This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ron Paul is wonderful. He is the best thing to happen in American politics in my lifetime. I will vote for Dr. Paul. I think anyone eligible should do likewise. But I have some questions for my fellow Paulistas. Suppose Ron Paul is elected President. What makes you think that President Paul can fix the US Federal Government? What makes you think that any President can fix the US Federal Government? What makes you think that the US Federal Government can be fixed at all? And if you don't think it can be fixed, what do you hope to achieve by voting in its elections? Obviously, it all depends what you mean by "fix." But obviously, if you support Ron Paul, you think said institution, which down on the Potomac oft assumes the snappy name of USG - not to be confused with U.S. Gypsum, maker of fine Sheetrock - is in desperate need of an extreme makeover. When Barry Obama talks about "change," he's talking about a whole new brand of lipstick, a deep restoring facial and maybe even a few collagen shots. With Dr. Paul, the bone saw is a given. We're probably looking at a full maxillary reconstruction, a few rounds of chemo, and perhaps a silver nose, like Tycho Brahe's. Assuming all goes well, our new Old Republic, meticulously recreated from 200-year-old dental records, will resemble the present USG about as much as the latter looks like U.S. Gypsum. All the better, you say. If your problem is an invasive sphenoid tumor, your solution is not blush and mascara. Our beloved Republic is sick. Deeply sick. She needs the procedure. And in Dr. Paul, the man, the hour and the rongeur have met. But have they? At this point the soothing, Grímaesque voice of the moderate mainstream
libertarian may be heard, suggesting that Dr. Paul is unelectable. Ergo, it will not help to vote for Dr. Paul, because Dr. Paul will not be elected, and your precious vote will be wasted. Rather, if you want to work for real change, you should work within the system. Of course, there are only so many desks at the Cato Institute to go around. But if you make your small voice heard, maybe there will be more. Who says libertarians can't have their own Beltway patronage machine? Uncle Sam beams down benevolently on friend and foe alike. As in Orwell's classic, the two are never far from common ground. Needless to say, here at UR we have no truck with these shills - who remind me most of the type of house dissident, like Georgi Arbatov, that flourished so in the later Soviet period. But yes, if I had to bet, I would bet that Ron Paul will not be elected in 2008. I don't think he will even win the Republican nomination. But would I, realistically, rule it out? Fashion is fickle. Even intellectual fashion. And in a democracy, intellectual fashion rules. The age of viral politics is upon us. Is all that stands between Dr. Paul and the White House the right YouTube spot or two? Who the hell knows. Frankly, kids these days baffle me. And even if Dr. Paul doesn't win this year, there will be other years and other Ron Pauls - as Todd Seavey points out. (I'm not even going to start on this Nazi crap. I refer you to my post on the subject. Anyone who starts playing the Kevin Bacon game with Ron Paul and Hitler, or anyone and Hitler, is required to submit to the same experiment with Stalin and Mao, and is specifically enjoined from using the term "McCarthyism" for so long as they may live. You fuckers. You really don't have any shame, do you?) So, again: even if Ron Paul - or someone like him, in 2012 or 2016 or 2020 - is elected, will he be able to fix USG? Dr. Paul has described his program very eloquently and straightforwardly. He wants to restore the Constitution of 1789. Or at least this is how he describes it, although probably a better match for the actual Paul platform would be the Constitution of 1889. But no matter. Next to the present situation, the difference is small.
Let's assume our goal is to achieve this result. We would like to convert USG into something which at least bears some vague resemblance to the structure described in the Constitution of 1789, plus of course its duly ratified amendments to the present date, interpreted according to their original public meaning. Obviously, no one person can achieve this goal. We, the set of people who would prefer this state of affairs to the present state of affairs, will have to act collectively. The question is: is voting for Ron Paul, or someone like him, an effective collective strategy for producing this result - assuming we have sufficient votes to elect Dr. Paul as President? Actually, this is not a question for me. I know the answer. At least, I think I know the answer. Perhaps I am wrong, but if so I feel quite confident in my error. And so my actual question is about you - my fellow Ron Paul supporters. Are you voting for - and even better, donating to - the Paul campaign because you seriously believe that, if Dr. Paul is elected, he will actually be able to carry out his extrememakeover bone-saw program? If so, let me put it as gently as possible. You have no idea what you're up against. But why should you believe me? Perhaps I am just another enemy of freedom. Surely there are many such, and perhaps I am one. So let's start by looking at what we can agree on. Since we are Ron Paul supporters, we agree that USG is not, in fact, the organization described by the Constitution of 1789. You have all heard Dr. Paul's spiel. I see no need to repeat it. In other words, USG operates under an unwritten constitution. To Americans, this sounds paradoxical, sacrilegious, or both. In fact it is perfectly normal. Under an unwritten constitution, there is one sovereign legislative institution which holds the ultimate power of government, and whose authority cannot be legally disobeyed. The law is whatever this body says the law is. In the UK, this institution is
Swift's Tale of a Tub. he of course is free to say so. it would stay that way? We once had a Constitution of 1789. Certainly. Written constitutions were an experiment. Paul managed to return the US to the Constitution of 1789. Does this sound like a success to you? Let's call this the first crack in the "convince everyone to vote for Ron Paul" strategy for fixing USG. . USG is peculiar in having a written Constitution to go with its unwritten one. I will have to respectfully disagree. We are still assuming that President Paul can perform the surgery.Footnote Four is perhaps the best example. As for the claim that Americans are free whereas Britons live in chains. Then Congress writes its own laws within these boundaries. compared to the USG we have today. petition the Supreme Court. or 1926. it is the Supreme Court. or whenever. USG's unwritten constitution consists of a series of Supreme Court precedents. if Dr. what is? Of course. And this is how the sausage is made. Paul would prefer USG to return to the Constitutional interpretation of 1789. of course. an exercise which at least serves to remind us of Mr. These are simply laws expressed as judicial decisions. If you don't like it. Generally these are quite vague and broad. The experiment has failed. many of which date to the 1930s . This has required our rulers to bend their decrees sinuously around the text of this ancient document. Generally they are very vague and broad. Generally these are quite detailed and specific. but thoroughly fallacious. because we have a written Constitution and they are subject to their rulers' every passing whim. And I agree. but I gather the main difference is that they drive on the other side of the road. And now we don't. But why should we assume that. you can. or 1889.Parliament. the structure of 1789 strikes me as quite appealing. If Dr. Then stuff happened. In the US. But will the wound stay closed? And will it heal properly? Does the Constitution of 1789 protect us at all against the possibility that the tumor will just grow back? Perhaps quite a bit faster than it took to grow in the first place? What we're questioning here is the commonly held. The data are in. Then the various agencies and other arms of USG write regulations within the boundaries defined by Congress. I have never lived in Britain. If this isn't legislative sovereignty.
