A heck of a lot of big words jumbled together that convey a totalitarian construct. Nice job. I'd rather die and take a lot of the people that would enforce this shit with me than to live in your world of insanity.
It takes a certain set of skills to dance as a fool does in hopes that compatriots will join in. And when they do, the realization of their collective power and agency rings true throughout recorded annals of history. A testament to the collected wisdom of the working class.
Oh to sing the praises of the first follower. For it is in them that the freedoms of choice should reign supreme and allow for the follies of mortality to shed the encumbrance of mortality such that their highest self shall be attained.
For it is in crafting of the trap that we gain true understanding of the nemesis for it is in the revaluations of their true desires that we gain insight into the profundities of mankind.
I dub thee Sir Ryan Williams. Will you take a place on the Advisory Council or the Adversarial Council?
The Advisory Council is the primary government body, as delegated by The Navigator. It is comprised of experts in various fields as needed for whatever the State is working on.
The Adversarial Council is comprised of rational skeptics whose primary purpose is to ensure the Advisory Council accounts for everything meaningful in their decisions and second to interface with the public.
Each Council determines it's own structure and rules. Every High Officer's primary duty is delegation and primary power is veto :in order to push power downwards and outward.
Every Public Servant must live as a monk, forswearing all but the necessary tools with which to perform their task. They are due only the best of everything relative to their duties and the appreciation of the public when they retire if they've done a good job.
There is another Council, of Advocates, General and Special who have carte blanche to examine any public facing aspects of society for inefficiency and corruption. They will report to The Councils of they find someone meaningful. Special Advocates have the same power within the government. All public facing activity of all Public Servants is transparent.
If you wish to maintain a private life, you may become a Public Assistant by taking it upon yourself to solve some need in society. If The State believes you're being effective at a necessary task, you may be funded or sponsored.
Public Servants are entitled to experience the full breadth of human experience but to avoid all possibility of corruption or special interests they may not have hobbies, relationships, pets, etc., therefore they will have to eat, sleep, vacation, visit, travel, experience very many things in the line of their duties. It's not just The Most Important Job In The World; It's an Adventure!
I wish to be on the The Adversarial Council, as an individual who questions the authority by which kings and queens manifest their authority. I stand in the face of supreme power as a gatekeeper to the vaults of of wisdom. And check those who wold bypass the regulations in service of their selfish desires.
Welp, that's why there's a metric fuckton of checks and balances. You'll have to pass a basic critical thinking skills test of course. That's mandatory for citizenship.
Like it or not, "The Truth" has thought things through. "The Truth" must not be dismissed as a dreamer or vilified. The Truth is a hard problem.
If you want a culture based on truth, you'll have to imagine what that is, its structures and systems, and what we base our truth claims on, etc., and fight. What are we willing to sacrifice to build a truth-based order?
The trickster is in the detail.
Generally Speaking
If you want the truth, you must sacrifice some hours away from diversions reading about dark psychology, propaganda, public relations, marketing, and advertising, and you must constantly upgrade your critical thinking skills in a disciplined way.
Although it is a difficult process and taxing on one's habits, one must be disciplined about seeing complex issues and cultures from various perspectives.
One must kill the internal parrot and critique one's own thoughts, ideas, and feelings.
Will we sacrifice two hours of screen time a week to organize a community meeting to discuss what a truth-based culture is, why it's desirable, and how we might make it happen? How receptive are our family, friends, and community to such pursuits?
We struggle to gain control over one addiction, to change one bad habit, to have one uncomfortable face-to-face conversation about a complex topic.
We are so confident in our point of view that we dismiss anything unfamiliar.
Are we not curious?
Are we willing to sacrifice our popularity to speak the truth to social influencers, upset the superfans, guard against audience capture, and build a truth-focused culture?
Would we sacrifice our lives to take power away from the oligarchs or for posterity?
We are more than willing to sacrifice freedom and democracy, serving the Players of The Great Game for money, status, and attention.
We are more than willing to sacrifice life on the altar of belief.
Self-sacrifice is essential to winning a revolution and replacing the old order with something more just and sustainable.
