1.5M ratings
277k ratings

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

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
neoliberalism-nightly
argumate

You can imagine a world in which the guardians of the state have a sudden epiphany and realise that involuntary taxation is theft, so they make tax payment completely voluntary, while keeping the rest of the tax code exactly as it is.

To prevent social collapse, people individually enforce the old ways by shaming and ostracising individuals who have not paid their share, and over time this spreads to become an ironclad system where no one will employ you or trade with you if you haven’t made your (entirely voluntary!) tax payments.

Amazingly, this decentralised coordination arrangement produces identical results to our current system, only it is Philosophically Pure as the essential virtues of liberty and freedom are not compromised by men with guns, etc.

Then the people realise all this shaming and ostracising is a lot of effort to go to, and decide to coordinate the enforcement of the tax code in a central authority- oh no, they’ve relapsed into a state of sin! Despite absolutely nothing changing, their community is now Impure and they have all become Slaves once more.

Perhaps this can be called the P-slave hypothesis, for philosophical slaves who will swear up and down that they are not slaves despite clearly living in a world with an income tax code.

neoliberalism-nightly

You can imagine a world in which the guardians of the state have a sudden epiphany and realise that involuntary taxation is theft, so they make tax payment completely voluntary, while keeping the rest of the tax code exactly as it is.

To prevent social collapse, the government fired corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats by the thousands, and consolidated the services they provide to be more efficient and offered them at a reasonable price.

Amazingly, the services offered were hot in demand, and the RGDP grew by 4% the next year even though there was some mild deflation. People brought more and more services for a while until for and not-for profit competitors started to emerge.

Then the government decided that they can better benefit the livelihood of their customers by split themselves into several smaller entities operating in smaller geographical regions, demutualizing into common stock corporations and spinning off some of their assets such as their road portfolio into a REIT.

mitigatedchaos

Is this before or after the Communist revolution that occurs because all of a sudden entire classes of people cannot afford basic Sovereign Services, or find that suddenly Hyper-Platinum™ GovCorp members are immune to prosecution for murdering their servants for sport?

Source: argumate politics the invisible fist
collapsedsquid
argumate

although I do feel that there is some rhetorical space for a hypothetical Ancap nation that isn’t currently occupied, namely turning a jaundiced eye to all forms of organisation: the state, corporations, familial clans, tribes, and telling them all to go to hell lest they institute oppression.

while this isn’t a super realistic scenario, in the context of ancap debates I feel it’s actually not that outlandish!

a society that wants to avoid being dominated by organisations that restrict freedom needs to institute hardcore anti-organisation memes, even to the point of inhibiting freedom of association if necessary;  a truly individualistic society deserves nothing less.

discoursedrome

Technically speaking I guess you can just view any given political system as an ancap framework in which all property is already owned by Westphalian states and all other laws are just conventions they’ve established since you have a right to decide how to treat people on your own property.

argumate

Yes, the ground state that we are likely to collapse back into.

But the states-as-people-in-ancapistan concept works well, it even has polycentric law, multiple defense organisations (NATO, Warsaw Pact, alliances) and bilateral and multilateral agreements of all kinds without any top-level state that holds a monopoly on violence (as much as the US would like to play this role).

collapsedsquid

And you can see the downside, it’s the one that Hobbes talked about and is formalized in the realist school of IR.  Because it’s an anarchistic, in order to survive you have to be constantly worried about the power of other players and in many cases you damage them to maintain your survival.

mitigatedchaos

Don’t worry m8, we can just replace it with one World Government to resolve these competitions and then-

No, stop killing each other over ideology!  We can’t turn the entire world Communist!  

Or Islamic!

No, these people have a right to free-

Source: argumate politics shtpost
plain-dealing-villain
audible-smiles

is anyone else getting the feeling that we’ll never have a better chance at breaking up the democrat/republican stranglehold than immediately after this trump clusterfuck plummets off the cliff its headed towards? what’s our plan

plain-dealing-villain

Realistically, step one is a constitutional convention. Our system was accidentally designed to fall into a two-party system automatically.

