diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'blog/manifesto-1.org')
| -rw-r--r-- | blog/manifesto-1.org | 370 |
1 files changed, 370 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/blog/manifesto-1.org b/blog/manifesto-1.org new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cc5772f --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/manifesto-1.org @@ -0,0 +1,370 @@ +#+title: The End of Equality and The Technocratic Imperative +#+author: Preston Pan +#+description: A system built on illusions will always decay. +#+html_head: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css" /> +#+html_head: <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="/apple-touch-icon.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="32x32" href="/favicon-32x32.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="icon" type="image/png" sizes="16x16" href="/favicon-16x16.png"> +#+html_head: <link rel="manifest" href="/site.webmanifest"> +#+html_head: <link rel="mask-icon" href="/safari-pinned-tab.svg" color="#5bbad5"> +#+html_head: <meta name="msapplication-TileColor" content="#da532c"> +#+html_head: <meta name="theme-color" content="#ffffff"> +#+html_head: <meta name="viewport" content="width=1000;" /> +#+language: en +#+OPTIONS: broken-links:t + +@@html:<span style="display: block; padding-bottom: 30px; text-align: center;"><i>By Preston Pan</i></span>@@ + +* Introduction +Our current economic and political system isn't totally failing right +now, but it's pretty close. Everyone agrees that our current system +isn't working as well as it once did. Our world leaders are not the +best among us. We live in an era of great technological progress, +while at the same time many of our institutions are /rotting/ -- where +most of our progress is driven by corporate America and Chinese +manufacturing. It is rotting so badly that /Donald Trump/ and /Elon Musk/ +are taking over in a semi-coup. This phenomenon isn't just a failure +of governance -- it is a failure of culture. + +For decades, we've been taught that culture moves in one, forward +direction, towards progression. But this is a lie. In our worship of +ideology, we fail to replace and examine our incompetent structures +/before/ they fail, and institutional protections are eroded. + +The world is collapsing not because of economic cycles or +partisanship, but because we built our institutions on a myth—equality +as a moral good. This myth has led to governments that do not select for competence, +and as a result, our systems are breaking down. +We need to abandon equality-based governance and replace it with a technocratic, +results-driven system that rewards competence above all else. It's +exactly what we need, but keep in mind that Elon Musk is /not/ going to +do this. He recognizes the problem that we all see, but he may not +have the solution. + +We do not suffer from: +- a left versus right problem. +- a rich versus poor problem. +We suffer from a competence versus incompetence problem. And we have +failed to replace our institutions before they had a chance to fail on +us. So what do our "best institutions" think of us -- and what should we +think of /them/? + +* Inside Harvard +Ivy League schools are some of the best of the best. They promote the +best ideas and they /punish/ bad ones. They punish bad ideas because +everyone in Harvard is /smart/. And these central intellectual +powerhouses will power our future. But is this true? Enter the +mainstream academic thought complex and one of its core values, which +led to revolutions all over the globe: our focus on equality, and the +communist movement which originated in academia +(many famous American physicists were affiliated with CPUSA; the Russian +Communist revolutions started on the back of an intellectual class in +Russia; Chomsky, Deleuze and Guattari; Einstein was a socialist, the +list goes on and on). Let's look at their track record, one of their most prized ideas, and +/let's see how they play out in practice/. +** China +Chinese communism received copious support from Chinese +intellectuals. There were intellectuals in China protesting +for a simpler writing system before Mao implemented the simplified +writing system, for example. However, the movement quickly turned away +from any semblance of intellectual input. + +The foremost major failure of Mao's regime during this period was the +great leap forward. During this time, grain was planted densely +because the idea was that grain wouldn't compete against others of the +same kind. This reduced grain harvests, and my friend has a personal +story about this. His grandmother witnessed a farmer telling a commune +that they were stupid for planting grain so thickly, "you could lie +down on it!", they said. They got their tongue cut +off for spreading "false information" about the regime. *Millions starved.* +Other policies included "communal furnaces", where people were told that +they could make high quality metals communally without economies of +scale. The truth is that in order to manufacture high quality steel +instead of pig iron, you need industrial scale furnaces because +"communal furnaces" /can't reach heat capacity/. Despite this obvious +failure waiting to happen and the academics warning Mao of this +possibility, the plan continued. The result? High quality metal, +turned into pig iron. + +My grandmother starved and her entire village almost died of +malnutrition. They starved because of bad farming policies, and a +complete inability to automate or move up the abstraction +hierarchy. Mao ordered sparrows to be killed because they were pests +that ate crops. The result? +*The locusts that sparrows preyed on grew enormously in population, and they ate all the produce. Everyone starved.