We'd have to sacrifice daily in perpetuity to maintain and improve a truth-based culture.
It's painful to face the truth. (cognitive dissonance)
We talk about "the hard problem of consciousness;" creating a new, truth-based culture is even more challenging than defining consciousness.
It will require sacrifice.
Unfortunately, too many people can't make the connection between defeating global, neoliberal, rules-based, financialized, late-stage capitalism, which is an omnicidal, war-mongering heat engine enabled by fossil fuels, technology, and constantly manufactured consent with sacrifice.
We won't sacrifice a minute away from the computer game because we are well entertained, feed on junk, and equate this with righteousness.
The firehose of information we parrot and the toys the bosses sell us will not save us from lies; sacrifice will.
The Truth as i use it is aimed at metaphysics, the foundation of all other truths: https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/metaphysics-in-a-nutshell. The truth as applied to Practical Wisdom, ie ethics, incl. politics ( ethics at scale ) is expressed in the ethical universals at the top, but Practical Wisdom is always contingent on priorities, so it's always a bloody fucking mess, esp. when trying to apply it to people who don't understand their own priorities.
Oh, epistemology. I know it's a frustrating quagmire. Thanks much for your reply. I get it. Let's talk; it's old-fashioned, but... Hang tough and be kind.
We agree on a lot of these points, but there are points of divergence that are pretty tough to get past.
I have yet to be convinced that libertarianism is a viable option. There are too many holes that tend to get glossed over.
The fascist part actually fills in some of those holes, but authoritarianism usually goes bad pretty quickly.
Now. I understand that you probably have answers to ALL of these concerns, through this rather elaborate system of checks and balances. And that looks great on paper.
But the road from here to there is nearly impossible. And that road will be filled with resistance, conflict, probably littered with bodies.
My system can be implemented today, gradually, peacefully and constructively over the next 30 years. 🤷♂️
It's simple. There's no huge paradigm shift necessary. We just start building it.
>We agree on a lot of these points, but there are points of divergence that are pretty tough to get past.
The right questions to ask about it are, is it necessary? Is it sufficient? Does it produce legitimacy? Is it sustainable? Is it compatible with the best understandings of psychology and game theory? Do the checks and balances actually produce good incentives? But beyond all of that, is it better than anything that's been tried so far? I believe the answer to each, with the possible exception of sufficiency, is yes.
>I have yet to be convinced that libertarianism is a viable option. There are too many holes that tend to get glossed over.
Libertarianism, like socialism and communism, has a many versions as there are people who have thought about it. Which do you mean? I may have missed something, but i certainly didn't gloss over anything. I believe i've addressed every common argument against each aspect of the system, and beyond.
>The fascist part actually fills in some of those holes, but authoritarianism usually goes bad pretty quickly.
This is not authoritarian in any sense as it only seeks to control that which is absolutely necessary, and in all other ways default to freedom.
>Now. I understand that you probably have answers to ALL of these concerns, through this rather elaborate system of checks and balances. And that looks great on paper.
Perhaps, but you didn't spell them out!
>But the road from here to there is nearly impossible. And that road will be filled with resistance, conflict, probably littered with bodies.
I believe there's no way forward and we're Doomed!, but must set that aside to have any chance whatever, like knowing we don't have free will. However, a piecemeal approach of solving things one bit at a time is more doomed bc it can never catch up to the problems before they're existential and extant.
You cannot create an efficient, sustainable, just, legitimate system without harming people in direct proportion to how deeply they were taking advantage of the inefficient, unsustainable, unjust, illegitimate one, and that means everyone from the top down to the middle class and often beyond. It's simply not possible to coddle the evil past while moving toward the good future. Blood *must* be shed. Current systems are metastasized social cancer and you cannot bargain with cancer, you can only excise it with extreme prejudice.
In order to have actual implementation, we must create a grass roots parallel society based on formalized best practices, which i've attempted to outline. That's something like what you have in mind. But. A requirement to enable that is an open-source, encrypted, mesh internet, and that seems impossible.
>My system can be implemented today, gradually, peacefully and constructively over the next 30 years.
