Sentences (#85)

Thiel:

If we want to increase freedom, we want to increase the number of countries.

That’s as basic as political economy gets.

January 4, 2017admin 49 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

49 Responses to this entry

  • Aristocles Invictvs Says:

    Deterritorialize now before it’s too late!

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 2:42 am Reply | Quote
  • froth_city Says:

    Anyone have a serious argument against Thiel’s anti-competition 0 to 1 monopoly stance?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 3:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Competition will solve everything, he thinks. Next month: introductory political science.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 3:18 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    I mined bitcoins with nvidia GPU when it cost $5.4, broad consensus at this time was that in few years bitcoin probably can reach $6 and only few belived that one btc will go higher then $6 in about year. then Winklevoss brothers come and pushed price up to 250. this kind of people ready to put their money where thier mind goes and it creat real difference. Same as it was with bitcoins just few people now realising significance of seasteading precedent. any new project of this scale can become mess, obviouse failure, complete madness and the normies going to predict it death. Bitcoins were predicted dead at least 90 times. it is exactly situation when be too sceptical can make you miss a once in a lifetime opportunity.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 4:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    Who’s responsible for the seasteaders’ military protection? What is their relationship with the French government?

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    seateaders in fact can provide ptotection instead. with techology becoming more sofisticated, compact and easy available. much more deadly weapons becoming affordable to produce by small players.

    Technologies Converge and Power Diffuses: The Evolution of Small, Smart, and Cheap Weapons
    https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/technologies-converge-power-diffuses-evolution-small-smart-cheap

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    A plastic handgun good for about 10 shots is not changing anything, these types of articles are about as real as a seastead nation. The remote possibility of some of the tech that imagined extrapolation so entices larpers, is simply the excuse the Cathedral will use to take off the velvet gloves. In fact they are way ahead on this, and probably took down the towers 15 years ago to change the laws to be able to build the appropriately sized pan opticon. They own all this tech you salivate over trhey own the corporations the markets the law the university labs, they fund the research. The cathedral is not some social construct dreamed up by some jew libertarian cum fash, its the military industrial complex evolved over 75 years. Now they are ramping up speech control past simple hate thought into the fake news meme, while seizing private platforms to control and monitor speech and thought. There is already nothing they cant do and nothing they wont do, they can hack ballot boxes,control the price of markets,hack us through biological weapons, and mind control.And they are convinced they do this for the greater good,so will go to any means necessary in good conscience, precisely because of these weapons you think will save you, and frankly they have a point would a reactionary govt do any less?
    But you let me know when you have developed some weapons that can destroy the cathedral ill be your first customer

    [Reply]

    ArchonAlarion Reply:

    “Guess we better give up then…”

    t. cathedral mind-control department.

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Haha, the best & most realistic comment here ever.

    John Hannon Reply:

    Who would they need protecting from? Patri Friedman reckons that so long as they don’t antagonize governments by drug exporting and money laundering it should all be plain sailing.
    Or floating.
    And if any pesky pirates come along, they’ll be dealt with by a water hose and a thing that makes a loud noise –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le8MJrPNRY0&t=1425s

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    As David D. Friedman once suggested, if a stateless libertarian society is seen as a beacon of liberty by other people, it will surely occur to someone to put out the beacon. In other words, they are likely to be shut down not because of what they do wrong (drug trade), but because of what they do right (good, light governance). Although, it isn’t clear to me how a libertarian (anarcho-capitalist?) society is going to prevent people from selling drugs.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    freedom or free choice begins from responsibility, having alternate choices is not enough (R Kane). if libertarian social constracts often perceived as utopian then what is alternative. there is non, because deterministic path dependend approach will always fail. our physical world is indeterministic (W Heisenberg). therefore there is a huge gap between theoretical ground work made by radical libertarians and current opinions. my poiht is that without having basic understanding of contemporary libertarian ideas in philosophy (free will), physics (quantum indeterminacy principle), neurobiology there is no easy sailing (floating) amongst socio-economical, moral libertarian consepts.

    collen ryan Reply:

    erxactly we see that every day

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    I think this is not a problem in the case of French polynesia. Polynesian people, being a tropical people, are inherently laid back. I doubt they would have any desire to put out the beacon of liberty of a seastead. Being in the southern pacific, it is too far a way for non-free societies such as China or Russia to care one wit about it. As long as one is not near China’s ocean shipping routes, the Chinese are not going to care about a seastead in the southern Pacific. The same is true for any other large power country, with the seastead being too far away for it to be of any concern for them.