If they are not even mentioned in the constitution. penis enlargement pills. who exactly will stop it? For me. I agree that limited government is desirable.whatever that means. Their powers . How can a sovereign authority limit its own power? If it decides to change its mind and take the power back. 200mpg carburetors. my inbox is always open.uses the word in this good old descriptive sense. would we need a President Paul? . you would need the constitution first. and written constitutions which limit the power of the State are all in the same category. except of course that it shall be free . Of course.are thoroughly embedded in both law and custom.such as the right to publish leaks . Note the curious use of the passive voice in this construction. the constitution of a government (or any other institution) just meant its persistent organizational structure. But is it really possible to construct a descriptive constitution of USG without mentioning the official press? The Times and the Post alone are institutions at least as influential and durable as many formal government agencies. or the descriptive constitution of 2008? Unfortunately. I see no reason at all to believe that it is implementable. which document should we consult? The written Constitution of 1789 (plus amendments). John Adams' Defence of the Constitutions of the United States . If the Constitution of 1789 determined the answer.well worth a read. One sad effect of this mania for government-limiting constitutions is that it has obscured the previous meaning of the word constitution. For example. An actual defense of the constitution of the present USG would strain the powers of Lucifer. I recognize that both these tests are very difficult. but understand how it is that they can possibly work. how descriptive can it be? And when we ask ourselves what President Paul can do to fix USG. the latter does not exist. let alone John Adams. For example. In normal 18th-century English.concept of limited government. but descriptive. If you want to start by passing just one. I will believe that they exist when I not only see them working. But I would still find it quite interesting to read. The term was not prescriptive. prescriptive Constitution says nothing at all about the press. which is actually much more useful. I think they would be great to have. but it is our only option. by the way . our written.
because we know there is some association between the President and something called the "executive branch. Thus a "leader" of USG would be a corporate executive. We have slipped away from our actual descriptive constitution. But give it a century or two. like the British monarchy. if Dr. Under the actual constitution of the actual USG as it actually exists today. Sometimes I get the impression that many voters actually believe that the President is in some sense "the leader of his country. tells its employees what to do and how to do it. This sounds like we are on the right track. If you are operating under this illusion. The office is not yet utterly impotent. and (c) a sovereign corporation or "government" which exercises sovereign power over (a) and (b). reciting pablum. but I will try anyway. configures lower-level management structures. and instead find ourselves back in high-school civics class. in the actual USG as it actually exists. and can be understood only in the third." As though he was Adolf Hitler. (b) a set of humans or at least hominids. ie." Perhaps. and can hire and fire individuals at will. etc) controls four aspects of the company's operations: budget. A CEO of a normal private organization (company. nonprofit. oscillating between (a) a partition of the planet's surface.Therefore. Paul was elected President. He or she sets the distribution of funds between units of the institution. we could think of him as the CEO of USG? Not a chance. clearly the concept of a "leader" makes no sense in the first context. policy. it is probably too much for me to dispel. structure. is too scary for words in the second. the President is a relatively minor official whose duties are primarily ceremonial. a CEO." While the term "country" in political discourse is spectacularly meretricious. Suppose the product of a Presidential election actually was "the leader of his country. . and personnel. let's consider the powers of the President. or something.
He wouldn't take the job. And this is the one function in which the entire executive branch. or even between programs." This is a fine example of the petty whims by which Chimpy Bushitler. Horrible as it may seem. Yes Minister. Goeringlike henchman. For a good look at what George W. it is. I was raised and educated on your tax dollars. when they are not torturing nuns. or demote any of his employees. Just another day in the Republican reign of terror. of course. whitefleshed piscids. and he signed it. your eyes will immediately be drawn to the Executive Order of October 20. Bushitler and his notorious. as President of the US. And if there is one modern production which everyone who I have ever met who had ever been involved in government considers an accurate portrayal of the actual thing as it actually is. I find this page invaluable. And indeed. Dick McDick. notorious fascist and fanatical angler. Right. He could not tell anyone what to do. He could not fire. reserving these delicious fish for themselves and their well-heeled sportfishing cronies. As I've mentioned a couple of times. What actually happened? Why did this pearl drop from the President's pen? Because someone put it in front of him. Imagine if we elected not Dr. plus of course the White House proper. red drum. have taken striped bass and red drum off America's dinner table. spitting in the face of our economically vital seafood industry. He could not reallocate funds between agencies. President Jobs would find himself in a rather unaccustomed position. kids. What could he do? Look dignified and come across well on TV. rules our nation. this is basically the task of USG's so-called "President. the scripts are . (If like me you are allergic to canned laughter. spend all their time out on the Chesapeake. He could not change any organizational structure. fishing for striped bass. or even between departments. Bush actually does. promote.Forget Ron Paul for a moment. but imagine if he did. will enthusiastically assist him. Paul." His most important function is to pretend to be in charge. I come from a civil-service family. but Steve Jobs. and other brackish. So Bushitler and McDick. If you are anything like me. 2007: "Protection of Striped Bass and Red Drum Fish Populations.
The room in which I sit is the same in which I saw Nye Bevan for almost the first time when he was Minister of Health. and they know how to handle me. October 17th. Minister! If you wish it.) As a glance at the first page of his diary will confirm. and in certain ways I am like a person who is suddenly certified a lunatic and put safely into this great. cut off from real life and surrounded by male and female trained nurses and attendants. October 22nd I was appointed Minister of Housing on Saturday. and already I realize the tremendous effort it requires not to be taken over by the Civil Service. (I can only shudder at the concrete horrors for which he must be responsible . long time. the Internet has resolved this for me. and 750 pages) begins with this entry: Thursday. In a way it's just the same as I had expected and predicted. The Private Secretary's job is to make sure that when the Minister comes into Whitehall he doesn't let the side or himself down and behaves in accordance with the requirements of the institution. Since. Crossman simply is Jim Hacker. isolated example though it is. But see below. to be both a senior civil servant and a TV screenwriter. My Minister's room is like a padded cell. The principal source for YM is the posthumously-published diaries of Richard Crossman. those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk. When I am in a good mood they occasionally allow an ordinary human being to come and visit me.) The one mystery about YM for me was how the people who wrote it found out. Yet there it was. the existence of this show. nominally responsible. Minister! No. it seems a long.'Yes. 1964. Minister!' and combined with this there is a constant preoccupation to ensure that the Minister does what is correct. vast room.available as a book. As with so many of my childhood conundrums. oh dear. and that the other person behaves right. . even at the BBC. struck me as implausible. as Lao-Tzu put it. My edition (abridged. Surely it is not possible. Of course.at least. Now it is only the 22nd but. but they make sure that I behave right. which is perfectly readable. they don't behave quite like nurses because the Civil Service is profoundly deferential . It also seems as though I had transferred myself completely to this new life as a Cabinet Minister. who was housing minister in the '60s under Harold Wilson. Other personalities are also quite recognizable.
