“There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”
C’mon people, I’ll be disappointed if my comment is not at −10 by tomorrow!
P.P.S. what am I trying to achieve with such trolling?
I hesitate to say—as it might sound rather extremist—but I’m trying to hint that 1) “right-wing” leanings might be incompartible in their essense with both neurologically egalitarian leanings and the acquired memeplex of Universalist morality, 2) that most readers of this are likely to share—on a fundamental psychological level—a sufficient part of the Universalist memeplex, and 3) that it follows that right-wing philosophy might be in its core objectively hostile to your extrapolated volition.
In other words, if you feel a coherent moral objection to what Keith Preston says in the above links—something like here (and here) [1], where actual Anarchists operating within the Anarchist tradition kick the shit out of his “national anarchism” - this by itself means you’re ultimately a “Universalist” in these coordinates, and it might be incoherent/irrational for you to oppose Universalism instead of trying to fix its errors. Even if you thought you were broadly against “leftism”—this breaks down the borders of “leftism”.
Yeah, that’s a very radical claim even for me. I’m not sure how serious I am about it.
[1] Damn, this “Aster” in the comments is simply so badass.
Isn’t doing politics here kind of dull? If you want to discuss this start an open thread politics discussion. If you want I can produce random quotes from respectable and influential leftist authors about various demographics that they believe will need to be physically removed for their utopia.
Does that sound like a certain Sam0345? You bet it does!
This seems like an ad hominen since you know many readers dislike Sam0345. They do sounds similar in that they are right wing.
I hesitate to say—as it might sound rather extremist—but I’m trying to hint that 1) “right-wing” leanings might be incompartible in their essense with both neurologically egalitarian leanings and the acquired memeplex of Universalist morality, 2) that most readers of this are likely to share—on a fundamental psychological level—a sufficient part of the Universalist memeplex, and 3) that it follows that right-wing philosophy might be in its core objectively hostile to your extrapolated volition.
I can point to many neurologically produced leanings that universalism requires us to suppress as well. Also I can make the argument that most people have sufficent non-Universalist memes in their mind that a logical extrapolation of where universalism might evolve in the next century or so will terrify them.
So what does that leave us with? Try to preserve the balance between Universalist and non-Universalist human values we are most comfortable with? Heh, say hello to a strategy that we have empirical evidence is a losing one: Conservatism.
Many people who go “yuck conservatism” today will be going “yay conservatism” in 2030, especially if we really are living in a period of rapid evolution for the Universalist memeplex where many people can’t abandon their old values and opinions fast enough to keep pace. This still won’t make conservatism a winning strategy.
I’m pretty sure that principled or even pragmatic libertarians are already considered extreme. Indeed they have been called “far right” and possibly scary to non-libertarians on this very forum. How extreme might they be considered in 10 or 20 years when their few remaining status raising talking points are largely accepted as common wisdom among educated people?
Three Worlds Collide, dude. Three Worlds Collide that doesn’t require non-humans. Total war of cultural annihilation might be the only logical, coherent and moral option for all three. As you can already see, I pick Normal Ending in such an eventuality.
(Might writing it have been EY’s Dumbledore-like plan to give us a reference point for when we discover this very kind of situation in ordinary human history? I’m asking you to ponder this last one seriously, paranoid as it might sound.)
In particular:
If you want I can produce random quotes from respectable and influential leftist authors about various demographics that they believe will need to be physically removed for their utopia.
Duh.
So what does that leave us with? Try to preserve the balance between Universalist and non-Universalist human values we are most comfortable with? Heh, say hello to a strategy that we have empirical evidence is a loosing one: Conservatism.
Duh. There’s no Alderson line to blow up!
I’m pretty sure that principled or even pragmatic libertarians are already considered extreme. Indeed they have been called “far right” and possibly scary to non-libertarians on this very forum. How extreme might they be considered in 10 or 20 years when their few remaining status raising talking points are largely accepted as common wisdom among educated people?
The real logical end point “superhappies” won’t care about the things they agree to care about in the story. The logical end point of universalism isn’t even superhappies, the logical endpoint is a singularity of holier than thou signalling inspired behaviour.