I am not convinced we have that long, even if everything you suggest is implemented without difficulty.
>It's simple. There's no huge paradigm shift necessary. We just start building it.
Mmmm naw, at least not mandated communal raising of children and I think I’d probably have a bone to pick with ‘universal wellness care’ I almost can’t stand that word anymore
It’s not better, dont think there’s enough history to say communal is but it should definitely be a choice, and especially in healthyish nuclear family situations children thrive more than they would being raised by someone whose building blocks are different, there’s definitely an incentive….people need help with childcare, that’s different than most nuclear families are toxic..
I appreciate you linking me to your post. I would say that you do provide a framework for some kind of a society, but your basic premises could possibly have a hard time holding water. I of course am not an expert on libertarian fascist socialism, but I can say what little I do know about each one makes a combination of the three very unappealing at the outset. I digress. I would only ask this from a philosophical standpoint. Why must we value truth at all? I think I have to completely reject the premise that truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals. That really depends on who you ask and what their goals are. Reciprocity is in the same camp unfortunately. It does seem to me as if you are sort of just granting yourself meta-ethical terms and premises without providing a meaningful justification for the existence of these ideas in the first place other than, they are just what you prefer.
Thanks for letting me read it! I will be doing a post on moral realism next week that should dive into some of these concepts I think you might enjoy it. in the meantime I have a post on the Gospel my stuff is free, always will be hope to see you then friend.
A heck of a lot of big words jumbled together that convey a totalitarian construct. Nice job. I'd rather die and take a lot of the people that would enforce this shit with me than to live in your world of insanity.
😂😂
I humbly kneel and offer my sword in the pursuit of these most noble of goals.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk
It takes a certain set of skills to dance as a fool does in hopes that compatriots will join in. And when they do, the realization of their collective power and agency rings true throughout recorded annals of history. A testament to the collected wisdom of the working class.
It takes a First Fool and a First Follower.
Oh to sing the praises of the first follower. For it is in them that the freedoms of choice should reign supreme and allow for the follies of mortality to shed the encumbrance of mortality such that their highest self shall be attained.
You verbosed all over my shoes!
And that makes me happy...
For it is in crafting of the trap that we gain true understanding of the nemesis for it is in the revaluations of their true desires that we gain insight into the profundities of mankind.
I dub thee Sir Ryan Williams. Will you take a place on the Advisory Council or the Adversarial Council?
The Advisory Council is the primary government body, as delegated by The Navigator. It is comprised of experts in various fields as needed for whatever the State is working on.
The Adversarial Council is comprised of rational skeptics whose primary purpose is to ensure the Advisory Council accounts for everything meaningful in their decisions and second to interface with the public.
Each Council determines it's own structure and rules. Every High Officer's primary duty is delegation and primary power is veto :in order to push power downwards and outward.
Every Public Servant must live as a monk, forswearing all but the necessary tools with which to perform their task. They are due only the best of everything relative to their duties and the appreciation of the public when they retire if they've done a good job.
There is another Council, of Advocates, General and Special who have carte blanche to examine any public facing aspects of society for inefficiency and corruption. They will report to The Councils of they find someone meaningful. Special Advocates have the same power within the government. All public facing activity of all Public Servants is transparent.
If you wish to maintain a private life, you may become a Public Assistant by taking it upon yourself to solve some need in society. If The State believes you're being effective at a necessary task, you may be funded or sponsored.
Public Servants are entitled to experience the full breadth of human experience but to avoid all possibility of corruption or special interests they may not have hobbies, relationships, pets, etc., therefore they will have to eat, sleep, vacation, visit, travel, experience very many things in the line of their duties. It's not just The Most Important Job In The World; It's an Adventure!
I wish to be on the The Adversarial Council, as an individual who questions the authority by which kings and queens manifest their authority. I stand in the face of supreme power as a gatekeeper to the vaults of of wisdom. And check those who wold bypass the regulations in service of their selfish desires.
Welp, that's why there's a metric fuckton of checks and balances. You'll have to pass a basic critical thinking skills test of course. That's mandatory for citizenship.
