Thick and Thin

Here‘s an example of the distinction being used in a discussion between libertarians. It would be surprising if the distinction lacked useful application to NRx controversies. It goes without saying (I’m assuming) that the NAP wouldn’t serve as the ultimate, irreducible axiom in that case, but what would? Perhaps: Maximal localization of consequences (and thus cybernetic sensitivity)?

‘Privatization’ isn’t a bad compression of this principle. The case for private (or commercialized) government would therefore be quite easily enveloped by it.

August 29, 2015admin 56 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : ,

56 Responses to this entry

  • Thick and Thin | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 1:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    Maximal localization of consequences….It goes without saying (I’m assuming) that the NAP wouldn’t serve as the ultimate, irreducible axiom in that case

    It would still rest on NAP. More specifically, the “authority’s” interpretation of the A.

    As for externality, have you seen Taleb’s stuff on GMO? It is Pascal’s Wager repacked for something that scares him. How about nuclear testing, industrial processing, oil and gas development? Could these things have been developed with strict adherence to NAP?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    To clarify…

    Everybody has some sort of conception about justice and the proper distribution of rewards/obligations stemming from human actions. When people who think the NAP is something worth considering bring up the NAP with another person, they are saying “Abaracadabara, ([probably unconsciously] my version of) justice.”

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    You’re right. In praxis, “aggression” is tortured into whatever meaning it must have to solve the question at hand. It’s int he same category as The Patriarchy, Racism, Da Joos, The Bible, Maoist Thought, etc.

    [Reply]

    G. Reply:

    Yes. Maximum delusion.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 1:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    Maximal localization of consequences is a statement of what NRx thinkers want. But, NRx thinkers don’t all want the same thing, so it doesn’t make sense to talk about what NRxers want qua NRxer. Thus, you had no choice but to pick a telos that only really applies to one branch of the trike.

    What unifies the trike? It’s generalizing Darwin to all mutating replicators that are under selection, and then following through to the conclusion. We all try to explain the world as it is by identifying replicators and their selection pressures. Thus we are able to cut with one razor both the genetic phenomenon and memetic phenomena that are occluded by Cathedralist narratives (in this latter category are included the Cathedral itself, as well as NRx itself).

    If you want to get out of the Matrix, turn in the direction of taking Darwin seriously, and straight on until morning. No matter where you start from, if you do that you will always arrive in the same place, which is reality (Gnon). Once you get to reality, you’re NRx. If, after you get here, you decide that what you really want is to crank up selection pressure as much as possible through privatization, you’re not only NRx but a tech-comm.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    turn in the direction of taking Darwin seriously, and straight on until morning. No matter where you start from, if you do that you will always arrive in the same place, which is reality (Gnon).

    So is there any place for NAP?

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    The NAP doesn’t excite me very much. Gnon cares not a whit for it.

    [Reply]

    Frog Do Reply:

    I’d argue it could serve well as a practical philosophy of law for a Moldbuggian fourth stage legal structure (war, martial law, civil law, liberty), for all the usual libertarian reasons. Is there some practical rejection of NAP at this stage that I am not aware of, and if so, could you post it?

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    @Frog Do:

    “If politics could be deduced this might be called the Central Theorem of Politics — we can’t properly respond to a global initiation of force without local initiations of force.”

    http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-legal-procedure-is-central-to.html

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    NAP is useful as a heuristic in many situations. The problem with having a heuristic is knowing when to abandon it. And then you have to have something else to fall back on. Too many Libertarians react like Gollum from The Lord of the Rings when it’s time to abandon NAP.

    “My Precious!”

    Or as Emile Chartier wrote, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.”

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    LOL! I love that visual

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 1:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    DE litmus test:

    “Do you want to privatize the state and run it as a business?”

    the first part of the question is important because it disqualifies fascists and populists from being NRx, the last part is particularly important as it disqualifies Throne & Altar Conservatives from being NRx.