In its most memetically virulent form possible. I see a bunch of puritans lecturing and torturing each other over how evil they are, forever. I rather take a good boot stomp on my face forever than that. Humans are better at dealing with that kind of pain.
But obviously I could be wrong, I’ve changed my mind on this in the past before and I’m not confident at all in predicting the path of change. What I do have a high confidence in is that it is highly unlikely that a process like the evolution of a religious/ideological parasite/symbiont is to produce human friendly outcomes. I have seen Azathot’s work elsewhere.
The logical end point of universalism isn’t even superhappies, the logical endpoint is a singularity of holier than thou signaling inspired behaviour.
I think not, I think you’re strawmanning Universalism without having given it as much thought as I have, and we need much more time and space if we are to pursue this disagreement further. Thanks for letting us seize upon it, at least!
(Damn, just imagine how batshit crazy we must be looking to the average liberal here right now. :D)
P.S.: from Muflax’ post about Catholicism that you’ve linked to above:
I sometimes wonder, just for the lulz, what would the most un-progressive kind of belief system look like? It would have no salvation, no deliverance, no unity, no equality, no hope, no mercy. It would be painful, and gladly so. It would have strict hierarchies you couldn’t even in principle overcome. There would be no goal, and only purity. It would want you to be alone, sick and other.
Sounds reasonable enough. So… um… WTF? Why would the most progressive belief system apply the same torture to you, except with guilt-tripping you about Universalist morality instead of simpler, generic ways?
My line of reasoning here is dead simple. I just think that if there are only two possible stable equilibriums of values, and they are both at extreme ends of this ideological spectrum we see, and one equilibrium is like what Muflax describes above… the Universalist one has to be better for you and me.
I think not, I think you’re strawmanning Universalism without having given it as much thought as I have, and we need much more time and space if we are to pursue this disagreement further. Thanks for letting us seize upon it, at least!
I have thought about universalism a lot, especially its monotheist or pseudo-theist implementations. I agree we should discuss this further in the future. I enjoy our discussions and find them intellectually productive so I’m looking forward to that (its why I don’t mind paying the 5 karma penalty to respond).
As we have debated over the past year or so both privately and publicly I feel more and more that we may not really have value sets that different, but disagree in our map of reality in certain vital parts.
I did say before that I consider “extreme authoritarianism”—like Moldbug allowing a Keith Preston to run a Preston patch and a Kim to run a Kim patch—to be just as evil or worse as “extreme totalitarianism”, like your hypothetical puritan maniacs. And both, presumably, have the super-advantage of finally having collapsed into memetic stability.
If you’re curious about this Preston character, here’s a long and detailed analysis of how his ideas fit into the broader context of American right-wing decentralized anti-progressivism. (By some leftist I’ve never heard of.)
TROLLQUOTE:
Hans Herman-Hoppe, self-identified libertarian, Democracy: The God That Failed
Does that sound like a certain Sam0345? You bet it does!
(Lew Rockwell attempting to run damage control on Hoppe’s quote. Yet… some might question why Hoppe couldn’t run it himself then, eh? Keith Preston unintentionally intensifies the damage instead. Then intensifies the intensification of damage. Isn’t he a charming guy too?)
P.S.: Extra bonus trolling, for the same single downvote of yours! Bryan Caplan vs. feminism. Discussed on PoliticsForum.org.
C’mon people, I’ll be disappointed if my comment is not at −10 by tomorrow!
P.P.S. what am I trying to achieve with such trolling?
I hesitate to say—as it might sound rather extremist—but I’m trying to hint that 1) “right-wing” leanings might be incompartible in their essense with both neurologically egalitarian leanings and the acquired memeplex of Universalist morality, 2) that most readers of this are likely to share—on a fundamental psychological level—a sufficient part of the Universalist memeplex, and 3) that it follows that right-wing philosophy might be in its core objectively hostile to your extrapolated volition.
In other words, if you feel a coherent moral objection to what Keith Preston says in the above links—something like here (and here) [1], where actual Anarchists operating within the Anarchist tradition kick the shit out of his “national anarchism” - this by itself means you’re ultimately a “Universalist” in these coordinates, and it might be incoherent/irrational for you to oppose Universalism instead of trying to fix its errors. Even if you thought you were broadly against “leftism”—this breaks down the borders of “leftism”.
