Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


What are we all doing here? By 'here', I mean the internet, by 'we', I mean the sort of person who very kindly reads this blog of mine regularly and/or writes similar stuff in blogs or Twitter or whatever.

My original goal was to understand what is leftism, why leftist people exist and why our societies are decaying by enabling leftism to dominate all the levers of power. After years of writing, years of reading, and years of talking with like-minded gentlemen over the internet, I think I've succeeded at that task. You can read some examples of it in the sidebar as "best posts".

I've also been meeting some readers in person over the last few years, and they all agree that the "analysis phase" of this little movement we've come to call neoreaction is done. Moldbug started the whole thing, asked the right questions, showed how everything we thought we knew was wrong, then he left to build interesting stuff. Nick Land asked another set of right questions, found out nobody dared answer them, and then he left to write horror fiction. I here have done my little part on finishing what I considered was most important: an analysis of the history and the psychology of leftism.

Well, that's done, we know leftists are sociopathic status maximizers who seek groups of people who, for contingent or increasingly genetic reasons, have low status, and thus a great incentive to disturb the political process and create chaos in society. They have much to gain, little to lose, and thus are ideal employees with an incentive to keep loyal. Ok we know that one. Now what? What do we do? We should do something.

Well, I'm not the first one to be asked that. Moldbug was asked that. What did he say? Become worthy. Funnily it seems he took that from the Chinese concept of the "Mandate of Heaven", i.e. the post-hoc rationalization of successful rebels after they took the throne by force. The idea is that if I was able to take over the throne by force, by definition the previous monarch didn't have the favor of Heaven (i.e. we'd say God), and the fact that I took it means Heaven likes me somehow, so it's alright if I rule now. QED.

So was Moldbug advocating for armed rebellion à la Zhū Yuánzhāng? Not quite. Well, nobody knows. I don't think he himself knew (he's welcome to comment here to clarify now that he's retired. We miss you M). And let's face it, nobody knows what to do. The Bioleninist left rules the United States, which rules the Western world, and they're hellbent in destroying any slight hint of opposition. They're winning, and all we can do is root, anonymously, for enemy countries such as Syria, Russia or China in the vague hope that at least some balance in international affairs will stop, or even just stall the Cathedral from destroying the native cultures of Europe and North America for good.

Now even crypto-homo influencers like Paul Joseph Watson or thousand-cock-stare wacko Jewish broads like Laura Loomer are blacklisted from all social media. Other, more consistent right-wingers who were vain enough to go public with their real names are being physically banned from many countries or being denied the ability to open bank accounts (!). Meanwhile President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, does nothing but screech on Twitter about how Surprised he is, and that he's Monitoring the Situation. Thanks Don.

So yeah, Moldbug had a point. Do nothing, until you're ready to go all in. We're not ready to go all-in, not even close to that point. So just do your thing, take care of your family, have a bunch of kids, and make sure they're not groomed into the Bioleninist sewers. And make money. A lot of money.

That said, there's one thing I wanna do, which is to continue blogging. One thing that I miss reading around is policy ideas. Yes, the Left is still moving further Left, we have less power than we ever have, it is absolutely impossible that any idea that we may have would ever be implemented in our present political structure. Our ideas tend to be, as an elder of neoreaction put it, coup-complete problems, problems which are completely untractable in our modern political structures and would require Fnargl to materialize in this world to be implemented. Be that as it may, it is still important to put some ideas out there, if just in order to exercise our brains and refresh our eyes seeing how a more intelligent way of governing would work. And who knows, maybe Xi Jinping or Putin senpai actually notices me some day.

So I was thinking of taxes. That modern Western tax codes are a big, a huge pile of ultra-condensed evil is beyond question. They're outrageously long, convoluted, designed so that normal people are scammed routinely every year, and rich people get undue advantages thanks to the aid of an army of tax accountants and their nefarious tactics. The very existence of an occupation such as "tax accountants" is of course an artificial result of how complicated the tax code is, and that very complexity is very likely done on purpose in order to ensure that evil guild of tax accountants still have a job. I, with Andrew Yang, am an ardent supporter of automation, and thus I can't wait to the day where the tax code is simplified, automated, and all those tax lawyer bugmen are out of a job, and have to do something actually useful for a living. Or they can also just live off UBI, because UBI is Great and Merciful, and protects even poor boring bugmen such as them.

Speaking of Andrew Yang, peace be on his name, I should have elaborated a bit more on my enthusiasm for UBI and other ideas of his when I wrote about him a few weeks ago. It is a fact that in pure economic terms, human labor is just not worth as much as it used to be up to the 1970s. Real wages have dropped all over the developed world, and the income share of labor has plummeted. Whether that is due to automation, or to competition from China, or due to women entering the labor force, that can be debated, but it doesn't really matter. Labor is losing out, that is a fact. A sad fact. But whatever Tucker Carlson and his fellow nostalgics say, you can't just go full Luddite. You might do that, but Napoleon won't, and eventually Napoleon always conquers beautiful Venice. So I say we try to think how one could use the current economic circumstances to promote a better way of governing the economy.

Well, if labor is losing value across the economy, the least modern governments could do, is to stop taxing labor. Not only are income taxes the main source of tax revenue in all of the developed world, payroll taxes are also a crushing burden, and an increasing one due to low birthrates. Well, stop that crap. No payroll taxes. Stop all that crap of deducting social security and healthcare from wages, with some part masked as "employer burden", which only makes the paperwork of hiring people all the more burdensome. Make all old-age pensions and healthcare costs go to the general budget, and streamline the hiring and firing process to make it transparent how much money every employee actually makes and how much he costs his employer.

Speaking of income tax, punishing people for making money really isn't the best way of incentivizing work, is it. And don't get me started with tax filing and all that paperwork. It's medieval. Now, you may say that the government has to take money from somewhere, and today people earn their income in form of cash, so that's what you tax. And sure, that was the case when the whole thing started about 100 years ago. But look at today. Most countries haven't balanced their budgets in decades. Japan is a famous example, with about half of public expenditures being financed with public debt. The US federal debt issuance is also out of the charts. And yet there is no inflation. 

Why not? Because governments today are more advanced than they were in the 1930s. They can now not only print money, but target it into where they want it to go. Governments today print money, and make sure that the excess money supply goes to the stock market or real estate to prop up asset prices and make rich people richer, and thus happier. Modern Monetary Theory is on the news lately, and that reflects the growing consensus among economists that governments don't need to collect taxes to finance themselves. They can just print money and use their coercive powers to make sure it flows where they want it to.

Why collect taxes then? Not to collect money. But just as yet another mechanism to control the economy and the population. Tax collection is a way of removing money from the particular places or people where you want it removed. You could, today, theoretically just not collect taxes at all and just run the government by printing money. But why would you relinquish the power to tax people at will? Besides, tax revenue is a useful economic indicator.

If we're lucky, the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortés and her brown dancing milkers will serve to bring to the public the idea that taxing is about power, and not about the economy. And if it is so, taxing becomes a matter of government discretion. After decades of somewhat disingenuous "technocratic" government, modern politicians are increasingly moralizing their agendas and running government in order to advance their ideas of morality. I approve of that mindset. Confucius would be proud. It indeed follows the same principles; Confucianism and its reboot as Neoconfucianism represented the victory of the bureaucrat civilians (one might call them the priestly class) over the military establishment. That's a process that we are seeing in the West only recently, but powered further by women joining in the process, and women of course can only be priests, never warriors. So moralizing it is. I say we join in, at least tentatively. 

So what would a reactionary tax policy look like? Let me propose a few ideas. First, as I mentioned above, don't tax labor. You want people to work. Use tax policy to discourage the worst parts of human nature, not the best ones. What I called before "social failures" in lieu of the "market failures" the economists talk about. Could just as well call them "psychological failures". Just the parts of human behavior that evolution hasn't had the time to fix after the Neolithic Revolution, and especially the problems which have arisen in modernity due to motorized transport and electronic communications.

