This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Something Like A Sketch of A Rationalist-Adjacent Political Program
The subculture associated with the LessWrong diaspora and forums in its sphere has a distinct political approach worth interrogating. At least since The Californian Ideology was published people have noticed "silicon valley types" tend to engage with governance in a way that puts them in a unique and honestly awkward position relative to the US status quo. A decade ago Scott said the cultural signifiers of this group were:
They might have been less reform-minded at the time, but today there is a loose set of internally coherent policies we can identify with the heirs of that scene. 'Grey Tribe' (I really wish there was a better catch-all term) tends to have three broadly identifiable commitments unified by a vision of politics as an attempt to achieve administrative efficiency, in a way they tend to imagine as post-political. Many of the policies under each category naturally overlap with one another. I have tried to keep the list to things I have seen or heard discussed in these circles. The first is a broad institutionalist critique ("Meta-Politics"), the second is an intolerance for the rent-seeking behavior commonly used as a dealmaking instrument ("Rent-Aversion") and the third includes both a select few object-level concerns - I'm particularly interested in any more of these you could identify - and an inclination to shift status quo functions off the state and on to trusted markets and experts ("Optimizability").
Meta-Politics
Rats tend to be, relative to other smart people, interested in comprehensive reform of, or imagining alternatives within, Constitutional Political Economy. Hacking at the root instead of the branches of inefficiency. Here is what I imagine they are likely to suggest on that front.
Electoral Reform: Widely popular given the perceived inefficiency of FPTP. Often comes as support for Instant-Runoff ("Ranked Choice") Voting, or the Single-Transferable Vote in the case of Proportional Representation advocates, who are ironically overrepresented. The more distinctly Rat position tends to be support for STAR over IRV/RCV, and something like Allocated Score over STV. Occasionally: Quadratic voting, Independently drawn districts, Unitary Primaries, Fusion voting.
Legislative Reform: Relatively more proportionally representative legislatures. Increased House Apportionment, e.g. the Cube Root Law. Occasionally more unique proposals like introducing secret ballots to congressional voting procedures. Paying legislators competitively with top talent, as well as doing the same for their (substantially increased) staff. Codify law on a GitHub clone, and fold the Federal Register/CFR in to the same site.
Pseudo-Futarchy: Utilizing prediction markets to generate more reliable information for agency regulators and legislative deliberation. Low hanging fruit.
Meritocracy: Re-legalize and center the use of g-loaded tests for cognitively demanding public and private employment.
State Capacity: Move towards a legible society through national identification systems, unified federal databases, and modernized technology infrastructure. Nationwide ERIC to replace Crosscheck. Hire, fire, and compensate administrative talent commensurate with their skill.
Private Governance: Of particular interest to Bay Area writers. Why try for voice when you can exit? Charter Cities Institute, Prospera, Seasteading, etc. Replace poorly aligned democratic incentives with the productive clarity of polities competing for workers and firms in a market of policy regimes. Long libertarian history of related visions - Puydt's Panarchy, Nozick's Meta-Utopia, Yarvin's Patchwork, Scott's Atomic Communitarianism all grasp at similar intuitions. Looks more like SEZs in a domestic political context.
Libertarian Paternalism: Well aligned with Grey Tribe instincts even if some specific claims fell to the replication Crisis. Use of choice architecture to encourage but not coerce prosocial action.
Adjacent: e-governance, vTaiwan, sortition assemblies
Rent-Aversion
Deliberative lawmaking between representatives of particular communities with their own interests will on some level always be about managing the distribution of gains and losses of some new condition or proposed change. Rationalist see this and, with a quasi-libertarian read of the situation, see a mess of rent-seeking carve-outs left in the wake of policymaking that is not meaningfully distinct from corruption. A lot of their policy approach concerns the abolition of (non-schumpeterian) artificial rents and the redistribution of natural rents away from private capture.
Occupational Licensing: Lift artificial caps on doctors and residency in the US. Institute licensing reciprocity with peer states like Canada. Broad abandonment of loosening of licensing regimes, especially ones simply serving as a tertiary education filter.
FDA Reform: Reciprocity with peer states for recognition of drugs. Generalize Operation Warp Speed for all applications. Prime target for comprehensive restructuring.
NEPA Abolition: Environmental protection suits have been co-opted and abused to extract rents by incumbent landowners. The more interesting question is how to structure law that can achieve some of the environmentalist goals of the original legislation.
Zoning Reform: Municipal control of land use may be the single most costly norm in US law. Ideally abolish all land use restrictions excepting designated zones for heavy industry, and simply rely on a (clear and independently drafted) building code. Pairs well with privatized governance as a single beneficiary of land policy internalizes all externalities.
Carbon Taxes: Production and consumption that releases carbon in to the atmosphere is a simple underpriced negative externality.