Who's throat are you going to put your sword at to reach the free education goal? I'd list more, but why bother.
So... This is satire?
You should judge each point on its own merits.
I don't have time for that right now. If you can't elucidate further, that's okay.
There are fun and goals worth getting behind.
It’s a shame that we are limited in acting upon these.
It will take an open-source, grass roots parallel society to create a legitimate government of any kind.
Omg I have a vision for this already actually
Do you have a link to a doc of a synopsis of your version?
Let's talk.
Like it or not, "The Truth" has thought things through. "The Truth" must not be dismissed as a dreamer or vilified. The Truth is a hard problem.
If you want a culture based on truth, you'll have to imagine what that is, its structures and systems, and what we base our truth claims on, etc., and fight. What are we willing to sacrifice to build a truth-based order?
The trickster is in the detail.
Generally Speaking
If you want the truth, you must sacrifice some hours away from diversions reading about dark psychology, propaganda, public relations, marketing, and advertising, and you must constantly upgrade your critical thinking skills in a disciplined way.
Although it is a difficult process and taxing on one's habits, one must be disciplined about seeing complex issues and cultures from various perspectives.
One must kill the internal parrot and critique one's own thoughts, ideas, and feelings.
Will we sacrifice two hours of screen time a week to organize a community meeting to discuss what a truth-based culture is, why it's desirable, and how we might make it happen? How receptive are our family, friends, and community to such pursuits?
We struggle to gain control over one addiction, to change one bad habit, to have one uncomfortable face-to-face conversation about a complex topic.
We are so confident in our point of view that we dismiss anything unfamiliar.
Are we not curious?
Are we willing to sacrifice our popularity to speak the truth to social influencers, upset the superfans, guard against audience capture, and build a truth-focused culture?
Would we sacrifice our lives to take power away from the oligarchs or for posterity?
We are more than willing to sacrifice freedom and democracy, serving the Players of The Great Game for money, status, and attention.
We are more than willing to sacrifice life on the altar of belief.
Self-sacrifice is essential to winning a revolution and replacing the old order with something more just and sustainable.
We'd have to sacrifice daily in perpetuity to maintain and improve a truth-based culture.
It's painful to face the truth. (cognitive dissonance)
We talk about "the hard problem of consciousness;" creating a new, truth-based culture is even more challenging than defining consciousness.
It will require sacrifice.
Unfortunately, too many people can't make the connection between defeating global, neoliberal, rules-based, financialized, late-stage capitalism, which is an omnicidal, war-mongering heat engine enabled by fossil fuels, technology, and constantly manufactured consent with sacrifice.
We won't sacrifice a minute away from the computer game because we are well entertained, feed on junk, and equate this with righteousness.
The firehose of information we parrot and the toys the bosses sell us will not save us from lies; sacrifice will.
The Truth as i use it is aimed at metaphysics, the foundation of all other truths: https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/metaphysics-in-a-nutshell. The truth as applied to Practical Wisdom, ie ethics, incl. politics ( ethics at scale ) is expressed in the ethical universals at the top, but Practical Wisdom is always contingent on priorities, so it's always a bloody fucking mess, esp. when trying to apply it to people who don't understand their own priorities.
Oh, epistemology. I know it's a frustrating quagmire. Thanks much for your reply. I get it. Let's talk; it's old-fashioned, but... Hang tough and be kind.
Thanks for sharing this.
We agree on a lot of these points, but there are points of divergence that are pretty tough to get past.
I have yet to be convinced that libertarianism is a viable option. There are too many holes that tend to get glossed over.
The fascist part actually fills in some of those holes, but authoritarianism usually goes bad pretty quickly.
Now. I understand that you probably have answers to ALL of these concerns, through this rather elaborate system of checks and balances. And that looks great on paper.
But the road from here to there is nearly impossible. And that road will be filled with resistance, conflict, probably littered with bodies.
My system can be implemented today, gradually, peacefully and constructively over the next 30 years. 🤷♂️
It's simple. There's no huge paradigm shift necessary. We just start building it.