if the letter is not worth your answering personally. 'Well. in your own handwriting. or we can draft a personal reply for you to sign. and said. The civil service. Crossman's interactions with his "nurses" are comical because they are basically on the same side. .' 'How do I do that?' I asked.. There are no Ministers or Private Secretaries in DC. working on budget and policy for renewable energy. especially Washington today.It's also profoundly true that one has only to do absolutely nothing whatsoever in order to be floated forward on the stream. the party of the institutional civil service. Anyway. the whole of my life in the last four days has merged into one. If he manages to flail around and actually get something done. Crossman's opposite number in Washington. 'Well. we can draft an official answer.' he said. curious. "so sweet / and so cold." There are a couple thousand of these jobs. From the Beltway's viewpoint.' said Mr Moseley. 'and if you just tell us which you want. They simply empty their inboxes into their outboxes." My mother was a GS-15 at DoE. I have forgotten what day it was . 'Well.. the primary purpose of your vote this November is to decide who shall consume these plums." known to the punters as "political appointees. single day when I turned to my Private Secretary. which by definition is permanent and cannot be touched by anyone who is contaminated by the deadly stain of "politics.' This is the default existence of every politician and political appointee in the modern Western system of government. in every case. they are unlikely to be horrified.the left is always.' And he sat opposite me with his owlish eyes and said to me. would be surrounded by a small platoon of so-called "sched Cs. 'Now. Minister. 'and if you put it in without a mark on it then we deal with it and you need never see it again.' 'What's an official answer?' I asked. Of course. life is only easy politicians who are aligned with the civil service. it says the Minister has received your letter and then the Department replies. he is unlikely to be horrified by the results. you put all your in-tray into your outtray. you must teach me how to handle all this correspondence." takes care of the rest. Learning that the inspiration for Jim Hacker MP was a hard-line Old Laborite makes perfect sense to me .indeed. George Moseley. A letter can either be answered by you personally. or. this system makes perfect sense. which are listed in a wonderful little volume called the Plum Book. If he decides to stop trying to swim and just float. you see there are three ways of handling it. As long as you believe in democratic centrism. we'll draft all three variants.
Sometimes this is done by the so-called "Republicans" among them. and we all know what happened to him. Of course." shall it be the Honorable Felix Parvulus. the classic example of an American politician who really went to war with the civil service was old Tailgunner Joe." (I seem to recall a case recently in which a government employee was penalized for disclosing confidential information to the press. we manage to settle that. the politicians have another option. heels. The basic strategy of the civil servant. Since the press is effectively part of the civil service (if the news desks at the Post. from his Latter-Day Pamphlet #3 (1850): A mighty question indeed! Who shall be Premier. or a sched C? No prizes to the winner. and CNN were reorganized into a Department of Journalism. with no bloodshed except insignificant blood from the nose in hustings-time. but with immense beershed and inkshed and explosion of nonsense." otherwise called the "spigot of taxation. that the Right Honorable Zero is to be the man. The other day I asked her about the sched Cs. What do you think? Was he a career civil servant. hands and feet. the Times. Zero. "And they can do pretty much whatever they want. this strategy always works. and take in hand the "rudder of government. Of course. Since politicians cannot be elected without the cooperation of the press. That we firmly settle. "They get very nice offices. Here is Carlyle. with knees. everything comes in a bigger box.in the Clinton administration. which darkens all the air. Perhaps you have seen stories in the press that indicate that some elected mannequin or other is trying to "politicize" the operations of some responsible and professional arm of USG. the lives of reporters would hardly change at all). ." she said. Here in America. and ever-enduring tempest of jargon that goes on everywhere. They're encouraged to find something and work on it." A legion of little Jim Hackers. when attacked by a politician or political appointee. is to make his attacker or the attacker's political sponsor look bad in the press. mounts into the high saddle. This indicates that someone is struggling. cramps himself on. They can try to fight.) The issue is not exactly new. perhaps not unlike the BBC. this game is always "on. or the Right Honorable Felicissimus Zero? By our electioneerings and Hansard Debatings. all shivering with rapture and with terror. to have it declared.
Of course. and they will certainly never think it again. is too happy if the horse will only gallop any-whither. But don't worry. beyond his ability to block Congressional legislation (a courtesy Senate rules grant to every single Senator . everyone who voted for Ron Paul in 2008 will realize. That the Right Honorable Zero should attempt controlling the horse--Alas. This is what we call a Government in England. Everything else is pretty much the same. is not in the head of Felicissimus. Paul is an honorable man. Paul is that Dr. The Parvuli and Felicissimi of Carlyle's time were giants next to the absurd nonentities who are trying to keep themselves on the horse today. if he could but devise it. Measure. godward or devilward as it might be. some measure that would please his horse for the moment. plan or scheme of public good or evil.people in DC who can stop things from happening are a dime a dozen). which is that he will fight the system and actually try to downsize DC. His popularity will descend into the single digits. So what do you think would happen to Ron Paul if he tries to stay on Carlyle's horse? I'm afraid there are exactly two possibilities. which is fast wearing. except. And now it is more like four centuries. and encourage him to go with softer paces. and save Felicissimus's leather.at least as portrayed in the eyes of the press. that they were swept up in a wave of craziness. his power to nominate Supreme Court justices (who must still be confirmed by the Senate. sticking on with beak and claws. In other words. and not throw him.and the horse gallops--whither it lists. Except for the same kinds of diehards who support him now. but so can Barack Obama). I believe Dr. by 2012. though. for nearly two centuries now. so we need only consider the first. Paul is a candidate in a democratic election. alas. they had no idea what they were thinking. the problem with believing in Dr. He will still have the power to make a fool of himself . and his nominal command of the armed forces (whom he can at least order to stop whatever they are doing right now and come home. polity. To vote for him and believe you are doing something . he. and note also that Republican Presidents chose seven out of the last four conservative Justices). President Paul will have no power whatsoever. The result will be that Americans will consider libertarianism "discredited" for at least the next twenty years.
they deploy the official "we" with gay abandon. And now. we can see that they have no illusions about their enemies. Even I have a tough time removing this malignant pronoun from my tongue. and I do try. But that was a week ago. Yet in one area. Their illusion is strictly confined to their friends. from the days when he was a young Oxford don. This Damascus experience will be triggered simply by the realization that America is a libertarian country. and favourite. Or possibly both. but this is crap. Yes. Anthony Howard. They respond to superior authority. For the last 75 years. politician (his fellow practitioners of the craft being more generally noted for conveying complacency rather than betraying disquiet about a system that at least . They huddle round the belief that the American electorate will come to its senses in a great flash of political light. and the permanent cognitive dissonance is characteristic: The most familiar charge brought against Crossman even while he lived was that of 'inconsistency'. Americans are like everyone else. One might as well be a Catholic who also happened to believe in anal sex. but I really doubt it will do any good. It made him a highly unusual. Electing Ron Paul is like showing up at an autopsy with a live human liver. they have been told that the State is their mother and father.the patient did die of liver failure. If you're trying to save the old libertarian America. describes Crossman's struggle as a Fabian who also happened to believe in democracy. you've arrived on the scene a little late.Ron Paul but in two: Ron Paul and contemporary American democracy. it's true . Americans simply cannot imagine life except in the warm arms of their official universal uberparent. They believe what they're told to believe. when Paulistas talk about the press and its vicious vendetta against Dr. Excuse my French. a fraud or a hoax: and it was a question that Crossman continued to tussle with until the day he died. book Plato Today wrestles with the problem of to what degree British parliamentary democracy is a sham. and has remained as such deep in the American heart. I suppose it can't hurt to try and put the thing in. Obviously. the editor of my Crossman edition. it is necessary to believe not just in one thing . he was as constant as the Northern Star.meaningful and important. or those they imagine to be their friends. His first. and that once they come to their senses they will remain there. Paul. was founded as such. not to say unorthodox.