Yeah, that’s a very radical claim even for me. I’m not sure how serious I am about it.
[1] Damn, this “Aster” in the comments is simply so badass.
Isn’t doing politics here kind of dull? If you want to discuss this start an open thread politics discussion. If you want I can produce random quotes from respectable and influential leftist authors about various demographics that they believe will need to be physically removed for their utopia.
This seems like an ad hominen since you know many readers dislike Sam0345. They do sounds similar in that they are right wing.
I can point to many neurologically produced leanings that universalism requires us to suppress as well. Also I can make the argument that most people have sufficent non-Universalist memes in their mind that a logical extrapolation of where universalism might evolve in the next century or so will terrify them.
So what does that leave us with? Try to preserve the balance between Universalist and non-Universalist human values we are most comfortable with? Heh, say hello to a strategy that we have empirical evidence is a losing one: Conservatism.
Many people who go “yuck conservatism” today will be going “yay conservatism” in 2030, especially if we really are living in a period of rapid evolution for the Universalist memeplex where many people can’t abandon their old values and opinions fast enough to keep pace. This still won’t make conservatism a winning strategy.
I’m pretty sure that principled or even pragmatic libertarians are already considered extreme. Indeed they have been called “far right” and possibly scary to non-libertarians on this very forum. How extreme might they be considered in 10 or 20 years when their few remaining status raising talking points are largely accepted as common wisdom among educated people?
Three Worlds Collide, dude. Three Worlds Collide that doesn’t require non-humans. Total war of cultural annihilation might be the only logical, coherent and moral option for all three. As you can already see, I pick Normal Ending in such an eventuality.
(Might writing it have been EY’s Dumbledore-like plan to give us a reference point for when we discover this very kind of situation in ordinary human history? I’m asking you to ponder this last one seriously, paranoid as it might sound.)
In particular:
Duh.
Duh. There’s no Alderson line to blow up!
Maybe.
The real logical end point “superhappies” won’t care about the things they agree to care about in the story. The logical end point of universalism isn’t even superhappies, the logical endpoint is a singularity of holier than thou signalling inspired behaviour.
In its most memetically virulent form possible. I see a bunch of puritans lecturing and torturing each other over how evil they are, forever. I rather take a good boot stomp on my face forever than that. Humans are better at dealing with that kind of pain.
But obviously I could be wrong, I’ve changed my mind on this in the past before and I’m not confident at all in predicting the path of change. What I do have a high confidence in is that it is highly unlikely that a process like the evolution of a religious/ideological parasite/symbiont is to produce human friendly outcomes. I have seen Azathot’s work elsewhere.
I think not, I think you’re strawmanning Universalism without having given it as much thought as I have, and we need much more time and space if we are to pursue this disagreement further. Thanks for letting us seize upon it, at least!
(Damn, just imagine how batshit crazy we must be looking to the average liberal here right now. :D)
P.S.: from Muflax’ post about Catholicism that you’ve linked to above:
Sounds reasonable enough. So… um… WTF? Why would the most progressive belief system apply the same torture to you, except with guilt-tripping you about Universalist morality instead of simpler, generic ways?
My line of reasoning here is dead simple. I just think that if there are only two possible stable equilibriums of values, and they are both at extreme ends of this ideological spectrum we see, and one equilibrium is like what Muflax describes above… the Universalist one has to be better for you and me.
I have thought about universalism a lot, especially its monotheist or pseudo-theist implementations. I agree we should discuss this further in the future. I enjoy our discussions and find them intellectually productive so I’m looking forward to that (its why I don’t mind paying the 5 karma penalty to respond).
As we have debated over the past year or so both privately and publicly I feel more and more that we may not really have value sets that different, but disagree in our map of reality in certain vital parts.
I did say before that I consider “extreme authoritarianism”—like Moldbug allowing a Keith Preston to run a Preston patch and a Kim to run a Kim patch—to be just as evil or worse as “extreme totalitarianism”, like your hypothetical puritan maniacs. And both, presumably, have the super-advantage of finally having collapsed into memetic stability.
If you’re curious about this Preston character, here’s a long and detailed analysis of how his ideas fit into the broader context of American right-wing decentralized anti-progressivism. (By some leftist I’ve never heard of.)