Or you could just have another party realignment but that’s not quite the same thing.

mitigatedchaos

I’m legit hoping the Looming Party Realignment happens, with the Republicans becoming Populist Nationalists and the Democrats becoming Globalist Technocrats.  It would be an improvement for both of them, IMO.

Source: audible-smiles politics
argumate

Anonymous asked:

how do marxists account for conflicts that are clearly fought along ethnic/national or religious lines? It feels like they make the almost trivial observation of "class conflict" ad-hoc with everything

argumate answered:

do they need to account for them? I mean “nationalism and religion are bad” would seem to be sufficient.

shieldfoss

You kind of do need to account for them if you have a central premise like “all conflict is class conflict.”

argumate

An easy out is to say that nationalism and religion are forces that enable you to mobilise people to engage in war against their class interests, eg. convince workers that they are German and that they should go and fight for German bosses against the French workers instead of uniting and deposing the bosses.

Maybe the next question is why people find nationalism and religious belief so much more appealing than class consciousness, and the answers to that are fairly obvious and explain why international socialism has been on the back foot since 1914.

mitigatedchaos

Communist: Workers of the world, unite!  Abandon your culture and possessions to pay into an enormous and anonymous group which will eventually be defined by the entirety of humanity! 

Nationalist: The nation is my extended(2) family, its culture is my culture, its glory is my glory, its benefit is my benefit.

I’m going to be a bit uncharitable here - Communism appears to be rather hollow and unsatisfying to humans compared to religion and nationalism, and I’m not even religious.  It leaves substantial corruption in its wake, and I can’t help but wonder how China would be functioning now if they didn’t try to get rid of the old culture.

politics
argumate

Anonymous asked:

AI as an existential threat i.e. some robot going on a killing spree is blown way out of proportion, but the social, political, and economic upheaval that will be caused by types of software getting more and more advanced and efficient i think is definitely downplayed and i think with enough concentration of resources and power in a small group of corporations or military organizations i think the goal of a conscious godlike ai or whatever could become essentially superfluous

argumate answered:

yes.

this latter scenario gets less nerd attention because it’s politics and can’t be solved by programmers.

mitigatedchaos

Politics is exhaustingly difficult, and I lack the magical powers to meme entire ideologies into existence, like some kind of National Technocracy.  My only political follower, in an inspired rather than Tumblr sense, is some youth in China.

However if in 30 years China has formally abandoned Communist trappings and is ruled by a network of computers implementing whatever it is that comes after prediction markets, I may be partially responsible.

politics
discoursedrome

Anonymous asked:

I hate the needless moralism with incest on this site. I don't mean with legit concerns about consent and power dynamics but posts going "COUSIN MARRIAGE IS ICKY!!". I mean, this site is gung ho about animal abuse and killing but suddenly something where absolutely nobody is hurting nothing is considered totally wrong. Sorry, it just irritates me.

sigmaleph answered:

cousin marriage is icky

doesn’t make it wrong, but

slatestarscratchpad

I’ve been reading about leptin receptor deficiency recently, which is mostly (only?) observed in children of cousin marriages. Stephen Guyenet describes affected children as follows:

Usually they are of normal birth weight and then they’re very, very hungry from the first weeks and months of life. By age one, they have obesity. By age two, they weigh 55-65 pounds, and their obesity only accelerates from there. While a normal child may be about 25% fat, and a typical child with obesity may be 40% fat, leptin-deficient children are up to 60% fat. Farooqi explains that the primary reason letpin-deficient children develop obesity is that they have “an incredible drive to eat”…leptin-deficient children are nearly always hungry, and they almost always want to eat, even shortly after meals. Their appetite is so exaggerated that it’s almost impossible to put them on a diet: if their food is restricted, they find some way to eat, including retrieving stale morsels from the trash can and gnawing on fish sticks directly from the freezer. This is the desperation of starvation […]

Unlike normal teenagers, those with leptin deficiency don’t have much interest in films, dating, or other teenage pursuits. They want to talk about food, about recipes. “Everything they do, think about, talk about, has to do with food” says Farooqi. This shows that the [leptin system] does much more than simply regulate appetite - it’s so deeply rooted in the brain that it has the ability to hijack a broad swath of brain functions, including emotions and cognition.

