3 ms·
I'm on the left. I think Urbit is quite neat as a technology. Yarvin has very unusual political views, so I'm not sure where to put them, or if you'd consider t
by sterlind 7y ago
I'm on the left. I think Urbit is quite neat as a technology. Yarvin has very unusual political views, so I'm not sure where to put them, or if you'd consider this "sound-bite mudslinging" (if you do, please suggest a more palatable way of providing evidence:)
He seems pro-monarchy:
Was royalism a perfect system? It was not. But if we imagine a world in which the revolutions and civil wars of the last four centuries had never happened, it is hard not to imagine that world as happier, wealthier, freer, more civilized, and more pleasant.[29]
but anti-democracy:
When we look at the astounding violence of the democratic era, it strikes me as quite defensible to simply write off the whole idea as a disaster, and focus on correcting the many faults of monarchism:
He seems to regard political power as property, which makes a sort of sense with his monarchism:
Political power is a property right, however you slice it. It is owned, not deserved. It is not a natural or "human" right. And it has no more to do with freedom than brake fluid with fondue.[40]
Here is yet another (idea for good government): restrict voting to homeowners. Note that this was widely practiced in Anglo-American history, and for very good reason.[41]*
(He also favors property ownership as a requirement for voting, which aligns with Urbit's governance but seems... dated, politically.)
And he seems to view slavery as a potentially healthy relationship:
Modern Americans have enormous difficulty in grasping hierarchical social structures. We grew up steeped in "applied Christianity" pretty much the way the Hitler Youth grew up steeped in Hitler. The suggesting that slavery could ever be or have been, as Aristotle suggests, natural and healthy, is like suggesting to the Hitler Youth that it might be cool to make some Jewish friends… We think of the master-slave relationship as usually sick and twisted, and invariably adversarial. Parent-child relationships can be all three. But they are not normally so. If history (not to mention evolutionary biology) proves anything, it proves that humans fit into dominance-submission structures almost as easily as they fit into the nuclear family
It's hard to classify Yarvin anywhere politically, but given some very extreme views on slavery, democracy and dictatorship, I think "far right" is as accurate a label as any. His views are expounded upon in the Dark Enlightenment article in the summary.
(Sources are all from Wikiquotes)
- jevgeni 7y agoHis views are all just hand wavey fascism. At no point does he make a tractable argument. As a counterpoint: take all countries today that have functioning (i.e. non-figurehead) monarchies and compare them with democratic, capitalist countries. You can use prosperity, GDP per capita, average literacy - whatever as a metric and monarchies will fail.
- mellosouls 7y agoUntrue, or at least questionable claim. Monarchies are economically better-performing. Eg. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/monarchies-good-economies/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/monarchies-good-...
- jevgeni 7y agoThey demonstrably do not. Look at any competitiveness index, or standard of living index, or anything measurable. The article you’ve linked is banal. It talks about how monarchies are good at protecting established property rights. Duuuuuh. That’s their entire purpose. Thinking that stability of property rights is equal to economic performance is moronic. So either you think that I am one or you are one. Here’s a quick test you can do: look around you and count how many items around you are produced in the Kingdom of Lesotho? Or Kuwait? Or Madagascar? Or Bhutan? Such post-industrial powerhouses of economy those must be.
- mellosouls 7y agoI don't need to look around, a quick Google on monarchies and GDP before your initial post would have given you the information you needed to not post it. Eg the first link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/23/shut-up-royal-baby-haters-monarchy-is-awesome/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/23/shut-... Btw your jeering tone and determination to classify either of us as morons is unhelpful.
- jevgeni 7y agoYou peddling horsesh*t is unhelpful. Your fluid goal posts don’t help either. Obviously any U.K. style “monarchies” and republics with a figurehead. Your best bet therefore would be Middle East monarchies, which are obviously a product of the extraction industry. So even that is not an argument. Remember how China realized that the communist system isn’t sustainable and introduced elements of monarchy? No? Me neither, because they went with (very light) democratization. If you want to talk facts, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... But my favorite part is when I suggest you to look for immediate evidence in the real world and you’re like: “No, here’s a cherry picked article”. This disregard for facts is just plain offensive.
- mellosouls 7y agoI'm also on the left and found your comment very useful and informative. Again tho, my reference to mud-slinging is in the Wikipedia quote I replied to; I've no idea why you would think I might categorise your comment equally. As for his categorisation as far right; I've already acknowledged he might be (I haven't read much by him), but being prepared to discuss right wing ideas and challenge mainstream thinking should not mean either him or his technological projects are classed as not to be dealt with.