    [Reply]

    Frog Do Reply:

    I could totally see an state church being the spiritual monopoly backbone of a corporate state., complete with spiritual property laws for shrines and temples, following along with Spandrell and Jim’s interest in a State Shinto institution. Roman Catholics should chime in on any problems this might create. But I have a feeling you are more interesting in excommunications than a discussion.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Today there are too many religions and too many atheists so having an official state religion is not feasible. However, I can see an official anti-egalitarian belief system that is compatible with all traditional religions, but keeps viral, leftist ones (all of them including non-theistic ones, like Progressivism) at bay as good solution.

    http://blog.jim.com/culture/in-favor-of-official-religion/
    http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-next-official-belief-system/

    Reason for excluding Throne & Altar Conservatism from NRx is simple – it is because to them *profit* is THE dirty word, so they would never accept the central premise of NRx, namely the for-profit state.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Company towns make for interesting case studies. The trouble is what De Jouvenel describes as the merging of egoist (muh wealth) and social motivations (for the people, or after merging with egoist motivations becomes muh people) which is also what makes the whole thing palatable. While it would technically be setup different than Throne & Altar explicitly working for the benefit of the people, in practice it would be indistinguishable (so long as the power there is secure). To truly run it as a business would require a technological upgrade to the CEO as monarch style of business (which is insufficiently optimized for long term profit maximization) that removes/counteracts part of the human element so that decision making is more cold blooded.

    Obviously that can backfire horribly, humanities recurring experiment with one type of that social technology is known as bureaucracy, an evil scourge if there ever was one due to the very essence of it’s dehumanizing nature and misaligned survival interests. Frankly, a wise psychopath CEO/monarch would work best, provided that he perceived (perception can be gamed, but if your monarch’s perception can be gamed then you have bigger problems) his internal power as secure (a tricky problem that I haven’t been able to square with the requirement of being able to delegate important tasks), insecure psychopaths (or any prince really) are obviously nasty for everything.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 2:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dale Rooster Says:

    @Kwisatz Haderach

    Gnon cares about nothing. That’s what makes Gnon Gnon and a lovely title for pure horror. Or absolute evil. (Or so it seems to me.) I worship Gnon because Gnon could wipe me out–or the Cathedral–tomorrow in a moment by using one of his demonic pet black swans, and He doesn’t even think about it. It simply happens. Gnon is indifferent. For this indifference, Gnon deserves not merely to be respected, but to be worshipped, and only in our hearts since open declarations of this deserved adoration will be severely punished and persecuted by His enemies who are legion and who are mob.

    On the other hand, I want to argue that Gnon has revealed at least some sympathy to the NAP, has he not? NAP as libertarian social justice, or the Categorical Imperative, might rub some of the dark, nocturnal creatures lingering around these parts of the interwebs the wrong way (understandably). But NAP as a brisk, eloquent remark expressing the logical outcome, cloaked as a universal moral principle, of a society based on private property, (non-democratic) self-government and rule of (private) law….has Gnon favored these things in the past?

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Look, I have witnessed a committed libertarian – an inteligent, well-studied libertarian who happens to be a friend of mine, who owns a large library of libertarian philosophy and has read most of it, who could quote HHH chapter and verse, who absolutely, positively is a true Scotsman – I have witnessed this man use the NAP to explain why “pro choice” is a libertarian position. The argument was something like

    NAP => Right to private property
    A woman’s body is her property
    The baby is a trespasser on her property
    She has a right to kill the baby

    This actually happened. Out of politeness, I was able to remember not to gape as this argument proceeded. But I think it’s obvious that if killing a completely defenseless unborn child is included in one’s definition of “non-aggression”, then pretty much anything goes. In typed lambda calculus, we’d call that bottoming out (of the type system). And, I say this as someone who’s in favor of abortion and even infant abandonment. But I would never be so heinous as to call such actions non-aggressive.

    So first of all, NAP is an axiom that proves too much, and that should fully dispense with this topic.

    But, even if NAP had a well-defined meaning that everyone agreed upon, and that axiom did not prove that 0 = 1, still the only way in which a position about that axiom could be said to be NRx per se, (in my formulation), would be to consider whether this or that selection environment favors or punishes the NAP. Let’s generously construe NAP as just a compressed form of propertarianism / thin liberalism, for the sake of argument.

    Now, does any selection environment known to history favorite propertarianism / thin liberatarianism? Perhaps in some temporally and spatially limited desmesnes the answer was yes. In general, no. The usual story throughout history has been population replacement and idea replacement through aggression.

    [Reply]

    Dale Rooster Reply:

    I appreciate your thoughts and your reply.

    ‘But I think it’s obvious that if killing a completely defenseless unborn child is included in one’s definition of “non-aggression”, then pretty much anything goes.’

    -Totally agree there.