You shouldn't tax labor but you could very well tax corporate power. A lot of people seek promotions and positions in corporate management not because of the money, but because they're sadists who get a kick out of lording people around. Others stumble upon positions of management against their actual disposition due to common problems such as the Peter Principle. You could modulate that with a Management Tax. You want to brag about being an executive? Then pay. I'm sure most people would pay gladly. At the very least a tax on corporate board seats could change the presently pervasive revolving door of "retired" politicians given discrete payment for previously rendered services. Might as well call it the Committee Tax. Only the owner doesn't pay.

Given that our future government (and all future governments) is going to be a Moral Government, it is imperative that we bring our modern knowledge of the failures of human nature into our new governance structure. Since the dawn of humanity, people have known that humans have such a thing as vices. Christians frame it as the seven "cardinal sins", pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. That's not bad, but individual differences are quite huge here, and it's hard to set a standard definition of where the line is between a glutton and some guy who likes to eat. And things like pride or envy are a mental state, not a behavior, so it can hardly be dealt with.

A more scientific way of putting this is to address the problem of addiction. I said before that neoreaction is reaction with better knowledge of history and some modern cognitive science. We know now that there are some substances or behaviors which for some reason or another hack our brain chemistry and make them hard to stop. A good example is the classic male vices: gambling, whoring and drinking (i.e. drugs more generally). Men do these things, some more, some less, I guess over a Gaussian distribution. But we do it, and will always do. It feels good. Some puritanical cultures (mostly Abrahamic) have banned some or all of these behaviors, driving them underground, but hardly extinguishing them. Other more enterprising cultures (e.g. the Chinese) historically decided to run them as public enterprises and tax them heavily. Men are gonna whore and gamble anyway, might as well regulate it and make them fill the public coffers with it. Alcohol and tobacco are taxed heavily today for exactly the same reason, and everybody understands it's a good thing. Do the same for cannabis now that it's being legalized. Although I'm a fan of Andrew Yang and others' idea of granting a monopoly of pot trading to black people; might as well fund their welfare that way. Fellow fans of Brave New World may also get the hint.

To that we might also add videogames today. Videogames are a huge deal, millions upon millions of people spend untold thousands of hours on them. Videogames are by now the most important entertainment industry. It's time the state give it the status it deserves. How? By taxing the hell out of them. You wanna waste your youth on Fortnite? Your call. But it can't be free. It stands to reason that online subscription services like Xbox Live are taxed at a 100-200% rate. Note also that internet gaming in China requires logging in with one's real ID card so that minors are legally restricted from playing up to a certain age, and have time limits for teenagers. I think it's a great idea. No SWATing in China either.

History has given plenty of attention to male vices, but it is only fair that we also put some spotlight to female vices, of which there is also no shortage. Women's vices perhaps have never been addressed because women didn't have financial independence until 60 years ago, but now they do, so let us make them pay. Women have their own vices of superstition (e.g. astrology and divination), attention-whoring (e.g. constant revealing selfies on social media), and celebrity-chasing (we've all seen teenage girls going literally insane over some midget singer with makeup). I saw we tax the shit out of all those industries; and preferably nationalize them and run them effectively as a government department. Again China is innovating here, with their tight censorship of social media and recently enforced ideological control over celebrities.

To this, add a universal consumption tax, which is easy to enforce, especially now with the coming cashless society, and which you can tweak to charge higher for pointless luxury goods. Tax the stuff the rich like at, say, 50%. Tax cooked food, but not raw ingredients. But do charge salads. Fuck those. Americans really need to get over their hatred of value-added taxes. Surely they beat being taxed for making money? Don't you want all those unproductive net tax-receivers to pay something?

I'm also a big fan of wealth caps. Roosh, who's getting interesting as he transforms into a Sufi monk after his T levels started crashing down at age 40, recently put it very well, while proposing a wealth cap of $100 million: 

"Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, George Soros, and many other billionaires will all go back to being one-hundred millionaires as long as the bulk of their business and social activity takes place in the United States. That leaves them plenty enough money for penthouses, yachts, and high-class whores, but not enough to subvert society with a globohomo agenda."

Of course a wealth cap would be tricky to enforce; none of these men have all their billions in cash; they just happen to own trillion dollar companies, and it wouldn't make sense to punish a person as his company gains in value. Now of course we can all argue about how modern states have engaged in artificial asset inflation in the stock market, about how valuable these companies really are. But surely some companies out there really are valuable and efficient, and taking stock from their founders because they've reached a wealth cap doesn't sound like a good idea. Any commenters with good ideas are welcome to share them here.

On a different note; for all the panic about global warming, which we all know is an evil plot by government and associated entities to have an eternal excuse to control more of the economy and have an excuse to request bigger budgets; isn't the modern logistics industry to blame for some of that? We talk of globalization as this amazing human feat. Which it is; but isn't it wasteful that every little piece of machinery requires world-length supply chains, moving a myriad little components from a dozen countries until its final assembly? Actually there's a good way of fixing that problem. Tariffs. The WTO was set up with the ultimate goal of having zero tariffs across the world. Make that a 10% universal tariff. Try to encourage supply chains to be country-sized, or at least trade-block sized. That would get some much needed revenue for UBI too.

In my last post on Debt, I argued that the world's financial system is obviously in the verge of collapse due to the egregious amount of debt being issued in all countries in the past 10 years. Something's gotta give, and it's increasingly obvious that the financial system we have is absurd, with its automated algorithmic trading depending on milisecond speed advantages by bribing NYT officials to put their servers 10 feet closer to the NYSE, cultish scams like Herbalife, or the constant IPOs by unprofitable Silicon Valley gypsy-economy e-gig companies, which are basically just doing regulatory arbitrage by virtue of being Woke. Of course stock exchanges are a big part of the great story of the success of capitalism, but a few well placed taxes and restrictions should be put to rein in that huge, evil mess.

A big problem, well, the biggest problem of modern societies is the IQ-shredding problem. Intelligent people have the fewer children, and the decline in human capital we've been having for the past 150 years is bad enough. There's been lots of talk all over the world about how to encourage birth rates through tax policy. While many argue for sheer cash payments per child (a Japanese TV show was just advocating for $100k per child, no questions asked), it shows that governments are actually HBD-aware at some level and do not want the sheer increase in trashy population that immediate cash payments would ensure. The people who you want having the children are those who *don't* need the money. I still think a child-less tax is a good idea. No kids after 25, you get taxed. Less than 2 kids after 30, you get taxed. Less than 3 kids after 35, you-get-taxed. I'd say a TFR of 2.5-3 should be the aim of public policy, no more, no less. Child-less taxes shouldn't be crushing, just annoying. You want to nudge people, but the freaks who just hate family life should be allowed to weed themselves out of the gene pool.

We know what we don't like about modern society. We (now, finally) know why we got here and how it happened. But what do we stand for? What do we want? Let's think about that. We have nothing better to do anyway.


Leave a Reply
  • Quoting my own comment on Evolutionistx's site: "Reduce the population. Hold onto a few cities for the elites. Return the rest of the population to techno-agrarianism or the hunter-gathering life. Life is better when it’s more personal and decisions have meaningful consequences. Remember all the prisoners eagerly running back to the Comanche life of savagery. The elites could enforce peace between the tribes and provide limited technological assistance such as medicine. Am not being euphemistic about reducing population, so it would take some time, as I’m not very enthusiastic about mass murder. Pay those who are less fit to have one or no children, and keep them busy building pyramids for a few decades. Creating impressive stone architecture through poverty-labor needs to become a status symbol for the elites. Offer the Somalis, Bangladeshis, etc. a choice between sterilization and confinement to an ethno-ghetto or leaving the country. Perhaps even give them a small pension if they leave. Cheaper than hospitals and schools. Start deporting Central Americans to Afghanistan. Forcing their tens of millions to leave would be too difficult. Incentivizing would work better." This sort of solution is only desirable if effected in the restoration, not by the priestly globohomo lunatics genociding their red state enemies. Humans are no more evolved for living socially in large scale cities than they are evolved for developing sexually amidst an abundance of pornography. (Maybe Orientals are. Not my expertise.) The anonymous mass society is the original breeding ground of the leftist sociopath. We'd be much happier living as aristocrats with machines performing the agricultural labor.

