometimes keeping its cool and sometimes not, but hardly resorting to a policy of selective blindness.
I’m not saying that Moldbug is a terrorist/would-be Hitler/whatever, or that people aren’t allowed to like him on rational grounds, or anything of the sort. I am merely refusing to quickly avert my eyes from a thoroughly appalling detail.
Even if you feel that judging the quality of someone’s thought requires reporting any particularly offensive statements in their other writings, you could at least do so without encouraging mindkill and frothing. Arguably we shouldn’t be discussing Moldbug in the first place.
Arguably we shouldn’t be discussing Moldbug in the first place.
I more or less agree (for a different reason as you can see), however, I’m against pretty much any restrictions on LW topics provided even a modicum of intelligence being shown.
So if I’m an opponent (and yes, don’t waste time pointing out my self-identification as such and pre-written bottom line), I don’t like staying silent and I don’t think that “mind-kill” is at all a net negative to LW discussion… heck, I’m gonna have oh-so-irresponsible fun.
I more or less agree (for a different reason as you can see), however, I’m against pretty much any restrictions on LW topics provided even a modicum of intelligence being shown.
In the current context I find this statement disingenuous. I’ll be perfectly honest I think you are acting in bad faith.
I’m reading Moldbug’s Patchwork and considering it as a replacement for Democracy. I expected it to be dystopia, but it actually sounds like a neat place to live, it is however a scary Eutopia.
Patchwork 1: a positive vision
Patchwork 2: profit strategies for our new corporate overlords
Patchwork 3: what we have and what’s so bad about it
Patchwork 4: a reactionary theory of world peace
Has anyone else read this recently?
I’ve read through the pieces, and I’m struggling to come up with something to say that a reactionary absolutist like Moldbug would find interesting. For example, in the first piece linked, Moldbug says (Let’s ignore that the last sentence is questionable as a matter of historical fact):
I don’t disagree that it is a Schelling point. But is it stable? History strongly suggests that legitimacy is a real thing that is an important variable for predicting whether governments can stay in power and institutions can remain influential in a society. In other words, there’s a reason why mature absolute monarchies (like Louis XIV) invented “divine right of kings.” I assert that you can’t throw that away (as Moldbug does) and assume that nothing changes about the setup.
My next point would be that there is no reason to expect a government to make a profit. But Moldbug’s commitment to accepting the verdict of history means that he wouldn’t find this very persuasive. if one believes that might makes right, then government probably does need to make a profit. In other words, when you acquire power by winning, there’s every reason to expect that failing to continue winning will lead in short order to your replacement.
The idea is that it is possible to make the cake bigger by having efficient government. This is why he invokes Laffer curves as relevant concepts.
I find myself sympathetic to this. If you say give some amount of stocks to foundations that provide free healthcare to those who can’t afford it or preserve natural habitat ect. that matches current GDP spending, but come up with a government that is more efficient at providing funds for all these endeavours you get more spent in an absolute sense on healthcare or environmentalism than otherwise.
If you want to do efficient charity, you don’t work in a soup kitchen, you work hard where you have a comparative advantage to earn as much money as possible and then donate it to an efficient charity. Moldbug may not approve but I actually think his design with the right ownership structure, might be together with some properly designed foundations be a much better “goodness generating machine” than a democratic US or EU might ever be.
I also like the idea of being able to live in a society with laws that you can agree with, if you don’t like it you just leave and go somewhere where you do agree with them.
The profit motive is transparent and it is something that is easy to track down than “doing good”, which is as the general goal of government far less transparent. As a shareholder or employee in a prosperous society you could easily start lobbying among other share holders to spend their own money to set up new charity foundations or have existing ones re-evaluate their goals.
It also has the neat property of seemingly guaranteeing human survival in a Malthusian em future (check out Robin Hansons writing on this). As long as humans own stocks it wouldn’t matter if they where made obsolete by technology they could still basically collect a simply vast amount of rent which would continue growing at a rapid rate for millennia or even millions of years. The real problem is how these humans don’t get hacked into being consumption machines by various transhuman service providers but optimize for Eudaimonia.