    “But, even if NAP had a well-defined meaning that everyone agreed upon, and that axiom did not prove that 0 = 1, still the only way in which a position about that axiom could be said to be NRx per se, (in my formulation), would be to consider whether this or that selection environment favors or punishes the NAP.”

    Again, I think you explicated very similar sentiments as to what I was suggesting, which is to say, if the NAP is the Categorical Imperative, or Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12, then we’re not using it correctly. First lesson of Property Law: Who owns a wild fox? (There’s what you learn in law school, and then there’s reality which rears its ugly head as the Department of Natural Resources or the Forest Service or Bureau of Whatever who will most certainly show you owns that damn wild, crazy fox.)

    “The usual story throughout history has been population replacement and idea replacement through aggression.”

    And from where did we discover the NAP and its ideological progenitors? Perhaps the NAP is eternal, derived from God or Reason (part of its success no doubt is owed to the fact that the true believers truly believe this).

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    I think your attempt to reformulate NAP as “the logical outcome…of a society based on personal property” is fine as far as it goes. But again, in practice, it doesn’t yield much information that “There exists such a thing as personal property” doesn’t already cover. NAP can be tortured to confess most any conclusion.

    And from where did we discover the NAP and its ideological progenitors? Perhaps the NAP is eternal, derived from God or Reason

    I think that NAP isn’t much of a discovery. It’s definitely not universal (as I think I’ve shown: it means different things on the tongues of different libertarians). It doesn’t neatly cleave reality along any structurally necessary lines that, e.g., space aliens would also understand. Contrast this to replicator selection – all aliens in the universe who have survived to a certain level of intelligence will certainly know what we’re talking about if we bring that up. NAP is just a human idiosyncrasy, and it isn’t even universally favored in human systems. I accept Peter Taylor’s suggestion that it’s just a heuristic. But, all that means is that it’s subject to failure, and in fact it fails in spectacular ways if you exceed its rated capacities. It’s nothing to found your philosophy on.

    I do believe that genetic/memetic propensity to praxis propertarianism has been favored under certain selection environments. As I currently understand the world, that’s not a necessary state of things; it hasn’t always been favored in the past, and I see no law of Gnon which guarantees it will be so in the future. Sometimes the “aggressors” outcompete the commercialists – just ask the Timucua Indians. It happens! NAP is not a surefire plan to survive; Gnon is indifferent to it. Or put another way, Gnon is inscrutable on this topic. The only way you find out if Gnon likes your strategy is to put it to the test, and He will tell you whether He approves by deigning to kill you after you reproduce instead of before you reproduce.

    If it turns out to be the system that produces the best missiles, drones, and attack AIs, NAP might be favored into the foreseeable future. We’ll find out when Atlantis fights the Big One with China (or whatever non-NAP system rises to challenge NAP culture), and not a moment sooner. And as soon as that war is over, the test will reset and begin again. There is no end to this game. The one open secret of His that we’ve decoded is the inevitable consequence of replication under selection.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    It seems to me that the non-aggression principle is a perfectly valid basis for a cosmopolitan legal order, and I agree with Walter Bloch’s suggestion that it’s the only principle capable of forming a big enough tent for competing ‘thick libertarian’ and other political factions to co-exist within commercial circuits. A neo-cam model would allow for private and/or state security to enforce the NAP under threat of capital punishment. It might sound like a paradox of liberty that the NAP is an expression of sovereignty, and as such requires a monopoly on violence, but a closer look will convince us that this is the only realistic means toward securing a laissez-faire regime. Any additional criteria of what constitutes ‘true liberty’ (i.e the privileging of positive rights and/or specific moral codes) is of private interest only and can hold no legal authority over and above free trade agreements. When Sheldon Richman characterizes the NAP as an ‘obligation’ (and thus a ‘positive’ right) he is attempting to place the imperative of personal security in the same category as the humanist obsession with metaphysical self-recognition, and thus betrays a dangerous lack of integrity. Sure, an ethnic or religious collective may live under a private moral system that you find abhorrent, but unless they are bent on coercive assimilation there can be no legal foundation to economic sanctions or other aggressive interventions (which does not preclude voluntary restrictions of selective trade). A left-libertarian patch or homestead would most likely end in localized left singularity as anti-discrimination escalates into self-reinforcing retardation while an intersectional politics of respect replaces the liberty of free expression with an unhappy master-slave dialectic, but as long as the mock-trials are being staged on the other side of the fence it shouldn’t pose a huge problem.