    • I agree with the spirit of this post. Reducing population itself is trivial. Do nothing. It's already happening almost too quickly to handle. I'm not enthusiastic about mass murder, but I'm also not enthusiastic about legions of old people dying penniless and alone. With low immigration, the population of every good country is going to tank no matter what. The hard part is making sure it's the right people leaving their genes behind. Eugenic tax and financial incentives like you and Spandrell suggest certainly seem like the most humane and readily applicable approach. I'd also suggest a milder incentives-based approach to deurbanization. Tax things and services that can only be produced in cities. If something can be done in either the city or the country, make it cheaper to do it in the country. Make property tax correlate with density. These are just wild ideas, but you see what I'm getting at. Insane communists have tried forcibly shipping people out to the countryside before. Let's not go there. You can change society by changing incentives and it'll go relatively smoothly; change society by force through a top-down bureaucracy, and it won't. I think ludditism / intentionally limiting economic development is more feasible than Spandrell thinks. Maintain a nuclear arsenal to protect against military conquest. Use tariffs and reduced consumption to limit your exposure to economic warfare. A bigger issue I see is that it would require a great shift in thinking and a new myth and purpose for life. Christianity, Communism, imperialism, and militarism have all come and gone. The capitalist dream filled that void for a while, but in Japan, the prospect of 1% GDP growth in perpetuity, combined with the lack of any other religious or military motivation or prospects for the country, has left young people deeply, inordinately pessimistic about their future. What is there to look forward to? In what way will things ever be better than today, spiritually, economically, militarily, or otherwise? If you're to limit population and economic growth, you're forsaking the drive to either military or economic supremacy. It needs to be replaced by something. Perhaps a drive to moral superiority, or perhaps Buddhist serenity. Who knows. But if you're going to actively hamstring material growth and domination, people will need some other reason to feel the need to exist. The will to power isn't going away. This applies just as much to the plebeians as it does to the patricians.

      • What do you have for a 'myth and purpose' for life? Progressives have the long arc of the moral universe bending towards justice, meaning they're morally obligated to do whatever is popular. Christianity, when it's not progressive, is about growing close to God--self-improvement--which makes sense after positing the soul is eternal. Alt-right types (and some reactionaries) like to mock progressives for not leaving children, which is reasonable enough but it glosses over the inevitability of human extinction and the end of the universe. In the end, what difference does it make who has descendants if we all die out anyway? Suspect that part of the problem is that we're not evolved enough to deal with success. What is 'success' in the ancestral environment, anyway? Alpha male with a small harem of females who dies at age fifty. Compare that to the enormous sums of wealth we now accumulate and you'll start to see why we go haywire with ennui and the ever greater will to power. Speaking of will to power, in a healthy society, women exercise authority over children, husbands over wives and men have their own place in the hierarchy. Everyone exercises a degree of power as is proper to his station but I don't think that is enough of itself to fend off the existential despair.

  • Tie retirement pensions to the contributions of the children. If by the time you get old you have several children working, then you live like a king. If your only child is still studying Gender Studies, you get a much smaller pension.

    • In the scifi novel "The Unincorporated Man", the setting is a future in which all humans are born as corporations, with some stock owned by their parents and the government. The majority of their shares could be sold to pay for stuff like schooling. Presumably all their "profit" (savings) would be dividends to their stockholders. The goal of every man with the wherewithal was to reach "self-majority": owning the majority of his own shares; in which case he no longer had to take orders from his stockholders and could do what he wanted in life. (The book explores the effect of throwing in a single free/unowned man into the mix; and laughably ends up with him starting a revolution rather than society just killing him or (perhaps more likely) incorporating him without his consent.)

  • Spandrell your blog doesn't allow me to leave comments, probably because of me posting links? Can you fix this? Anyway, I find your thinking on consumption taxes and childlessness taxes good, your thinking on labor taxes bad, and your thinking on seigniorage and local supply chains wholly off base.

    • Commenters go on the wait list until they have previously approved comments. It'll be slow only these few days.

      Please elaborate a bit on your disagreements.

  • Former tax lawyer here. Tax lawyers are pretty smart cookies. I'd force them to learn to code, and get them to automate the tax system for you. Then watch their after-hours activities...that will tell you where the back doors are.

  • I have been thinking for some decades now on political economy, and how to organize it to maximize protection of property and rights. At this point, I am of the opinion that it comes down to incentives. If incentives aren't in line with basic human nature, government always devolves into tyranny. Government needs to be determined by productive people with a stake in the future. Taxation needs to be simplified and organized to prevent concentration of scarce vital resources in a few hands, and instead maximize the ownership of those resources in as many hands as possible. Here's an overview: Suffrage: Suffrage needs to be drastically limited. No nation or empire has survived without drastically limiting suffrage. Only those who earn & contribute, and have a stake in the future, should get to vote. If you work for gov't, you contract for gov't, your business gets >51% of it's money from gov't: You don't get to vote. If you get welfare, you don't get a vote. If you pay back what was paid to you, you get your vote back. No voting for immigrants, or the children of immigrants, for three generations (minimum). One final restriction: If you are not a parent with a living child, you don't get a vote; as you have no stake in the future. Other restrictions should be placed on gov't employees, such as no-dual citizenship for legislators, justices, and department heads/upper management, and no emigration for said (you don't get to betray the country and flee, if you are making decisions which affect future generations, you must remain). Taxation: All internal taxes should be eliminated except for a land tax (structures are improvements and are not taxed). Land tax should be applied progressively, with a high minimum threshold (say $500k), and becomes punitive at high levels (say 90% @ >$20M). All land must be held by a natural living person (no trusts or corporations to evade taxes). This eliminates rent-seekers by limiting the control of the only truly scarce resource. Import tariffs are OK and likely desirable (as the wealth of a nation isn't it's hoards of exchange medium, but the productive capacity of its people), except on commodities. Taxes on commodities except for food, should be minimal. Finished goods should likely be heavily tariffed. I look forward to analysis of how this might be gamed to circumvent it's intent.

    • But this whole "movement" depends on the Moldbugian analysis of the ideal number of people with suffrage is 1. Not saying we must stick to orthodoxy, but at least be familiar with it, and it sounds like you aren't. The root idea is that divided power leads to fighting to power which has all kinds of collateral damage. This is most visible when we look at an example that is many ways good. The fall of the Soviet Empire was a good thing. But the reason it happened was that smarter, not very ideological "reformcommunists" simply wanted to kick the "old guard" out of power, and they brought the whole thing crashing down to make it so. Good thing, Communism deserved to get crashed. But the transition to the new system was painful for many. Not for the "reformcommunists" who expected that they will be able to do well in the new system and did, becoming nouveau riche and oligarchs. So that was a good thing, but illustrates the problem, competing for power can have immense amounts of collateral damage. Welfare is vote-buying. Immigration is vote-buying. Giving women the vote was vote-buying. Nearly every "progressive" change ever was one group of elites indirectly punching another group of elites. This is why the "orthodox" NRx analysis says even two people having suffrage would be one too much.

      • Thanks for the response. I agree welfare, immigration, and woman's suffrage was essentially vote-buying. That's why I propose eliminating suffrage for those receiving any money from government, and eliminating suffrage for immigrants for at least three generations (regardless of source of income). I'm not impressed with Moldbug. I find him overwrought, rambling, and pessimistic. He seems more interested in impressing with vocabulary than offering constructive solutions. I can't take him that seriously because of that. The problem with monarchy is that despite having a stake in the future (assuming they procreate), there's no guarantee they will continue to act in a manner that insures the monarchy's survival. To the contrary, history shows eventually one of the crown's line will fail to have enough interest in the future and be deposed, or be relegated to a figurehead. The solution to to the problems of universal suffrage isn't to eliminate it. That is an over-emotional knee-jerk reaction to it's inevitable result, which is communism (I'm with Hoppe on this). There will always be suffrage, even if society consists only of hordes and their warlords. I'm looking to create a succinct, logical, clear outline of a political economy that works with human nature. The only way I can see to do that is to eliminate envious parasites from voting themselves OPM, and to insure those who vote have sufficient interest in the continuation of civilization. At present, we have the former, and lack the latter. That's going to end poorly.

