I would also suggest that some of the techies you describe who take the “red pill” over in that part of the Rightosphere will be more likely to look for ways to take the executive track without kowtowing to Progressive Orthodoxy. Game works in meeting rooms and board rooms, too.

… the irony being that the people manager and executive tracked, i.e., the stupider, will make a lot more money than the “technical” experts. So maybe they aren’t stupid.

But there are two strikes (at least) against this impulse ever taking over any large hi-tech corporation:

1) the libertarian impulses are a mile wide but an inch deep; vague senses of self-interest are inherently noisy and do not add up coherently–certainly not enough to imply nascent political power vis-a-vis the Cathedralized sect. I’ve known scores of engineers with libertarian sympathies, only one was an actual libertarian party member.

2) with large corporations, there is a turd-tinged translucent ceiling for hi-skill/hi-tech employees… and in order to break through it you have to recite the various shibboleths and get on the management (aka., political) track. Sure you could game the system, but it is hard for the skeptical engineer to maintain a straight face when reciting bullshit, meeting after bullshit meeting, year after bullshit year. And he is pretty well compensated anyway, so most don’t bother. The true believer (in bullshit) is a much better candidate for executive “leadership”. Ironically he (or surprisingly often she) probably wasn’t that strong on the “technical side” anyway.

Of course, if the racial and sexual outcome-blind, libertarian, pure money making hi-tech corporate machine ever did come to exist… most of their customers would probably find a way to find fault and drive them out of business anyway. (Like Rhodesia for LLCs.)

Patchwork rules, or reactionary foreign policy, are an absolute requirement for reaction to survive. Our foreign policy model must be one of unquestioned mutual sovereignty (i.e. no meddling). The UN asking member nations to ratify treaties on human rights, women’s rights, etc. is the epitome of Cathedral idealist foreign policy, making the world safe for puppies, unicorns, and Social Justice. However, in a sane world, the international organization would be utterly agnostic towards each member nation’s internal policies. A Reactionary UN would only act once member nations attacked each other, or perhaps if invited by the recognized sovereign. The principle of “nation as single actor” applies here. Reactionary UN would leave human rights campaigning to groups like Amnesty International. Without any enforcement mechanism, the Cathedral UN is basically asking nations “pretty please” to respect human rights anyway.

It’s the only thing with a track record of actually working.