Slippage

Watch the whole of modern political confusion expose itself in a micro-tremor:

Locke’s commitment both to voluntary religion and voluntary, contractual government are mutually reinforcing. Just as people join and remain in religious communities by their consent, so they enter and sustain political communities. “Men being, as has been said, by Nature all free, equal, and independent,” Locke writes in the Second Treatise, “no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent.” If the members of a faith community believe their church is failing to uphold its spiritual responsibilities, they have a right to leave — without fear of reprisal. Likewise for a political society: If its members believe the political authority is failing to safeguard their natural rights — their “lives, liberty, and estates” — it forfeits the right to govern.

(XS emphasis.)

“Likewise”? Yet one leaves a church, but replaces a government. The fall from liberty into democracy takes only a single false step. With a little more consistency, the case for Exit-based control of government would have been solidly made centuries ago (intrinsically secure against all Rousseauistic perversion). Still, it’s not too late to do that now.

February 16, 2017admin 36 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

36 Responses to this entry

  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    The notion of “Exit-based control of government” seems contradictory. What is it, that is being ‘exited’, if not a conception of government. To suggest any form of ‘control’, is to ridiculously suggest a governance of government.
    Once the notion of government has been accepted as a hegemonic, referential horizon, it is impossible to escape this horizon through increasing the number of relations to it, whether those relations are characterised as ‘exits’ or ‘entries’.
    The whole thing is a mess, it won’t work the way you wish it to.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It manifestly works for corporate governance, so the principle is solid.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [NL] “It manifestly works for corporate governance, so the principle is solid.”

    {AK}: Corporate governance, has limited objectives; namely, the production of goods, or services, and profits. That’s not at all the same set of responsibilities as governments are invested with.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    AK is right here. The problem is sovereign control; corporations have limited objectives. Only formalization of objectives could make the experiment with corporate governance possible, but in our era, due to the ideals of government arising from the horse’s mouth itself (Locke) it is impossible to formalize the objectives of government to the extent that they can be subsumed into such a model.

    The leaving of one’s church voluntarily is an illusion of a man growing up in a society containing a limited set of types of Christianity. Likewise the other illusion – of free exit – comes from a similarly comfortable existence where the going to and fro of men from different estates poses no threat to those estates.

    Perhaps it has always been the inherent role of the freeman (yeoman) to be able to do so, but this is what he gets in exchange for being a political nobody. As soon as he takes on political power, he becomes a risk and governments, regardless of “exit” rights would do what they could to make it hard for him to leave; he must be stripped of political freedom before it makes sense to give him full freedom of movement.

    admin Reply:

    “That’s not at all the same set of responsibilities as governments are invested with.” — Commercialization of security completes the circuit. Since the privatized version of any production process radically out-competes the ‘public’ (or, actually, pseudo-public) alternative, the trend is inexorable.

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [NL] “Commercialization of security completes the circuit. Since the privatized version of any production process radically out-competes the ‘public’ (or, actually, pseudo-public) alternative, the trend is inexorable.”

    {AK}: Reduction to the transactions of a ‘Sovereign Corporation’s’ (SC) citizenry, neglects an entire world of considerations outside of that citizenry’s immediate concerns.
    Significant systemic effects, that don’t appear on a ‘Sovereign Corporation’s’ (SC) task list; due to the relative insignificance of their individual instances impacting on the SC, & their irrelevance to that SC’s agenda; would be more likely to be neglected by a contentious ‘patchwork’ warring with itself.
    Governance is not production, it is coordination of productions, in such a way as to prevent creeping disasters that limited objectives neglect, and do not take responsibility for, precisely due to those structural limitations.

    Daniel Chieh Reply:

    I think it would work if there were lower costs of exit. Right now, its pretty high to leave your country, and almost impossible to avoid various globalist propaganda.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Daniel Chieh] “I think it would work if there were lower costs of exit. Right now, its pretty high to leave your country, and almost impossible to avoid various globalist propaganda.”