        • I don't think your proposals are sustainable in the long term. Afterall sufferage was handled just like you'd want it in early american history and that just lead to where we are now. The truth just is, as much as you may dislike it, that competing power-centers will do anything to attain power even if it is the most stupid thing you can imagine. There ain't no constitution that can prevent that from happening. Afterall last time I checked a piece of paper wasn't able to rule, people rule over people. And that's why power needs to be as secure as possible.

          • Suffrage was not handled anything like what I propose in early American history. Only white men w/property could vote, women and blacks couldn't. There were no other restrictions. For some reason (hmm...) they decided to expand suffrage, and it never stopped. Also people also found workarounds early, e.g. buying 1 sq foot of property in NYC (I believe that was part of "Tammany Hall" if memory serves), which is why I asked for suggestions on how my proposal could be gamed. I agree that Constitutions don't secure rights, people do. Therefore, people need to be educated on political economy and organization, which is why I'm developing this.

        • "eliminating suffrage for those receiving any money from government, and eliminating suffrage for immigrants for at least three generations (regardless of source of income)." Smart. There was a reason why originally only property-holding men were allowed to vote. Less looting and more having only people who had achieved a basic measure of success (and experience in life) decide things. "I’m not impressed with Moldbug. I find him overwrought, rambling, and pessimistic. He seems more interested in impressing with vocabulary than offering constructive solutions. I can’t take him that seriously because of that." Very smart.

  • I think you're aiming an inherently leftist weapon here. Taxes work for them because they are priests trying to knock down merchants in status. Merchants get status for being rich and showing it. Priests then subvert shows of wealth by giving money to their pets to jam the signal by consuming high status goods forcing the merchants to move to signalling holiness for status - where they lose to priests. Ultimately we care about *status* and not money. The sovereign will always be rich beyond imagining as long as it allows trade (USG will at least). What we should be designing is a status hierarchy that allows the right men to be high status and the key to that is violence - which men are allowed to commit violence with the indifference of society and which get the full fury of the law and society.

      • Yes, but there are two models. One is the modern, or absolutist, or Chinese model of the state taxing peasants and paying a standing army that depends entirely and directly on the government. I think this always makes warriors relatively low status. The other model is feudalism: assign land and wealth directly to the financing of the various functions warriors fulfill in defense and in government. Carlsbad had some good points that the absolutist, basically Roman Caesarist direction Moldbug was thinking in has some flaws. Aidan recognized the same about the centralization trap. Yes, strong nobility makes kings insecure and they keep fighting with the nobility. But centralization leads to the government noblesse de la robe, "priests" eventually overthrowing the king. The reason is precisely what you wrote about the power of personal networks. They have them. So warriors have to have them too, in their own way. The fact that absolutism worked well in China is not really instructive to Westerners. China has a way of making things that are not supposed to, work. For example when they stopped the Leninist adverse selection for loyal idiots, the Communist system was not overthrown the way it was in the Soviet Empire where smarter "reform communists" overthrew the system just to get the "old guard" out of power, as they felt confident they can also get power and money in the new system. China is better at engineering loyalty. We tend to only have personal loyalty, not to a system. So we need feudalism. We just have to stop kings trying to cut down the nobility into commoners.

        • There's this tendency all over the place of thinking of historical trends as mere choices. Absolutism wasn't a choice by kings. Kings always want Absolutism, and the historical technological trends made it possible. There's no going back to feudalism just because we like it.

          • Sure, but we can't wish absolutism or an optimal tax code into existence either. Gnon / the Darwinian process of history is optimization for warfare. And I am afraid the Gnon of war is to the left of us. He looks like a Bonapartist / Rooseveltist.

  • The missing piece of the analytical puzzle, and the thing we should be doing next, is to prepare some complementary strategic plans aimed at gaining and consolidating political power in a sufficiently independent jurisdiction. Having a plan and then beginning to execute it will give meaning, direction, focus and urgency to all of our other work (eg policy thinking). Of course, the more successful we eventually become, the easier it'll be to implement coup-complete policies. (I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of planning is already going on behind the scenes.)

    • Any sufficiently independent jurisdiction I could imagine could be bombed into the Stone Age by the USAF in about three days. Gnon is Mars. History is a Darwinian process of optimization for war...

  • Moldbug was asked that. What did he say? Become worthy. Impressed that I am not the sole one to remember that bit. Well, nobody knows. I don’t think he himself knew (he’s welcome to comment here to clarify now that he’s retired. We miss you M). He did outline pretty well all that, actually. Also, once the "group" has become worthy, the rest follows. or even just stall the Cathedral from destroying the native cultures of Europe and North America for good. The Cathedral is most slyly taking advantage of the collapse of Western civilization. Surely, it lends its robust hand to the process, but the process has neither its origin nor its main propellent in the Cathedral's hand. It has it in the loss of every religion — or the adoption of nihilism as religion, by a different wording. "We need a new religion for the West," they once wrote at a blog.

  • Fnargl has a Twitter account. Did he register it from another world? I think it is here on earth...

  • They can just print money and use their coercive powers to make sure it flows where they want it to. Why collect taxes then? Not to collect money. But just as yet another mechanism to control the economy and the population. Tax collection is a way of removing money from the particular places or people where you want it removed. That's true if your currency is kept out of exchanges // you can have other countries pretend it's not losing value by tacit promise of using force (of various nature) if they stopped pretending. In sum it's from 2 to 4 countries in the world that are in such a position. Within the EU it's not like that at all, and they truly need a tax increase to afford every new expense on another front.

  • >I’ve also been meeting some readers in person over the last few years, and they all agree that the “analysis phase” of this little movement we’ve come to call neoreaction is done. I don't, although we didn't meet in person. For example the idea that priests need to be ruled by warriors is new. Some things we didn't even begin. Such as the idea that the most Darwinian thing in history is warfare, and there is a serious possibility that Poz, at least to a certain level, is fitness-maximizing for war. I mean, it is said Napoleon's success was at least partially based on general conscription, which was enabled by the Revolution. More reactionary states tended to be defeated in war by more pozzed ones. While the current level of Poz clearly does not do this with all the transgender soldiers, we do not want simply less Poz, as we are aware that moderate Poz necessarily spirals towards radical Poz, so with want a stable reactionary state and it is not at all clear so far if it can survive wars against moderately pozzed democratic states? This things are not decided yet at all. This is not the end of the analysis phase. This is not even the beginning of the end of the analysis phase. But perhaps this is the end of the beginning of the analysis phase.

    • Warriors vs. Priests is a level of abstraction which I don't find very useful.

      • It creates an artificial divide between "good" and "bad" elites and supposes the restoration of the "good" elites will lead to prosperity. It's another form of progressive, unconstrained vision thinking rearing its head. From what I know of my own family lore and those around me, when we were "warriors" we were subversive bastards, and when we were "priests" we were were subversive bastards. That's the nature of ambitious families, to want to subvert society to get a bigger share of power. I must agree with America's Founding Fathers in saying that nothing can be without the energies of the Great Houses, but their wicked cunning is so great, every artifice must be made and set against them. They should know - they themselves overthrew *their* lawful sovereign. I think time has proved the Second Estate to be, by far, the most dangerous. Not only have its children held onto their power, they have rubbed out monarchs around the globe, turned the priesthood and societal morality into a skinsuit worn to promote the global megacorporations they control, and placated the commoners with the play-sovereignty of democracy. It seems like the only thing that can give them pause is intra-elite conflict. But these days, the more appealing target is a war upon the middle classes of the West. Épater la bourgeoisie! I strongly suspect that my own attraction to reactionary politics is driven by "right Brahmin signaling", an attempt to derive social status by transgressing the values of big city liberal goodwhites, thus proving my higher status and sophistication and the inferiority of the people who shop at Target. The only thing they seem incapable of is breeding. As Professor Clark has wryly remarked, for all their worldly success, the Darwins are about to fail in a Darwinian sense. The only thing I fear more than the reign of the perpetual tyrants is the world that will come after them.