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 2:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    If Libertarianism is non-aggression, what constitutes aggression?
    Can the interests of the individual be so neatly distinguished from the larger social contexts which that individual inhabits?
    In what ways, if any, does partisan preference constitute a contributory element in the formation of aggressive effects?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    thats why its a theory

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    It’s being proferred, in the video, as a core principle of Libertarian theory.
    Name an idea that isn’t a theory.

    If you don’t understand theory, your elaborations on it aren’t going to be very cogent.
    If your procedures are based on a lack of cogency that you’re unaware of, you’re stuck in a devolution to personal prejudice.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    oh democracy monarchy communism, are ideas that are not just theories ,maybe i wasnt clear, I meant there isnt a galts gulch because its hard to get libertarian ism from theory to reality.the problems were hinted at throughout the video debate.hell they have been debating it forever i wonder if they even want a real libertarian world or are quite comfortable in the one in their heads.Your first post seemed like you wanted to point out one such problem i was concurring.

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 3:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    I have been pushing for apps to replace govt over monarchy and cameralism, Think it more realistic for various reasons already stated.being an oppositional personality Ill now push the other way.Its kind of demotic its like instead of voting on politicians to run things we would vote on who to elect garbage collector,police, etc.would we really get the best.might possibly first movers best capitalized best propagandists or whoever got lucky being noticed in an easy district, etc be for all intents and purposes given a territory and would they not make deals with neighboring powers to not compete.
    I often mention I was in my youth a big Rand fan, kind of like when i discourage christian reaction i mention im a sentimental catholic. i want to signal im not coming from the usual criticism of religion capitalism. What im saying is in actual practice capitalism doesnt always work out how we want. Since DENRX in my opinion is founded on HBD [isnt democracy’s failure an HBD issue too]I think we have to see if humans are yet fully adapted to capitalism,
    I think most of the problems we grapple with in these parts are humans being not fully biologically caught up to their cultures. So when outliers develop forward looking organizational plan force of some sort may be required.Humans have developed an affinity to cope with this lag which they are amenable to , hierarchy which triggers competition, neither the capitalist nor the revolutionary want to throw out the system they want to game it until they have risen to the top then its another story. but who is to be the referee

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 4:37 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @

    yes gnon favors strategic alliances he favors so far rule of law and property, he also favors someone might try to game you little burg so be prepared for barbarians which shouldn’t be hard for a more complex culture. except they get soft.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 4:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • spandrell Says:

    I have been pushing for apps to replace govt over monarchy and cameralism, Think it more realistic for various reasons already stated.

    Are you banning hostile people only or is general retardation also grounds for expulsion?

    Privatization is a good platform, and it link nicely with Moldbug’s calls for formalizing existing power relations. Much of the public sphere is de facto owned by private interests, and it has long been a common interest of us to call a spade a spade.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    youre really only making my case, so democracy was to get a good govt through a public market but all it got was rent seeking and monopoly. so we “privatize” govt” and dispense with the voting for the managers and vote for the service providers you know the guys that outsmarted their managers, and we end up with what. the problem with capitalism and evolution is the people running it. its enough to understand why admin just wants to dispense with the people entirely.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 4:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Frog Do Says:

    @Peter A. Taylor
    Thank you for you post. It seems the usual libertarian problem of taking a heuristic and pretending it’s a math-hard axiom is cause most of the disagreement.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 4:58 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thick and Thin | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 4:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @

    I like your suggestion, so is it official policy for dissolution of the EU and US? its a start that ought lead to weaker obstruction to further division

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 5:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    WTB transcript.

    ‘Maximal localization of consequences’ seems like longspeak for ‘responsibility.’
    NRx supposes that who is responsible should be held responsible. It is, hopefully, not only NRx that supposes this, though of course progressivism notably does not.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    It’s longer and slightly awkward phrasing, but “maximal localization of consequences” is more general and less encumbered with marble-mouthed moralism. “Responsibility” is something that only moral agents have. But “consequences” is a concept that applies to any cybernetic system, moral or amoral, free or deterministic. While wearing my tech-comm hat, I want to disintermediate not only people, but systems, from the eventual consequences of their production.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    I like “Intensify Selection Pressure” as a compression of techno-commercialism.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    I want to disintermediate not only people, but systems, from the eventual consequences of their production.

    We already know the eventual consequence of a person or systems existence. It sounds like you just want to regulate.

    Too much self-/deception.