He says robot armies and cryptographically locked weaponry eliminate the need to care about what your population thinks. The technology simply wasn’t there in the time of Louis XIV. The governing structure has no need to mess with people’s minds in various ways to convince them it is a just system.
And the thing is, while such technology as ubiquitous surveillance or automated soldiers in the hands of government sounds scary, there seems to be no relevant reason at all to think other government types won’t have this technology anyway. Worse the technology to modify your mind in various ways will also be rapidly available (as if current brainwashing and propaganda technology wasn’t scary enough).
In other words people living in such Patchwork instead of the futuristic US or the PRC would trade political freedoms for freedom of thought and association. The last two are not really guaranteed in any sense, but he gives several strong reasons why a sovereign corporation might have an interest in preserving them. Reasons that most other states as self-stabilizing systems don’t seem to have.
He basically says that whether we like it or not might does make right. The USA defeated Nazi Germany not because it was nobler but because it was stronger. This is why Germany is a democracy today. The US defeated the Soviet Union not because it was nobler but because its economy could support more military spending and the Soviet Communist party couldn’t or wouldn’t use military means as efficiently as say the Chinese to stomp out dissenting citizens. This is why Russia is a democracy today. Democracies won because they where better at convincing people that they where legitimate, their economies where better and as a result of these two they where better at waging war than other forms of government.
He also seems very confident that if his proposed form of government was enacted somewhere it would drastically out-compete all existing ones.
Many government programs provide services to people who can’t afford the the value of the service provided. Police and public education provided to inner-cities cannot be paid from the wealth of the beneficiaries. Moldbug complains about the inefficiency of the post office, but that problem is entirely caused by non-efficiency based commitments like delivering mail to middle-of-nowhere small towns. Without those constraints, USPS looks more like FedEx. That’s not a Moldbuggian insght—everyone who’s spent a reasonable amount of time thinking about the issue knows this trade-off.
And I simply don’t believe this is a likely outcome. There will be times when a realm does not want to use its full arsenal of unobtanium weapons (i.e. to deal with jaywalking and speeding). Anyway, isn’t it easier (and more efficient) to use social engineering to suppress populist sedition?
I mostly agree with your analysis, in that I think we’ve been lucky in some sense that the good guys won. But doesn’t Moldbug have some totally different explanation for the Cold War, involving infighting between the US State Dept. and the Pentagon?
I think it likely that any system of government backed by unobtanium weapons would defeat any existing government system. It’s not clear to me that a consent-of-the-governed system backed by the super weapons wouldn’t beat Moldbug’s absolutist system. And even if that isn’t true, why should we want a return to absolutism. It’s painfully obvious to me that my rejection of absolutism is the basis of most of my disagreement with Moldbug. I think government should provide “unprofitable” services, and he doesn’t.
The good guys did win, because I’m not a National Socialist or a Communist or a Muslim or a Roman. But I don’t think we where lucky. “The Gift We Give Tomorrow” should illustrate why I don’t think you can say we where “lucky”. By definition anyone that won would have made sure we viewed them as the more or less good guys.
That wasn’t Moldbug’s argument about the USSR, it was mine :)
Yes, if I recall right his model goes something like this: The State Department wanted to make the Soviet Union its client much like say Britain or or West Germany or Japan where, it viewed US society and Soviet society as on a converging path, with the Soviet Union’s ruling class having its heart in the right place but sometimes going too far. Something they could never do with any truly right wing regime. This is why they often basically sabotaged the Pentagon’s efforts and attempts at client making. The Cold War and the Third World in general would have never been as bloody if the State Department vs. the Pentagon civli war by proxy wouldn’t have been going on.
Sure but I don’t want to live in a society that takes this logic to its general conclusion. I want to be able to dislike the government I’m living under even if I can’t do anything about it. Many people might not either, and we may be willing to tolerate living in a different less wealthy part of patch land or paying higher taxes for it.
