You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Grand Unified Political Theory - Anarchy, Libertarianism, Capitalism, and Socialism

in #basicincome8 years ago

Sadly behind all the *isms are some people who value power over others more than the property itself. Some people get a kick out of belittling and keeping people down. These type of people will likely always exist as we even see such behavior in very young children. We see it in animals, and especially those with an Alpha.

This idea of yours has a lot of potential. I only mention these other types of people because, they are the natural opponent to adopting such things. If it removes their opportunity for power over others they will fight it.

The interesting thing is it seems to be the power seekers that rise through the ranks of corporations, governments, and organizations simply because they volunteer for tasks and positions that the rest of us would rather not have to deal with. If a person is a power seeker then volunteering for the positions the people are apathetic about, but is a decision making position affords a ladder to power.

That is an issue I am uncertain how to address short of education, and emphasis on critical thinking and reason.

Sort:  

I partially address your concerns in my child reply (further indented, same thread).

Further clarification is necessary, but takes too long if I address the psychological objections from all common psychological profiles, rather than just your own. Also, I might not profile you correctly, and might address concerns different than your actual concerns. For this reason, if you want additional clarification from me, we'll have to talk.

Yes, I was not hung up on the alpha male. That is just the direction it headed based upon a reply. I more indicated there are those who seek power and they tend to rise through organizations simply because they volunteer for roles many of us would rather not do. These roles tend to be tedious, but involve decision making so they lead to an expression of power and typically opportunity to further advance. This issue will be something any Utopian dream would need to address. While i do not believe perfection is attainable, I do believe it and Utopia are both simply expressions of infinity and something we can strive towards and never reach. As such while Dan's proposal intrigues me I was playing devil's advocate and saying WHAT ABOUT people like this? The power seekers. How do we address them? Someone replied to me and took it into the females seeking powerful people direction. My initial post about power seekers was much more broad than simple biological imperatives.

I'm better with the written word myself. There's much I'd like to address here when given the moment. With my basis that I don't prescribe to materialist outlook of evolution being the prime factor in our behaviour. I would call it evolutionary dogma. Regarding the sex instinct, coincidentally, I am in the process of writing a post which includes some points about the fallacy in evolutionary/'man as animal' reductions. I will cross post the relevant paragraphs here. Your comments have inspired some further insights thank you.


We can't be truly sovereign individuals if our impulses, civilizations, relationships and everything about us is a totality of the primitive aspects of evolution.

Your comments on the sociopath I agree with (some machiavellianism shoudnt be shunned) though I dont agree with the construct itself. In some ways it is a prejudice against masculinity. Pathologizing behaviours in some instances is non-humanistic. I wrote a post about psychopathy I think you'd agree with:

https://steemit.com/psychology/@radioactivities/social-control-series-1-why-the-concept-of-psychopathy-is-more-dangerous-than-a-psychopath

in studying primate behaviour it was noticed that when the leading male is a jerk the rest conspire to 'overthrow' him. Murder him even.

Even in the animal world the females don't go for the most brutal and 'powerful' in the violent way.

It's bizarre that people attribute this characteristic to human females universally. There's no evidence for it except through eyes clouded with desire and envy. It's only because women who stay with shitty men stand out, being seen as tragic due to female intrinsic value among other things.

True but if males assume this is the case then it is a motive for some of them to seek power.

I don't think the biological impertive reductionism is the biggest factor. Perception definitely effects it. A look around shows few women opt for polygamy with some 'rich' and 'powerful' dude. Maybe its just easier for some people to believe.

Every "rich and (therefore) powerful" dude who really wants multiple women has them. But being rich and powerful is fairly difficult, (unless you inherited the ability to print money), so there are few such situations. The balance that has arisen is a consequence of ongoing cyclical competition for scarce resources.

Sure. Same for any handsome masculine dude regardless wealth. My guy friend whose slept with the most women is unemployed.

Most women dont opt to exclusivity with these guys either. Pussy is not some finite resource.

This is a reply to the child comment above. Since child comments are cut off for lack of further indentation.

My point was just that all undesirable variables can be offset by fungible resources. If you're ugly, you try harder for pussy or sometimes pay for pussy. If you're really ugly you only pay for pussy. All variables can be approximately separated out for planning purposes.

Girls who really want a smart guy are rare, but girls who really want a handsome guy are common. ...But the guy must be independent (he must have found a niche where he doesn't have to be smart). Independent wealth(ability to exploit one's environment, including predominantly-equal-intelligence human cybernetic networks) is the single most important variable, because, if it weren't, replication resources would have been squandered by being improperly allocated.

For the 50,000,000 years when muscle was as or more important than brains, and essential during frequent conflict, muscle was programmed by statistical selection into female sexual preferences.

Nature/"Evolutionary selection" tends to not squander replication resources. If it did, we(sociopaths+empaths) might look and/or act a lot different.

It's always important to remember that there is no "we," except in the statistical sense. "We" includes empaths and sociopaths. In nature, a hungry sociopath will eat an abandoned baby, whereas a hungry empath will pick up the baby and try to protect it from human and animal "state of nature/sociopathy-by-default". A hungry partial sociopath who is "on the sociopathic-spectrum" (stunted mirror neurons, stunted empathy) but is aware of the cybernetic systems created by empaths will bring the baby back to the tribe, as a means of currying favor or trust, so he's in a position to steal far more than one meal.

The last describes the position of political sociopaths in our society. They use their superior understanding of society to gain trust from people who are clearly less intelligent, but more moral than they are.

Some females may dislike this type of sociopath, but there are very clearly millions who do not.