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Different T, (and I don’t say this lightly): You’re an idiot.

    admin Reply:

    (Try not to go down that road — it doesn’t lead anywhere interesting.)

    Different T Reply:

    Heh.

    To clarify, you are still too weak to identify your preferences as your own preferences and to wager that they will be “favored by gnon.”

    This is evidenced by your appeals to Darwinism and claim that you want to “Intensify Selection Pressure” and “to disintermediate not only people, but systems, from the eventual consequences of their production.” Given that you know eugencis “is a concept which only comes into force after one has agreed, a priori, on what is the direction one desires the course of evolution to take,” and your claim that “The thing about social darwinism is that you’re playing that game whether you want to or not. Darwinism is always-already in play;” your refusal to address the “a priori agreement” (likely because you know there isn’t any) and continued use of the word “selector” as if there is an “a priori agreement” betray you as a “sneak dick monkey.”

    Hence, the pseudo-intellectuals who are setting themselves against the popular will not be in power. The powerful pseudo-intellectuals appeal to the masses.

    Different T Reply:

    Admin,

    Is it fair to say you believe humans are a kind of “boot-loader to capital super-intelligence” or something similar. And when you speak about Darwinism and creating more intense selection mechanisms, you are specifically referring to processes which would accelerate the creation of this “capital super-intelligence?”

    admin Reply:

    Beliefs aren’t very helpful here, are they? If compelled to speculate, I’d want to add some additional twists. After all, a deeply dysgenically-compromised human species is a less formidable adversary for a potential SI, as well as a less competent boot-loader for one.

    Different T Reply:

    Understood.

    Another approach. You often bring up Darwinism and its lack in the Cathedral. Selection/darwinism/whatever has selected for herd animals, predators, giant lone herbivores etc. When you speak about “intensifying selection” like in your “Hell-Baked” post, the interesting part is not whether or not intensifying selection pressures would be useful. The question is: What are you attempting to select?

    Considering Darwin/selection on this site is dropped in as if there is agreement about what should be selected for, do you think there actually is agreement about it? Think that whoever you are communicating with knows what you are selecting for? Purposely use those terms to allow the reader to project their own adaptive traits? Just not care about the accuracy of the communication?

    Related: “If deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray—by the subtle signs of self-knowledge—the deception being practiced.”

    admin Reply:

    The importance of intelligence in this discussion is based on its status as the only non-local adaptation. Anything can be selected for in the course of erratic drift, but intelligence is different. It’s a capability for absolute escape.

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Does intelligence always win the game?

    Posted on August 29th, 2015 at 6:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • freihals Says:

    In wrong fashion some libertarians hold the idea that being libertarianism itself necessitates the adherence to other beliefs…others, correctly believe—demonstrated by deduction—that it does not. The difference as to successful outcomes are a result of correctly grasping and applying proper first principles. Does NRX have an a similar core first principle(s)? Is it “Maximal localization of consequences”–>responsibility(Alrenous)? What is the underlying principle(s) the trike share that would compel an outgrouper, such as myself, to identify you as NRX? Does the belief of such a principle(s) necessarily enjoin you towards other beliefs?

    If something like “Maximal localization of consequence” serves as the NRX irreducible axiom, and I’m not saying it does—that’s not for me to decide, then does this axiom necessitate the adherence to other belief theories? Is anything more required than a rejection of status quo? Does this rejection require an adherence to a predetermined set of complimentary beliefs?

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    HBD is the scientific foundation of post-enlightenment reactionary culture, based upon a realist analysis of ethnic collectivism stemming from assortative mating and the revealed preferences of free association. Modern progressivism is a degenerated version of outbreeder behaviour, with open-borders suicide (or mass programmed cell-death) as its apex. Multiculturalism is as much an ‘abstract threat’ as it is a possibility for cultural and economic enrichment. Language (‘signalling’) is a product of inheritance and not at all a general semantics of instruction (Ranciere) nor a context-free mentalism (Chomsky). Well, to be more precise, where both those thinkers go wrong is not so much in their descriptive modelling as in their ‘a priori’ decision to interpret language as necessarily egalitarian. To control the passages of signs is the prerogative of religious enslavement everywhere, and in the West the dominant theocratic order is a pan-racial ecumenical ecclesiasticism. Also, intelligence is not a secondary property of a human brain but rather the primary mechanism driving functional replication dynamics. Minor ‘algorithmic’ tweaks in selective mechanics can propel exponential differentiation toward eventual speciation (an example would be the ‘disgust reflex’ theory of tribal differentiation between liberals and conservatives). Basically, an old NRx answer to what makes someone ‘post-libertarian’ is that they have been ‘mugged by reality’, so I might just go with that, and we’ll leave the savoring of cosmic darkness as optional.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    My nominee for neoreactionary core principle is the Cathedral. Living in a democracy means swimming in an ocean of lies, and the lies are harmonized to a degree that’s hard to explain. HBD is important because it is a major focus of lying, but there are lots of other lies out there.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 30th, 2015 at 2:23 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    its more than localized consequences though its non non local intervention to re mediate the consequences