What is that? Can we depack this concept?
I’m trying to figure out what you mean by this. Can’t we have a “Deliver mail to far off corners foundation” and give it 0.5% of the stocks of Neo-Washington corp. when the thing takes off? Do you in principle object to government being for profit or is it just you think that nonprofits funded by shares of the government of equal GDP fractions as they have right now couldn’t provide services of equally quality? What is the governments mission then? Which unprofitable services should it provide? All possible ones? Those that have the most eloquent rent-seekers? Those that are “good”? Can you define then the mission of government in words that are a bit more specific than universal benevolence? And if democratic government is so good at that why don’t we have seed AI report to congress for approval of each self-modification? Don’t worry the AI also gets one vote.
So, Moldbug’s Cold War explanation is total nonsense? I thinks the Cold War follows after WWII even if the USA was ruled by King Truman I and the USSR was rule by King Stalin I. More formally, I think political realism is the empirically best description of international relations.
Anyway, you asked about patches and realms, and I said that governments do the unprofitable. If it were profitable, government wouldn’t need to do it. Moldbug seems to say that we ought not to want government to do the unprofitable. That explains his move to a corporate form of government, but it doesn’t justify the abandonment of the role that every government in history has decided it wanted to do.
You completely missed my point. Who gets to decide what is unprofitable? Who decides which unprofitable things are worth doing? The set of all possible unprofitable activities is vastly larger than the set of profitable ones.
You do realize we where talking about the USSR just a few seconds ago right? I guess Russia was a bad place to make cars so the government had to step in and do that.
Communism (and socialism in general) have inefficient (i.e. not wealth-maximizing) preferences for wealth distribution. So no, it doesn’t surprise me that that massive government planning was required to try to implement the communist preference. If equal wealth distribution were wealth-maximizing, then the government wouldn’t have needed to intervene to make it happen.
This isn’t a groundbreaking point. It falls out straightforwardly from the economic definition of efficiency.
I repeat myself:
Unless you are arguing Communist preferences of wealth redistribution and the opportunity cost that entails where automatically representative of those of “the Russian people” because duh they had the October revolution and a civil war in which Communists won. In which case I will ask why they would not be in North Korea, and would also ask you if all regimes deciding things are representative of “the people” why do we even need this democracy thing? Obviously Ancient Egyptian peasants wanted to be involved in the unprofitable business of building Pyramids for Pharaoh.
If we are not sure the ancient Egyptian Monarchies captured people’s preferences for unprofitable activities that should be done according to the values of those indirectly funding them, if the same cannot be said of Rome, if the same cannot be said of Communism … why do you think it can be said of say the US government? Why do you think this is more efficient than having government be a money making machine that gives its citizens free money because they own stock and lets them spend it on whatever charity (which also by definition do unprofitable things) or indulgence (which often are also unprofitable—whenever I go stop to smell the flowers or go watch a movie I don’t do this to maximize my profit in currency, but to hopefully maximize my utility) they want? Or if it interferes with the operation of the state why not have the stockholders spend it in some other part of Patchland that specializes in being a great place to spend your money for good causes or fun?
And if you don’t think people’s preferences even matter when deciding what unprofitable stuff to spend resources on … well whose preferences should then?
I want unprofitable stuff that I like done too. Like helping people not having to die if they don’t want to. All else being equal I don’t however much care who does them. BTW I’m not too sure about Moldbug’s government type either, I wouldn’t volunteer to live there just based on his arguments, but I do think he does a good job of dealing with regular arguments in favour of democracy. I do think a city or patch of desert somewhere to test the form of government might be a good idea.
For Moldbug, the answer is . . . not you. Unless the CEO of the realm put your charity on the cleared list. But I suspect that most of the things I would want to do with my dividends would be prohibited as security risks. Political control without thought control has never happened, and I don’t think that super weapons could make it happen.
I’m interested in your answer.
That is a good argument. Overall I think Moldbug does a better job of giving decent explanatory power for the modern world than providing workable solutions (if there are any) for its ills. :)
Please elaborate on how, completely disregarding political realism in favor of an overarching conspiracy theory (as already mentioned above) and just ignoring the whole iceberg of neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, etc, one can arrive at a decent explanation for it all. “The leftist social sciences professor down the street is a witch, she did it” is not up to my standards of “decent”.
That is not Moldbug’s model. How much have you read?
He has decent models in my mind for many things including the genesis of the leftwards social movement for the past few decades or centuries, the genesis of modern morality, US foreign policy, the sociological aspect development of ideology ect.
I don’t think I’m that much of a outlier in my estimation here, I’ve heard many people I know from LessWrong express interest in his thought (for example gwern, or Vladimir_M). He even had a live recorded debate with Robin Hanson back in 2010 on Futarchy (though he lost, everyone looses debates to RH ;) ). Top posters like Yvian and Eliezer also seem to have read some of Moldbug since they refer to his writing occasionally, ect. People sometimes agree and other times disagree with him, but I think they generally don’t view him as a “crank” .
I really don’t have the time right now to discuss all of this but there are a few older discussions in the comment sections of various articles (just search for “Moldbug” on the site), LessWrong that may interesting you if you’d like to learn more about his stuff and why people find it interesting.
My recent thread on one of his post also had some discussion.
I have read all of that, at first glance expecting a fun and intriguing contrarian ride. It came across as considerably more insane (in the LW/OB sense) and less grounded in reality than the milder forms of ol’ good fascism to me.
I generally don’t see what’s so insane about WASP Blue State Protestant progressivism being the sociological, philosophical and cultural predecessor of WASP Blue State progressivism.
Or say that modern ethics aren’t the product of pure reason and moral progress but a clear descendant of older Western morality.
Or that US foreign policy is often crazy and mixed up because the US isn’t a monolithic entity and that more specifically the interests of the State department and the Pentagon diverge.
Or that in a modern parlimentary democracy power is wielded by opinion makers (academia and journalists) who create the intellectual fashion of the rich and well positioned subscribe to and with a twenty or so year lag the general population (they adopt it not just to copy the elites but because legislation and education are updated to push new beliefs on them) which then vote for representatives that are supposed to keep the unelected elites in check and working for their interests. Culturally any ethical ideas or value sets adopted by elite academia are assured long term victory.
I think that covers my examples.
Meh, fascists are often too mystical for my tastes (try reading Julius Evola. Religious Paleocons are a bit better but their axioms are all messed up, believing in God and all that. The few irreligious ones are often lots of fun.
source
This is why choosing the state as the actor that must bear unprofitable activities, regardless of on who’s behalf, seems to my sentiments less an aesthetic choice or one that should be based on historic preference but an economic question that deserves some investigation. The losses of utility over such a trivial preference seem potentially large.
I suppose it depends on what you see as “charity”. For example, free childhood vaccinations can be seen as charity—after all, why shouldn’t people just buy their own vaccines on the free market ? -- but having a vaccinated population with herd immunity is, nonetheless, a massive public good. The same can be said of public education, or, yes, canes for blind people.
Let’s do some [Edit: more abstract] analysis for a moment. [Edit: I suggest that] government is the entity that has been allocated the exclusive right to legitimate violence. And the biggest use of this threat of violence is compulsory taxation. Why do people put up with this threat of violence? As Thomas Hobbes says, to get out of the state of nature and into civil society. (As Moldbug says, land governed by the rule of law is more valuable than ungoverned land).
What does the government do with the money it receives. At core, it provides services to people who don’t want them. The quote mentioned letting prisoners choose their jailors. It probably would increase prisoner utility to offer the choice. It might even save money (for example, some prison systems mandate completing a GED if the prisoner lacks a high school degree). But that’s not what society wants to do to criminals. If the government uses compulsory power to fund prisons, I assert a requirement that the spending vaguely correspond to taxpayer desires for the use of the funds. (Moldbug seems to disagree).
