I like this argument. If our adversaries over at the Human Connection Hub have created an antisocial incentive structure, we can win by creating prosocial incentive structures. There are several considerations which must be made here. Any parallel incentive structure, no matter how well constructed, is subject to potential capture by a for-profit entity. Hence, a world with multiple incentive structures is better protected against this outcome. However, it could be argued that these parallel incentive structures could still be captured by for-profit entities and merged into a larger antisocial structure. This vulnerability can be avoided by introducing a certain amount of incompatibility into the parallel incentive structures. The long term goal should be creating enough Balkanized incentive structures that it is impossible for something like the Match Group to emerge again.
You seem to confuse moral language with morality. What is a moral order? Its a prescriptive order for behavior. Is confession an incentive structure or a moral one? It feels like a might makes right highly localized so as to sidestep any icky moralizing to retain your lib card. I would argue that the current structure where no one can impose a grand moral order exists by design, as in, the system was set up to prevent the imposition of said order. In a way, this is a kind of a moral order that is imposed, an imposed moral relativism. This is not the natural historical state for societies. Can moral language generate structure? Well, language certainly can, have we not been held prisoner to some degree by laws or ideas, onerous systems of thought. Is that not structure? I understand your skepticism of trads, who too often promulgated boostrappism, and advocate that young men sacrifice themselves on their behalf, for no benefit but their own. I understand the thought line of "fool me once" when it comes to supporting some conservatives, who often seem to bitch out of advocating for actual real change. Its a sort of build it first, then men will get on board. But build what? Without "moral" language you cannot prescribe what to build. Ultimately, for better or worse, young men will have to do it themselves, and maybe that's the way it should be, that they are burdened with deciding their own destiny.
If I’m understanding you correctly you want to build conditions that incentivize local communities where status within them is more healthy than the global game theory version where lower stats men always defect? I’m sure Dave would agree with that. I think the dichotomy you created between incentives vs abstract morality that can’t be enforced is a false one because trads also want to create local communities that incentivize good behavior, that’s what subsidiarity is all about. The idea it’s all moral and the situation and incentive structure doesn’t matter is more of a Kantian idea than the trad Aristotelean idea of natural law for specific acts and prudence for everything else. Great article though
I like this argument. If our adversaries over at the Human Connection Hub have created an antisocial incentive structure, we can win by creating prosocial incentive structures. There are several considerations which must be made here. Any parallel incentive structure, no matter how well constructed, is subject to potential capture by a for-profit entity. Hence, a world with multiple incentive structures is better protected against this outcome. However, it could be argued that these parallel incentive structures could still be captured by for-profit entities and merged into a larger antisocial structure. This vulnerability can be avoided by introducing a certain amount of incompatibility into the parallel incentive structures. The long term goal should be creating enough Balkanized incentive structures that it is impossible for something like the Match Group to emerge again.
You seem to confuse moral language with morality. What is a moral order? Its a prescriptive order for behavior. Is confession an incentive structure or a moral one? It feels like a might makes right highly localized so as to sidestep any icky moralizing to retain your lib card. I would argue that the current structure where no one can impose a grand moral order exists by design, as in, the system was set up to prevent the imposition of said order. In a way, this is a kind of a moral order that is imposed, an imposed moral relativism. This is not the natural historical state for societies. Can moral language generate structure? Well, language certainly can, have we not been held prisoner to some degree by laws or ideas, onerous systems of thought. Is that not structure? I understand your skepticism of trads, who too often promulgated boostrappism, and advocate that young men sacrifice themselves on their behalf, for no benefit but their own. I understand the thought line of "fool me once" when it comes to supporting some conservatives, who often seem to bitch out of advocating for actual real change. Its a sort of build it first, then men will get on board. But build what? Without "moral" language you cannot prescribe what to build. Ultimately, for better or worse, young men will have to do it themselves, and maybe that's the way it should be, that they are burdened with deciding their own destiny.
If I’m understanding you correctly you want to build conditions that incentivize local communities where status within them is more healthy than the global game theory version where lower stats men always defect? I’m sure Dave would agree with that. I think the dichotomy you created between incentives vs abstract morality that can’t be enforced is a false one because trads also want to create local communities that incentivize good behavior, that’s what subsidiarity is all about. The idea it’s all moral and the situation and incentive structure doesn’t matter is more of a Kantian idea than the trad Aristotelean idea of natural law for specific acts and prudence for everything else. Great article though
A most enlightening, edifying, and entertaining essay. Thank you. Godspeed