The attempt to reconcile libertarian ideals with the endorsement of a centralized monarchy, as showcased through the metaphor of the pencil, epitomizes the intellectual gymnastics within modern right-wing political circles. While "I Pencil" initially presents a compelling narrative about the efficiency of free markets, Curtis Yarvin's inversion of the metaphor reveals a stark departure from libertarian principles toward advocating for authoritarianism. This shift is not just misguided but deliberately deceptive, as it conveniently overlooks the inherent contradictions between individual freedom and centralized control. Yarvin's argumentation, steeped in pseudo-intellectualism, serves as a thinly veiled attempt to justify autocratic rule under the guise of restoring order, betraying the very essence of libertarian thought. The duplicitous nature of this rhetoric highlights the moral bankruptcy of the modern right-wing ideology, where ideological purity trumps intellectual honesty, and the pursuit of power overshadows genuine concern for liberty and justice. In reality, both libertarianism and authoritarianism offer distorted visions of governance, divorced from the complexities of real-world challenges and devoid of meaningful solutions.
Dave, delighted that you are engaged here. We think we're on to something. Have you ever read Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed?" Provocative read on how private ownership of the government would lead to greater liberty.
I have had the unfortunate displeasure of reading Hoppe's magnum opus. His argumentation ethics are incoherent and are easily refuted. The fantastical way he conceives of monarchy conveniently ignores most of the empirical realities.
Most Hoppeans tend to focus intently on the fascistic elements of his ideology, which is why so many like Yarvin tend to idolize him. But if what you truly took away from this book was that a government privately owned by capitalist oligarchs would lead to greater liberty, then I would urge you to reexamine your very notion of what liberty means and for whom it would be reserved. Does freedom extend only to those born into the aristocracy of capital ownership? How is that in anyway a “natural order?”
Well, I think his reasoning is this: there will always be an elite and that is the natural order. So private ownership of the government is actually more transparent and allows for lower time preference. Elected oligarchs are poorer managers (and elites) and are highly incentivized to cash out from their roles as quickly as possible, as their elite status is under consistent threat from those pesky voters. See also, congress being exempt from insider trading. For more on elite theory, I highly recommend Parvinis “populist delusion” . I also recommend “Snow Crash” for a fun thought experiment in what radical privatization would portend in America. I remember reading it like: “Is this REALLY that dystopian?” Pizza is always on time, absent regulations. ;)
The idea that elites and hierarchies are some kind of natural order is basically a fairy-tale to justify those benefiting from such systems. Throughout history, there have been plenty of examples of societies where power and resources were shared more equally, showing that things like wealth and status aren't set in stone.
David Graeber's work, especially "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology" and "Debt: The First 5,000 Years," dives deep into this, showing how hierarchies aren't just the default setting for human societies. They've mostly popped up recently due to states, armies, and the use of force to control people's labor and freedoms.
Even in societies labeled as egalitarian, there can definitely exist hierarchies, but they were often based on earned respect and could change depending on the situation, not just on who your parents were or how much money you had.
Saying that feudal monarchies and capitalist oligarchs owning everything is the 'natural order' isn't just wrong; it's a way to make those in power seem like they deserve it. Inequality and power imbalances don't just happen; they're actively made and maintained.
And this idea that private tyrannies run by elites are better because they're more competent? Look at the reality of crony capitalism – it's a mess and it exists well beyond the “short time horizon”. Big money and political power help each other out with revolving doors, leaving little room for real talent or accountability.
As for Hoppe's vision of a privatized world, it's like ignoring the warnings of dystopian novels like Snow Crash. They're not blueprints for a better society; they're cautionary tales about what happens when corporations take over everything.
Calling Snow Crash a 'fun thought experiment' for radical privatization shows a serious misunderstanding of its message. It's not celebrating a corporate dystopia; it's warning against it.
And recommending Parvinis' "The Populist Delusion"? That's a hard pass. It's just more of the same old story of elites versus the common folk, trying to justify why the rich and powerful should stay that way.
Instead of falling for these shallow arguments, let's dig deeper into philosophies that truly aim for human freedom and equality, not just excuses for keeping the status quo or trying to justify what in practice looks a lot like crypto fascism.
Dave, I am going to read “Debt” - it’s been on my list. I wish you consider Parvini’s book - it’s a spiritual successor to “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom” by James Burnham and a pithy modern showcase of 10 interesting philosophers. The TLDR is: there has never been a truly successful “grassroots” political movement. Political change is always architected by a tightly organized minority - think the Founding Fathers, truly ELITE DAWGS. Maybe I read Harrison Bergeron too early, but I view “equality” as a loaded trap. Anyway, redbill, bluepill, I choose the chill pill. Here’s a breathmint: https://undergrounddesigns.substack.com/p/adam-sandler-v-taste
Ah yes, I should have seen it coming with the political realists on display that Burnham would naturally come up. There is much too much to actually dissect that here so, perhaps, another time.
The attempt to reconcile libertarian ideals with the endorsement of a centralized monarchy, as showcased through the metaphor of the pencil, epitomizes the intellectual gymnastics within modern right-wing political circles. While "I Pencil" initially presents a compelling narrative about the efficiency of free markets, Curtis Yarvin's inversion of the metaphor reveals a stark departure from libertarian principles toward advocating for authoritarianism. This shift is not just misguided but deliberately deceptive, as it conveniently overlooks the inherent contradictions between individual freedom and centralized control. Yarvin's argumentation, steeped in pseudo-intellectualism, serves as a thinly veiled attempt to justify autocratic rule under the guise of restoring order, betraying the very essence of libertarian thought. The duplicitous nature of this rhetoric highlights the moral bankruptcy of the modern right-wing ideology, where ideological purity trumps intellectual honesty, and the pursuit of power overshadows genuine concern for liberty and justice. In reality, both libertarianism and authoritarianism offer distorted visions of governance, divorced from the complexities of real-world challenges and devoid of meaningful solutions.
Dave, delighted that you are engaged here. We think we're on to something. Have you ever read Hoppe's "Democracy: The God that Failed?" Provocative read on how private ownership of the government would lead to greater liberty.
I have had the unfortunate displeasure of reading Hoppe's magnum opus. His argumentation ethics are incoherent and are easily refuted. The fantastical way he conceives of monarchy conveniently ignores most of the empirical realities.
Most Hoppeans tend to focus intently on the fascistic elements of his ideology, which is why so many like Yarvin tend to idolize him. But if what you truly took away from this book was that a government privately owned by capitalist oligarchs would lead to greater liberty, then I would urge you to reexamine your very notion of what liberty means and for whom it would be reserved. Does freedom extend only to those born into the aristocracy of capital ownership? How is that in anyway a “natural order?”
Well, I think his reasoning is this: there will always be an elite and that is the natural order. So private ownership of the government is actually more transparent and allows for lower time preference. Elected oligarchs are poorer managers (and elites) and are highly incentivized to cash out from their roles as quickly as possible, as their elite status is under consistent threat from those pesky voters. See also, congress being exempt from insider trading. For more on elite theory, I highly recommend Parvinis “populist delusion” . I also recommend “Snow Crash” for a fun thought experiment in what radical privatization would portend in America. I remember reading it like: “Is this REALLY that dystopian?” Pizza is always on time, absent regulations. ;)
The idea that elites and hierarchies are some kind of natural order is basically a fairy-tale to justify those benefiting from such systems. Throughout history, there have been plenty of examples of societies where power and resources were shared more equally, showing that things like wealth and status aren't set in stone.
David Graeber's work, especially "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology" and "Debt: The First 5,000 Years," dives deep into this, showing how hierarchies aren't just the default setting for human societies. They've mostly popped up recently due to states, armies, and the use of force to control people's labor and freedoms.
Even in societies labeled as egalitarian, there can definitely exist hierarchies, but they were often based on earned respect and could change depending on the situation, not just on who your parents were or how much money you had.
Saying that feudal monarchies and capitalist oligarchs owning everything is the 'natural order' isn't just wrong; it's a way to make those in power seem like they deserve it. Inequality and power imbalances don't just happen; they're actively made and maintained.
And this idea that private tyrannies run by elites are better because they're more competent? Look at the reality of crony capitalism – it's a mess and it exists well beyond the “short time horizon”. Big money and political power help each other out with revolving doors, leaving little room for real talent or accountability.
As for Hoppe's vision of a privatized world, it's like ignoring the warnings of dystopian novels like Snow Crash. They're not blueprints for a better society; they're cautionary tales about what happens when corporations take over everything.
Calling Snow Crash a 'fun thought experiment' for radical privatization shows a serious misunderstanding of its message. It's not celebrating a corporate dystopia; it's warning against it.
And recommending Parvinis' "The Populist Delusion"? That's a hard pass. It's just more of the same old story of elites versus the common folk, trying to justify why the rich and powerful should stay that way.
Instead of falling for these shallow arguments, let's dig deeper into philosophies that truly aim for human freedom and equality, not just excuses for keeping the status quo or trying to justify what in practice looks a lot like crypto fascism.
Dave, I am going to read “Debt” - it’s been on my list. I wish you consider Parvini’s book - it’s a spiritual successor to “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom” by James Burnham and a pithy modern showcase of 10 interesting philosophers. The TLDR is: there has never been a truly successful “grassroots” political movement. Political change is always architected by a tightly organized minority - think the Founding Fathers, truly ELITE DAWGS. Maybe I read Harrison Bergeron too early, but I view “equality” as a loaded trap. Anyway, redbill, bluepill, I choose the chill pill. Here’s a breathmint: https://undergrounddesigns.substack.com/p/adam-sandler-v-taste
Ah yes, I should have seen it coming with the political realists on display that Burnham would naturally come up. There is much too much to actually dissect that here so, perhaps, another time.