Consider another example, the DMV. At root, the government threatens violence if you drive on the road without the required government license, on the belief that the quality of driving improves when skill requirements are imposed and the requirements will not (or cannot) be imposed without the threat of violence. It is common knowledge that going to the DMV to get the license is a miserable experience because the lines are long and the workers are not responsive to customer concerns. By contrast, the MacDonald’s next door is filled with helpful people who quickly provide you with the service desired as efficiently as possible. Why the difference? In part, it is the compulsory nature of the license and in part, it is that benefits of improved service at the DMV do not accrue to anyone working for or supervising the DMV. See James Wilson’s insightful discussion (pages 113-115 & 134-136) (There’s also an interesting discussion of the post office on pp. 122-25). I assert that much “inefficiency” in government is simply the deadweight loss inherent in compulsory taxation, which is one part of government Moldbug doesn’t want to abolish.
And there’s less justification for calling an entity with compulsory tax powers a profit making entity. In what way has Moldbug’s Calgood acted in a competitive marketplace? Voting with your feet is just as possible in the United States or Western Europe today as it would be in the patch & realm system.
Max Weber was a libertarian?
Hmm. It’s embarrassing to admit I’m not as well read as I’d like. I’d only ever heard the concept in libertarian discussions. Thanks.
Every time I read Moldbug’s stuff I am startled by the extent to which he tries to give an economic analysis and solution to a political problem.
The reason we have government isn’t that we sat down once upon a time in the state of nature to design a political system. We have government because we live in a world where violence is a potentially effective tactic for achieving goals. Government exists to curb and control this tendency, to govern it.
Uncontrolled violence turns out to be destructive to both the subject of the violence and also the wielder—it turns out that it’s potentially more fun to be in a citizen-soldier in a democracy than a menial soldier in an tyranny, or a member of a warlord’s entourage.
Politically, we don’t do welfare spending and criminal justice purely for the fuzzies, or solely because they’re ends in themselves. Every so often, we have organized and vigorous protests against the status quo. When this happens, those in power can either appease the protesters, use force to crush the protesters, or try to make them go away quietly without violence. If the protesters are determined enough, this last approach doesn’t work. And the government can either use clubs, or buy off the protesters.
It turns out that power structures that become habitually brutal don’t do too well. People who get in the habit of using force aren’t good neighbors, aren’t good police, and aren’t trusty subordinates. Bystanders don’t want to live in a society that uses tanks and poison gas on retired veterans or that kills protesting students; leaders who try to use those tactics tend to get voted out of power—or else overthrown.
Moldbug talking about cryptographically controlled weapons is missing the point: we don’t want to live in a society that uses too much overt violence on its members. And we tolerate a lot of inefficiencies to avoid this need.
I believe the main thrust of Moldbug’s writings is that we should be (but aren’t) solving an engineering problem rather than moralizing when we engage in politics (although, he seems to fall into this trap himself what with all his blaming of “leftists” for everything under the sun).
So much of Moldbug’s belief system, and even his constructed identity as an “enlightened reactionary”, ride on his complete rejection of whiggish historical narratives; however, he takes this to such an extent that he ends up falling into the very trap that Whig Interpretation’s original critic, Herbert Butterfield warned of in his seminal work on the subject:
Except, none of his prescriptions are sensible engineering. Crypto-controlled weapons as foundation for social order are more science-fiction than sensible design for controlling violence in society. it’s much too easy for people to build or buy weapons, or else circumvent the protections. Pinning your whole society on perfect security seems pretty crazy from a design point of view.
Right, I don’t think he succeeds either. I was merely trying to summarize his project as I think he sees it.
Just because governments often employ violence just before they loose power does not mean that employing violence was the cause of their downfall. Many sick people take medication just before they die. Sure violence may do them no good, like an aspirin does no good for a brain tumour, but it is hard to therefore argue that aspirin is the cause of death. The assertion is particularly dubious since historically speaking governments have used a whole lot of violence and this actually seems to have often saved them. Even in modern times we have plenty examples of this.