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 30th, 2015 at 2:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @

    @michael

    [michael]: oh democracy monarchy communism, are ideas that are not just theories

    {AK}: Was just pointing out that ‘theories’ don’t stop being ‘theories’ just because they are put into practice.
    An idea is usually theory-laden, its usefulness doesn’t change that..

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 30th, 2015 at 3:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Erebus Says:

    I feel late to the party.

    @Peter A. Taylor

    I agree completely.

    -It is a heuristic, and, as such, the NAP is utterly vague and confused. Ask three libertarians what it means, fundamentally, and you’ll get three very different answers. It can be tortured and stretch to suit any need. Needless to say, it is entirely worthless as an axiom, as you’ve rightly indicated. It is useful as a tool for debate and study. (Simply thinking about its many failure modes can be quite interesting.)

    -Nevertheless, having said all that, Libertarianism is an edifice built upon the NAP — that is to say, with the NAP as its foundation. There is no fallback principle.

    -It follows that Libertarianism is entirely worthless as a political philosophy. Good debate club, though.

    Privitization makes sense to me as a core NRx principle. Unlike libertarianism, it works well in practice, when it is allowed to work well. (See: Hong Kong.) And, when it works well, it can wed a certain robustness with the market’s appreciation of truth. (Which, while it can be deeply flawed and imperfect, is infinitely better than the Cathedral’s, as the Cathedral has no regard for the truth at all.)

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Just a couple of quibbles here. First, if Neoreaction is searching for an alternative, non-democratic principle of political legitimacy than the NAP is clearly an important proxy. IMO, a micro-state ruled by Fnargl is more likely to attract clientele if it promotes a policy of non-aggression than otherwise. Who wants to stay in a hotel when the proprietor has told you the NAP is a ‘useless heuristic’? I understand that there’s no point brandishing the NAP to a menacing horde of Bolsheviks but i don’t see how it’s an illegitimate principle for general work-a-day life in SovCorp. One could argue that the NAP is a promotional spin on Fnargl-type law-and-order, but it’s more descriptive of responsible government intent than, say, the ‘principle of sovereign force’.

    The second point, not much different from the first, is that both tech-comm and its offshoots (eg. ‘Shylock NRx’) have an unmistakable libertarian heritage, so I disagree that it is ‘entirely worthless’ as political philosophy., especially since ‘privatization’ is by no means an anti-libertarian axiom.

    The only other alternative I can think of is mystic crab-king divine right monarchism, but even that is not necessarily incompatible with NAP.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I feel as though it is simply too vague to be useful. The words “non-aggression principle” carry little-to-no information in themselves — this amorphous principle has been differently interpreted by dozens of libertarian thinkers, and it is much in need of further elucidation. What’s clear is that, in practical terms, what one person might interpret as aggression may be interpreted quite differently by another. (See: Today’sharrowing and despairing account of life at Google. “Microaggressions” abound.) I’m convinced that while the NAP is generally spoken of as a benign guiding principle, our society (“the people”) would quickly find a way to turn it into a dystopian straightjacket.

    …I guess my point is that the NAP is neither useful nor implementable — and it may even be highly undesirable, given current societal trends. In its vagueness, it’s open to a great deal of abuse.

    I agree that libertarian philosophies have positively influenced parts of NRx, but I believe that tech-comm NRx can easily trace its lineage back to the laissez faire governmental policies of 19th Century Europe. (And that modern libetarians haven’t innovated much.) We all want to be Neo-Victorians, don’t we? Crab-king Monarchism is the natural foundation for such a society, as thousands of years of history show. Besides, what decent man would not rather be ruled by a lion than by his fellow rats?

    Anyway, I don’t think that “Modern Libertarianism” is a useful political philosophy. But I was stretching the syllogism there; it may not be entirely useless.