is not a practical way to convert USG into a libertarian institution. he controlled personnel. .enduring government by oligarchy.) In part 1. And limiting it to what is now the Plum Book was the great achievement of the reformers of the 1880s. more or less.was that in some way the British electorate was being fobbed off with what Plato called 'the noble lie': in other words that the British voter. 2. So we have established the following facts: 1. Indeed. What is the alternative? Is there any alternative? Or are we all just doomed? Tune in next week for the stunning.commitment to the notion of making democracy actually work. even if it was possible. Ron Paul is unelectable (being a Nazi and all).and at times inconvenient . This was called the spoils system. The guilty secret at the heart of the British governmental system. the civil-service oligarchy will crush him like a bug. Taming it is the most important function of modern governments. the demon is most definitely a demon. 3. was in effect . There was a time in American history when the President was actually the CEO of the executive branch. It cannot be said to have worked . which tends to prevail in any conflict between the two.had had the merit of recognizing their own talents). was that it was deliberately designed not to give ordinary people their heads but rather to tame the demon of democracy before it did too much damage. This is because the policies of USG are not set by its politicians. Crossman. The only thing worse than civil-service oligarchy is actual democracy. while encouraged to believe that he was part of a selfgoverning democracy. answer. as regular readers of UR are aware. as well as possessing 'the bump of irreverence' that he was much given to boasting about. Crossman came increasingly to believe. had throughout his career a passionate . but by its permanent civil service.through the device of so-called 'representative institutions' . Of course. If Ron Paul is elected.and this is as apparent in his last public lecture as in his first book . yet obvious. How to actually defeat the US government (This is part 2 of my letter to Ron Paul supporters. however.in any sense of the word. At least. His haunting doubt . we established that electing Ron Paul.
) An excellent way to describe any system is to outline its fringes. If anyone in Washington would sacrifice the third for the first two. The purpose of Cato is to impact policy. the universities. (Eg. and the NGOsphere (the brilliant Richard North of EU Referendum. can be wielded for good as for ill.) But when you compare Cato's homepage to that of the liberal Brookings Institute. which will be on the Orange Line just as soon as the Metro extends out to Alabama. the universities and the press . ten others are ready to take his place. When we look at the homepage of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. we start to realize why the battle plays out as it does. Ie: to wield power. The social status of a Beltwayite corresponds directly to his impact. we can see the difference. I suspect this is the real reason that LvMI is in Alabama: it has . I think you can see how I was confused. describes a typical rat's nest of EU NGOs here). The purpose of LvMI is to propagate ideas. Power. a classic Beltway bandit.its main sponsor is. The result is that politicians either become housetrained or lose their jobs. command numerous levers of public opinion . the schools. Since civil servants. one of the few bloggers who really understands how the modern state works and has not been psychically shattered by the awful truth. in the broad sense defined above.The permanent civil service is much larger than it looks. billionaire Charles Koch. But it would have to be one pretty sharp alien. But Tolkien knew something about that. um. I think an alien who understood English could eventually figure out the substantive difference between Cato and Brookings. (I thank Will Wilkinson for the correction. or subsist in tiny backward niches whose voters couldn't give a damn what the Times thinks. Ron Paul's district. It is best defined as everyone involved in setting and implementing USG's policies. A fine example of an entity on the fringe of the Polygon. is the Cato Institute. I like Brookings' motto: Quality. When we realize that this includes the press. Impact is the true currency of DC. of course. of course. Civil servants defeat politicians because no politician or political appointee can harm any civil servant's career. Somewhere I had gotten the idea that Cato accepts government funds.such as. Impact. Independence.the converse is not the case. but still within it. but in fact it does not .
the great fear that haunts the Catonians at night is the fear of losing their legitimacy. I mean.can think and say whatever the hell they want. also known as manufacturing consent. Paleoconservatives are dangerous cranks who must be ostracized. how long has Jeff Davis been dead? What sensible person could possibly care? How can you carry around an emotional attachment to a 150-year-old war? . This is why we see the level of raw hatred and arrogance that the Orange Line Mafia aims at its redneck rivals. they know that even if they wanted to. Cato has minimal cognitive independence. but it would be distracting. It is the belief of the average voter. on a daily basis .com . And its employees would constantly feel humiliated and scorned.and there is a lot of serious craziness and pure stupidity that appears there. Besides. like nerds at a jock party.and if you did the progressives would vanish at once. DC has no pity for cranks and crackpots. Sadly. Progressives can be debated with. Their impact would go with it. But in their hearts. we have no reason to think that this Schlesingerian "vital center" has any correlation whatsoever with reality. The center defines itself in political terms. fueled by nothing more than the raw personal ambition of a thousand thousand Brookingsites. You will never see an LvMI paleo there . unless of course it confines itself to today's goodthink. Since the civil service invests most of its energy in managing public opinion. by any serious historical standard. Cato regularly features progressive essays on its Cato Unbound series. they couldn't. This might not affect LvMI's mission. As the center drifts inexorably leftward. and hence no power. What Cato sacrifices for its impact is that the set of ideas it can propagate is. Defend the Confederacy? Why not? Probably no one at Cato wants to defend the Confederacy. The result is a school of thought that can fairly be characterized as pro-government libertarianism. Whereas the cranks over at lewrockwell. enormously narrow. like Jared Taylor . not intellectual terms. And this has got to burn. As would the impact. As we've seen in l'affaire Paul.let alone a real live racist. the outcome is quite clear. Alabama is really cheap. the likes of a Cato must drift with it .or be excluded from the policymaking process.no impact. going by. The invisible procession.
and we can solve it as such. we have accepted the need not to reform it. The really sad thing is that the Orange Liners can only feel like they have impact because DC. you can support defeating USG without wishing for a state of wild. DC. by Beltway standards. because we are lucky enough to have a . The ugly truth is that neither "Stalinist" Orange Line libertarianism nor "Trotskyite" Ron Paul Revolution has any chance of affecting USG in any significant way. This is a straightforward strategic problem. knock me over with a feather. In the immortal words of Arthur Conan Doyle. And any means whose collateral damage does not exceed the disservice done by USG are acceptable. First and foremost. Therefore. yet obvious answer is that we have no reason at all to think that USG can be reformed in anything like a libertarian direction. It shares this quality with all institutions controlled by their own employees. But really. On Cato's impact page. but to defeat it. you are at least ready to support defeating it. we are left with the improbable. you agree that USG as it is does not serve our interests. it cannot be reformed at all. So the whole Cato disaster provides yet another example of a strategy which cannot possibly succeed in reforming USG.especially when the product you have to push is an inherently nasty and pointless one. when we have eliminated the impossible. If despite this we consider it harmful. The fundamental case for defeating USG is that USG was established to serve the interests of its citizens. has defined impact down to levels derisory to anyone outside the bubble. if USG cannot be reformed by either political or institutional methods. It is a highly stable system in which all changes tend to be expansive. The stunning. It's hard to sign people up for abolishing their own jobs.Talk about lunacy. Somalian anarchy in North America. they list precisely one success: school vouchers in Washington. The Cato-LvMI divide has been described as the Stalin-Trotsky split of libertarianism. and you agree that it cannot be reformed to do so. this is not bad for 30 years and 100 million dollars . Well. being utterly sclerotic and impossible to change. If you are a US citizen. like small government.
