1. I would argue libertarianism is one of the main cause behind the absolutely low human capital on the Right
"Gubment bad, gubment bad" -> And you wonder why nobody on the right can run the government?
"Don't go to college, just go to trade and marry at 16" -> Well, leftist fantasy is to graduate Harvard PhD, then shift educational curricula. And you wonder why the right has no power on education?
2. Is the relative success of Singapore and Hong Kong under ultra free market conditions mostly attributable to them being city-states?
Sort of, but there are others:
a. Being a British colony golden child and/or having US military base helps because the West would ask fewer questions and more likely to believe what you said. This is the case with Malaysia and Thailand (but not the case with India - India is not "golden child" of British colony but Singapore and Malaysia are). Indonesia's new criminal code is perceived more negatively than Thailand launching another coup for a gazillionth time
b. Singapore is NOT libertarian utopia, the government actively are interventionist and paternalist. They won't "leave you alone". Singaporean government literally make housing and has housing quotas.
This is related to
3. "Does it make sense to have a very doctrinaire attitude about issues like protectionism vs. free trade or to treat it more contextually?"
The success of Singapore and Hong Kong, Japan, SK, and more is they are EXTREMELY contextual about it. Yes, even China. Third world countries that are doctrinaire are the ones losing more, the ones who are pragmatic win.
This is also related to why the West fails to win the favor of third world countries regarding competition with China - You invest in the "globohomo" while China invests in infrastructure -> Basically the West since Jimmy Carter and especially since the fall of the USSR invest in creating people who want to be white liberals from moral alignment perspective (morally aligned people are less likely to go to war), China is more transactional.
The West is more doctrinare about free market and who owns the companies etc -> OK, if private company don't want to build at Kansas and Nebraska, how could you expect them to invest in Kenya? China uses state-owned companies to build stuff private companies don't want to do
4. Do we really have “one man one vote” if certain interest groups (blacks, elite women, old people, farmers) are perceived as having special moral authority?
Elections are not cultural influence. One man one vote is for elections.
5. Does the US actually have good institutions, or do we simply dominate because we control the international reserve currency?
Both. The West is less nepotistic, and that's actually makes stronger institutions. But controlling international reserve currency also works
6. Walt argues that the Civil War proves that American institutions actually weren’t sufficient for keeping society intact—there are times when an entrenched interest group simply becomes intractable and needs to be put down
Agree, however there's a peculiar thing in the West for its fetishization of party politics as well. Co-optation is good, actually, and multi-party democracy is bad, actually. Political parties should basically be nothing more than “Faction within a faction within a faction” that organically form, dissolve and align based on the individual representative’s freedom of associations, and people should choose representatives more than the party.
Britain can rob half the world specifically because of 100 years Whig dominance post English Civil War when basically the entire government is Whig and differences are just "factions within factions within factions", and all US golden ages (1950s, 1990s etc) are always times with less polarization (Ike transcend parties). Japan can grow specifically due to LDP dominance, Singapore as well.
7. Walt defends NIMBYism—most people have their net worth tied into their home equity and housing precarity is how we practically bury racial tension
Problem: NIMBYism prevents Walt's vitalism. Vitalism channeled on building stuff -> NIMBYism prevents that. Just ask California
Also:
- Actual working parties are “The rich make political machines then the political machines sent their lawyers to the legislature”. Most Western politicians are lawyers. It’s actually more diverse and “cater to everyone’s interest” to just straight up send the rich & famous + the elite themselves to the legislature (the best version is of course sortition, but if it’s not possible then this would do).
- The goal of democratic system is NOT to have “religious” debates (All working ideologies and religions are practically one and the same psychological, fanaticism & a priori assumptions wise). The goal is to ensure as many voices, insights and inputs as possible are heard and taken into account by the system since it’s impossible for the state to know all the infos out there + Ensure a good “circulation of elites”.
-----------
What makes US system stupid are lots of things. For example:
1. FPTP system on elections. Elections should use candidate-based preferential voting system (STV, Condorcet compatible methods, etc)
2. Electoral college - honestly just abolish it
3. Minimum ages for representatives and the President - just say “If you’re 21 you can run for all legislature & the Presidency if you want to”
4. Politicized Supreme Court (Judges and justices should not be able to vote)
5. Justices serve for life (They should serve in say 25 years, then retired, receive pension and barred from taking any other state position)
6. Legislature can serve for life (Say, the President should serve for 5 years + may be re-elected once, while the Legislature should serve in 5 year terms AND may be re-elected but max serve for 25 years AND after that has to step down)
7. There are too little congressman and justices. I think the US should have like 1000 congressman total. Say 350 people on the Senate and the rest are at House of Representatives.
8. Tbh I actually think that the US should separate Supreme Court & Constitutional Court. Constitutional court: Interpret the Constitution, Supreme Court: Cassation etc. Plus there are too few Supreme Court Justices. Like, say there should be 15 Constitutional Court justices & 15 Supreme Court Justices, or something like that.
9. I think there are too few Secretaries (ministries) in the US, even without adding any bullshit. They often should be split, some of them are too big and basically creates “a state within a state” since anything below Secretary would be bureaucrats. Too few political actors → the bureaucrats de facto run everything, and bureaucrats are incentivized to vote Democrat
I’m so black-pulled about the lack of necessary momentum on the right to pop these zits that I’m honestly rooting to piss off leftists so much, that their collective revenge on our society becomes the red-pill factory that’s necessary to build a right-wing Geist capable of dealing with these issues.
this dude speaks quicker than you
I definitely should have gone at half speed lol
Fuck Classical Liberals and especially pieces of shit like Hanania and Karlin.