      • You are actually using this abstraction, just with different symbols. First, all power grows from the barrel of a gun. A system that admits this with brutal honesty and is based on naked force and might makes right is characterized as warrior rule *without* priestly help. But we know from Mosca that every society needs something like a legitimizing myth to put a velvet glove on the iron fist, not only because the ruled need it but even the rulers need it, they want to feel like they are the good guys. Besides, rule by naked force leads to everybody trying to break every law in their own advantage if they feel like they can get away with it, and no matter how brutal the rulers are, the are not omniscient, there is always an information assymetry in crime, it is harder to investigate crime than to commit it, so we want most people to obey most laws most of the time voluntarily, because they think they are just, fair and good. Creating the legitimizing myth is the "priestly" role and the important thing is which role is superior. The good reactionary system has warriors in charge and priests helping them meaning it makes it clear that culture is downstream from power, the legitimizing myth is downstream from the barrels of guns. If priests are in charge and warriors assist them, as it is today, then we have precisely what you described as the game theory of leftism, that power can be challenged by pushing the legitimizing myth to a "purer", more extreme form. I replied to it now BTW: And I think you agree with most of this or at least never seen you disagree, but you are just using different symbols. Or maybe you do disagree, we discussed once that I find military dictatorship the obvious system and I don't understand why all other systems quickly collapse to that, and you said something along the lines of the military being easy to manipulate. Manipulation is "priestly" mind tricks, the military are the "warriors", anything ever that prevents generals from easily taking power is called "priestly" but maybe you have a better symbol for that?

        • Say, the Samurais. They morphed from a warrior elite into a priestly elite in pretty much a single generation, slowly going from cutting people with their long swords, to just shouting "of course we get to rule, we have long swords", to "of course we get to rule, it's tradition". They were the same people. Who the hell are warrior elites today? The military? Lmfao

          • These are roles, jobs, not some kind of exclusive identity for people. What is the problem with people changing their jobs? Or even multiple hats at the same time? Say, the Knights Templar started already as multiclass warrior-monks and then added money-lending and farming to their activities. Still it is pretty clear they took and ruled their bit of the Holy Lands by the sword, although they were vulnerable to priestly attacks, that is, it is possible that if another chivalric order out-holied them the Pope could have taken their lands. Eventually, they did fall to a priestly attack. Current warriors are gangsters, gun nuts, survivalists, men on a donovanian path to finding their masculinity (yes, I know), MMA types, and some soldiers. Anyhow see these as roles and not fixed identities. It is just that there are three ways to make people do things, and whoever does one of them he is at this moment warrioring, priesting or burghering. These three ways are "Do this, or I kick your ass", "Do this, because it is morally right and if you don't I will call you evil in front of everyone" or "Do this and I'll pay you".

            • "These are roles, jobs, not some kind of exclusive identity for people" What?! You can't just completely change the premises of the discussions like that, with one opening sentence, man. You're breaking weeks of common language here. What the hell are we talking about? You have been talking in metaphor for years and you tell me now?

              If warriors and priests are the same people then what the fuck are people talking about when they say that we should be ruled by warriors and not priests? That people should behave differently? Have different roles?

              Then say so. People should behave differently. Sheesh. That's not what people mean wen they say we should be ruled by warriors and not priests. That's not what people mean when they talk about warriors and priests. Warriors and priests are different people, with different temperaments. When the Qin Dynasty buried the Scholars alive it wasn't a metaphor of changing roles. He rounded up the scholars and buried them alive.

          • Look, the issue is that there are nice noun-verb pairs like farmer-farming, cook - cooking, but warrior-warrioring, priest-priesting does not work, the verbs are just missing. And fighting or preaching does not cover it really. And yet it is always the activity that comes first, I might like to cook here and then, but that does not make me a cook. But it makes sense for people to specialize in one thing, hence we get farmers, cooks, warriors, priests. But what really matters is the activity and the specialization comes second. That is just my view and for me it has always been obvious, it is entirely possible that others who use this terminology don't mean it this way - I don't know. Perhaps I just assumed everybody sees it this way because I have always had a certain fascination with multiclass warrior-priests, real like Templars or Shaolin monks or fictional like the Jedi. We are talking about stuff the modern language absolutely lacks the vocabulary for. Of course it gets awkward. Maybe we should borrow one of Moldbug's tricks and invent entirely new words to break common associations.

            • Funny how I never have a problem with modern language. You just have an awkward theory that you need to flesh out in simpler terms. Give it time, but don't try to map it into Jim's warrior/priest theory. He's referring to actual warriors and actual priests, it's not a metaphor.

        • If priests are in charge and warriors assist them, as it is today, then we have precisely what you described as the game theory of leftism, that power can be challenged by pushing the legitimizing myth to a “purer”, more extreme form. Technological advance and civilization have tilted the playing field in favor of verbalists and symbolists (names some use for "priests"). The warriors learned it the very hard way during the fascism vs communism clashes from mid-10th century to WWII. Why were (and are) "all intellectuals" (we are talking of status-seeking, socially weighty "intellectuals" here, not of the white flies who actually interest in knowledge and its pursuit) on the left? Because that's where they get more recognition and status. A group that didn't have much power in the centuries before is, I think, "bankers". These are natural allies to verbalists and myth-peddlers rather than warriors, I think. History's favor has shifted from warriors to non-warrior elite. In fact, this has also rearranged the race hierarchy. We can think of a race that didn't count for much till muscle was prevalent, while it rose to the top when wits dislodged muscle from preeminence, or can't we?

  • One import argument for many kinds of taxes is that it reduces the incentive of cheating on any particular one of them. I am absolutely for 50% VAT on luxury goods but that is a huge incentive to get them cash under the table or a webshop registered in Tanzania. Hey, vice = addiction was my idea! :) But I didn't actually write it down, so it is just a case of great minds thinking alike. Wealth caps. Roosh doesn't understand that these wealths are not in liquid money that you can put in a piggy bank, but corporate shares? Confiscating shares = nationalizing businesses = Soviet economy. Roosh thinks it is all liquid cash "for penthouses, yachts, and high-class whores" which is an extremely dumb, leftist-level dumb way to think about the economy. Liquid cash is either used for consumption = consumption tax, or to finance NGOs and politics and newspapers and all that, so for power. Put some kind of a directed ban on that. Georgian taxes. Yes, but only above a threshold. If someone wants to exit society and live off homesteading in the backwoods don't tax that. We all might need a Plan B. Kids. Not sure if taxes. More like advertisement. Make TV shows about gifted children. Make smart people think having smart kids is high-status.

      • People with replace it with some unofficial currency, from gold to bitcoins, because they like cheating on taxes. But I didn't mean cash literally, just in the sense of liquid wealth, not invested into illiquid things.

        • The point of "cash under the table" isn't in cash, it's in 'under the table'. No physical cash: everything is traceable. Bitcoin is of course famously traceable. Nobody likes to cheat more than the Chinese; not even they are getting away with VAT fraud anymore. It's a solved problem, for better or worse.

          • A friend of a friend of mine buys everything from moonshine to meat from peasants, gets his house renovated for cash under the table, low-taxed cigarettes smuggled in from Ukraine are not hard to find in Western Europe, and while these are not luxury consumption, a luxury watch inherited could be sold this way. Surely a business does not get away with VAT fraud because in more and more places it is mandatory to send an XML copy of all invoices to the government, but private people do. If physical cash is out and all transactions will be done with something like debit cards, that only matters for registered businesses, private people will find a way to barter, even use old silver or gold coins.

          • I know where you're coming from, but the millennial masses won't be "buying moonshine from peasants" like it's 1920. You sound like a liberal saying that Walls Don't Work because 3 illegals will sneak through after a hurricane every 2 years. 90% compliance is good enough.

          • I hope for it, but if China has been able to stop it flat, I don't see why it wouldn't work worldwide. Again, bitcoin is both unwieldly and very trackable. Maybe if the NSA goes rogue we get some actually useful anonymous crypto, but I wouldn't bet on it.

      • Cash is probably coming back do to the fragility of the systems here in Clown World. As much as they want control, keeping people on the consumer treadmill and away from food riots is more important The government of Sweden which is the most cashless society in the world is telling people to horde currency because they fear the bank system won't work reliably A lot of nations that you would not expect like Germany are also cash driven. China is something different though and not really a model for the West Speaking only for the US here, we are maybe 20 years max from becoming 2nd or 3rd "world" economically anyway and may not be able to do many complex projects going forward. This will really erode the control grid. A prime example from this year PGE, Pacific Gas and Electric was more or less ordered to make sure they don't cause multi million dollar fires with faulty wires. The companies solution is to turn off power to wealthy areas Another upper middle/lower upper neighborhood in So Cal had a very nasty gas leak and the company basically said "We can't fix it, screw you." . This kind of conduct happens in poor areas quite often which is lousy but understood, he who has the gold makes the rules However upper class neighborhoods normally are never ignored as the have money and power enough to apply political pressure on a large scale , collectively much more than the very top in fact That kind of collective breakdown is unheard of in the past and prefaces bigger problems ahead.

        • I've always suspected they can't eliminate cash b/c it makes the various Spook agencies work too difficult. Also, if the underground economy is denied cash it would initially cause a recession/depression (due to the elimination of a large part of grey/black economy). Then the risk would be that the gray/black market would come up with another medium of exchange (which would then become a competing currency).

          • There was also an interesting story in the news media about how many nations including poorer ones have invested in facial recognition tech This made it difficult to get CIA agents into the country under multiple identities without cooperation of the host government This put serious operational limits on the use of field agent and the article implied this caused a major freakout at the CIA

          • @A.B Prosper "There was also an interesting story in the news media about how many nations including poorer ones have invested in facial recognition tech" How ironic is it that Orwellian control tech may be a key to achieving local control.

  • Frankly I think this sounds like the sort of hellish thinking that would perpetuate this mess rather than fix it, but it's no secret you and I have some basic philosophical disagreements, so I'll leave that on the table. There's one bit I wanted to explicitly respond to:

    The people who you want having the children are those who *don’t* need the money. I still think a child-less tax is a good idea. No kids after 25, you get taxed. Less than 2 kids after 30, you get taxed. Less than 3 kids after 35, you-get-taxed.
    I think this is a bit backward, and misses the economic argument about the suppression of fertility. The ultra-rich don't need the money, true, and you more or less do want them to have kids. (That said, the ultra-rich should have a TFR at or even a little below 2; below-replacement TFR in the ultra-rich encourages long-term social advancement of the borderline rich.) Rather, the large number of people that you want to have kids but aren't do eventually have enough money to sustain children in our crazy system, but far after prime fertility. They have the money at 40, but not at 25 or 18. So we need some way of easing the financial burden on them during the child-rearing years, while not targeting the undesirables. Something like a 'baby 401(k)' that future grandparents can put away to subsidize their future grand-children might work. The sorts of people you want for long-term civilization building and maintenance are already naturally interested in the health and financial stability of their children and grandchildren, and they (probably) already have enough money for child-rearing by the time they're 40-50ish. Intentionally offering some method of transferring the wealth of the older generation to the younger for the purpose of raising the youngest, and doing so before they're dead (and instead of blowing the patrimony on cruises in the Bahamas in your 70's) is the key. In a grand engineered future with a simplified tax code it obviously wouldn't be a 401(k), but methinks the analogy holds.

  • >That leaves them plenty enough money for penthouses, yachts, and high-class whores, but not enough to subvert society with a globohomo agenda. This fundamentally misapprehends the nature of the status competition of high society. Money isn't about the money. Everyone already has more than enough to live in the finest comfort. Even a pissant engineer like me (never lose a civil war, it's bad for profits), scrounging at the bottom of imperial society, makes several times the median income, with enough passive income to retire right now. Money isn't money. It's power. What globohomos want is power, more power, and leftism is a pleasurable means to this end (I believe elites have been genetically selected to find leftism enjoyable). Why not quit the games? You could make all corporate profits yield profit in the form of FEDGOV shares. The actual money would be divided as a worker coop, with the local lord getting a larger but reasonable share, ala Yugoslavia. To tether the globohomos back to the proles, you could make it so that each share would need the signature of a prole to redeem. To exercise their power, the magnates would need the consent of the governed. And you would also want a monarch with military force to stomp them down. And a strong religion, to hopefully stop future shenannigans. If future Soros wants to flex his might, he'll need a hundred million proles to formally assent to his legislative proposal. Something like that. Monarcho-communism now!

    • You can't create a religion by fiat unless you believe it. A faith only works as a social control if the elite at least appear to believe in it and it decreases entropy Ours certainly publicly supports progressivism but it is highly entropic and as such can't work as social glue As for monarchy. Its tied to the kind of run away and/or hope for a collapse thinking that pervades both the Dissident Right and NRX This is not possible, you can't run to anywhere and a collapse may never come in time. Also the firearm isn't going anywhere and repeating arms may well mean no warrior elite and thus no feudalism . The bolt action rifle, late 19th century tech ended the practical monarchy and a warrior elite Now in a couple of centuries, theoretically most of the US will be Amish or similar., This is insanely fast by historical measure but its far too much of a time frame and still uncertain. The reality is if someone wants power, they have to be rid of the current elite, replace them and make sure that no elite can socially signal except in the way your guys want them to. A ruling class that say opposes pornography that won't send pornographers to a labor camp for five years has no business with power. Ignoring the logistic difficulty here , no one actually has a reality based replacement plan anyway I understand this from NRX, its an intellectual movement but the Dissident Right outside of the anti abortion portion is weirdly non ideological This means no possibility of taking power ever.

      • You don't need a warrior elite for a monarchy. Most monarchies spent most of their history post-feudal. You can't replace the elite, only what they believe. If the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, plagues, and world wars can't do it, I'm not sure what can. Blood keeps on truckin'.

        • Elites can be replaced. Usually this happens by conquest, often in combination with population replacement

    • If future Soros wants to flex his might, he’ll need a hundred million proles to formally assent to his legislative proposal. Something like that. Like it isn't already that way. No riots/strikes/formation of revolutionary parties = assent.

      • That's a pretty high ask. Lots of people hate things but won't risk their lives to stop it.

  • The best tax code (at least taking purely economic considerations into account) would probably be a small revenue tariff combined with a Henry George type land-value tax (though I would not attempt to capture the entire value of ground-rents just perhaps half). Henry George is widely considered a leftist yet his form of leftism has ECONOMICALLY worked wherever its been tried though due to opposition from rentiers has not been sustainable politically. The LVT at least partially solves the tendency of the people not at the top to gradually bleed out capital and mostly eliminates the need for periodic wealth transfers or inflation to keep the system going. Spandrell I really wish you wouldn't blackpill about Trump, I know you don't live in the US but most of the blackpill stuff is based on lies or on things he has no control over as of yet. For people who do live in America not supporting Trump is a pretty clear litmus test towards you being an enemy leftist no matter what else you would say.

    • The Wall. Show me the freaking Wall. And put Kobach in DHS. If he does that I'll take my red hat again (I bought one). If he doesn't, I'm taking the pink hat.

      • Don't you read your friend Jim. He has been building what he can on the wall without congress. That 1st caravan wasn't stopped in front of an empty space. Very little chance Kobach would get confirmed, at least 5 of the Republican Senators are EXTREMELY unreliable. Romney and Collins would almost certainly vote no and then he can only afford one defection and it would be hard to keep Rubio, Murkowski AND Tillis at the same time. "Remain in Mexico" has been okayed by the 9th circus upon Trump threatening to dump the illegals off in front of their houses most of the blackpill immigration stuff on Trump is lies... Blackpilling schills go "hail fellow right wing nazis Trump is projected to let in 6 gorillion illegals" based on attempted entry by caravan illegals that were stopped. Yang will never even get close to the Democratic party nomination.

        • If Trump can't get anything done he's still to blame. Don't sell stuff you can't supply. You call that fraud. All I see is Ivanka and her skinny Jew husband promising more immigration. Yang not going to win is not an argument against his ideas.

          • My point is he has gotten stuff done. The caravan invaders are now in camps in Mexico and the 9th circus has blessed this. The wall is being built albeit partially and slowly as Jim has proved. DHS is now at this point being directly overseen even at lower levels when necessary by Stephen Miller who can now issue orders to it in Trump's name.

  • "The people who you want having the children are those who *don’t* need the money. I still think a child-less tax is a good idea. No kids after 25, you get taxed. Less than 2 kids after 30, you get taxed. Less than 3 kids after 35, you-get-taxed. I’d say a TFR of 2.5-3 should be the aim of public policy, no more, no less. Child-less taxes shouldn’t be crushing, just annoying. You want to nudge people, but the freaks who just hate family life should be allowed to weed themselves out of the gene pool." This absolutely should not be done until women are made property again (and after a certain age subject to marriage 1.0 by abduction) and it should only be for high IQ people.

    • @The Comtaminator Good Christian religion. Patriarchal in its nature is the best way forward. Instead of government regulation. So that family formation is voluntary and done by willing people. Let the rest fall by the wayside.

      • Good luck getting from here to there. As of now the Catholic Church is run by a Peronist homosexual with a fetish for kissing black men's feet, and 90% of Protestant denominations are pretty much run by lesbian women.

      • Jay family formation should be done by willing MEN but caring whether the women are willing or not is what got us into this disaster in the first place. Ideally... their father arranges their marriage should he die or should the father fail to do so by the time the woman reaches certain age they should be subject to abduction by any honest single man who will have them.

  • The key to reactionary taxation is that it is designed to hit the Laffer maximum as efficiently as possible. This would involve the following elements: 1) mandatory fractional ownership of all corporations doing business of any kind in the domain (note that this implies a "tax" on all dividends) 2) a flat tax on all salaries and salary-equivalent payments 3) a flat tax on all interest and interest-equivalent payments 4) a flat sales tax (that is, a consumption tax) 5) a land tax based on self-assessed valuation, also useful for eminent domain 6) targeted "vice" taxes All taxes should be very easy to compute. Very few individuals should ever need to file tax forms, and those that are required (most from corps) should be extremely simple and transparent. In particular there are no income taxes per se. If you earn $1m in USA, but are resident in Arcadia, you pay taxes only on what you spend in Arcadia.

  • If the various nations can't stop Bittorrent, how do you expect them to stop Bitcoin? There are also privacy solutions for Bitcoin if you look for them (and several private-by-design coins). In order to stop Bitcoin you would need the G20 nations to coordinate on it. Not sure why you think $BTC is unwieldy (unless you're trying to do something like run a full node).

      • VPNs and I2P work in Japan, AFAIKT. Torrents don't work with TOR, but BTC does, and it also works with the both of the former. BTC is even being sent over shortwave, and there's a group aiming to launch cubesat BTC relays. There would still have to be a coordinated effort on the part of the G20 to do anything, and that's highly unlikely b/c everybody hates the USD, and enough ultra-rich hold cryptocurrencies in size (and institutional adoption is already happening).

      • Also, I missed your comment about the NSA creating a cryptocurrency. Guess where the first recorded mention of it came from? Be sure to read the very first line, or you might miss it. Food for thought.

  • The problem with your alternative tax proposals is that they will be added to our existing tax burden. Taxation proposals in 1st world economies are almost always considered as additional or marginal revenue capture strategies designed to extract wealth from niche segments from earners that have managed to avoid paying the prevailing rate the system was designed to capture. If we could actually replace W-2 earnings, property tax, etc... with a VAT and some of your other proposals I would be 100% on board. The reality is they will continue taxation at the status quo and screw us with VAT and luxury taxes on top of what we are already paying. Despite your good intentions your proposals will only be used to shaft the productive class out of more wealth and increase the overall tax burden

    • One idea I have considered is banning real estate agent fees charged on all RE transactions that are currently mandated by the states and/or RE lobby associations. Residential RE transaction fees are generally around 6%, I’m not familiar with the commercial side or leasing fee structure. In my opinion RE agents are basically an archaic remnant of the pre-internet era, there is no reason for the states to guarantee them this work and high high fee structure. 99% of the research and property review process is now done online. RE vampires should get 2% max and the other 4% should go to a federal transfer tax to be used to supplement insolvent SSI or Medicare or any other Fed ponzi scheme that is underfunded.

    • My proposals won't be implemented, rest assured. But surely I'm entitled to speculate about my own kingdom.

  • Follow-up comments arr increasingly squashed on mobile, until they are only one word per sentence long. I wonder about inflation. You say printing money does not increase inflation because the money is pumped into housing assets.... But that IS inflation right? I mean, everyone has a mortgage, and everyone looking for a new house will find it to be a lot more expensive than thirty years ago.

  • Two comments above on Moldbug: The problem with monarchy is that despite having a stake in the future (assuming they procreate), there’s no guarantee they will continue to act in a manner that insures the monarchy’s survival. To the contrary, history shows eventually one of the crown’s line will fail to have enough interest in the future and be deposed, or be relegated to a figurehead. Carlsbad had some good points that the absolutist, basically Roman Caesarist direction Moldbug was thinking in has some flaws. Aidan recognized the same about the centralization trap. Yes, strong nobility makes kings insecure and they keep fighting with the nobility. But centralization leads to the government noblesse de la robe, “priests” eventually overthrowing the king. Moldbug's entire argument is monarchy/dictatorship becomes the best possible form of government only when two conditions are satisfied. 1) The monarch, whilst having total control of the government apparatus, is responsible to some other body that takes no role in decision making except that it can fire the monarch and replace him simply by ordering it. This is to be achieved by technical means. 2) That same body has some quantifiable and demonstrable criterion by which to judge the effectiveness of the monarch, i.e. monetary takings. I tend to think of this as a thought experiment, like those used in Austrian economics. The idea is to work out what the best possible government - i,e. one without politics - would actually look like, then you can judge existing systems against that criteria and work out the implications of various types of deviations from the ideal case. In any case, most arguments *against* Moldbug are just totally irrelevant. Hell, most people who claim to follow Moldbug consistently say things contrary to both his basic theory and his stated opinions on a very wide range of topics. While I personally enjoy Moldbug's style, one does have to admit that judged by the clarity with which people grasped his ideas, he is not a successful writer.

    • When you want to make something clear, you repeat it, and repeat again, and insist when possible, using simpler language in every iteration. Doesn't seem to me he wanted to make himself clear. But he got something very interesting started, for which we should all be grateful.

    • Moldbug was describing Liechtenstein I have my doubts that this could be done with the average nation-state due to scaling issues (it only has 38k people). There's also a problem of defense when you're that small. The only reason I read Moldbug was because others were reading him and being influenced. Clearly he touched on something. But since he's intelligent, the likely reason he didn't bother being clear is because he didn't take his ideas serious enough to be clear. That makes it harder for me to take him seriously. I'm not opposed to Monarchy as a matter of principle, assuming the polity is organized in a way that recognizes and accounts for human nature and perverse incentives. It's entirely possible that a constitutional monarchy organized according to what I outlined might be the best of both worlds.

    • My interpretation is that the important argument is not that monarchy is best, but rather showing the faults of other ones, showing principles like 1) trying to limit power means actually exercising power 2) which leads to competing power centers 3) their fighting causes a lot of collateral damage. If, for example, oligo-aristocratic elites can somehow not infight much, because they are fueled by nationalism and they ingroup each other strongly, that could also work - for a while. I think the whole point in Rome was that they got so nationalistic, hence well cooperating, not infighting, that they felt they can get rid of those annoying Etruscan kings and run an aristocratic republic. And it worked for a while but later on infighting increased and only Caesar could solve it. Outward expansion, empire-building/conquering also helps with elites not infighting much. We see expanding democracies / parliamentary systems being stable enough as long as they do expand, from the British Empire to America gradually going from the East Coast westwards Which is why we must get into space.

      • I have my doubts that this could be done with the average nation-state due to scaling issues (it only has 38k people). There’s also a problem of defense when you’re that small. One word: patchwork. When you want to make something clear, you repeat it, and repeat again, and insist when possible, using simpler language in every iteration. Doesn’t seem to me he wanted to make himself clear. I've been reflecting on it and actually the answer is obvious and it's something Moldbug also said many times: no thickos. If you want to build a movement to overthrow democracy, the first rule is to have absolutely zero stupid people involved. A few won't do much harm on their own, but they keep attracting more and more and eventually you become just one big spasfest. Considering the history of the alt-right, it's another example of Moldbug being proven correct i his analysis (btw. he always called it on Trump.)

        • "Patchwork" used to be the norm in the USA, as it was much more decentralized. The issue is keeping it that way. I've always held that most decisions (e.g. pot/alcohol/abortion/welfare) should be done at a county level, let alone state. I agree with the "no thickos" rule, but more important than that would be "no lefties". IMO "no lefties" makes "no thickos" moot, as most of the thickos are eliminated, and the right wing midwits that will be present are at least able to think clearly, if not quickly. The problem is that there will always be democracy in one form or another, whether you want to call it that, or not (similar to how anarcho-crackpots want the exact function of gov't, they just don't want to call it that. Well, if it walks/quacks/swims like a duck...). The central issue as I see it is restricting suffrage to productive people with a stake in the future, and excluding all others. Trump's results (or rather, the group behind him) remains to be seen. They will try to restore civic nationalism, but I'm not sure they're ready to stomach the amount of force (I believe) required to make that happen. He's a lock for 2020, so maybe they can pull it off, but I'm expecting the USA to balkanize in a few decades.

          • “Patchwork” used to be the norm in the USA, as it was much more decentralized. That's not Patchwork. This is Patchwork. Now, it's true enough that the need for military defense probably renders Patchwork undoable, but that's the point: what does ideal government (defined as having no politics) look like? What about current circumstance dictates deviation from this ideal? What are the implications of these deviations? What measures would be needed to compensate for these effects? I agree with the “no thickos” rule, but more important than that would be “no lefties”. IMO “no lefties” makes “no thickos” moot Where have you been hanging out? Not Gab, that's for sure.

          • @Gabriel M "That’s not Patchwork. This is Patchwork."? That sounds like Hoppe's Covenant Communities. "Now, it’s true enough that the need for military defense probably renders Patchwork undoable,..." We should stop right there and fix that before going forward. But... "...but that’s the point: what does ideal government (defined as having no politics) look like?" I don't actually know, I only know what I would prefer. This is why I offered up a start to organizing government respecting and according to human selfish-self interest. Still looking for ways to game it so I can improve it. "What about current circumstance dictates deviation from this ideal?" Just about everything. "What are the implications of these deviations?" Collapse, war, & Balkanization. "What measures would be needed to compensate for these effects?" A complete reformation of our legal, judicial, and legislative systems. Unfortunately I believe it will take a level of violence and coercion that few will easily stomach. I really hope I'm wrong, but... ""I agree with the “no thickos” rule, but more important than that would be “no lefties”. IMO “no lefties” makes “no thickos” moot Where have you been hanging out? Not Gab, that’s for sure."" I'd take a side bet on the average IQ of the right vs. the left, as I believe the majority of the ones touting that leftists are more intelligent is bullshit propagated by certain special self-chosen people. Searching wing vs. right wing IQ raven&cat=web&pl=opensearch showed two interesting contradictory results: But perhaps IQ is the wrong metric to discriminate on. Moral foundations probably make more sense. Johnathan Haidt appears to have made some inroads on the origins of the differences Moral Centers vs. 2 moral centers left right haidt&cat=web&pl=opensearch Here's the video that tipped me off to it: Moral Dunning-Kruger

  • While Duke of Qin has proposed a stable civilized society. is evolutionarily stagnant:

  • "It’s well within the government’s power to incentivize marriage. "For one, imposing a heavy bachelorhood and spinsterhood tax on unmarried members of both sexes (starting from the legal age of marriageability) would prompt even promiscuous nightclub-dwellers to attach themselves to permanent -- and, ideally, exclusive -- sexual partners. "Two, government can play the role of matchmaker by setting up a national agency dedicated to that purpose. As a politicized incel, you must certainly be well-aware of the immense pains that many men take until (if at all) they finally manage to pair off with a mate. It does not have to be this way; the situation can be fixed by having the state launch a war on singlehood. A national matchmaking agency would go a long way towards eliminating involuntary celibacy. "In the same vein, government can subsidize and/or give tax cuts to private sector entities that provide the public with effective matchmaking services. "Every unmarried person past the legal age of marriageability who refuses to cooperate with the national matchmaking agency or with state-authorized private entities that provide matchmaking services would be subject to punitive measures such as a burdensome maximum wage ceiling and the termination of his or her welfare benefits, in addition to the bachelorhood/spinsterhood tax."

    • The breakdown of marriage and the family is almost 100% women's fault. You propose in part to punish men more put the stick 100% on women. National matchmaking maybe but better to allow father's to arrange marriages before a girl reaches a certain age and then to allow any honest single man to claim any single woman 1st come 1st serve after a certain age. The consent and wishes of the woman should at no point be a factor.

      • Reaction seeks the restoration of patriarchy and coverture, sure. But even in the absence of patriarchy and coverture, when women are allowed to make their own sexual choices, there are still ways to minimize the problem of inceldom; one such way is to drastically constrain the sexual market itself. You can argue that the spinsterhod tax should be much heavier than the bachelorhood tax (I'm inclined to agree), but that doesn't mean that a bachelorhood tax is necessarily a bad idea; nor is it a novel idea. Same goes with the punitive measures proposed herein.

  • I'm going to repeat something for anyone that actually wants change: run a business. A real business where you add value. The more people you help, the more money you make. This is not an abstraction, it is reality. When you are interacting with large numbers of people you get to see how the world actually works. Virtually everyone here (and every other site) sees power as an external force to themselves. If you are running a successful business you have real power in the lives of your customers (and the customers self evidently have huge influence in your life). We have been trained with the bizarre idea that politicians control the world. Politicians can only mold what is there.

  • Smart post. Love the percentage tax on childlessness--either spent 20-30 percent of your income on your children or have it taken to support those who are building the future (non-immigrant, non-low-IQ-no-social-trust) population of the country. As one commenter added, collecting some rebate or support if your children are successful makes a lot of sense too. I assume you're outright eliminating all the Medicare-paid births (1/3 of whites, 2/3 of non Asian minority children) or requiring them be paid back by wage garnishing. And being on welfare for long periods of time enters you into a lottery for deportation (for every immigrant we take from a country, we send one back obviously). The wealth cap is dumb. BUT it's insane people are allowed to accrue wealth in a public corporation (fully legible value) that is not taxed. Spread it out over a decade if necessary but it should be taxed as its value grows, not exempted indefinitely.

  • What ideology will be used to define 'vice'? How can it be ensured this doesn't get redefined and abused? The idea of foundational ideology must always be enshrined. Personally, i thinkwe can't do better than Catholicism, but that's another discussion. Foundations are everything.

  • 0 pingbacks