To be safe. Said product is not one most people think they want now. are details. In general. I hope you'll just . The obvious and straightforward result of defeating USG is to dissolve the Union (as Michael Rozeff proposes here) and return sovereignty to the 50 states.backup system of government: the states. Even just how to deal with the US dollar is a problem that deserves its own essay. But I suspect that seeing it would change their minds. even its informal "entitlements" . This should put a serious boost of genuine market energy behind libertarian government. etc. If you are a libertarian or anything like it. from DEA to NSF. Is there any guarantee that state government will be more libertarian than Federal government? None at all (unless we go all the way to neocameralism). Otherwise. right down to the offices and positions. There are an enormous number of details to be resolved in any such proposal. the states should assume the financial obligations of USG. and they should probably transition ASAP to an employee set untainted by service with USG or its various tentacles. if not its own blog. and you believe that ten years after the abolition of Washington there would be even the slightest shred of affectionate nostalgia for the old Potomac beast. etc. any transition plan could include a ten-years-later referendum on restoring DC .no one's Social Security or Medicare need be cut off. where they might find that they actually enjoyed their work. I won't try to outline a transition plan in this post. Central institutions will be necessary for a few years to ensure an orderly liquidation. They would be free to compete for desirable citizens on the basis of good customer service. Of course any such restoration would have to retrieve its employees from the productive sector.from NRO to HUD. I think you have a serious case of cognitive dissonance. these should probably be located outside the watershed of the Potomac. But these. I am quite confident that the reaction would be: "why did we put up with that for so long?" If you are not so confident. independent states can relate to each other much as the US and Canada do now. Probably the existing military should be retained as a continental defense force. too. But state governments in a decentralized North America would at least be subject to serious jurisdictional competition.
in this picture. Note how. What kind of superpowers would we need to defeat that? (I love the Bellamy salute. Still. the hand seems to be creeping around to the more anatomically-natural Roman position. and aid to Nepal.accept the lesson of history that change happens. Thus rather than trying to free the US from the evil clutches of USG . than totally? If all you have is bare hands.we are trying to free Plainland from Washcorp. Why should it be easier to change their minds partially. In that case. Instead of USG. if its subjects use the . an organization with a virtual identity. far better to roll over and think of England. Thank you. On the face of it. ie. the FDA. at least as more than a series of horrid crimes gradually vanquished by reason and prosperity.) But so what? The same people believe in Social Security. After all. Arthur Lipow.an almost oxymoronic task . and found Claudius being called "Denmark"? Did a little lightbulb go off in your head when you realized how nice it is for a monarchy. we use the slightly more neutral name Washcorp. or to smash it? Here at UR. Nor does it record any regimes that saw themselves as anything but. we translate the old Viking word for USG's continent as Plainland. five days a week. how? Of course we have to consider the possibility that defeating USG is simply impossible. In a slightly more outré move. its subjects thus being Plainlanders. This reminds us that USG is no more than a corporation in the strict sense of the word. is it easier to slice a watermelon. defeating USG seems even harder than reforming it. Perhaps you remember how confused you were in high school when you read Hamlet. we are looking at a country full of people who swore a sacred oath to USG. I hope it has convinced one or two people to actually believe in history. If UR has convinced its readers of anything. for the twelve most formative years of their lives. history does not record any eternal regimes. and that it often looks just as inevitable in the past tense as improbable in the future. Perhaps the thing is just eternal. The critical problem is: can we make it happen? And if so. we deal with the sacred-oath thing by shifting our words slightly.
and leftism .is fundamentally a criminal movement. and his wallet is finite. Did Fabian or Gramscian tactics work as a method for socialists to capture the 19th-century liberal state? Spectacularly. This pattern is very consistent.whose Yeatsian passionate energy is inseparable from its capacity for pure plunder . And one of the patterns we're seeing is that the methods which work for a revolutionary capture of the state do not work for a reactionary capture of the state. we need to defeat its military. or the newer urban-guerrilla ("terrorist") approach. Corporations are liquidated every single day. in the early '90s. But there's one big difference between liquidating Washcorp and liquidating Enron. we must capture it first. to destroy Washcorp. So all we have to do is liquidate Washcorp. They're small.an adjective hard to define in an entity whose liabilities are denominated in its own scrip. amoral careerists who saw the near-infinite power and plunder that the hypertrophied state would create. And none of them involve hunting rifles.same word for both king and country? And when you saluted the flag that morning. These strategies work for leftist revolutionaries because they are essentially criminal in nature. but they add up. There are a number of plausible strategies for doing so. or IEDs. For example. But they worked because they attracted a legion of smart. or warm ties of love and loyalty to Washcorp? It's these little Jedi mind tricks that hold the whole thing together. All it has is Koch. after the Soviet Union collapsed. or simply the strategy of building ominous and threatening paramilitary militias. and I'm pretty confident that anyone who ignores it is making a tremendous mistake. which is that Enron didn't have the most powerful armed forces in the history of the world. For example. Typically this happens because they are bankrupt . We see the same pattern when we consider guerrilla warfare against Washcorp. but one I often hear applied to Washcorp. Cato has no such promise. one way to see the Cato Institute is to see it as a sort of libertarian Fabian Society. it became clear to . Libertarianism does not create jobs. which were you feeling? Warm ties of love and loyalty to Plainland. To defeat Washcorp. either of the classic Maoist rural form. Hundreds of corporations are in liquidation as we speak. Clearly. Patrick Swayze.
or both. our good friends the progressives. (This pattern is the origin of most of today's Third World governments. it realized that it had no chance of victory. So what? They both got their asses kicked. led by the former terrorists . which recruits more terrorists. But perhaps you remember the militia movement of the period. why bother? Perhaps you could put all that energy into. or something. The general national consensus. .) And when we look at reactionary terrorist movements in the postwar era. The militia movement sensed this feeling. Like all failed reactionary terrorists. if you strike at a king. which of course died a pathetic and probably well-deserved death after the Oklahoma City bombing.. The final result is a criminal state.. aim to kill. The political side of the campaign was. As Machiavelli pointed out.Arab rule in Algeria has been a murderous catastrophe. Terrorism proper is only half of an effective strategy for seizing power. typically in the form of money. statesmen. I don't know that anyone took to the hills a la Patrick Swayze . of course. such as the OAS or the AWB. do we need to go there? Not today. crazy rednecks and they deserved to die. The ancien regime is no more.many Americans that Washington was no picnic. was that the Oklahoma City bombers were sick. The other half is an information campaign that convinces the victims of terrorism that they can alleviate it by making concessions. such as the Nazis and Fascists. no one at the New York Times asked "why do they hate us?" about Timothy McVeigh and his ilk. I love you for your passion. of course. like. This brings the terrorists closer to their objective. power. As you may remember. Case closed. Prewar reactionary terrorists. The OAS has quite arguably been proved right . and it faded away. getting a job. The result. they made the mistake of aggravating the true authorities without having the power to destroy them. The AWB is perhaps in the process of being proved right. we see the same pathetic Timothy McVeigh pattern. with which I basically agree.unless you count Eric Rudolph. Stormfront kids. perhaps. neither.who are now. But really. succeeded because they formed an alliance with the rotting remnants of the ancien regime. There was no sudden outpouring over the grievances of agro-Americans.
However. Like a logo. but you can print it on cloth and run it up a pole. Since in all states the military is the final court of appeal whether they like it or not. the Times could whine about how the root cause of libertarian terrorism is high taxes and Orwellian antiterrorist measures. is that the Washcorp military. The Plainlander military caste is fundamentally a red-state institution. I don't see any sign of this happening. this has some potential. my impression is that most conservatives. For the most part. has a strong tradition of conflating Plainland and Washcorp. libertarian paramilitary movements would be unnecessary. On the other hand.in or out of the military .If libertarians controlled the press. After every bomb went off. (I believe the composite is known as America apparently there's some sort of colorful "flag" thing. if you read a lot of milblogs. yadda. schools and universities. at present. schools and universities. I wouldn't say that progressives in the military are as rare as conservatives at State. there is nothing Plainlanders . A sort of 18th-century version of Blue Force Tracker. if libertarians controlled the press. besides its excellent command discipline. you'll start to notice that there is nothing Plainland warfighters fear and loathe so much as Washcorp. which I do. We are left with exactly one time-honored reactionary military measure: the military coup. Since in all states the military is the final court of appeal whether they like it or not. Perhaps through a sort of vestigial anti-Latin prejudice. It is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that this confusion primarily serves the interests of their enemies. What makes this situation not at all volatile. Perhaps I am right and perhaps the problem will be rectified. ie. yadda. the official press. it's simply pointless for anyone who is not part of the military to .fear and loathe so much as a coup. libertarian paramilitary movements would be practical and effective. On the other hand. while basically sensible. And they are especially unhappy about the center of its central nervous system. a coup (contra Arnold Kling) is always an option. whatever your form of government.) As someone with no conservative heritage whatsoever. but it might be close. are quite confused about the nature of the modern state.
The result would be an uncensored forum in which soldiers and sailors could speak honestly about their feelings and concerns. It is best reserved for the back. which it is simply puerile to wish for. As I've said before. And they will probably act only under quite dire circumstances. A massarchy is a state in which power is held by those who manage public opinion.at least. But how is this different from the Ron Paul Revolution? Allow me to explain. suppose someone managed to set up an external site which could verify the identity and rank of military personnel. Massarchy works because. For organizing large numbers of otherwise independent actors for concerted collective action. and they won't ask anyone. the tools available to the civil service for both influencing and measuring public opinion are much more powerful and sensitive than anything in the political system. If this platform was scalable enough to hold an actual democratic election in which only military personnel could vote.think at all about military coups. The difference between massarchy and electoral democracy is that in a massarchy. civil service) maintains a higher degree of legitimacy than elected politicians. They won't tell anyone. but keep it anonymous. elections are not much. there are some interesting options that could be facilitated by the Internet. This leaves us with the good old-fashioned way of seizing power . it's quite possible that the outcome of this ballot would have a rather definitive effect on the course of Washcorp. with modern broadcasting and polling. I mention it only because I can imagine very hypothetical situations under which it might work. Washcorp is best understood not as an electoral democracy. the early 19th century . this strategy is impractical at present and may never be practical.politicians actually purported to change the voter's . The latter are thus essentially decorative and disposable.convincing people to vote for you. the permanent government (ie. justice and competent government. back burner. For producing truth. If the generals want to act. That said. In the 19th century . For example. they will act. However. let's face it they're the shizzle. but a massarchy.
Washcorp is also quite capable of bending when it has to. which is often a good indication of popularity. or education? No one. For example. etc. . especially since first the AM airwaves and then the Internet opened up. is an excellent metric. conspiracy theories. or (in some cases) transmitted through peer networks which are incredibly jammed with bogus misinformation. Nothing to see here. whose opinions are right and cannot be inquired into. we saw a short bull market in hawkishness not just in Congress. Not so easy for a politician! So it's no wonder that the popularity of the permanent government is so high that no pollster even bothers tracking it. for example.) It is very easy for a civil servant in 2008 to simply organize his career around the plausible political center of 2018 or even 2028. Politics is harmless and contained. Under massarchy. There is no opposition. but prone to remarkable errors. you could have made quite a bit of money on the prediction markets. but also even in the press (remember Judy Miller?). Elections are still informative for one reason: they measure not simple opinion. the arts and letters. What the early polls were indicating was just name recognition. As for the universities and schools. When 9/11 made the White House (which is of course inherently temporary) and DoD (a hotbed of subversive grumbling) unexpectedly popular. In theory. because the leftward drift of opinion has been so consistently predictable. The sad fate of Big Rudy tells us nothing about public opinion on any substantive issue. If you had been sure of this a year ago. but it certainly has power to compensate. I suppose it could. who are elected by the all-knowing public. (Gay rights. the politicians. civil servants have an additional advantage: they can anticipate future public opinion. etc. the fact that Republicans didn't really care for Rudy Giuliani is a fascinating product of the Presidential election. however. who is against science. Needless to say. but motivation and organizational power. State Department. The press comes in for a little more flak. the beliefs of the normal modern voter are either installed via the schools and the press. A poll will not do this.mind on substantive issues with their speeches and debates. Move right along. Civil servants proper are simply expert professionals who carry out the policies of their masters.
In other words. Everything else is a waste of time. This helps. It has other natural disadvantages. Truth has certain natural advantages over fiction. and ideally a substantial majority . it would already have been victorious.certainly a majority. When your product is the truth.I'd like to think it could end up at LvMI). you are free to add any useful embroidery. and your goal is to manufacture enough consent to liquidate Washcorp. and electing politicians who will kill it becomes a viable strategy. My point is that the goal is to get from point A to point B. If it does not. in the Clausewitzian sense.This is easily explained by the theory that the primary goal of everyone in Washington is to attain as much power as possible. Either way you are barking up someone else's tree. So: to liquidate Washcorp. my view of Washcorp cannot be the truth. this is nothing but the truth. It certainly makes the job easier. So let's say that you have the resources of Ron Paul's war chest (what is it. and since it has not been. $20 million? I hope this hasn't all been spent . it agrees to commit suicide. In 19th-century Britain. Trimming is no defense against this attack. it loses its invulnerability to attack through the electoral system. This sort of unromantic view of the democratic system is absolutely critical if you want to employ what I think is the only practical strategy for defeating Washcorp: capturing public opinion and turning it against Washcorp itself. you probably don't want to contaminate the message with fiction. . and anyone who believes that the truth just does this on its own is reading the wrong blog. and that it needs to be liquidated. the only way to actually defeat the US government is for the attacker to actually beat it at its own game: manufacturing consent. figures who adopted this strategy were called trimmers. and retain it for as long as possible. Washcorp shifts with it. If the truth is always victorious on its own. Unfortunately. But the fundamental nature of the task is military. When your product is fiction. that in fact it is fundamentally parasitic. In my opinion. now that everyone (except for Ron Paul) is a trimmer. convince as many Plainlanders as possible . When public opinion shifts. If Washcorp trims.that Washcorp is not acting in their best interests. there is no real use for the word.