    Countries tend to have spheres of influence. The key to an autonomous seastead is to be outside the sphere of influence of any of the regional powers.

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >Who would they need protecting from?

    Do-evilers wishing to spread their pseudosanctimonia.

    ‘For their own good’, of course.

    The universal revolution marches on.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 4:48 am Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    At the end of the day, the “Right” is really about depoliticization, of everything pssible, and exit.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    question is is non political definition of right can be understood at all, by those who identify themslves as Right.

    [Reply]

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    Reductionism is cancer.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    reduction is the way to singular point of connection between floating matrixes of reality

    [Reply]

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    Its also the way to getting cucked by furrners because NAP.

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    The more one cleaves to a systematized ideology, the more sanity becomes a series of unprincipled exceptions.

    SVErshov Reply:

    even life is reductable to chemicals and chemicals governed by basic physical laws. in any way it is quite sane approach to ideology, systematise ideology in form of chemicals, unprincipled of course. more can be found in Physical Singularity of Life, Francis Bailly

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >even life is reductable to chemicals and chemicals governed by basic physical laws.

    If we needed popsci trivialities, admin could install a facebook widget to the ‘i fucking love science’ page.

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 4:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    @

    OK heres the thing sure there is amazing tech in the pipe this hass always been true, maybe its even truer today. Its even true that some talented scifi writer can imagine a scenario where it does what you hope.But whats also true is this tech is incredibly technological, meaning it takes huge sums of money intelligence and infrastructure, and this is controlled by governments mostly the cathedral, what we see on a ted talk is a decade worth of investment and deemed not militarily significant enough to completely censor like some bio and nano techs are. You imagine what you might do with this tech you see not seeming to get they are working on stuff even more advanced, that they saw what you saw first and thought what you thought before you and are already addressing your ambitions.Ambitions that would take what you dont have balls and money.
    Yes sure flip a few billionaires somehow build a secret anti cathedral the NSA etal cant penetrate , figure out how to outpace them technologically , figure out how to apply the tech militarily,figure out what you want to gain from that superiority, figure out how you will do any better than them to make it all worth while. because after all they are the reaction government you dream its just they own it and you dont. They believe in tech dominance of cognitive elites and using tech to effortlessly control the masses while they do whatever the fuck they want which is make the world theirs.Why are you complaining join their faggot army and rule with them.Whats the problem? They throw the niggers a few scraps? But you whine how hateful altright is what would you have them do different? Very little Id bet.But to rule is worth ambition though outside.
    But if you have some serious difference and you want more than to self actualize then you have to fight. If you want to exit you have to fight because there is no where not under someones control you have to fight, but you cant because they took your balls to the extent you find the thought of balls revulsive.Am i wrong can you put together a military industrial complex of your own and fight? reaction doesnt even know what it wants its like OWS its just opposed to shit it doesnt have

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 6:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wagner Says:

    Perhaps, one day, the 21st century will be known as Deleuzian. One monad per patch is the endpoint of Thiel’s reasoning, he’s preaching to the choir of atomized individualism. If pushed far enough we’ll move back to Catholicism/universalism, like inhaling and exhaling.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 6:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    @WagnerDo you really believe this? Do you understand why people are rejecting the left? We reject the left because we are sick of them telling us what we can think and do with our lives. What on Earth makes you think we would put up with this crap from the right anymore than we would from the left?

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Equalism isn’t reality, that’s why I don’t want it enforced. Reality should be enforced. You libertarians are one with the equalists and should be, as Stevens phrases it, physically removed.

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    I’m not sure what you mean by equalism. I see several real-world meaning of this word. One is the notion that we are equally accountable to the law. I think we all accept this concept. Another is the progressive-left’s obsession with making everyone equal in fact, including equality of outcome. I think it fair to say that both you and I reject this. If your definition of equalism is different from this, please define what you mean by this term.

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    Also, how does your concept of equalism and rejection there of have anything to do with my desire not to have my personal life choices be dictated to me by the right any more than the left? Your response to my earlier posting appears to be off topic. Explain how it is on topic.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    I don’t think we should be equally accountable to the law, Trump should be allowed to snort coke, e.g. You are presupposing a categorical imperative-esque morality in not wanting anything enforced. Maybe YOU don’t need anything enforced but many–most–people DO. It should be illegal for most people to snort coke, but highly responsible individuals? Eh. You really think everyone has the ability to *choose*? Children, old ladies, idiots, know what’s best for them? Homosexuals should be allowed to have a buttsex island? Degenerates and fools need guidance.