    {AK}: Is an ‘exit’ that you pay for, with the currency of that you wish to ‘exit’, actually an ‘exit’?
    Given that Neoreaction supports capitalism and competition, it’s not fundamentally at odds with the present system. There are no more obstacles to amassing capital, land, and resources, to which one could ‘exit’; in the present system; than there would be in a ‘Neoreactive’ system.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    Exactly theres no exit possible hasnt been for 100 years and those exits have proved to be temporary.The cathedral decides who owns what piece of ground and what the rules are to there.So lets dispense exit as an option as long as there is a cathedral or any super [power that decides to take up the world domination cause.

    So now what? I would assume anyone slouching towards reaction has decided serfdom is untenable, if not better scurry back and make the best of it if you keep your head down its bearable just dont have any children or get too invested in western civilization not to hard for a slant i would think. Theres a fairly decent chance china will resist niggerization and you can find nice codo in one of those 200 story towers maybe admins old apartment because if china resists niggerization it certainly isnt putting up with roundeyes like admin.

    OR if you are that rare thing a thoroughly westernized non white you could do the third option fight. Make no mistake their three options once life becomes untenable flee fight or slavery/death- WAR SWIMS RIGHT

    [Reply]

    Rohme Giuliano Reply:

    There are few forms of possible exit. There is exiting this Earth, which all merely-mortals must undertake.
    There is exiting from one’s own indigenous culture into the dominant culture, such as the Ainu in Japan. Then there is a mixture of the two. More properly, a failure of the latter leading to the former.

    Rreactionaryfuture Reply:

    @E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:
    February 16th, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    “The leaving of one’s church voluntarily is an illusion of a man growing up in a society containing a limited set of types of Christianity”

    It actually comes from the new innovation of the early modern period in North West Europe that religions (newly invented) are bodies of doctrines to which people can assent to. In effect, all “religions” are Protestantism in structure, rightly understood. Sound familiar?

    Of course, this (just as with Locke’s writing) is only understandable within the context of the creation of a secular space (to expel the ecclesiastical branch) that occasions the need to invent this religious category.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 2:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Michael Rothblatt Says:

    With his belief in equality (very empirical observation, yeah) and tabula rasa Locke is almost as bad as Rousseau. Also Locke considered toleration a privilege, not a right, and one which atheists don’t deserve:

    “Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.”

    Too bad James Tyrrell isn’t a better known figure. Unlike Locke and Filmer he wasn’t completely guano.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Toleration doesn’t belong at the meta-level of political philosophy, which requires only Exit and regime diversity. It’s an object-level selected variable.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    You said “one leaves a church,” whereas Locke advocated that “one replaces a church.” It matters because Locke didn’t advocate regime diversity, he advocated for a democratic republic a la US of A. It turned out exactly how one could’ve predicted it would. Where you had an actual regime diversity was European Middle Ages, which, I am sure, is not really what you had in mind.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    You Admin I would unconditionally surrender if you or moldbug would simply show us where in earth one can now exit too. Or even describe the events that would probably lead to such an exit before the camp of saints runs its course.
    OF COURSE EXIT IS THE PREFERRED RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENT SOULS WITH THE OPTION>Its just this hasn’t been possible for a long long time. Virtual exit is bullshit living on the refusenik precipice waiting for the stasi to collect you no thanks Id rather fight a war.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 2:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    {CY} “This is conservatism to the point of mental disorder.”

    {AK}: Yes, but that’s the classically American way. They call it ‘freedom’.
    Good luck, with trying to get those types to inhabit your ‘Neocameralist’ computer game. The so-called, military-industrial complex, might find it of interest. Plentiful scope, has been allowed for war shenanigans.
    As a model that localises directly capitalist obligations, it has some merit. It strongly encourages inclusion into economic activity, potentially providing roles for all, in theory.
    Too many things could go wrong, though.
    With the increase of granular localisation, comes a huge increase in required restructurings and renegotiations of trade necessities. The potential for ‘stallings’ and ‘stand-offs’ of non-corporation between these mini-states, is enormous. Non-corporation, would affect everything, all distribution, business, etc.. This non-corporation between city-states, would produce internecine conflicts, within city-states.
    The other factor that should be considered, is the view that the Financial Centres of the world already constitute a Neocameralist ‘patchwork’, with ‘nations’, ‘histories’, and ‘traditions’, as virtualised holdings.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 3:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Rreactionaryfuture Says:

    What we call the Anglo political tradition is premised on pathetic manipulation of language, and/or plain stupidity as well as ignorance and myth. Sovereignty, property, religion as a thing at all, all of it is just…crap.