There is no disincentive toward legalized bullying, largely because "anarchists" have subtracted themselves from the one technology that has slowly placed limits on organized sociopathic bullying: political technology. See: https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/resources/files/THE%20REAL%20NATURE%20OF%20POLITICS.pdf

This is a binary or "all-or-nothing" backlash against a position that is "statistically relevant." Earning power combined with decision-making power is highly sought, both by bad people and good. A good person has to be more skilled than a bad person to seek and win positions in government and industry, because bad people also have access to highly-effective "immoral strategies." This would be enough to make "good women" crave "bad men(sociopaths)," strengthening statistical distributions of "the warrior gene" (sociopath genetics) as "selfish genes." (Ignore the term "selfish genes" if you have not read Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene," because you will almost certainly misinterpret the use of the term "selfish," if so.)

Cybernetic systems are a subset of evolutionary systems, and vice-versa. (One can emerge from the other, as dumb-molecules very slowly gave rise to colonies of bacteria, then colonies of insects, then more advanced brains and brain modules, and eventually the most advanced land-mammal brains gave rise to evolved software run at THz speeds.)

A statistically large number of women won't stay with a man who doesn't rape them. Few women, as a percentage of the whole number, want a man they can physically overpower. But millions do want such a man. This simply means that a smart weak man who wants a woman who can overpower him can find such a woman --but he has to exert more effort to do so. Also, he runs a greater risk of being tricked by a woman who does not share his goals.

Evolution saddled us with our current genetic situation. Those who fight(disbelieve) genetics are likely to lose. This is why voluntaryism should readily accept "pro-social" sociopaths (like Gary Johnson, etc.) into the fold, so long as they do not behave as sociopaths, and are watched closely for external corruption.

In short, there are no "universal" sexual desires, but to statistically profile "what there is a market for" need only deal with "large enough percentages to matter."

A huge percentage of women desire a man who is "more than adequate" to provide for her young. How much "more than adequate"? That estimate requires difficult calculation, so the female instead relies on reliable "signals" as a decision-making heuristic. This reliance on signals is not a conscious choice, it's evolutionarily selected for and built into sexual attraction.

If it were not, females would be physically superior to men, would dominate decision-making positions, and would be opened up to slaughter by competitors during pregnancy.

This is a consequence of 50,000,000 years of human evolution; of selection under "might makes right" tribal precursors to civilization.

What you're arguing over is whether 30% of women want an "alpha male" or whether 60% or even 90% want an alpha male. ...And how many of the percentage who secretly want an alpha male will settle for something less, or for a beta who knows when to pretend to be an alpha (in the bedroom!) so that evolutionarily-selected-for sexual preference "signals" can be satisfied or "tricked."

The latter seems to work just fine, and is easily incorporated into evolution's paradigm.

And the reason behind men wanting power is women wanting men with power.

I don't think that covers it that nicely. :) Nice thought though. I've seen this in homosexuals as well. I have seen it in elderly that are well beyond any concerns. Would that all things were so simple. You are correct that this is an instinctual motivation for many basic power seekers. Yet that seems to be more the physical bully, puff out your chest type of power, not the long term planned commitment to attaining power. I'm sure I'm wrong about some of this. :)

...and the reason behind men wanting power, and women wanting men with power, is women and men wanting the ability to be one of the few who are financially able to pack up and move when a flood is predicted, and women wanting the ability to provide optimally for several children, and men wanting the ability to mate with an unlimited number of teenage girls, and gay men wanting the ability to mate with an unlimted number of teenage boys(I assume it's the same or similar to straight men), etc...

...and this doesn't even go into the huge, immense, enormous differences between sociopaths and empaths. Alpha sociopaths who are aware of cybernetics and seek political power are the most dangerous people on the planet. They print the money, they hack the crypto-currencies, they buy the intelligence necessary to win every conflict in the ongoing war for dominion.

Only a few libertarians/voluntaryist minarchists even have the right ideas necessary to fight them, but they lack the resources.

...And it is a "fight," it's not "an education." There is an enemy, and everything you do to improve things, that enemy will attempt to undo. That's why you need to be smarter strategist than the enemy, you do not simply need to "possess immense education resources."

I suggest it's 40 years too late for libertarians to persist in having a naive attitude toward politics.

What should we do? We should fight for the ideals outlined in the 1994 LP platform. We should wage political war, intelligently and effectively. ...Or we should get very good at being slaves, and saying "Would you like my first-born daughter with that order of filet mignon, sir?"

When you realize that that's how high the stakes are(no pun intended!), it should motivate libertarians to win.

But it doesn't. How do I know this? Because, with more than enough resources to win spent every 4 years, the Libertarian Party continues to be a wholly-controlled-arm of one or two FBI infiltrators.

I was completely alone in the LP as a person who actualy wanted freedom. Most people who want freedom are "anarchists" who have left the LP, rather than try to correct it. ...But leaving politics simply leaves them even weaker than they were within a political structure.

Blackwell found "the strategic truth" even though he wasn't as good at philosophy. Here it is:
https://www.leadershipinstitute.org/resources/files/THE%20REAL%20NATURE%20OF%20POLITICS.pdf

I fully agree with your comment @dwinblood. This leads me to believe the UBI concept cannot work at humanity's current stage of psychological / sociological development (but I'm glad others are open to exploring the possibilities nonetheless). It also reinforces my belief that the real root of society's problems aren't economic but rather are in our thinking, and much of that is dictated by our early childhood conditioning.

However, that's not to say real value and incremental improvements short of better conditioning in childhood can't be realized. Waiting for a comprehensive solution or workable "unified theory" need not stop us from trying to find solutions to specific problems we can identify, even if they aren't the root cause.