Immigration powers Democracy's envy engine, and the point of Fascism's gender skew is to uphold egalitarianism. Only an idiot wouldn't have figured this out sooner.
The iron law of oligarchy is true, and democracies are run by an elite oligarchy. Typically a top-out-of-sight oligarchy whose names never show up in the news. Indeed becoming visible, especially in such a gauche way, results in their rivals ganging up on them and casting them out of the inner circle.
It is hard to see how this oligarchy benefits from immigration. Cheap labour? What, you pay for your own workers? What a rube. Sheer Impact, making the peasants unhappy? Too weak. They work diligently in pursuit of greater immigration. Votes? Err, iron law of oligarchy, my dude.
But, duh, democracy is an envy engine. It is founded on envy of the elites and continues to function on the envy of the lower classes for the middle classes. Thus, a strong democracy has the largest possible lower class. Hence, the idea is to import as many partial failures as possible. Import those who envy the natives, and create a vigorous, healthy envy cycle.
The constant talk about racism is there to intensify the envy. Nobody claims that being good at written school tests isn't important. They instead constantly throw the difference in test scores in the lower classes' faces. They get away with this by pretending that they're condemning some poor scapegoat for causing it. Standard Fascism point 3.
The votes and impact are nice bonuses, though. Why satisfy one goal when you can go 3-for-1?
Speaking of Fascism, I said, "The gender skew is plain weird." It's not, of course. Fascism is fundamentally fundamentalist egalitarian theocracy.
Egalitarianism doesn't work, and that's the point. Nobody is stupid enough to genuinely believe that men and women aren't different. Egalitarianism is all about throwing those differences in everyone's faces by bringing them up all the time, but pretending that they're caused by malign actors instead of caused by impersonal reality. (Firing the envy engine and distracting the peasants from Fascism's failures.) Only a bad person wouldn't believe in egalitarianism, and thus everyone pretends as hard as they can.
Naturally this means pretending men are women or pretending women are men. Hence, masculine or feminine Fascism. Women/men are only allowed to be part of the clerisy/government if they can convincingly pretend to be men/women.
It's not easy; to make it easier, the voters are encouraged to be as androgynous as possible. Sin is in all of us, and we must fight it daily, lest we fall. Having a man acting all manly next to a female governor would throw her inability to be masculine into sharp relief. The peasants might have inegalitarian thoughts. Heresy! No leading the flock astray!
Hi Alrenous,
ReplyDeleteAbout some of your older thoughts. The trouble with steel anarchism is that you are still talking like a classical liberal, using terminology invented by Whig sophists, like how coercion is bad, doing things to people without their consent is bad. Maybe you do not mean it the way they did, you might need new terminology.
Why do people today tend to think today that coercion is bad? I.e. what is the Whig version of this? First, because it is assumed that everybody knows and does what is good for them. This is ridiculous. Second, because everybody has their own best interests more at heart than anyone else would, hence any coercion can be assumed to be in the coercers interest. It makes more sense. There are exceptions, like coercing our children to not do self-damaging things. But it swiftly breaks down in any situation where love and care is not assumed. Hence, democratic sophists invest a lot of effort into telling people they love and care for them. With me so far? It is the mainstream, Whig view on why coercion is bad, not necessarily yours.
Now, the big problem with this model is that it is a two-player game and life isn't. So make it a three-player game. There is this classic prisoner's dilemma, where both of them following their own interests, and cannot trust to each other to make and stick to an agreement of both taking a limited hit, gonna both defect and both take a big hit. So there is this third player, the mafia boss who employes them both and promises to kill the defector. Problem solved, and it is clearly in the interest of the mafia boss to do so because he wants both his men to go back to work ASAP, i.e. interested in both rather taking a limited hit.
This is the ultimate agreement for authoritarian monarchy as opposed to anarchy. The big problem is how to make the monarch NOT do anything else but this.
Genealogy: whiggery -> libertarianism -> AnCap -> steel anarchism. If steel anarchism could be de-whiggified, it could become something interesting.
ReplyDeleteYour idea that it is immoral to things to people without their consent smacks of whiggery, but can perhaps be salvaged. Let's define rewards as things people observably run towards and punishments as things people observably run away from. Coercion motivates by punishment, consent generally implies a motivation by a reward. The reward must not necessarily be paid to the person consenting. But generally speaking there would be no point in consenting to go for walk with someone if nobody, neither me, nor the someone, nor anyone else gets better off through it.
Thus consent could be understood as motivating people through rewards, not punishments. Slave labor vs. hired labor. It has been noticed how unproductive slave labor is. The problem is, someone enslaved by someone cannot be hired by someone else. So one could try to form an argument that it reduces productivity. That would be a non-whig way to put it.
However, your current concept of the state cannot really be de-whiggified. It is just property. Land. Anna Creek is the size of Scotland. There is no difference between the owner charging tax or rent. Thankfully you managed to de-whiggify the idea of property, discardign the ridiculous homesteading argument and defining it as the reasonable expectation of protection. That's why states have big armies. They can reasonably expect to be able to protect their land. What is the difference? AnCap is not much more than wanting smaller states (and of course monarchical ones), it does not in principle eliminate the idea of the state as that would imply eliminating property itself.
Whigs were not wrong 100% of the time. To be wrong that reliably is just as difficult as being right that reliably. Being a philosopher/logiomancer is about accepting truth even if a Whig said it first.
ReplyDeleteConsent is a big deal. Coercion is bad. I do mean pretty much the same thing. Coercion is always defection; if someone tries to coerce you, you should defect on them. Even, or rather especially, if they are your parent. Never cooperate with defectors.
Consent is a big deal because it is the difference between cooperation and defection.
One learns in physics that everything is merely superpositions of two-player games.
--
The term 'State' tends to be misleading; if we're doing real work it should first be defined. State typically means [locus of legitimized coercion]. Coercion is never legitimate, and so all States are illegitimate. This does not mean all government is inherently illegitimate. The Steel Anarchist demands only Exit. Opt in or opt out. America does nothing that could not be legitimized by a suitable formal contract. It's just that USG is fully aware that very few Americans would sign such contracts, which is why it's being unilaterally imposed (defection) in the first place.