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 7:03 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    @Abelard LindseyNow I know where you’re coming from. You’re talking about the freedom to engage in recognized self-destructive acts. Since I don’t do this kind of stuff, I would have to say I can’t see any reason to argue with you.

    When I talk about the freedom to live my own life as i wish, I referring more to actions like what kind of career or business I do (say become an automation engineer, get an MBA, or go into bio-engineering) as well as my long-term strategic life choices, such as having a family, pursuing healthy life styles, travel, pursuit of radical life extension and signing up for cryonics if I don’t “make it” the first time around.

    It is these kinds of activities that I don’t need anyone from the right anymore than from the left telling me what I can and cannot do with regards to these kinds of things. Self-destructive acts often lead to dependency. Thus there is a legitimate argument in restricting a person’s “right” to engage in them. Since my pursuits are business and profession success, personal freedom to travel and do outdoor sports, and to pursue radical life extension (these are all actions that make me MORE independent and self-reliant, not less) there can be no legitimate reason to oppose my right to pursue these things.

    My apologies if I misunderstood you. I think we’re talking past each other (this is a common occurrence on the net where we don’t know each other’s context).

    [Reply]

    Salger Reply:

    > Self-destructive acts often lead to dependency. Thus there is a legitimate argument in restricting a person’s “right” to engage in them.

    Interracial pairings are noticeably more dysfunctional than pairing within your race. Restrict them?

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    You’re taking my comments out of context. By dysfunctional behaviors, I was referring to commonly recognized behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, problem gambling, and other commonly recognized dysfunctional behaviors.

    My point is that people of a religious bent often argue for restrictions on personal freedom of action even in cases that do not involve antisocial or self-destructive behaviors, and that there is no legitimate basis for such restrictions.

    Besides, the idea that libertarianism somehow prevents the formation of “meaningful communities” however you choose to define this is complete bunk. People are free to form whatever social networks they want in a free society. They simply do not have the right to coerce others into those networks who have no interest in them. So, the traditionalist right critique of libertarianism (or what they like to call the “atomized individual”) is really an attack on the right of free association, despite all of their bogus claims to the contrary.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    “commonly recognized”

    A symptom that you may be a democrat in right-wing clothing.

    I’m interested to hear a few examples of non-anti-social, non-self-destructive behaviors that have been illegitimately restricted. And obviously I don’t mean nutty Bible-thumper crap like no-sex-except-for-babies or “don’t befriend a Sufi”.

    “People are free to form whatever social networks they want in a free society,” “do not have the right” these sound like mystical notions imbibed by partaking of the Constitution sacrament. What grounds do you have for them? (Serious question)

    Am I a bigot for thinking that hillbillies should be restricted from muddin’ 24/7 and coerced into reading Classics? Libertarians cannot explain the contradiction of being non-libertarian toward their children; most people in society need to be treated like children for their own good.

    Anonymous Reply:

    @Wagner
    > Libertarians cannot explain the contradiction of being non-libertarian toward their children

    Are you implying I should care for, and be responsible for society / everyone as if they were my own children?

    Reality doesn’t need enforcing. Buttsex island either dies or turns functional. I don’t care tbh, both options are fine. Addicts would quickly face the same dilemma (function or die). Rich degenerate addicts too, just slower, trans-generational. Even functional addicts that get no advantage from the drugs would get outcompeted eventually.

    Maybe I’m reading you wrong but I think you want to prevent evolution from doing its magic? This is how we end up with degenerates that can’t be trusted to buy booze, own a knife or look at a naked human.

    It’s a legitimate option but that’s the price (besides all the resources you need and the doors you open), shitty monkeys that function because their betters herd and control them instead of naturally superstimuli-resistant, civilized people. Maybe it gets so bad that the system itself does the control, there are no “betters” in sight, the whole thing gets ungrounded and stops making any sense… Bad idea imo.

    Wagner Reply:

    Is Nature indifferent? “Indifferent” seems to be an anthropomorphic category no different than omnibenevolent or Father-like, only inversed and depraved. Darwinists operate in the shadows of the dead God. I say operate because they’re not really humans, they’ve been maimed down to base, machine-like animality. Land himself said “it’s painfully evident that post-Christian humanity is a pack of broken dogs” – what makes Darwinian Indifferentists any different?

    “It either happens or it doesn’t” – what are you some kind of Providentialist?