This Robin Hanson post seems somewhat relevant:
The state can be thought of as a sedentary bandit, who instead of pillaging and burning a village of farmers extorted them and eventually started making sure no one else pillages or burns them since that interferes with the farmers paying him. The roving bandit has no incentive to assure the sustainability of a particular farming settlement he parasites. A stationary banding in a sense farms the settlement.
Government can expediently be defined, ultimately beneath all the full, as a territorial monopolist of violence. There is a trade off between government violence used to prevent anyone else from exercising violence and violence by other organized groups. How do we know we are at the optimal balance in a utilitarian sense?
Also Moldbug dosen’t want to do away with government he wants to propose a different kind of government. And we have in the past had systems of government that where the result of people sitting down and then trying to design a political system. To take modern examples of this (though I could easily pull out several Greek city states), perhaps the Soviet Union was a bad design, but the United States of America literally took over the world. In any case this demonstrates that new forms of government (not necessarily very good government) can be designed and implemented.
Government violence s ideally more predictable than the violence it prevents (that’s the whole reason we in the West think rule of law is a good idea). Sure the government has other tools to prevent violence than just violence of its own, but ultimately all law is violence. In the sense of the WHO definition:
You can easily make the violence painless by say sedating a would be rapist with the stun setting on your laser gun, and you can easily also eliminate the suffering of imprisoning him, by modifying his brain with advanced tools. But changing a persons mind without their consent or by giving them a choice between 6 years imprisonment and modifying their brain has surely just experienced violence according to the above definition.
The point of the the cryptographically controlled weapons is that you need a very small group of people who thinks being a citizen soldier is less fun than being paid handsomely by Blackwater to work.
Abba Lerner, “The Economics and Politics of Consumer Sovereignty” (1972):
In raw utility the inefficiencies we tolerate to pay for this could easily be diverted to stop much more death and suffering elsewhere. Perhaps we are simply suffering from scope insensitivity, our minds wired for small tribes where the leader being violent towards a person means the leader being violent to a non-trival fraction of the population.
Also are you really that sure that people wouldn’t want to live in a Neocameralist system? When you say efficiency I don’t think you realize how emotionally appealing clean streets, good schools, low corruption and perfect safety from violent crime or theft is. What would be the price of real-estate there? It is not a confidence that he gives Singapore as an example, a society that uses more violence against its citizens than most Western democracies.
Further more consider this:
That sounds pretty draconian. But we also know Singapore is a pretty efficiently run government by most metrics. Is Singapore an unpleasant place to life? If so why do so many people want to live there? If you answer economic opportunities or standard of living or job opportunities, well then maybe Moldbug does have a point in his very economic approach to it.
I had assumed we were talking about government for [biased, irrational] humans, not for perfect utilitarians or some other mythical animal. I was saying that routine application of too much violence will upset humans, not that it should upset them.
I’m sure many people would live quite happily in Singapore. Clearly, it works for the Singaporians. But I don’t think that model can be replicated elsewhere automatically, nor do I think Moldbug has a completely clear notion why it works.
Moldbug talks about splitting up the revenue generation (taxation) from the social-welfare spending. This seems like a recipe for absentee-landlord government. And historically that has worked terribly. The government of Singapore does have to live there, and that’s a powerful restraint or feedback mechanism.
In the US (and I believe the rest of the world), the population would like to pay lower taxes, and pointing to the social welfare benefits is the thing that convinces them to pay and tolerate higher rates. I think once the separation between spending and taxation becomes too diffuse, you’ll get tax revolts. Remember, we are designing a government for humans here—short-sighted, biased, irrational, and greedy. So the benefits of unpleasant things have to be made as obvious as possible.
I’m open to being corrected on this, since I don’t have a good source for Singaporean immigration statistics, but my prior is that people who choose to live in Singapore are coming there from other places that are much more corrupt while also still being rather draconian (China, Malaysia). I’m pretty sure well-educated Westerners could get a well-paying job in Singapore, and the reason few move there is not, in fact, about economics.
