I think an interesting aspect here is that Eugine/Azeroth/Ra/Lion is a neoreactionary and believes in a strong hierarchy. Well, the mods are above you in the heirarchy, so respect their authority!
How can one worry about a mod abusing their power in an online forum, and yet not worry about a monarch abusing their far greater power in a monarchy?
and believes in a strong hierarchy. Well, the mods are above you in the heirarchy, so respect their authority!
LOL. NRx are not stupid :-)
Without going into the NRx approach, let me point out that even entirely traditional feudal power structures made power conditional on responsibility. The lord had power over his serfs and vassals, but he also had to protect them and aid them. A lord who abandoned his responsibilities abandoned his claim to power as well.
However, I have read the basics of Moldbug, for instance, and I gather that there is this idea of ‘exit > voice’ that if one does not like the way things are done, they should leave rather than try to change the system, and then the ruler will consider modifying their behaviour if large numbers of people leave.
OTOH, I’m not saying that all Nrxers believe this.
A lord who abandoned his responsibilities abandoned his claim to power as well.
The problem is, how do you enforce this? If you have a shareholder—based neocameral government, then the shareholders could hold a vote of no confidence. But in an absolute monarchy, if the monarch goes crazy, you’re screwed.
Exit and voice are both important, actually, and they can’t even be cleanly separated. One tool that seems invaluable in making hierarchies work well in real-world institutions (as in firms) is the takeover bid, and that clearly requires some kind of “voice”. (Demotist politics is supposed to serve the same function, except that it doesn’t really work—it diminishes advantages and expands drawbacks, compared to infrequent takeovers.) If The_Lion were to post here simply to make his case that the site is being severely mismanaged and point users to a better alternative, this would seem to be quite compatible with formalist principles.
they should leave rather than try to change the system, and then the ruler will consider modifying their behaviour if large numbers of people leave.
The first question is whether the current moderators can in any meaningful sense be considered “rulers”.
The problem is, how do you enforce this?
Who is “you”? I think you’re assuming the “unconditional obedience no matter what” attitude, and that just wasn’t how it worked. If the monarch goes crazy you depose him, if necessary via raising an army and having a bit of of a war. If it’s just a mere baron or something like that, you petition his lord, and if the lord winks in the right way, why, you just go torch his castle.
The first question is whether the current moderators can in any meaningful sense be considered “rulers”.
I think its more the case that whoever actually owns LW (MIRI? EY?) is the ruler, but at some point they delegated some power to the mods.
If the monarch goes crazy you depose him, if necessary via raising an army and having a bit of of a war.
A lot of what Moldbug says is dependent upon the idea, even if just for a thought experiment, that the monarch has absolute power and cannot possibly be deposed.
OTOH, if the monarch does not have absoute power, well, any system which depends on actual wars to get rid of a crazy monarch is … not somewhere I’d be entirely happy about living. One of the arguments against democracy is that having elections every four years imposes costs, in terms of politicians spending time campaigning rather than running the country, not to mention the time and money other people spend campaigning. But those costs are tiny compared to the cost of fighting civil wars.
NRx would inquire about how do you get rid of a crazy Cathedral X-)
A ‘tyranny of the majority’ is a concern about democracy. However, there are still limits—its possible that a majority could subscribe to an insane ideology, but rather unlikely that a majority of people could have a psychotic episode when they vote. A single leader is far more heavy tailed in distribution, they could be a genius or insane.
Cathedral is all about manufacturing consent and so election results, but let’s get more specific.
Leaving aside the traditional example of Hitler’s coming to power why don’t we consider a bit more recent phenomenon—Mr. Putin. He seems to be genuinely popular and even though the Russians fudge their elections (I suppose they just can’t help it), I would bet that Mr.Putin would actually win a fair election in Russia without any problems.
So how does he fit into your picture of democracy?
But those costs are tiny compared to the cost of fighting civil wars.
Are you sure about that? In well-run polities, civil wars are vanishingly rare; the implied threat of civil war is what’s more relevant, in most cases. The costs of demotist politicking may be smaller at any given time, but they add up quickly.
(All that said, democracies do seem to be a lot more peaceful than autocracies, and this is a huge efficiency gain. But there might be further gains on the table by moving things towards a formalist/NRX direction. Especially since modern democracies need a lot of oligarchy/aristocracy in practice if they are to actually function—this is what we call ‘the Cathedral’.)