* +But it doesn't matter anyways, because communism is cool. Because an +ideology that created generational trauma for two generations is +/fashionable/. People who have never experienced direct or indirect +influence from this communist regime still have the audacity to +believe this set of failures was caused by the CIA. + +After China reverted its socialist policies, it became an economic +powerhouse. The modern day CCP lifted almost a billion people out of +poverty, which is the greatest quality of life improvement in human +history. It is my opinion that the USA attempted to destabilize China +during the Tienanmen Square protests, but this didn't fundamentally +alter China's ability to become capitalistic. +*In spite of possible CIA involvement in destabilizing China, China's new economic policy reflected unforeseen progress*. +What changed in Deng's period? It turns out that /foreign investment/ +and /private equity/ doesn't destabilize nations, and capitalism isn't +always a CIA plot. But hey, maybe it's not real socialism. Maybe the +idea is still good and that was just one /really bad/ implementation. +** Cambodia +The Khmer Rouge was one of the deadliest regimes within its lifespan +in human history. They smashed babies' heads in en masse, and they broke +up families on the basis that people should value their /nation/ more +than their families. Within three years, they orchestrated the deaths +of /two million/, making it one of the deadliest three years in history, +reducing the Cambodian population by 25%. Cities were emptied, and +anyone that resisted the regime was executed. It was almost a /fifth/ of +the Nazi regime's total death count, and ran for one /fourth/ of the +time. After Pol Pot's death, none of the leaders were formally tried +for their crimes. The leaders' remaining lives were spent comfortably in +their home country, while American academics such as Chomsky, one of +the most cited public intellectuals in linguistics, +/denied the genocide occured/. The /Nazi/ regime was /de-nazified/ and all their +collective fiction was turned into /pulp/. The Khmer Rouge regime's +leaders were at large until they /died of natural causes/, and their +Western defenders faced no consequences. But hey, maybe... that's just another unlucky instance? +** North Korea +What started as a proxy war in Korea turned into one of the most +brutal modern day regimes. Their propaganda today is a genuine +preservation of cold-war era mentality. So let's look into their +modern day regime, and maybe we can reconstruct what it was like +living in all of these countries. + +Their prisons are torture camps, where prisoners catch mice and snakes +to eat because they have /nothing/. Nobody can leave their +country. North Korea's biggest money makers today are in fraud and in +extortion. The people are desperately poor, and the bureaucratic class +are living it large. And let's not forget that there's a natural +experiment that played out in Korea. There's the other side of the +DMZ, where, despite its problems, people have economic freedom and are +happier, despite living in a /dystopian, cyberpunk/ state. Let's not +forget that there's always the other side of the wall. Speaking of which... +** Russia, the Berlin Wall +The first and foremost thing one can look at for quality of life is +people voting with their feet. The Berlin wall wasn't built to prevent +people from getting in; it was to prevent people from escaping. The +West side and East side were split by this wall. On one side, +consumers had all the choice in the world, enormous wealth for the +middle class and even the poor. On the other side, almost /everyone/ was poor. +** Other Regimes +It isn't just in Europe and in Asia that Communism has proven to be a +failed system. It failed in many rogue militant regimes in Africa. It +has failed in south America in Venezuela. Venezuela /should have/ been +rich like the OPEC countries. Instead they nationalized their oil +industry and now they are desperately poor. It failed in Laos. It +failed in Vietnam. It has failed in almost every continent. One of +these failures alone was almost as bad as +the Nazi regime. When failures happen like this, we usually scrap the +idea, not just the practical implementation. Most intellectuals think +that it's only a bad idea in practice, without considering that it +might just be based on /bad principles/. + +If communism isn't about centralization and brutal dictatorship, +how come it plays out in the same predictable way, /every time/? +** Economic Calculation +And we know that all these ideas are bad in practice, but what about +in theory? We know, according to modern day neoclassical economics and +public choice theory that Communism as an ideology is /broken/. The +labor theory of value doesn't hold up inasmuch as it doesn't describe +the /subjective/ value placed on goods by individuals, which is the +basis of the original Marxist scientific socialism. We know that +private individuals allocate capital more efficiently than governments +do on average, and nobody denies this simple fact. + +Communism is built on a foundation of collective ownership, but also +it is a rejection of the idea that hierarchies in capitalism are +justified. The core tenet of the idea is that /equality/ in economy +ownership is of utmost importance because of dirty capitalist +exploitation. So we see the reason: academia is in a civil war with the +capital owning class, and although they aren't communist anymore, they +share the same principles (/"it's bad in practice but good in theory"/) +-- what if the theory should be scrapped? And how are academics, who +are the smartest people in the world, so /wrong/? What does it say about +these people that the /smartest people/ in the world cling onto this +failed theory? And what does it say that our entire urban society is built +on a milquetoast version of these ideas, after the ideas outright +didn't work? + +Communist arguments usually involve pointing out both the exploitation +of the working class by the managerial class, and arguments based on +universal access to public goods. When liberal democracies presuppose +the universal access to goods, they are making the exact same arguments. +The end result is similar. Instead of centrally planning the +production of wheat, you are subsidizing wheat production in order to +guarantee universal access. But this model has the same failure mode: +it just happens in 100 years instead of 10. +* The Stark Reality +Harvard is just as deluded, and our public consciousness is just as +deluded about these ideas as neo-nazis and white nationalists are to +their previous regimes. But at least Nazism only /failed once/. That was +enough for us to learn from our mistakes. What if the smartest people +never learn from their mistakes? What if the ideology that equality is +a universal good -- is actually wrong? + +Our society directly /forks/ the same ethical opinions of communists -- +while discarding the /theory and application/ of communism in everyday +life. But in my view, the /worst idea in history/ shouldn't be discarded +solely on the practical and the theoretical basis. Imagine if we lived in a +society where everyone thought that /Nazism/ was a good idea in +theory, or that it had ethical ideals. Some attribute this imbalance to the fact that communism was +about equality which is a lot less offensive than explicitly espousing +a genocidal view. However, it's not true on first principles that we +/should/ have a more positive view of equality and a less positive view +of nationalism. Nazis sold their ideas to the nation by using slogans +like "living space" and "restoring our strong nation". +The truth is, +*you can make any ideology sound good if you have a good enough salesman*, +but we don't have to make communism sound good. We were just trained to. +And too often, communism (or its ideas such as equality) don't sound +morally repulsive in the first place because +/people don't sell it that way/. So why do we sell communism as a noble +cause gone wrong, when we sell Nazism as the worst idea in history -- +something that isn't remotely true in comparison to Communism? + +In my view, academia, and by extension communism, may not have won the +cold war, but it has won the culture war. It won the culture war +because although we may not adopt their application or even Marxist +theory, we adopt their ethical framing of equality as a moral good. We +adopt their framing because we have uncritically looked to these +institutions for guidance historically. We have given them unchecked +cultural power. These people set trends -- and what's in fashion 20 +years from now isn't decided in elections. It's decided in a Harvard +thesis today. But this begs the question -- if they're so wrong +about communism, what else could they be so wrong about? If we can't +trust them on the worst idea in history, why must we trust them on +anything at all? + +Though, even in our society, we have a sector of unrivaled +economic productivity, making products for people that allow them to +live better lives. But this sector doesn't care about equality. It +doesn't care about anything. Or in other terms, it does care about +people -- as economic units. It cares not who you are, only +/what you can do/. And yet, it treats its subjects better than empathy +can treat its subjects. When /individual/ incentives are aligned with +/collective good/, you can be an /angel/, and a ruthless /investor/. Here, +international criminals thrive. International criminals create +international cooperation. Here, governance is a part of the system, +not adversarial -- we accept a couple of "lobbies" here and there, but +let's just call it a public-private partnership instead! It isn't a +utopia -- but it's /real/. +* The New System +Elon Musk and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the rot of the United +States. What if, instead of propping up this fragile rot in the first +place, we actually designed governance like a systems engineering +problem? Democracy can be optimized -- but as a systems engineering +professional, you know that optimizing something is no use if it can +be /deleted/. Here, we don't value peoples' opinions equally -- we have +a city-state model where /almost every city/ is a SEZ. We optimize +everything in governance, following neoclassical economic principles +and using public choice economics to tell us when we're micromanaging +(when we would cause a government failure). There are no zoning laws, +except in tourist attraction hubs, and the only taxes are land value +taxes, as well as sin taxes and carbon taxes. All wealth +redistribution is done with a negative income tax. Regulations that do +not constantly justify themselves get /removed/. Courts +/manufacture truth/, rather than adhering to preconceived notions of +"fairness" (professional jurors? Betting markets? A system where +voting on the jury means you put up money, so if you're wrong you have +something to lose?). Our police are here to enforce /laws/. Remove all +laws from the books that aren't enforced. Enforce every law on the +books equally and with /zero tolerance/. Riots and violent social upsets are not +tolerated here. Crime and gang violence is treated as domestic +terrorism. Harming public