I’ll be blunt. He’s signaling self-righteous revulsion. It doesn’t ever pattern match to anything nice. Case closed.
(Not for the idea of libertarian absolutism, of course—just for this Moldbug fellow himself! It’s just that I don’t want to tear through the buzzing of some conceited guy to get to the truth of the matter; there’s always an alternative available in the market of ideas.)
Please indicate which particular part of the above do you find objectionable or not up to LW standards. Do you have any evidence that a paranoid attitude like his was ever not indicative of a crank?
I didn’t down vote you, but I generally disagree with your pattern match. Moldbug signals self-righteous revulsion ironically since he is mirroring the self-righteous revulsion of the SWPLs to anything that challenges their ideological outlook.
Moldbug has been praised by many people I know from LessWrong as having a good style of writing. For example here:
Yes apparently some like it as much as they like Eliezer’s writing.
Maybe that’s what got you down voted? He’s a bit too verbose for my taste, but as he said it himself several times that inhumanely long posts are one of the ways he keeps out the wrong kind of crowd which is attracted by a far right view for all the wrong reasons.
And why doesn’t he hire a few moderators from among his allies, then open the doors to the right type of crowd—that is, someone like the SIAI staff—and let them see the light? He is, after all, saying that it’d be nice for his goals to hit more people where it counts with some quality propaganda. I bet that he’s simply addicted to his ultra-contrarian throne beyond all reason.
He’s just a random guy writing a blog. He can’t even post that often since he’s raising a baby girl. How many such people choose minions to moderate their blogs?
Why would he want the SIAI type around? The average SIAI employee might spend some time thinking about his arguments, but I suspect they have differing values.
I actually agree.
Want to get mind-killed HARD? I mean, frothing at the monitor hard? Here’s his opinion on the Norway massacre.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, if you could ask Hitler and a random leftist from the academia in the 1930 whether 1) the sky is blue and 2) Stalin is an evil butcher, they’d perform equally well on 1) and you’d have to support Hitler over the leftist on 2), but still. This is not “deliberate hardcore contrarianism”. This is not even trolling—go ask /b/, they’re the internationally acknowledged authority. Moldbug is spitting on the graves of innocent teenagers slaughtered by an evident psychotic.
He says that a certain amount of lives is worth a regime change. This is not a controversial position in the real world. No one for example would in polite society say that regime change in 1945 in Nazi Germany was not worth the lives of 40 or 4000 young or 40 000 young men or women. He also calls the man a butcher, and clearly is implying that change can not be achieved by terrorism nor even conventional military action.
Considering the discussions that are calmly had on LessWrong (infanticide for starters) I can produce a dozen such “incriminating” out of context quotes. Come to think of it you can get quotes of me saying that infanticide is not as bad a crime as killing an adult, that incest among consenting adults should be legal, ect. Will you use that when itching to win a argument with me?
Also Robin Hanson has said that 9/11 isn’t a big deal. Aha that’s something I can use! How dare he spit on the graves of … oh wait no actually that would be an inappropriate thing for me to say.
Even on a pure level of instrumental rationality, calmly pointing out the above quote and linking to it and asking if say I agree or not, would made him look much worse as well as being equally effective at any point you are trying to make. Also I would respond by stating the truth (as I shall now), that I haven’t read it so far and that I haven’t yet done the calculations about how many lives changing Norway’s government to Marxist-Leninism/Anarchy-Syndicalism/Futarchy/Fascism would be worth, but that I suspect considering there are few better alternatives if any, and that Norway has such a small population that it wouldn’t amount to more than ~5. Unless there is a really awesome form of government I don’t know about yet.
I get it you really really hate Moldbug, but I’m basically currently of the opinion that the only one getting mindkilled here is you. Why couldn’t you discuss the points and maintain the usual level of discourse? I fail to see how this was the right course of action, unless you are acting up being mindkilled for the purpose to shut down a certain topic for good.