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 30th, 2015 at 9:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    If partisan preference is given expression in the public sphere, whether of services, or businesses purporting to cater to the general public; & if such preferentiality results in exclusion of a non-preferred group; then it cannot be the case that the service or business is a public one, open to all.

    Any service, or business, run according to religious precepts causing exclusion beyond that of general legislation, is not a public service or business.

    Therefore, the core point concerns the service provider’s liberty to exclude, & the general public’s liberty to choose. Differentiation, of that ‘general public’, into partisan groups, generates this conflict of ‘liberties’. Such differentiation, once begun, & if supported by legislation, would devolve to personal vagary. This would obviate availability of a ‘public sphere’.

    Could the sphere of partisan affiliation be sufficient to do the work of public institutions?
    Market preference, as a strongly prevailing form of affiliation culture, continues to show a hegemonic ability in self-financing, but its operations are evidently not so susceptible to unequivocal & lasting support for partisan forms of affiliation. Overtly restricted affiliations cannot so readily exploit public markets, if those restrictions additionally reduce market share through differential exclusion.

    The only forms of restricted affiliation that a market logic would permit are those that are most conducive to its own logic. As its logic is, allegedly & overtly, that of unrestricted “free trade”, only those restricted affiliations conducive to this overt ‘lack of restriction’ can prevail.

    Overtly restricted affiliation is not conducive to overt ‘lack of restriction’.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    Since commercial contracts belong in the private sphere it follows that restricted affiliation is a prerequisite for them. The notion that a private industry need be made public and ‘open to all’ is a profoundly demotist one, and not supported by a hard market logic. Open borders imply shifting cartographies, as we see migrants re-territorializing on high-motility traits. Market incentive is practical, and therefore avoids needless bureaucratization, which time and again proves to be the sole method of government compatible with macro-economic ‘open borders libertarianism.’ In saying that, free trade (and exit) open to all who comply with contractual obligations is the ideal catallactic protocol.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    [Dark Psy-Ops]: “Since commercial contracts belong in the private sphere it follows that restricted affiliation is a prerequisite for them.”

    {AK}: Contractal legislation between general consumer & service, or product, provider, already exists. Multiplying that legislation according to the needs of restricted affiliation could lead to unwieldy bureaucratic spaghetti.

    [Dark Psy-Ops]: “The notion that a private industry need be made public and ‘open to all’ is a profoundly demotist one, and not supported by a hard market logic.”

    {AK}: “[H]ard market logic” dictates expansion. When specialist markets are saturated, only mass markets (the unrestricted general public) are left to compete in. Is restricted affiliation strong enough to enforce voluntary abstinence from these markets?

    [Dark Psy-Ops]: Open borders imply shifting cartographies, as we see migrants re-territorializing on high-motility traits. Market incentive is practical, and therefore avoids needless bureaucratization, which time and again proves to be the sole method of government compatible with macro-economic ‘open borders libertarianism.’”

    {AK}: “‘open borders libertarianism.’”? That’s not going to be palatable to ethnonationalist affiliations & their ideas of geopolitical restriction. So Neoreaction loses considerable support there.

    [Dark Psy-Ops]: “In saying that, free trade (and exit) open to all who comply with contractual obligations is the ideal catallactic protocol.””

    {AK}: It looks like you’re a “technocommercialist”.
    I’m not a “Neoreactionary, but your earlier comments are good, btw.

    [Reply]

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    I may not have been clear on OB libertarianism. An open border is different to ‘no borders’ in the same way an open door is different to having no walls. The short point is open borders can not be enforced, and once they are enforced, they are no longer freely open. Property is the first condition for liberty, and implies boundaries, so it wold be no exaggeration to say OBL does not factually exist.

    AK: “That’s not going to be palatable to ethnonationalist affiliations & their ideas of geopolitical restriction.”

    There’s nothing stopping an ethno-nationalist polity from restricting immigration both as it saw fit and as it was capable. This might result in economic isolation and bankruptcy or conversely, with a competent enough population, may end in relative success. There is much evangelism currently surrounding the issue of Immigration policy, and this is primarily what NRx is opposed to. Open-borders is immigration minus deliberative exchange and is an example of a utilitarian economics of the commons. Tech-comm wants to see privatization and proliferating borders, open or closed, depending on the incentive or charity of their executives.

    Posted on August 31st, 2015 at 8:38 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment