Do You Ever Get Into Metapolitics?

Post Reply New Topic

I am more right wing/decentralizationist, so my ideas on meta politics may differ from yours, but after talking to a friend who as become more of a mainstream "normie" if you will, it seems like people don't think about the small aspects of things. In this case I said I was against liberalizing citizenship as I think it would add people to the voter roll that are for big government, however I do think that people should have freedom of movement and should be able to enjoy their natural rights anywhere (enjoy the fruits of their labor, defend themselves, do with their money and property how they see fit) and thus visa policies in the US should be liberalized. Having said that I don't think citizenship should be a right as it is an artificial contrivance and in theory should not exist anyhow. But the debate over immigration either seems to be give everyone citizenship or they are second class citizens or shut off the faucet completely. No in between.

Second thing is marriage licenses. Why should I need a license to marry who I want to love, whether that is a woman, man, or the entire Denver Broncos? But people respond and say "that is how it is" and in that case either be for gay marriage or against. It just seems like people these days don't want to dip into the gray areas of things.

More people are concerned about improvement within the 'normal structures' of society and since change within the current framework can make direct benefits to people's lives and can be implemented in a reasonably straightforward method most people would prefer to discuss realistic and achievable solutions over navel gazing about what might be idea.

I like 'metapolitical' topics, but at the end of the day real politics matters more than metapolitics.

It would be interesting to study some more "meta" political subjects:

- Should we privatize the planet and do away with political entities (nations, countries, governments)?

Too many politicians, too many problems.

Corporations are obviously very good at making money (while countries are very good at spending money on stupid stuff), so why not let companies run the planet instead?

It also making for really, really scary cool science fiction stories...

- Should we downsize humanity?

Too many people, too many problems.

Let's face it. Earth isn't getting any bigger.

So let's go full Thanos and get rid of half of humanity... wait, let's make it two thirds. It's good for the environment, and buying real estate would probably get really cheap really fast...

- Should we "geneducate" the entire species?

Too many A**holes, too many problems.

With the current advances in brain science, we are beginning to understand the biology of personality traits - including anti-social ones. So we could decide to genetically engineer human beings to be nicer and more easy-going.

When we have ascended to Homo Sapiens Lebowskinus, there will be no more wars, only abiding and taking it easy (and lots of bowling).

You can do that. There is nothing stopping you from forming a private marriage arrangement.

However, if you are going to take advantage of the benefits and protections under law, then you need to adhere to the law. And civil marriages/unions are good as we do not have to rely on non-governmental organizations like the church that are not held accountable by the the members of democracy.

BTW, there is no such thing as natural rights. All rights come from the society you are a member of.

And if you are going to enjoy the rights your society gives you, should the relationship not be reciprocal? I am assuming you are anti-tax. You would have no property rights in a state of anarchy.

Sounds good to me on the bowling. As for privatization I would say not all should be for profit (saying that as an uber capitalist), but overall I think there is a lot the private sector could do. On number 2 dunno but think that is happening whether we like it or not, just slowly.

Forgive my lack of knowledge of Biblical history, but even in their lax semi-states or lack of states, they did have boundaries. Further common law countries were lax about a lot of stuff (licenses, incorporation, etc) until about the late 1800s, and with marriage licenses that was to prevent interracial marriages. Also in theory I would not be against infrastructure or other things, provided they are now royally screwed up. I would probably take more issue with the big 5 (military, SSN, Medicare/Medicaid), as would even some left wing economists like Minsky, as it is purely inflationary spending vs infrastructure, which at least is improving efficiency in theory. The problem is that it is hard to price, so you get boondoggles that you spend more on than their worth. An antecedent to that would be the gondolas of Medellin. I think they cost about $50 million but reduced unemployment and crime significantly. So in theory I am not even against infrastructure but there is no price mechanism so it is harder to see what is worth it or not. Also as another example where I live the government is able to run a very efficient train system that covers 2/3rds the state and the capital city is able to remodel their airport with no debt to the tax payers. I respect them more than most politicians as at least they are competent, more than I can say for many other politicians.


Further society != government even. I think that the issue with our country is due to a lack of society. Going back to Colombia (which has it's own issues), there is more society there than most the places I have been in the United States, small towns included. Also to me it felt less oppressive than many Western governments, even as the government is imperfect. It is the people, not the government/governance that make the nation. If it were just the government of the US I get that I am probably just bitching because they nicked off capital gains that I could have used to invest so I could retire early, but I feel like it is the culture that is the issue, not just the government. I noticed this in my home town. It seems like the civic mindedness has been dying with all the old people and all the people that are left either move or are stuck in a cycle of poverty. I moved before it got even worse.


One more final thing, why does everything have to be stamped, legalized, codified, tracked, chipped, and monitored? We are humans, not f*****g cattle. It deprives us of our human side and makes us into cogs of the machine . As for natural rights, Hannah Arendt would disagree. Further if that is the case is it my natural right to kill Muslims if my society (in this case Myanmar) said it was ok to do so? What about to report Jews in Nazi Germany? As humans we have the right to self actualization and everything that entails, despite what the ape colony tells us.

I am sorry but you are giving you fellow chimps too much credit. I get that cooperation makes things easier but christ there is even land for sale in Somalia so I think your point is invalid. Having said that I will go there as soon as you promise to move to North Korea .

I get that in terms of realism in approaching a topic, but on a larger point, if our ancestors decided the Dark Ages were just fine and never challenged the status quo, then how would we get to where we are. I am not even saying we should not change things in the here and now, but it seems to me that the more power you give to a system, the more those at the top have power, instead of breaking the chains. Having said that things can go horribly wrong and be back to square one (see France as an example).

Well, you enjoy your natural rights in North Korea. If natural rights exist outside the state, then you will find them there also--just ask for them. Naturally, cherry picking totalitarian regimes is not meaningful, especially in your respect for the past. Why not use a Scandinavian country as an example?

Not everything is stamped etc. But you are looking at this as a zero sum game. If you want your natural rights, they need to be coded and enforceable. And if you would like to live a few hundred years in the past, I assume you are talking about living there with power, because I would not like to be a peasant.

I am not giving anyone credit. That is why modern societies decided on not just democracy, but the rule of law. Perfect world? No, not at all. But a society without any contract is simply anarchy and left to a kind of natural law--the rule of the powerful. That was tried in the past with less than ideal outcomes.

So, you are saying we need a more equitable society that gives everyone in that society agency. So how do you prevent all but the powerful from driving the rights of the citizen?

So resting power in 536 people is egalitarian. Got it. Because we won't elect geriatrics that know jack s**t about US Organic Law and such. Further if people are smart enough to elect someone, why not just let them live their lives? Why the f**k does some geriatric who puts on some stuffy robe and cosplays for power get to decide what is and is not ok? Because a bunch of nobodies decided it was ok? If we are better than chimps than it sure does not show. Why not just automate that and let AI take over? Still is a better solution than needing to vote for two drooling geriatrics. Further game theory, economics, and system theory can create more ideal scenarios with less conflict and less costs, but we settle for this BS. Makes no sense.

I would also say that major deviations from society are unlikely to lead to positive results. History looks more kindly on incrementalism than massive revolution. Even the famed American Revolution was in many ways an incremental step, as republic ideals were already strongly in place in Britain and the colonies. The same could not be said of France at the time and the French Revolution had noticeably worse results.

I would not disagree. It also seems like all recent revolutions had a benefactor who funded one side or the other.