infrastructure development and private capital is +strictly forbidden. Climate activists blocking pipeline development +would simply not be required -- our economists and climate researchers +have already priced that in with a carbon tax. Sorry, but if you're +going to keep blocking this pipeline, we're going to remove you. /Forcibly/. +Freedom of speech doesn't give you a mandate to destroy taxpayer-funded infrastructure. + +In this new regime, the old regime's staff can be reused -- if they +can prove their worth. They get rehired in central bank positions, and +in governmental planning positions, but they get paid in call options of a standard +basket of local companies, meaning they get performance pay. In this +new regime, we replace ideas of democracy and equality (including +democratic voting, in say, courts) with ideas that /work/. If a +philosophy is truly shown to work, we optimize it to its logical +conclusion. + +** The Efficiency Doctrine +The world isn’t held together by sentiment. It’s held together by +incentives. Governments, corporations, and institutions can preach +about fairness, justice, and equality all they want, but at the end of +the day, none of these ideas survive unless they align with reality. +And reality is governed by efficiency. + +Every major human rights movement that succeeded -- whether it was civil rights, +women’s suffrage, or LGBTQ rights -- didn’t win because it was morally +right in some abstract sense. It won because it became economically +impossible to ignore. The same businesses that once refused service to +black customers now fight for diversity. The same corporations that +once wouldn’t hire women now push for gender parity. The same +industries that once ignored LGBTQ rights now celebrate Pride Month with +corporate sponsorships. Not because they cared, but because it made sense. + +You can moralize all you want about what’s right, but the world runs +on what works. And when something works, you don’t need to force it. +It wins on its own. Progressives spend so much time trying to +manufacture empathy that they fail to ask whether their solutions are +actually efficient. Do LGBTQ rights need to be forced onto businesses, +or do they emerge naturally because an inclusive workforce is more +productive? Does it make sense to give away land to Indigenous groups +based on historical guilt, or does it make more sense to integrate +them into the economy with productive incentives? + +A system that forces people to care is a system that doesn’t trust +efficiency to do its job. If your worldview depends on mandating +compassion, then maybe it was never that compassionate to begin +with. The truth is, the most compassionate thing you can do in such a +situation is to tell them the truth -- that you don't care about them +at all. + +The great irony is that when efficiency is maximized, humanism +emerges as a side effect. A prosperous, innovative society needs +people who are educated, mentally stable, and free to explore their +talents. It needs diversity -- not because of some ideological quota, +but because different backgrounds provide different solutions. It +needs to reduce discrimination -- not because of sentimental morality, +but because a workforce that hires the best talent regardless of +gender, race, or identity is simply better at producing results. + +If we get rid of the false god of “equality” and replace it with a +system that selects for results, we don’t become less human. We become +more human -- because caring for people is no longer a top-down +directive. It becomes the inevitable consequence of doing things right. + +The best part? Most humans want to be compassionate anyways, when +they're not constantly forced to. They'll give every excuse to +themselves to be compassionate to you, if they +like you, even if they're convinced they're doing it for self +interest. At the end of the day, every efficient system is comprised +of feeling human beings. And at the end of the day, what's the more +compassionate system? The one that tells you it doesn't care about you +when it does, or the one that tells you that it cares about you -- and +then doesn't? +** The Road Forward +A future built on competence won't come from Elon or Trump. It +doesn't start with hostile takeovers of the current government. It +first starts with a collective disillusionment with the current +cultural narratives around equality by spreading awareness, paired +with a /new/ belief -- the belief in a deep /Deng style/ practicality. +And it starts from the ground level -- treating people as individuals +instead of as ideological symbols in a cultural battleground, and a deep +commitment towards enriching those around you. Activism in its modern +form often replaces real solutions with performative change. +Instead of walking into this progressive trap, we should aim to create +a culture where our best business leaders, workers, and investors are +recognized and rewarded for their contributions to greater economic and +technological progress. +* Conclusion of the Technocratic Manifesto +The death of our modern day system is a result of /rot/ -- it is the +result of a system that is predicated on the myth of equality. Elon +Musk and Trump are profiteers, they are not builders. They profit more +off of /gutting/ the current system than from accelerating the +efficiency and progress of the private sector. What if we got rid of +this myth of equality -- and started over again, without replacing the +old, taking our understanding from our past failures -- and finally, +as humanity, acknowledge the great losses and tragedy of these +Communist regimes whose leaders /never/ faced consequences? |