Now I’m really curious what calculation would lead you to that number.
I know very little of the political situation in Norway but it is plausible that a better supreme court or batch of ministers could do a better job to the point of saving more lives than would be lost by such action (one has to factor in not just their lives but the cost of greater security measures such acts would produce if they where detected).
Yay I made the CIA watch list!
Oh I see, I thought you had some sort of general formula for weighing (naive) consequentialism and deontology. If I had known there were going to be creepy specifics, I wouldn’t have asked.
I assumed 5 or 6 seemed a creepily specific number and thus you wanted specifics. Note that as I said this was pure uninformed speculation. Norway is a partcularly well governed country, and overall specific people tend to in well governed Western states to matter much less here than say in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. However even a marginally better job at governing or crafting laws creates averts a lol of dusts specks.
I usually apply pure consequentalism measuring happy healthy years of life as a first estimate. When actually contemplating real actions to support I go by vritue ethics, since some costs are hard to capture in utilitarian thinking. Following virtue ethics I wouldn’t ever support an attempt to assassinate someone unless they where directly responsible for a massive amount of death, as in signing death warrants or conducting killings or hiring thugs. Perhaps controversially I wouldn’t put torturing people a ok reason to assassinate since that seems really hard to establish because of propaganda, misninformation, a more convoluted paper trail, ect.
I didn’t strictly speaking make that comment to persuade anyone, I’m just making small talk. Who’d take some guy’s esoteric politics as a matter of actual life and death when we can have an AI?
You are WRONG! I sneer at him a bit, as many tend to when they find that people much smarter than themselves are kind of fucked in the head. I don’t consider him a force for evil. I just clarify that in some cases I value politeness more than I do free speech if, and only if, said free speech is in a natural, all too human language. Nowhere have I suggested that weighing evil acts is inappropriate—say, when you clearly see how to apply math—otherwise I would’ve promptly freaked out back at the dust specks question.
I believe that it’s exactly what he’s admitting to himself—Norway is a kickass place to live in! - , and that although he might be serious about “Eurocommunism” as a potential engine of collapse, he’s not serious serious. In other words, his prime motivation in formulating that sentence is a good opportunity for what he sees as trolling.
Sorry? The discussion over infanticide we were holding a couple of weeks ago was—maybe—not perfectly relaxed, but neither side found the other’s statements of position to be unacceptably crude, like flinging excrement in public. I do find exactly that about Moldbug’s statement.
And you are trolling… why? Oh sorry, quoting a troll trolling on another forum/blog isn’t actually trolling.
Right.
No thank you. LessWrong is a no froth zone. Please take it elsewhere.
Nope, sorry. I have seen that the Less Wrong community lacks neither the experience nor the intellectual courage to deal with highly provocative words head on—sometimes keeping its cool and sometimes not, but hardly resorting to a policy of selective blindness.
I’m not saying that Moldbug is a terrorist/would-be Hitler/whatever, or that people aren’t allowed to like him on rational grounds, or anything of the sort. I am merely refusing to quickly avert my eyes from a thoroughly appalling detail.
Even if you feel that judging the quality of someone’s thought requires reporting any particularly offensive statements in their other writings, you could at least do so without encouraging mindkill and frothing. Arguably we shouldn’t be discussing Moldbug in the first place.
I more or less agree (for a different reason as you can see), however, I’m against pretty much any restrictions on LW topics provided even a modicum of intelligence being shown.
So if I’m an opponent (and yes, don’t waste time pointing out my self-identification as such and pre-written bottom line), I don’t like staying silent and I don’t think that “mind-kill” is at all a net negative to LW discussion… heck, I’m gonna have oh-so-irresponsible fun.
In the current context I find this statement disingenuous. I’ll be perfectly honest I think you are acting in bad faith.
Yes yes we all know Blue tribe clearly acts as an apologist for greater atrocities than Green.
[insert emotional screed against Green here]