    Evolution does magic through human freedom, too. You don’t think we have evolved governmental structures from the time when we were bumping uglies with Neanderthals? Was all that the work of G–I mean evolution? We have “evolved” the “strategy” to “take matters into our own hands”. Gnon is there, but so are we, every step of the way… and I want to force High Culture on morons. Because I care about them. The official (((XS™))) argument doesn’t seem too far from that in its underlying premises. We’re here trying to rub sticks together to ignite the Highest. Admin calls this intelligence; I agree but I don’t see the value of intelligence when it is not subordinate to a project which includes elevating mortals to a diviner status. Aboard an aristocratic spaceship there will still be an Order of Rank. There will always be. And the leaders will always help those below him. It’s evolution.

    Pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >Am I a bigot for thinking that hillbillies should be restricted from muddin’ 24/7 and coerced into reading Classics?

    No, it means a suspicious predilection for new england yankee blue triber instinctual antipathies.

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 8:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Perhaps the Internet is Moldbug’s dire problem solution prison already…
    and we’re in it…

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2017 at 9:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • Abelard Lindsey Says:

    I don’t see the value of intelligence when it is not subordinate to a project which includes elevating mortals to a diviner status. </I.

    By project, I assume you are referring to space colonization (O'neill's High Frontier concept) on a grand scale. This is literally the only project grand enough to potentially involve the efforts of hunderd's of millions of people. I would guess you used to be in the L-5 Society i(assuming you are old enough to have been in it).

    I’m interested to hear a few examples of non-anti-social, non-self-destructive behaviors that have been illegitimately restricted. And obviously I don’t mean nutty Bible-thumper crap like no-sex-except-for-babies or “don’t befriend a Sufi”.

    There aren’t any right now. But I guess from the content and tone of your comments, that you want to do such. My main interest is in radical life extension (and cryonics if I need it). For example, I may be travelling overseas in summer of ’18 (next year) to undergo a gene therapy to extend my telemores (I’m in my early 50’s). Of course if the U.S. government attempts to ban such medical tourism, I plan to do it anyways (they can go fuck themselves with any such ban). If any religion argues for legal restrictions on development of anti-aging therapies, they can also take their religion and shove it up their asses.

    Am I a bigot for thinking that hillbillies should be restricted from muddin’ 24/7 and coerced into reading Classics?

    Why should I give a rat’s ass about other peoples’ sex lives? It doesn’t prevent my from achieving my personal goals in life. I could not care less. Say, for example, you are trying to start a business, say a system integration business or even commercialization of LENR, how does the sex lives of total strangers affect your chances of success in such indeavors? it doesn’t. That’s why its utterly stupid to obsess over the sex lives of other people.

    My impression is that you have some personal issues in your life to work through.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    I didn’t mean “muddin'” like that, I was imagining yahoos drifting around in monster trucks. Respond with that in mind, I’m still curious to hear your counter.

    I see what you’re saying now i/r/t anti-aging, I’m with you Abelard. But I hope you’re not trying to escape death. Because you won’t, you will be taken. Byebye, Abelard! Hey, don’t pull a Jünger and convert to Catholicism the year before you die like a coward. Evolution-Father would not approve. Anti-aging holy grailism probably isn’t too dignified in his book either.

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    I didn’t mean “muddin’” like that, I was imagining yahoos drifting around in monster trucks. Respond with that in mind, I’m still curious to hear your counter.

    Why would I care if redneck drive around in monster trucks? Personally I find these kind of trucks obnoxious. Each his own I guess.

    But I hope you’re not trying to escape death. Because you won’t, you will be taken. Byebye, Abelard!

    Actually I think you’re wrong. I have cryonics as back up option. Eventually the technology will be developed where you can “back up” your memories and identity and, if you are “killed” in an explosion type accident, grow a new body and brain and then download (e.g. reconfigure all of the neuronal pathways of the brain) to recreate my memories and identity in my new brain and body. Admittedly this capability is a way off, say 22nd or 23rd century. But when you’re in the dewar, you’ve got plenty of time to wait.

    In any case, assuming you have no interest in radical life extension, none of this matters to you because you will likely not live long enough to experience any of this. So it is completely irrelevant for the purposes of discussion with you.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    >”if you are “killed” in an explosion type accident, grow a new body and brain and then download (e.g. reconfigure all of the neuronal pathways of the brain) to recreate my memories and identity in my new brain and body.”

    What makes you think that this would be “you,” and not merely a copy? I’m firmly convinced that you “are” is your brain. If it is destroyed, you are destroyed. Any cloned, cut-‘n-pasted version would be just that — a clone. The important thing is continuity.

    Derik Parfit recently died, but he gave a great deal of thought to questions like this. The best section of “Reasons and Persons” is Appendix D, wherein he weakly (and ultimately futilely) attempts to refute the argument I made above, which is from Thomas Nagel. From this section:

    “Suppose next that I need surgery. All of my brain cells have a defect which, in time, would be fatal. But a surgeon can replace all these cells. He can insert new cells that are exact replicas of the existing cells except that they have no defect.

    We can distinguish two cases. In Case One, the surgeon performs a hundred operations. In each of these, he removes a hundredth part of my brain, and inserts a replica of this part. In Case Two, the surgeon follows a different procedure. He first removes all of the parts of my brain, and then inserts all of their replicas.

    There is a real difference between these cases. In Case One, each of the new parts of my brain is for a time joined to the rest of my brain. This enables each new part to become part of my brain. When the first new part is inserted, and joined to the rest of my brain, it wins the title to be as much part of my brain as the old parts. When the second new part is inserted, it too becomes a part of my brain. This is true of every new part, because there is a time when this part is joined to what then counts as the rest of my brain.

    In Case Two, things are different. There are no times when each new part is joined to the rest of my brain. Because of this, the new parts do not count as parts of my brain. My brain ceases to exist.

    Something similar might be true about the existence of a club. Consider a club that is limited to fifty members. All of the existing members want to resign. Fifty other people want to join this club. There is a rule that a new member cannot be admitted except in the presence of forty nine existing members. Because of this rule, this club continues to exist only if what happens is like Case One. What happens must be this. One member resigns and a new member is admitted. Another member resigns and a new member is admitted. A third member resigns and a new member is admitted. At the end of this series, this club would still exist, with entirely new members. Suppose instead that what happens is like Case Two. All of the old members resign. Because of the rule, the new members cannot now be admitted. The club ceases to exist.

    Return to Cases One and Two. I am assuming that a brain might through a process of gradual replacement become composed of new components. On this assumption, it is clear that, in Case One, my brain continues to exist, and that, in Case Two, it does not. Nagel suggests that identity is what matters, and that I am my brain. On this view, Case One gives me life, and Case Two death.”

    This thought experiment was made in an attempt to make Nagel’s argument look silly. It, clearly, did not succeed — for, quite obviously, the total removal and replacement of your brain would indeed result in your death and replacement.

    RIP Derek Parfit. A philosopher often wrong, but always interesting.

    The gradual replacement of your brain with inorganic parts is what you’re after. (Also see “Against Neural Chauvanism” by Tom Cuda, where just this scenario is discussed.) Anything else will probably result in the end of your particular instance of consciousness. Your memories and identity do not make you what you are — you are your hardware, your brain. Your memories and identity can, in fact, be held by an infinite number of different people, simultaneously — but only one of them could possibly be you.

    Erebus Reply:

    From the post above: “I’m firmly convinced that you “are” is your brain. If it is destroyed, you are destroyed.”
    Should have been “…that what you “are” is your brain…” Nasty editing error.

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    One more point on the life extension/cryonics thing. One of the purposes of seasteading is to allow the cryonics organizations, and other people into life extension the means to create their own societies, politically autonomous from any existing society with its “death” memes.

    [Reply]

    Abelard Lindsey Reply:

    Israel is the homeland of the Jews. Think of seasteads as a homeland for transhumanists. Since we’re not occupying any land that was previously occupied by others (we’re actually creating new “land”) there would be no reason for antagonism from the world community.

    Posted on January 7th, 2017 at 4:29 am Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOSxM0rNPM

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 11th, 2017 at 12:03 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2017/01/08) - Social Matter Says:

    […] Land quotes Thiel approvingly. He’s probably correct, but we’re currently suffering a surfeit of freedom […]

    Posted on January 11th, 2017 at 9:56 am Reply | Quote
  • AbelardLindsey Says:

    @I don’t understand why the neoreaction people are so hostile towards freedom. The left is always obsessed with restricting freedom. We shouldn’t have to put up with this crap from the so-called right as well.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 11th, 2017 at 4:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • arqiduka Says:

    In theory he is right (of course). In practice, he has got it exactly backwards.

    Is there anyone today who really thinks that all 200+ countries are sovereign in any meaningful sense? Come one, there is a clear inverse relationship between power (which confers sovereignty) and size differentials (not size itself). This means that there are two counter-intuitive ways to increase the actual number of countries: either start breaking up the most powerful ones, and then move your way to the unimportant ones (to avoid a Prussia-in-Imperial-Germany situation) or else aggregate countries to the point were those few remaining are powerful enough to be truly independent.

    One of these routes is not feasible in the medium-term.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 15th, 2017 at 12:00 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment