1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
argumate
argumate

basic income: guaranteed

tech giants: refactored

gaystralians: able to conspicuously delay getting married just like straightalians

mitigatedchaos

These were the original policy positions of the Argumate Party when it was founded in 2017.  None foresaw that it would eventually lead to the literal breakaway of Western Australia, in one of few recorded uses of nuclear weapons for civil engineering in history.

shtpost augmented reality break politics
argumate

Anonymous asked:

i'm starting to think universla basic income for is not perfect, but could really help. for example, victims of abuse, at home, in jobs etc would have some means at least to get out when they know it's time

argumate answered:

right, it’s not a panacea, but it helps to put a floor on exactly how terrible things can get.

mitigatedchaos

Though it does create a risk of potentially unlimited obligation, depending on national population policies.

politics policy

@mailadreapta

Now, I suspect that we disagree a lot more on the object-level recommendations of how to achieve this (but I’m not actually sure about this given how cryptographically secure your politics are), but the general shape of what you describe is entirely compatible with the whole neoreactionary project.

I mean, I don’t really think I’ve been especially cryptic, particularly in policy recommendations.  And while Outer Hong Kong is structured as corporation, it’s more of a consumer cooperative, not something Moldbug would dream up of Fnargl mining the Earth, and I’m hardly saying one should create such a thing, merely that they could.

It may be that I see some of these object-level disagreements as a far more unbridgeable gulf between those who call themselves Neoreactionaries and myself.  I certainly feel they’re optimizing for something other than what I’m optimizing for, and sometimes becoming dangerously racist or uselessly sexist.

Perhaps it appears more cryptic because I believe there can be no instantiated pure form of National Technocracy.  Once invented, if adopted, it must be adapted to the needs, capabilities, and culture of each country to which it is applied.

politics
argumate
argumate

@mitigatedchaos:

(Though even that modern example has had its risks - there is some worry that with LKY no longer at the helm, there may have been mismanagement of government funds at the very top.)

regular reminder that some people allege mismanagement of government funds going back decades, with Singapore’s pension fund having far less assets than it should based on the returns that it claims to have achieved.

mitigatedchaos

Honestly, I believe the decision to put them into a state fund instead of having options for a number of state-approved funds was a mistake.

mailadreapta

But What About the Right?

mitigatedchaos

There may be some people that read this blog and think “you’re criticizing the Left for doing these things, but the right-wing and American government do some of them, too.  Does it not backfire for them?  Why do right-wingers get a pass?”

And, in fact, it does backfire for them.  It has been backfiring for decades, and has damaged them in the culture wars.  Yes, they haven’t constantly lost electorally, but they’ve lost the mindshare they used to have, and the faith in the establishment.  It’s a price paid in National Will.  

What does America look like without anti-war counter-culture from the Vietnam War?  What does America look like if people have higher trust in the national institutions, in families, and so on?  There was, apparently, once a time when people talked of men of science, industry, and government working together to build a better world, but sadly, at that very time, that combination did not deserve that level of trust.  

How many of these movements and shifts are reactions to betrayals that were not deserved?

To hold power over the long term, to create something that lasts, it isn’t enough just to seize control.  One must be worthy.

The Right, in many ways, has not been.  And they think that’s about Christian morality, but it isn’t really, not as they conceive it.

mailadreapta

All this talk of “becoming worthy” makes you sound like NRx, my bro.

mitigatedchaos

If I recall correctly (and I may not), one of the most famous emperors of China used deception and murder to achieve his rule - but under him, the people and the Empire prospered.

Less dramatically, and far more modern, Lee Kuan Yew and the People’s Action Party have used lawsuits and other means to suppress their political opposition.  But what have they achieved?  Did they exercise virtue in statecraft?  Did the people under their rule prosper?

(Though even that modern example has had its risks - there is some worry that with LKY no longer at the helm, there may have been mismanagement of government funds at the very top.)

Not only must the people be worthy, but the structure and ideology must be worthy, too.  Systems, interlocking, that must find those who are worthy and elevate them, reward virtue, and minimize vice.

The Neoreactionaries are wrong, though that does not mean their opponents are right.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics philo the iron hand