Marrying your cousin is like winning access to a whole new, much more interesting tier of genetic diseases.

ozymandias271

Cousin marriage, according to wikipedia, has about the same risk of congenital disability as giving birth to a child over age 40. If lots of people marry their cousins, the risk gets worse.

I suspect that even if cousin marriage is legalized and destigmatized most people in the US aren’t going to want to do it, because family really isn’t that important in our culture. So banning cousin marriage implies that one should also ban giving birth over the age of 40. While that might be intractable, banning assistive reproductive technology to mothers over forty (or even forbidding it to be covered by insurance) would be more doable.

testblogdontupvote

So, that things about older age being a risk - is it due to changes in uterus or genetic composition of eggs? Because if the latter, then insurance should just cover egg preservation starting right from puberty, and IVF afterwards. Not only would that solve the dilemma of “have children early due to health reasons” vs “have children late for social and personal reasons”, but it would also make voluntary sterilization to avoid unwanted pregnancy a much easier and common choice, since it wouldn’t actually be preventing people form having biologically related children later (and will hopefully put all this “but what if you marry, etc.” gatekeeping to the rest for good).

discoursedrome

Technically, banning cousin marriage on those grounds implies that you should ban marriage to people over 40, as well as marriage to people with a high likelihood of passing on a serious genetic disorder (even if they’ve been medically sterilized, presumably).

This is the issue with arguments against incest on the basis of genetic problems: they’re arguments against having children being used to discourage people from having relationships, which doesn’t really make sense unless you’re also against non-procreative marriages generally or birth control/abortions. Unless you’re willing to say “incest between consenting adults is totally fine so long as they don’t have children with one another,” and unless you’re willing to treat anything with a comparable risk of serious birth defects the way you treat kissing cousins, it’s not really a viable line of argumentation.

It seems pretty obvious that the tendency to view incest between consenting adults as icky is an evolutionary heuristic designed to prevent genetic problems, but evolutionary heuristics are blunt instruments so we probably shouldn’t try too hard to extrapolate moral principles from them.

mitigatedchaos

I want you to think about the political realities here for a moment.

Banning cousin marriage is relatively politically safe, and has been done in multiple countries without creaking up into extra categories, precisely because it is seen as ‘icky’.

Banning having children over 40 or for people with significant risk of passing on severe genetic disorders is almost politically impossible and will draw substantial criticism from disability rights advocates, feminists, and entire already-existing political structures.  Previous states that have attempted this level of interference have typically been highly authoritarian and have terrible reputations.

Seeing as eugenics is now forever associated with the Nazis, even though of course having children with good genes and not condemning someone to die before the age of 40 of some genetically-passed-on heart disease would otherwise be a smart move, this matter cannot be approached directly.

In fact, even a policy of just paying people with high genetic risks not to have children based on the estimated costs to society would probably fail spectacularly on the political stage and get one labeled an Evil Nazi, regardless of one’s opinions on racial matters.

In light of this, the ban on cousin marriage should stay until the early Transhuman era.  So about another 30 years.

Source: sigmaleph gender politics politics
argumate
argumate

diogenesvonneumann said: Alawites are about 10% of the Syrian population, fighting a war to maintain their dominance over the majority Sunnis is pretty close to imperialism. And Russia supporting Assad in that war to maintain access to their naval base definitely is. On the other hand the other aspiring rulers of Syria are probably even worse.

If a sufficiently nasty war broke out in the Middle East that resulted in forced ethnic relocation similar to what happened in Europe at the end of WWII and the Yugoslav Wars resulting in relatively monolithic ethnostates, would that make the situation more fucked up or less fucked up or just a different variety of fucked up.

(Because as people keep pointing out, Europe has been suspiciously peaceful since right-wing nationalists achieved their dream of neatly reshuffling all the people and borders to line up, barring some over enthusiasm where they mistakenly thought the German border might extend a thousand miles into Russia).

mitigatedchaos

While I genuinely like the idea of allowing different ethnic groups to have their own laws (providing Exit is still an option, etc, etc) to a degree and nation-states are a way to do that, I suspect that the sectarian religious divisions might cause them to constantly bristle at each other.

It might not be enough.  But then again, maybe that war would bring about an Islamic Reformation.

politics
ranma-official
slartibartfastibast

Ross, buddy, Singapore is orders of magnitude more homogenous than the US. Of course healthcare will be cheaper there. Industrializing customizability is hard.

mitigatedchaos

Forget the fact that Singapore is something like 75% ethnic Chinese. The government there is just flat out more competent, responsive, and self-disciplined. You and I both know, Slart, that the Central Provident Fund (and its component healthcare programs) cannot exist in the United States of America because even if it weren’t shot down as evil anti-freedom paternalism, it would be raided for either tax cuts (Republicans) or social programs (Democrats) within ten years of its creation.

slartibartfastibast

That’s fair.

Hopefully we can automate medical specialist jobs soon.

mitigatedchaos

Look Slart, all I’m saying is that I should be made technocratic dictator of the North American Union. Then I can enact thousands of weird ideological trades and replace congress with a legislature made up of delegated voting think tanks that bet competitively on the outcomes of their laws to determine their funding.

It’ll be great.

ranma-official

Make America Confused Again

mitigatedchaos

Ranma m8 all I’m saying is that the RAND Corporation knew that the Iraq War wouldn’t go at all as well as planned, so an entire legislature composed of them and a bunch of other think tanks might reasonably outperform politicians.

Now I know what you’re thinking - Americans are too stupid to use a delegated voting system where the top 100 delegates by delegated vote count form the legislature, much less navigate a ballot of over 500 registered delegate candidate organizations - but I have an answer to this. The first page of the ballot will just have the top five by previous vote count in the last election times percentile standing in the legislative prediction market. They don’t need to know what that means, just click one of the five big buttons.

…Actually nevermind this will somehow get accused of racism within about five days of going into effect.

Source: slartibartfastibast politics shtpost mitigated future
slartibartfastibast
slartibartfastibast

Ross, buddy, Singapore is orders of magnitude more homogenous than the US. Of course healthcare will be cheaper there. Industrializing customizability is hard.

mitigatedchaos

Forget the fact that Singapore is something like 75% ethnic Chinese. The government there is just flat out more competent, responsive, and self-disciplined. You and I both know, Slart, that the Central Provident Fund (and its component healthcare programs) cannot exist in the United States of America because even if it weren’t shot down as evil anti-freedom paternalism, it would be raided for either tax cuts (Republicans) or social programs (Democrats) within ten years of its creation.

slartibartfastibast

That’s fair.

Hopefully we can automate medical specialist jobs soon.

mitigatedchaos

Look Slart, all I’m saying is that I should be made technocratic dictator of the North American Union. Then I can enact thousands of weird ideological trades and replace congress with a legislature made up of delegated voting think tanks that bet competitively on the outcomes of their laws to determine their funding.

It’ll be great.

slartibartfastibast

@mitigatedchaos/Kanye 2020

mitigatedchaos

You say that now, but once I enact 7-part Regional Federalism in order to ease the introduction of Mexico and Canada into the NAU, your opinion on Vice Director Kanye and I may change.

politics shtpost mitigated future