Post by stevedtrm on May 2, 2016 13:08:00 GMT
"I want races of warrior-artists and nations"
"They want vertically stratified, clinical technocracy and globalism."
"It’s a vast topic really."
I beleive that people who understand economics understand that coercion through carrot and stick is necessary for those who aren't motivated to act for a community.
And that coercion through fear of loss is more compelling than coercion through incentivisation of potential gain.
And that once the subject of the coercion is compliant, they largely remain compliant and subsequently are more productive without too many destabilising risks.
And that also government elites know that coercion through incentivisation of gain also permits the populace to reject the incentive if their basic needs are provided and instead choose to dedicate time to investigating the legitimacy of the incentivisation system.
Therefore, where the incentivisation system is oppressive, governments seek to not just incentivise workers, but also to threaten them with losses of the various things they need to survive.
Some will accept this. They are accepting tyranny when they do, and therefore deserve tyranny.
Others will reject this, and fight using any means necessary knowing that tyranny ultimately always ends in the chicken factory scenraio where life and death and value and everything depends on the pleasure of those who manage the chicken factory and the chickens themselves are utterly ignored almost entirely as inanimate objects, repeatedly and relentlessly meaning death.
The fighters have a chance at liberty. And the tolerators can only have death, either at the hands of the tyrants or at the hands of the fighters.
The tolerators of tyranny will usually end up being threatened or bribed into service and enforcement of the tyrants. They're therefore to reasonably be referred to as "submissives".
Those fighting tyranny will risk death to do so, and be in the knowledge that the submissives, once theyve demonstrated their compliance with the tyrants, will be bribed into voluntarily production for tyrants.
As such, they've demonstrated that they're not willing to fight for liberty and that they can be subjugated to something that isn't economically distinct from slavery. The core qulity of slavery being that the productivity of the enslavee becomes the productivity of the enslaver.
As such, they are not incentivised by liberty per se, but only by the trivial distractions and bribes tyranny can provide, and therefore, in most cases, it will be better under any system to keep them enslaved and bribed or threatened into productivity for the enslavement system.
As such, this "most submissives are more useful as producers for an elite in society" position leads me to the conclusion that most submissives would be excluded from an otherwise egalitarian elite including as a minimum those who originally fought for the emancipation of te economically oppressed.
But not everyone.
Its just an initial position on things, i expect this position to be better specified and developed over time.
There is an economic solution to this question of egalitarianism vs fascism vs geoism. I beleive it is closer to fascism thn egalitarianism and closer to geoism than to fascism.
I therefore label myself a geoist, but recognise that those with submissive beleifs are doomed to be drained by those who parasite off them and ultimately take total control of them, like the human race takes control of the lives of the chicken species for its own nutrtional interests.
I expect to rewrite this later as this version of what i have said is rushed and incomplete.
The main reason it is here is to open the debate on egalitarianism vs oligarchism vs dictatorship as this is a central discussion to political theory.
Steven.
"They want vertically stratified, clinical technocracy and globalism."
"It’s a vast topic really."
I beleive that people who understand economics understand that coercion through carrot and stick is necessary for those who aren't motivated to act for a community.
And that coercion through fear of loss is more compelling than coercion through incentivisation of potential gain.
And that once the subject of the coercion is compliant, they largely remain compliant and subsequently are more productive without too many destabilising risks.
And that also government elites know that coercion through incentivisation of gain also permits the populace to reject the incentive if their basic needs are provided and instead choose to dedicate time to investigating the legitimacy of the incentivisation system.
Therefore, where the incentivisation system is oppressive, governments seek to not just incentivise workers, but also to threaten them with losses of the various things they need to survive.
Some will accept this. They are accepting tyranny when they do, and therefore deserve tyranny.
Others will reject this, and fight using any means necessary knowing that tyranny ultimately always ends in the chicken factory scenraio where life and death and value and everything depends on the pleasure of those who manage the chicken factory and the chickens themselves are utterly ignored almost entirely as inanimate objects, repeatedly and relentlessly meaning death.
The fighters have a chance at liberty. And the tolerators can only have death, either at the hands of the tyrants or at the hands of the fighters.
The tolerators of tyranny will usually end up being threatened or bribed into service and enforcement of the tyrants. They're therefore to reasonably be referred to as "submissives".
Those fighting tyranny will risk death to do so, and be in the knowledge that the submissives, once theyve demonstrated their compliance with the tyrants, will be bribed into voluntarily production for tyrants.
As such, they've demonstrated that they're not willing to fight for liberty and that they can be subjugated to something that isn't economically distinct from slavery. The core qulity of slavery being that the productivity of the enslavee becomes the productivity of the enslaver.
As such, they are not incentivised by liberty per se, but only by the trivial distractions and bribes tyranny can provide, and therefore, in most cases, it will be better under any system to keep them enslaved and bribed or threatened into productivity for the enslavement system.
As such, this "most submissives are more useful as producers for an elite in society" position leads me to the conclusion that most submissives would be excluded from an otherwise egalitarian elite including as a minimum those who originally fought for the emancipation of te economically oppressed.
But not everyone.
Its just an initial position on things, i expect this position to be better specified and developed over time.
There is an economic solution to this question of egalitarianism vs fascism vs geoism. I beleive it is closer to fascism thn egalitarianism and closer to geoism than to fascism.
I therefore label myself a geoist, but recognise that those with submissive beleifs are doomed to be drained by those who parasite off them and ultimately take total control of them, like the human race takes control of the lives of the chicken species for its own nutrtional interests.
I expect to rewrite this later as this version of what i have said is rushed and incomplete.
The main reason it is here is to open the debate on egalitarianism vs oligarchism vs dictatorship as this is a central discussion to political theory.
Steven.