Inch-deep support is worthless. The computer is your friend. for Ron Paul perhaps? Complete liquidation may not be exactly the Ron Paul platform.What would you do? Buy TV ads. Perhaps if you start by selling Dr. and books published by respected publishing houses. going from the official press or TV to Ron Paul .is not a decision that could possibly be influenced by a 30-second spot. university-level textbooks. But they know that government is serious business. the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses. It is not La Wik's goal to replace or challenge the "mainstream. What security does this policy provide against political corruption? Absolutely none. and they know enough to get their views on government from people they see as intelligent and thoughtful. For an intelligent and thoughtful person. Or even a 5-minute spot. Etc. but surely it's close enough for government work.let alone to liquidating Washcorp . These are not the droids you're looking for. The procedure is for your own good. For most Plainlanders today. Short of Uberfact. this chain terminates in the official press. I don't see how it could even be attempted. It is not quite at the magnitude of a religious conversion. And the fact that we could not imagine a Wikipedia without these "mainstream" information distributors. I'd say that it is sensible and conservative to not even try. Advertising may get you a small amount of name recognition among particularly uninformed voters.anything but. magazines. What it says is: trust the authorities. but it comes close. Wikipedia's reliable source policy is typical: In general. and even if they are they are not the people you want. Most people are not intelligent and thoughtful . The idea that any of the "moneybomb" take is being spent on TV ads disturbs me. and mainstream newspapers. which as we've seen is an essential organ of Washcorp. D'oh. Paul. The tap water is perfectly safe. you can move on to the more aggressive message. journals. it's the worst strategy I can think of. which of course are informal arms of . These are not the people who are going to vote for Ron Paul." In fact. Short of hand-lettered signs on telephone poles.
In fact. perhaps Jello Biafra has a lesson for you. I am just some dude with a weird fake name.of my conclusions in these matters are true. But imagine what it would take to adjust to a world in which Crick and Watson were right. After water and food. Frankly. And vice versa. My blog template looks like ass. The problem is that I am not an authority on anything. My posts are unedited and . stable government is the next human essential. Who is the cult? The only test is the truth. It can adjust to many changes in public opinion. All cult members believe everyone in the outside world is crazy. It so happens that this cult is hundreds of years old. This is quite normal. I think it's pretty obvious that if all . I can't even begin to fathom it. The gold standard is a trifle by comparison. should alert you to the scale of the problem.the State. Their natural response to anyone who shows up at their door .or on their TV . liquidating Washcorp in a timely and orderly way is not optional. and almost all Plainlanders believe in it. the best way to think of Washcorp is as a cult.or even any . From the adversarial perspective. Washcorp is relatively flexible. One of the things I've been trying to do here at UR is construct a set of case studies in how Washcorp systematically (and quite unconsciously) propagates and maintains fictional perspectives of reality among Plainlanders. If you disagree. perhaps this fine article about Putin's new textbooks will enlighten you. so is yours. to a point at which the very existence of the massarchy is dependent on these fictions. Imagine what this paragraph would look like in a modern Third Reich or Soviet Union. If this doesn't make you uncomfortable. I'm afraid I am not. you plus everyone like you could elect a dogcatcher in Nome. they accept it so uncritically that they believe there is nothing to believe in.and tries to deprogram them will be to think that it is in fact this person who is trying to suck them into a cult. If Washcorp's security really is based on lies. If you are a new reader. how else would it differ? If you remain confused. perhaps the just-unearthed Crick letters are a simple way to shake your faith. If you are smart enough to reason through my arguments and decide whether you agree with them or not. Besides being written in German or Russian. perhaps you are some kind of weapons expert.
Your accurate description of reality has to become more fashionable than the official "mainstream" truth. you need to be right. Your goal is to be more credible than the official story. the propagation . Fortunately. not just a random jumble of essays. Fifteen years ago. You need to hire Steve Sailer and Michael Totten and Greg Cochran and HansHermann Hoppe and Steve McIntyre and Jeffrey Rogers Hummel and Razib Khan and Michael Yon and Jörg Guido Hülsmann. You need to produce a coherent corpus of authoritative information. But you also have to be more fashionable than all your "alternative" competitors (see under: Alex Jones). including all the bits of history. Too bad. You need a real institution with real money and a real staff. which is definitely nontrivial. so that Conquest's Second Law does not do its thing. much better than this. If you really want to defeat Washcorp. You cannot do this with one person. You need to build a Web site that anyone with a screen and a mouse can click on. and update that knowledge every day. The way to defeat a massarchy is to create and propagate a credible alternate reality that outcompetes the official information network. With a 5-minute overview for casual readers. science and current events that Washcorp doesn't want you to know. Or at least people who are at least as smart. And I am sure I have made many factual errors which don't involve the Cato Institute. economics. you need to do much. government. The task of replacing Washcorp's pile of nonsense with some other pile of nonsense is simply not solvable. And then you need to wait ten or twenty years.highly rambling. You need a place that anyone who speaks English can go to find out what is actually going on in the world. and at least as expressive as the above. And above all. Because this stuff doesn't happen overnight. at least as knowledgeable. and get an accurate understanding of reality. and often transparently selfcontradictory. the latter is extremely boring. You need to crowdsource. and enough depth that a PhD with a standard Washcorp education will come away at least gritting his teeth. It has to be done. chock-full of pretentious cant and intentional obfuscation. but not without editorial control. a la Diderot.
which also serve Washcorp's interest. is a problem. nor is realistically reformable. Bored billionaires of Plainland. inefficient and intrusive. This bothers some of us. you have nothing to lose but your Washcorp. if the remedy is ineffective. (Elections can also replace the Congress. Today it is trivial. There is no reason to think this remedy is effective. It neither serves their interests. Of course. its influence on the judicial branch is only effective after decades of continuous control. central North America or Plainland. There are many reasons to think it is not. such as Ron Paul. The typical promise is to replace the existing organization. often with high backlash.) The predictable result of this divergence in incentives is that Washcorp has become quite large. please read on. and its influence on the legislative branch is nil. and partisan transitions seem to have minimal effect perhaps due to the iron triangle effect.part was almost impossible. The traditional remedy is to persuade Plainlanders to use their collective democratic powers to elect a politician. All that's left is the creation. press and universities have failed. Their only practical .) Thinking inductively: all previous democratic attacks against the civil service. and I bet it could be done in half Cato's budget. And it continues to grow. but incumbency rates indicate that this is extremely difficult. Paul is elected. which is the product of informal political evolution. the White House's influence on the executive branch is small. who promises to restructure Washcorp so that the result does in fact serve their interests. We start with the perception that USG. I propose a different strategy: persuading Plainlanders that Washcorp is totaled. any energy invested in it serves the interests of Washcorp. They do not seem to match the interests of the residents of the territory Washcorp owns. Its problem is that the interests Washcorp serves seem quite a good match for its own. Why not give it a shot? How to defeat the US government: summary I thought it'd be fun to write a quick summary of the last three posts. Thinking deductively: even if Dr. (Using these neutral names helps us separate ourselves from symbolic emotional attachments. or Washcorp. with the formal design specified by the literal text of the Constitution. If it bothers you.
The only practical way to liquidate Washcorp is to spin off its 50 local subdivisions. Persuading them to liquidate Washcorp must be even harder. sufficient public support for liquidation will probably cause it to liquidate itself. For better or worse. Given the historical evolution of Washcorp as it is today from what it was in 1789. Restoring the Old Republic has a nice sound to it. It also has an obvious disadvantage. because Washcorp is far more responsive to direct and instantaneous polls than indirect. this strategy requires a very high percentage of . agree that Washcorp is totaled. Washcorp remains a democracy. which I think most people would agree was a good thing.into what we have now. The obvious historical analogy is the liquidation of the Soviet Union. But is it? If you. It seems impractical to persuade more than a small minority of Plainlanders to vote for Ron Paul.not without collateral damage . dear reader. they certainly have the power to liquidate it. It preceded them. Clearly. which is that if it succeeds it is very hard to reverse. Both problems are hard. The fact that Washcorp is totaled is not only difficult to grasp. it cannot be explained in a TV ad. periodic elections. But I suspect the latter is easier. or any other superficial means of communication. Therefore.option is to liquidate it. we must choose between propagating an unlikely fiction. and an even more unlikely truth." by restoring their sovereignty. but extremely large. In fact. the transition can be relatively seamless. you must agree that persuading anyone to agree with this proposition means persuading them to agree with the truth. The proposition that Washcorp is totaled strikes most Plainlanders today as even more implausible than the proposition that they need to vote for Ron Paul. If the new nations agree to honor Washcorp's financial obligations. Furthermore. The liquidation of the Soviet Union did not follow elections. If enough of its voters decide that it is totaled. but the Old Republic developed . Liquidation has one obvious advantage. I find this advantage quite compelling. or "states. you must agree that persuading Plainlanders to vote for Ron Paul means persuading them to agree with a fiction. To succeed.
If the argument above is correct. and we define "within" according to reality rather than symbolism. It is neither a pure matter of fact. However. the same can be said of the proposition that Washcorp is not totaled. Since this proposition is false. and whose occasional errors are correctable. a Plainlander must accept numerous unverified facts. At least if we define influence as control over policy. Indeed. Washcorp can be defeated by the following steps: One: construct an information source more accurate than Washcorp's official organs. To believe that Washcorp is not totaled. but a perspective. and our information source is accurate. like the half-life of carbon-14. the proposition that Washcorp is totaled is not an "objective" result. it must produce the same conclusion. most Plainlanders feel that Washcorp is a productive institution which serves their interests. Granted. They believe this not because they have thought the question through themselves. Their error is that these organs . First. judgments and arguments.are not in fact independent of Washcorp. Two: there is no two. It is perfectly normal and healthy. etc . they are arguably the most influential power structures within it. . whom they trust. the rest will happen on its own. value judgments that contradict their traditional assumptions. like Darwinian evolution. It is not a proof. Like any other meaningful conclusion about human society. If this analysis is accurate. but because they have (quite sensibly) delegated it to credible information sources. it depends on facts. universities. it is likely to depend on incorrect facts or invalid arguments.press.Plainlanders to accept factual propositions that they cannot verify personally. and philosophical arguments that they have neither the capacity nor the training to follow. and subjective judgments. arguments. At present. nor a product of irrefutable argument. if we are correct that Washcorp is pernicious and irreparable. But the same can be said of their present belief system. This process is called trust.
tend to outcompete employees who propagate "reactionary" perspectives. it will attract the support of the smartest and most credible people in society. . which represent Washcorp as pernicious and incurable. creating a selective bias. the normal forces of intellectual fashion will do the rest. and even wellintentioned. at least. If our new source can break this trust. While most people are not capable of sustained analysis. they are quite capable of assigning personal credibility. but not new. which seems objective only because it is conventional. Within the mainstream organs. more accurate source of facts and arguments cannot also supply this demand. employees who propagate "progressive" perspectives. There is no reason that a new. The mainstream organs which Plainlanders trust today produce a vast quantity of perspective. which lead Plainlanders to perceive Washcorp as a benign institution whose errors can be corrected. We are left with step one: creating an accurate information source. As this 1337 attracts followers. Over time it has produced some quite remarkable perspectives. it can remove the mainstream's camouflage and compete on a level field. If the new authority is genuinely more accurate than the official organs. knowledgeable. Their first deception is always of themselves. supplying the press with informal confidential information (leaks).and indeed it does. This bias is subtle.or. our only problem is to persuade most Plainlanders to accept it as accurate . after step one (actually building the new authority). Subsidies. Therefore. Washcorp creates this Darwinian pressure by subsidizing the universities. Assuming a generally uncensored Internet. and forming its policy around the preferences of both (influence). Refuting these will leave the surprised reader unusually open to new judgments. this problem solves itself. Why do the press and universities produce inaccurate information? The problem is not that their employees are not extremely intelligent. leaks and influence will naturally favor the friends of Washcorp. The problem is that they are also ambitious. much more accurate than the authorities they presently trust.
Revipedia maximizes accuracy and credibility by presenting the strongest arguments. it may follow that Washcorp is actually benign. it certainly does not refute the proposition. eschewing Wikipedia's unreadable and easily-gamed "he said. A strong system of adversarial arguments demands editors who not only disagree with each other. I conclude that someone ought to . and applying it in a structure which is not consensual but adversarial. our new authority must be absolutely independent from this system. Strong arguments can only be produced by editing. I suspect it can only be solved by deploying the full intellectual capacity of the Internet. from every point of view. However. Thus.Of course. strong adversarial arguments can only be constructed by a system of formal factions. It's hard to see how it could be. Nothing of the sort exists at present. Moreover. Thus the new authority which I've called Revipedia . either within the mainstream organs or outside them. and largely deductive rather than empirical). While this does not demonstrate that this design can create a public information authority of unprecedented accuracy and credibility. but do so in a structured and predictable way. This means it must ascribe zero trust . An unedited argument. It adds no credit to its competition. this does not imply that such an authority is undesirable. she said" style. it presents them separately but comparably. is not an argument but a strawman. because it must examine every question on its merits without trusting authority. If this problem is solvable. This contradicts Wikipedia's policies. or one edited by unsympathetic editors. on every controversial subject. Furthermore. It also has a much harder problem to solve than Wikipedia. And the difference can only be discerned if the sympathies of the editors are known. if there is an error in the argument above (which is certainly quite complex.to the products of the mainstream.neither positive nor negative . Since neither Revipedia nor anything like it exists.can be expected to contradict Wikipedia. or that it is pernicious but a strong information authority is insufficient to defeat it.
It could be you. I'm afraid my plate is full. It won't be me. .build it. But is yours? Imagine being the Jimbo Wales of the next century.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.