>We agree on a lot of these points, but there are points of divergence that are pretty tough to get past.
The right questions to ask about it are, is it necessary? Is it sufficient? Does it produce legitimacy? Is it sustainable? Is it compatible with the best understandings of psychology and game theory? Do the checks and balances actually produce good incentives? But beyond all of that, is it better than anything that's been tried so far? I believe the answer to each, with the possible exception of sufficiency, is yes.
>I have yet to be convinced that libertarianism is a viable option. There are too many holes that tend to get glossed over.
Libertarianism, like socialism and communism, has a many versions as there are people who have thought about it. Which do you mean? I may have missed something, but i certainly didn't gloss over anything. I believe i've addressed every common argument against each aspect of the system, and beyond.
>The fascist part actually fills in some of those holes, but authoritarianism usually goes bad pretty quickly.
This is not authoritarian in any sense as it only seeks to control that which is absolutely necessary, and in all other ways default to freedom.
>Now. I understand that you probably have answers to ALL of these concerns, through this rather elaborate system of checks and balances. And that looks great on paper.
Perhaps, but you didn't spell them out!
>But the road from here to there is nearly impossible. And that road will be filled with resistance, conflict, probably littered with bodies.
I believe there's no way forward and we're Doomed!, but must set that aside to have any chance whatever, like knowing we don't have free will. However, a piecemeal approach of solving things one bit at a time is more doomed bc it can never catch up to the problems before they're existential and extant.
You cannot create an efficient, sustainable, just, legitimate system without harming people in direct proportion to how deeply they were taking advantage of the inefficient, unsustainable, unjust, illegitimate one, and that means everyone from the top down to the middle class and often beyond. It's simply not possible to coddle the evil past while moving toward the good future. Blood *must* be shed. Current systems are metastasized social cancer and you cannot bargain with cancer, you can only excise it with extreme prejudice.
In order to have actual implementation, we must create a grass roots parallel society based on formalized best practices, which i've attempted to outline. That's something like what you have in mind. But. A requirement to enable that is an open-source, encrypted, mesh internet, and that seems impossible.
>My system can be implemented today, gradually, peacefully and constructively over the next 30 years.
I am not convinced we have that long, even if everything you suggest is implemented without difficulty.
>It's simple. There's no huge paradigm shift necessary. We just start building it.
Let's Goooo!
We'll keep talking. Time for me to make dinner. My kid is on the way to spend the night
Mmmm naw, at least not mandated communal raising of children and I think I’d probably have a bone to pick with ‘universal wellness care’ I almost can’t stand that word anymore
Why is the nuclear family better than the communal way of raising children that has been the norm through most of history?
It’s not better, dont think there’s enough history to say communal is but it should definitely be a choice, and especially in healthyish nuclear family situations children thrive more than they would being raised by someone whose building blocks are different, there’s definitely an incentive….people need help with childcare, that’s different than most nuclear families are toxic..
I appreciate you linking me to your post. I would say that you do provide a framework for some kind of a society, but your basic premises could possibly have a hard time holding water. I of course am not an expert on libertarian fascist socialism, but I can say what little I do know about each one makes a combination of the three very unappealing at the outset. I digress. I would only ask this from a philosophical standpoint. Why must we value truth at all? I think I have to completely reject the premise that truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals. That really depends on who you ask and what their goals are. Reciprocity is in the same camp unfortunately. It does seem to me as if you are sort of just granting yourself meta-ethical terms and premises without providing a meaningful justification for the existence of these ideas in the first place other than, they are just what you prefer.
Thanks for letting me read it! I will be doing a post on moral realism next week that should dive into some of these concepts I think you might enjoy it. in the meantime I have a post on the Gospel my stuff is free, always will be hope to see you then friend.
Dear Kaiser, may I get a break down of your favorite points in a TLDR? ❤️
Favourite bits? Hmm. Ahh. Err.
I've never thought about it in those terms. Each point is necessary to the larger goal of legitimacy, not necessarily desirable in it's own right, but i’ll say this; https://kaiserbasileus.substack.com/p/libertarian-fascist-gun-control, and the housing lottery