sam0345 comments on Please don't vote because democracy is a local optimum - Less Wrong

-9 [deleted] 05 November 2012 08:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (210)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Multiheaded 12 November 2012 06:27:18PM *  1 point [-]

Oh man. Sorry, but this is getting to me. I expressed frustration about perceived evasiveness, and then you frustrate me further by avoiding to mention what I've explicitly listed above!

I've said a million times: in theory I'm ok with absolute decision-making power concentrated in one ruler's hands, a succession mechanism can probably be figured out, etc, etc. When I'm talking about egalitarianism, I'm not specifically concerned with the interactions between a monarch and subjects!

Instead, I'd like to repeat:

...official propaganda of property-based relations (such as slavery, feudalism or patriarchy) strict and obsessively enforced gender dominance, etc, etc.

(let's drop the issue of censorship for a moment. I'm assuming you're against it and, like Moldbug, want "free speech" that simply can't change anything power-wise due to the ruler(s)' monopoly on force and weapons.)

Just give me a plain answer of some sort: what do you want power structures within a family and in the workplace to look like? Along which Schelling points should limits be placed on a father, a boss? A child, a mother, an employee, a customer, a partner? Ought there be universal limits at all, in your opinion? I think there damn well ought to be, and they should at least act as a rubber band on disproportionate personal power!

Comment author: sam0345 13 November 2012 01:29:45AM *  1 point [-]

Just give me a plain answer of some sort: what do you want power structures within a family and in the workplace to look like?

Every long established functional family that I am aware of, where the couple remained married, the grown up children love and respect their parents, and so on and so forth, is quietly and furtively eighteenth century. Dad is the boss. When the kids were kids, Dad was the head of the family. The family was one person, and that person was Dad. Mum picked up the socks.

So, eighteenth century did it right, and it has all been social decay since Queen Victoria was crowned.

Show me a family where husband and wife fairly share the task of picking up the socks, and I will show you a family where dad sleeps on the couch and Mum's lovers visit every week or so to use the main bed.

It is just not in women's nature to have sex with their equals, so the egalitarian family just does not function. Legal measures to make it egalitarian invariably backfire and fail to have the desired effect. Maybe after some millenia of evolution, women will evolve the capability to have sex with their equals, but right now, does not work.

Comment author: Multiheaded 13 November 2012 02:08:22AM *  -1 points [-]

Thank you. Frankly, I feel that you're being honest with yourself about the kind of tyranny you want, while Konkvistador clings to his rose glasses. I'd slash your tires, but you're a worthy enemy.

Please take note people, I believe that this is the kind of social atmosphere that "neo-reaction" supports, whether its followers start out technocratic/utilitarian or not.