Cynical hypothesis: neoreactionaries believe in a strong hierarchy and look back with fondness on historical periods when there has been one—but when they look either forward or back they imagine themselves near the top of the hierarchy, and it’s from that perspective that they judge it to be good.
I think an interesting aspect here is that Eugine/Azeroth/Ra/Lion is a neoreactionary and believes in a strong hierarchy. Well, the mods are above you in the heirarchy, so respect their authority!
OTOH, an nrx might argue that the strength of the authority must be continually tested by fighting it. Their ideal society is a struggle of all against all, all the time. Respect is but the acknowledgement of another’s greater power, to be granted for only so long as they actually have it, and only to their face, as a polite ritual. They would argue that this is the essential nature of all society, and that only the weak pretend otherwise, the weak being everyone but them and their heroes from history. The strong do what they will and the weak bear what they must. Strength is the only real virtue, all others being but idle amusements of the leisure that only strength can provide.
I don’t think most nrxers do believe this, and one who did certainly would be a hypocrite to accuse a mod of abusing their power—if there is no morality but the will to power, then how could a mod, or anyone else, abuse their power?
if there is no morality but the will to power, then how could a mod, or anyone else, abuse their power?
Accusations of abuse would simply be a move in the power struggle. Nothing is true, all is a lie.
I don’t think most nrxers do believe this
I am extrapolating outrageously, of course. Or, to continue in this vein, those that don’t believe this are merely fellow-travellers and wannabe nrxs, beta foot-soldiers to be exploited by Those Who Know the truths that lesser beings fear, hide from, and hide from themselves the fact that they are hiding.
Accusations of abuse would simply be a move in the power struggle.
That’s always true, though, isn’t it? Most political conflicts are to some extent power struggles.
Nothing is true, all is a lie.
Or maybe an accusation of ‘abuse’ only becomes true ex-post-facto, as the pre-existing power structure is successfully overturned in some way. Since ‘power’ is often complex and has a multi-level structure, this must always be seen as a definite possibility.
Is it actually a tenet of neoreaction that “there is no morality but the will to power”? That doesn’t appear to me to be the position Eugine has espoused.
(There’s certainly some commonality in sentiment between NRx and Nietzsche, but that’s not the same question.)
[EDITED to add:] No, wait, I’m an idiot; skeptical_lurker wasn’t in fact saying or presuming that NRx as such embodies any such idea, and in fact sayx explicitly that most don’t. Excuse me.
I think an interesting aspect here is that Eugine/Azeroth/Ra/Lion is a neoreactionary and believes in a strong hierarchy. Well, the mods are above you in the heirarchy, so respect their authority!
How can one worry about a mod abusing their power in an online forum, and yet not worry about a monarch abusing their far greater power in a monarchy?
LOL. NRx are not stupid :-)
Without going into the NRx approach, let me point out that even entirely traditional feudal power structures made power conditional on responsibility. The lord had power over his serfs and vassals, but he also had to protect them and aid them. A lord who abandoned his responsibilities abandoned his claim to power as well.
In practice, of course, things varied :-D
Nothing that leaks to /pol/ ever stays “not stupid” for long.
Yeah, but notice how NRx are already sneering at the “more populist” Alt-Right :-/
I never said they were stupid!
However, I have read the basics of Moldbug, for instance, and I gather that there is this idea of ‘exit > voice’ that if one does not like the way things are done, they should leave rather than try to change the system, and then the ruler will consider modifying their behaviour if large numbers of people leave.
OTOH, I’m not saying that all Nrxers believe this.
The problem is, how do you enforce this? If you have a shareholder—based neocameral government, then the shareholders could hold a vote of no confidence. But in an absolute monarchy, if the monarch goes crazy, you’re screwed.
Exit and voice are both important, actually, and they can’t even be cleanly separated. One tool that seems invaluable in making hierarchies work well in real-world institutions (as in firms) is the takeover bid, and that clearly requires some kind of “voice”. (Demotist politics is supposed to serve the same function, except that it doesn’t really work—it diminishes advantages and expands drawbacks, compared to infrequent takeovers.) If The_Lion were to post here simply to make his case that the site is being severely mismanaged and point users to a better alternative, this would seem to be quite compatible with formalist principles.
The first question is whether the current moderators can in any meaningful sense be considered “rulers”.
Who is “you”? I think you’re assuming the “unconditional obedience no matter what” attitude, and that just wasn’t how it worked. If the monarch goes crazy you depose him, if necessary via raising an army and having a bit of of a war. If it’s just a mere baron or something like that, you petition his lord, and if the lord winks in the right way, why, you just go torch his castle.
I think its more the case that whoever actually owns LW (MIRI? EY?) is the ruler, but at some point they delegated some power to the mods.
A lot of what Moldbug says is dependent upon the idea, even if just for a thought experiment, that the monarch has absolute power and cannot possibly be deposed.
OTOH, if the monarch does not have absoute power, well, any system which depends on actual wars to get rid of a crazy monarch is … not somewhere I’d be entirely happy about living. One of the arguments against democracy is that having elections every four years imposes costs, in terms of politicians spending time campaigning rather than running the country, not to mention the time and money other people spend campaigning. But those costs are tiny compared to the cost of fighting civil wars.
Not that democracies are immune to civil wars.
The proper expression is probably “an absentee landlord”.
NRx would inquire about how do you get rid of a crazy Cathedral X-)
A ‘tyranny of the majority’ is a concern about democracy. However, there are still limits—its possible that a majority could subscribe to an insane ideology, but rather unlikely that a majority of people could have a psychotic episode when they vote. A single leader is far more heavy tailed in distribution, they could be a genius or insane.
Cathedral is all about manufacturing consent and so election results, but let’s get more specific.
Leaving aside the traditional example of Hitler’s coming to power why don’t we consider a bit more recent phenomenon—Mr. Putin. He seems to be genuinely popular and even though the Russians fudge their elections (I suppose they just can’t help it), I would bet that Mr.Putin would actually win a fair election in Russia without any problems.
So how does he fit into your picture of democracy?
Well, Putin isn’t doing anything particularly insane, is he? I’m not saying his policies are sensible, but he’s not making his horse a senator.
Are you sure about that? In well-run polities, civil wars are vanishingly rare; the implied threat of civil war is what’s more relevant, in most cases. The costs of demotist politicking may be smaller at any given time, but they add up quickly.
(All that said, democracies do seem to be a lot more peaceful than autocracies, and this is a huge efficiency gain. But there might be further gains on the table by moving things towards a formalist/NRX direction. Especially since modern democracies need a lot of oligarchy/aristocracy in practice if they are to actually function—this is what we call ‘the Cathedral’.)
Then you would need to add the societal and medical costs derived from having a perpetually stressed population.
Cynical hypothesis: neoreactionaries believe in a strong hierarchy and look back with fondness on historical periods when there has been one—but when they look either forward or back they imagine themselves near the top of the hierarchy, and it’s from that perspective that they judge it to be good.
OTOH, an nrx might argue that the strength of the authority must be continually tested by fighting it. Their ideal society is a struggle of all against all, all the time. Respect is but the acknowledgement of another’s greater power, to be granted for only so long as they actually have it, and only to their face, as a polite ritual. They would argue that this is the essential nature of all society, and that only the weak pretend otherwise, the weak being everyone but them and their heroes from history. The strong do what they will and the weak bear what they must. Strength is the only real virtue, all others being but idle amusements of the leisure that only strength can provide.
I don’t think most nrxers do believe this, and one who did certainly would be a hypocrite to accuse a mod of abusing their power—if there is no morality but the will to power, then how could a mod, or anyone else, abuse their power?
Accusations of abuse would simply be a move in the power struggle. Nothing is true, all is a lie.
I am extrapolating outrageously, of course. Or, to continue in this vein, those that don’t believe this are merely fellow-travellers and wannabe nrxs, beta foot-soldiers to be exploited by Those Who Know the truths that lesser beings fear, hide from, and hide from themselves the fact that they are hiding.
That’s always true, though, isn’t it? Most political conflicts are to some extent power struggles.
Or maybe an accusation of ‘abuse’ only becomes true ex-post-facto, as the pre-existing power structure is successfully overturned in some way. Since ‘power’ is often complex and has a multi-level structure, this must always be seen as a definite possibility.
Is it actually a tenet of neoreaction that “there is no morality but the will to power”? That doesn’t appear to me to be the position Eugine has espoused.
(There’s certainly some commonality in sentiment between NRx and Nietzsche, but that’s not the same question.)
[EDITED to add:] No, wait, I’m an idiot; skeptical_lurker wasn’t in fact saying or presuming that NRx as such embodies any such idea, and in fact sayx explicitly that most don’t. Excuse me.
BTW, IIRC some people have made the same point (not sure how seriously) on SSC after people complained that Scott had banned a few neoreactionaries.
I think Scott himself made that point when he banned them.