    Locke is symptomatic, and he wasn’t even the first with this rubbish, the Catholics were, and it was just made up from the Bible the fuck over the kings.

    All of it covers an underlying logical conflict as well. Filmer was logical on all points in line with the clear understanding of sovereignty he outlines. He obviously cared for truth. Locke didn’t. In fact, him, Hobbes and the rest just appear to work from a specific angle of what they “want” and then fill in the gaps. Social contract? It really is just…crap.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    >Filmer was logical

    Yeah “logical,” which why James Tyrrell broke all his arguments so easily.

    >just appear to work from a specific angle of what they “want” and then fill in the gaps

    Strange. It’s exactly what Filmer appears to have done. He didn’t care for the truth any more than Locke did. He was as much as ideologue as Locke, but was also a hypocrite to boot.

    [Reply]

    brainwashed idiot Reply:

    @

    You can’t design away the dominance hierarchy, it will always benefit the people at the top, all you can do is try to make it benefit the people at the bottom of it as well. As much as I like the notion of “Exit” I agree its probably not the solution we hope it is

    [Reply]

    Rreactionaryfuture Reply:

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:
    February 16th, 2017 at 4:56 pm

    I have no idea how Filmer could be labeled a hypocrite. I think it is usually possible to get a grasp of the relative honesty of the writer, and I have been unable to find any flaw with Filmer beyond theoretical inconsistencies that seem sincere mistakes. Locke, however, was a prick.

    As for Tyrrell, I haven’t read him, except some second hand references which I recall indicated that he (and Pufendorf) was far more representative of the period than Locke. Locke doesn’t seem to have gained serious traction until…the French Revolution.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 4:08 pm Reply | Quote
  • Zippy Says:

    “Exit” presumes an authority above all authorities capable of enforcing a “right to emigrate”. If it doesn’t assume that, then it is simply a description of what we already have now: multiple actually existent sovereign nations.

    Corporations are a terrible analogy to sovereign authority. They exist as instances of a class — a class defined by the sovereign, the constructor also defined by the sovereign under sovereign created and sovereign enforced rules.

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    One aspect that rubs me wrong about MM’s use of the corporate model is his presumption that to prevent a king from becoming corrupt it should be *profitable* for him not to become corrupt. Call me an optimist but I think there are people out there that want to be our leaders because they are the men for the job and they want to do the job well lol

    I much prefer Plato’s idea that rulers should be forced to live an ascetic existence to prevent corruption. I guess good luck making that fly in this devil-world of ours.

    [Reply]

    brainwashed idiot Reply:

    The goal is moral responsibility among rulers. Financial responsibility is an imperfect proxy for moral responsbility. The trouble is its not clear there is a better proxy available and trying to design directly for moral responsbility is a disaster

    [Reply]

    Rreactionaryfuture Reply:

    @Zippy on February 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    ” If it doesn’t assume that, then it is simply a description of what we already have now: multiple actually existent sovereign nations.”

    Yes, and no. It is a description of what we have now. What we have now is a sovereign enforcing a right to emigrate between countries, not multiple sovereign states.

    You try to halt emigration/immigration, you get the progressive treatment. We already have patchwork.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It would take collapsing the average size of nation states down by 1-2 orders of magnitude to “already have patchwork”. (That is, however, all that it would take.)

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Capital intensive industries tend towards being oligopolies/monopolies.
    How capital intensive is mechanized intelligence?
    What’s the optimal ratio of capital chasing intelligence to capital chasing everything else?
    The way I see it, if optimizing for maximizing intelligence is the optimum geopolitical strategy and actors play as such, and if the above ratio is X:Y , let X=1 then Y= equilibrium number of sovereign states

    Completely shooting from the hip quantitatively but you get the qualitative idea.

    admin Reply:

    “How capital intensive is mechanized intelligence?” — That’s a great question, because it’s impossible to begin answering it without tumbling into a philosophical vortex. Mechanized intelligence is capital intensity. I’m reluctant to accept the proposition in your first sentence as securely generalizable, though. There’s no reason to think that artificial intelligence has a durable affinity with large-scale capital concentration, and perhaps there are even reasons to suspect the opposite (an initial “Google effect” notwithstanding).

    Aeroguy Reply:

    It does setup a double bind. When heavy capital investment in mechanized intelligence pays off it cuts down on competition (even as the gains in intelligence are it’s largest, high risk of falling into a local maximum). When lower capital investment pays off there’s more competition, but it behaves in a more r selected way, figuring out the minimum intelligence needed to proliferate. Worse still, we’ve observed how competition killing intelligence can also ally with r-selected lessers to maintain their hold and prevent competition from returning with a middle. The threat of politics never disappearing, like war itself.

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 5:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    “With a little more consistency.”
    Indeed. Was Locke even trying or was he really that bad a logician?
    But then there’s also the issue of how much the Philosopher is horse, and how much the Philosopher is cart…

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 6:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Dancing around the bell curve problem: what 99% of humanity thinks is wrong on any topic other than “what’s for lunch?”

    [Reply]

    Wagner Reply:

    Most will not admit this because it is highly *alienating* but it is True. The coldest of Hyperborean perspectives right here ^^^^^^^^^

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Brett Stevens] “Dancing around the bell curve problem: what 99% of humanity thinks is wrong on any topic other than “what’s for lunch?””

    {AK}: That nearly universal, populist accord with rightness, suggests an effective culinary ideology that could well be the basis of a new polity! One wonders, with the prevalence of cookery-themed television programming, that a new totalitarianism is not surreptitiously on the way! Food Fascism, was always the real agenda!

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 16th, 2017 at 8:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    John Holbo said July 17, 2006: » Scott Horton has translated an odd letter, written by Strauss on the occasion of his emigration under anti-semitic pressure: “the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles de l’homme to protest against the shabby abomination.” » http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/17/political-romanticism-2/

    Scott Horton, July 16, 2006: » In the last several months, the New York Times has run four pieces defending Leo Strauss from his critics. By comparison, the Times has run no pieces in which Strauss is actually criticized, which suggests an odd editorial posture. Indeed, the Times seems to have mounted a veritable campaign for the defense of the beleaguered Leo Strauss, which seems strange considering that he has been dead for over thirty years.

    These pieces are remarkably consistent. For one, each turns the very serious criticism of Strauss and his relationship with the American Neoconservative movement into a point of ridicule. The criticism is grossly distorted and key elements are misstated. For another, they present Strauss as a “liberal democrat,” not in a domestic political context, but rather as a defender of the tradition of liberal democracy we associate with Locke, Hume and J.S. Mill. »

    Apparently it’s quite OK for the NYT to declare yourself an imperial fascist if you are a Jew.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 17th, 2017 at 2:24 am Reply | Quote
  • Uriel Fiori Says:

    the real difficulty here is that people really enjoy remaining in their estates and complaining about the rules imposed on them. never underestimate natural human sado-masochism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 17th, 2017 at 10:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#45) « Amerika Says:

    […] Slippage (Nick Land/Outside In) […]

    Posted on February 20th, 2017 at 3:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Seth Largo Says:

    Mechanized intelligence is capital intensity. I’m reluctant to accept the proposition in your first sentence as securely generalizable, though. There’s no reason to think that artificial intelligence has a durable affinity with large-scale capital concentration, and perhaps there are even reasons to suspect the opposite (an initial “Google effect” notwithstanding).

    Capital intensity != large-scale capital concentration. Obvious when put into such simple terms, but I know my own thinking is often muddled by assuming an equivalence between the two.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 20th, 2017 at 3:59 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment