Theme: Constitutional Order

WHY THE GOVERNMENT ‘DOESN’T WORK’

(cross posted for future reference)

FACTS

0) The government doesn’t work because it was designed for extended, related families with similar interests, not an empire over those lacking similar interests – particularly interests in reproductive structure (family structure), where the absolute nuclear family of the English is eugenic, and the traditional and inbred family is dysgenic. There is no possible means of reconciling these differences in strategies and their corresponding moral codes.

1) Democracy (Majority Rule) is a monopolistic form of government, not a pluralistic, or competitive. Given any diversity of opinion, there is no means for both sides to win. Unlike the market, where all participants can win.

2) Democratic voting can only solve a problem of selecting priorities among a body with similar interests. Democracy cannot be used to select between opposing interests. As such democracy, as was intended, is a means for a homogenous people to select priorities, peacefully rotate power, and suppress dissenters.

4) The american experiment, was an attempt to create an aristocracy of everyone – or at least everyone who ran a small business or more (a farm). It was a commercial entrepreneur’s dream. This strategy worked for a long time, because immigrants desired land, and would leave traditional family structures behind, come to the states, adopt the nuclear family out of necessity as well as cultural norm, and

5) The Northern european high trust absolute nuclear family model cannot survive in a heterogeneous polity. It never could. We did a pretty good job with the massive post civil war to great depression era of immigration, by using a large, conquered continent, and forcible indoctrination in to the culture. But we reversed that necessity of conformity within two generations. And by 1963, the combination of racial tensions, feminism, the new proletarians joining the work force, the postwar soldiers in little pink houses, and temporary peak in earning potential by proletarians because of the collapse of the world economy during the wars.

Our culture, as predicted at the time, did not survive that immigration and attack on our institutions. It was an interesting period in human history. But a unique social model of the North Sea People (british) and a unique period in time (collapse of european civilization) did not create a new norm. Just a short period where everything was in our favor.

6) Family structure and origin determine morals and political preference. The more inbred a polity (the more outbred the families in it) the more homogenous it is. The more inbred the families are and the less outbred the polity is, the more demand for state intervention to compensate for moral and ethical differences.

The problem we have today, is that very soon the majority of americans will come from diverse, single parent families. And the majority of wealthy americans will come from homogenous, two parent families. And, as you can see in the voting pattern, what’s happening, is that white married voters are objecting to rents to support single voters.

I don’t see this changing any time soon. And this diversity of moral and financial interests is too diverse to tolerate. It may be possible to use totalitarianism to destroy the family entirely, but we can measure the impact of that at present, and no society can tolerate it.

CLOSING

I don’t know which way this future will fall,. But I do know that it is not possible, purely on incentives, for the high trust high performance society to exist without the nuclear family. We are riding on our history now, but that history will be spent within the next generation.

– Post Script –

One not so subtle point.

Voluntary associations only occur where trust is high because of a homogeneity of values (interests). Civic voluntary associations of any scale only occur where the population is outbred and relies on nuclear families. Wherever diversity is present, demand for government rapidly increases due to irresolvable conflicts between interests, and irresolvable conflicts between implied allocations of property rights between the individual, family and commons.

So, while it is true to say, as you have (and do often and well) that Voluntary Associations are superior to bureaucratic associations. Or, as the Ancap’s argue, that consumer associations functioning as competing insurance agencies, are superior to bureaucratic associations. One can argue that incommensurability of values in a heterogeneous population can only be solved by bureaucratic tyranny. And in fact, on commensurability alone (the ability to resolve conflict rationally) it is hard to defeat this argument.

As such, it is not sufficient to state that voluntary associations are preferable to the bureaucracy. Or that consumer associations (insurance agencies) are preferable to the bureaucracy. Unless we first grasp that heterogeneity forces bureaucracy, and homogeneity encourages if not forces, voluntary association.

This is of course, contrary to libertarian doctrine. But then, libertarian doctrine in this matter is rational, and not empirical. And empirically, libertarian doctrine is false.

Diversity is possible under private monarchies because no one has access to power. This is perhaps the often lost genius of the Manorial system: without access to power, groups must compete in the market for goods and services for their signals, rather than compete in the government for rents.

So recommending voluntary associations without first recommending the homogeneous normative environment necessary for voluntary associations is either misleading, self destructive or error.