1. I would argue libertarianism is one of the main cause behind the absolutely low human capital on the Right
"Gubment bad, gubment bad" -> And you wonder why nobody on the right can run the government?
"Don't go to college, just go to trade and marry at 16" -> Well, leftist fantasy is to graduate Harvard PhD, then shift educational curricula. And you wonder why the right has no power on education?
2. Is the relative success of Singapore and Hong Kong under ultra free market conditions mostly attributable to them being city-states?
Sort of, but there are others:
a. Being a British colony golden child and/or having US military base helps because the West would ask fewer questions and more likely to believe what you said. This is the case with Malaysia and Thailand (but not the case with India - India is not "golden child" of British colony but Singapore and Malaysia are). Indonesia's new criminal code is perceived more negatively than Thailand launching another coup for a gazillionth time
b. Singapore is NOT libertarian utopia, the government actively are interventionist and paternalist. They won't "leave you alone". Singaporean government literally make housing and has housing quotas.
This is related to
3. "Does it make sense to have a very doctrinaire attitude about issues like protectionism vs. free trade or to treat it more contextually?"
The success of Singapore and Hong Kong, Japan, SK, and more is they are EXTREMELY contextual about it. Yes, even China. Third world countries that are doctrinaire are the ones losing more, the ones who are pragmatic win.
This is also related to why the West fails to win the favor of third world countries regarding competition with China - You invest in the "globohomo" while China invests in infrastructure -> Basically the West since Jimmy Carter and especially since the fall of the USSR invest in creating people who want to be white liberals from moral alignment perspective (morally aligned people are less likely to go to war), China is more transactional.
The West is more doctrinare about free market and who owns the companies etc -> OK, if private company don't want to build at Kansas and Nebraska, how could you expect them to invest in Kenya? China uses state-owned companies to build stuff private companies don't want to do
4. Do we really have “one man one vote” if certain interest groups (blacks, elite women, old people, farmers) are perceived as having special moral authority?
Elections are not cultural influence. One man one vote is for elections.
5. Does the US actually have good institutions, or do we simply dominate because we control the international reserve currency?
Both. The West is less nepotistic, and that's actually makes stronger institutions. But controlling international reserve currency also works
6. Walt argues that the Civil War proves that American institutions actually weren’t sufficient for keeping society intact—there are times when an entrenched interest group simply becomes intractable and needs to be put down
Agree, however there's a peculiar thing in the West for its fetishization of party politics as well. Co-optation is good, actually, and multi-party democracy is bad, actually. Political parties should basically be nothing more than “Faction within a faction within a faction” that organically form, dissolve and align based on the individual representative’s freedom of associations, and people should choose representatives more than the party.
Britain can rob half the world specifically because of 100 years Whig dominance post English Civil War when basically the entire government is Whig and differences are just "factions within factions within factions", and all US golden ages (1950s, 1990s etc) are always times with less polarization (Ike transcend parties). Japan can grow specifically due to LDP dominance, Singapore as well.
7. Walt defends NIMBYism—most people have their net worth tied into their home equity and housing precarity is how we practically bury racial tension
Problem: NIMBYism prevents Walt's vitalism. Vitalism channeled on building stuff -> NIMBYism prevents that. Just ask California
Also:
- Actual working parties are “The rich make political machines then the political machines sent their lawyers to the legislature”. Most Western politicians are lawyers. It’s actually more diverse and “cater to everyone’s interest” to just straight up send the rich & famous + the elite themselves to the legislature (the best version is of course sortition, but if it’s not possible then this would do).
- The goal of democratic system is NOT to have “religious” debates (All working ideologies and religions are practically one and the same psychological, fanaticism & a priori assumptions wise). The goal is to ensure as many voices, insights and inputs as possible are heard and taken into account by the system since it’s impossible for the state to know all the infos out there + Ensure a good “circulation of elites”.
-----------
What makes US system stupid are lots of things. For example:
1. FPTP system on elections. Elections should use candidate-based preferential voting system (STV, Condorcet compatible methods, etc)
2. Electoral college - honestly just abolish it
3. Minimum ages for representatives and the President - just say “If you’re 21 you can run for all legislature & the Presidency if you want to”
4. Politicized Supreme Court (Judges and justices should not be able to vote)
5. Justices serve for life (They should serve in say 25 years, then retired, receive pension and barred from taking any other state position)
6. Legislature can serve for life (Say, the President should serve for 5 years + may be re-elected once, while the Legislature should serve in 5 year terms AND may be re-elected but max serve for 25 years AND after that has to step down)
7. There are too little congressman and justices. I think the US should have like 1000 congressman total. Say 350 people on the Senate and the rest are at House of Representatives.
8. Tbh I actually think that the US should separate Supreme Court & Constitutional Court. Constitutional court: Interpret the Constitution, Supreme Court: Cassation etc. Plus there are too few Supreme Court Justices. Like, say there should be 15 Constitutional Court justices & 15 Supreme Court Justices, or something like that.
9. I think there are too few Secretaries (ministries) in the US, even without adding any bullshit. They often should be split, some of them are too big and basically creates “a state within a state” since anything below Secretary would be bureaucrats. Too few political actors → the bureaucrats de facto run everything, and bureaucrats are incentivized to vote Democrat
I’m so black-pulled about the lack of necessary momentum on the right to pop these zits that I’m honestly rooting to piss off leftists so much, that their collective revenge on our society becomes the red-pill factory that’s necessary to build a right-wing Geist capable of dealing with these issues.