Land Value Taxation: Tax the full annualized market value of land, exempting all improvements and constructions on top of it. As supply is unaffected, this tax incurs no deadweight loss, improving economic efficiency when it substitutes other taxes, and arguably improving allocative efficiency of land.
Destination-based Cash Flow Taxation: Replace Corporate Income Taxation with a tax on firm profits after full expensing of new capital investment via the transfer of an equivalent tradeable tax credit, with border adjustment to simplify compliance and nullify tax haven incentives. Resulting tax falls solely on consumption owed to supernormal profit/capital rents. Lacks deadweight loss. Some capital incomes are earned, some are luck. This targets the latter.
Jones Act/1905 Dredging Act: Domestic shipping requires American ships, which acts as a distortionary subsidy to American industry. Similarly, American ports are under-dredged because a 1905 law required American ships to do the dredging, and ours are now internationally subpar at that task. These policies are something of synecdoche for relic rent-seeking behavior that we all grew up a little poorer for.
Subsidy Abolition: Oil, agriculture, sports - substantial subsidies flow arbitrarily to wielders of political attention. Subsidies have a place in industries of national security importance or industrial policy planning, like semiconductor manufacturing, but not stadiums.
Outlaw Non-competes: Non-compete agreements distort labor markets and should be banned at the federal level.
Open Access Journals: Academic journals only serve to poorly gate-keep scholarship. Make a public sci-hub alternative. Likewise, revive the original Google Books vision of full, readily accessible digitization.
IP Reform: Tax patents proportional to a self-assessed value under an option for public purchase (Harberger taxation), buy them to put them in the public domain at a price determined at public auction (Kremer Buyouts), or some other variation
School Choice: Introduce market competition and consumer preference into schools through education vouchers. Dovetails well with LVT and zoning reform as it decouples municipal property taxation from school quality.
Adjacent: Strategic litigation reform, Civil Asset Forfeiture, Real Estate/Car Dealership mandates
Optimizability
Arguably where the neoliberalism of rat politics shines through. This is a change in state outputs, as opposed to Meta-Politics' focus on inputs to functionality. The Grey Tribe prefers policy-informed approaches to achieve goals it broadly shares with liberals, as well as speculative approaches to achieve goals it often does not. Many suggestions are just particular instantiations of the guiding anti-regulatory principle of market liberalization.
Market Monetarism: Replace the inflation and unemployment mandate of central banks with NGDP Targeting (sometimes Gross Labor Income Targeting) with innovative instruments of monetary policy when at the ZLB. This has been popular on LW since the recession, and macro has slowly moved closer to that direction.
Permitting Reform: The legal ability to perform large or atypical tasks is significantly harder than it once was. The continual updating of Nuclear Plant regulatory requirements during the construction process made them de facto illegal. Likewise constrains advancements in rail, geothermal, hydrogen airships, autonomous cars, autonomous drones.
Grant Reform: Lead researchers by their own reckoning burn time and money writing individual federal grant applications. Move towards a system of cooperative, directed, institutional research funded by large block grants. Similarly, employ Romer's Self-Organizing Industry Boards for private innovation.
Direct Transfer Benefits: UBI, NIT, whatever you want to call it. Replace the myriad difficult to navigate system of state programs with an income floor ensured through direct cash transfers. Progressive income tax structures (or some substitute) recoup the transfer so it maximally targets those with no alternative income.
Organ Markets: Regulated, compensated sale of spare kidneys as we currently do for blood plasma.
Open Borders: Provided some minimal health/criminality screening, uncap immigration. American institutions and localized production act as a multiplier on labor productivity. Simply increasing available labor grows general production more than linearly with the number of added workers. Some culture transplant and golden goose concerns, but this is very popular.
Free IVF: Polygenic screening during IVF allows health, including likely cognitive performance, to be estimated in fertilized embryos before implantation. The multiplier on this intervention is likely well above costs even at this early stage, and should be free and subsidized.
Pragmatic Criminal Justice Reform: Anti-social violence is concentrated in young men with high risk tolerance, low intelligence, and high time preference. The intentionally slow, abstracted process of criminal prosecution fails to disincentivize this cohort. Consequences can be lower so long as they are swift and expectable.
Factory Farm Ban: Current law forbids the recording of industrial livestock processing. These laws should be lifted and their contents infoblasted to the public until reform is inevitable. Likewise, ban octopus farming and shrimp eyestalk ablation
Adjacent: Free GLP-1 agonists, Drug decriminalization, Geoengineering
Sometimes people say this scene's politics are identifiable in the Progress Studies publications, or in the Neoliberal orgs, or esoterically in Bostrom papers about singletons. I think, while conversant with all of those, it has its own MO. It is now mature and active enough that its originating, 'post-political' self-conception is in tension with its desire to effect change. I kept this in mind particularly with how slow the relevant orgs were to get any serious lobbying presence on the Hill for AI.
Regardless, this seems like a fitting technocratic vision for a group that sees itself as cosmopolitan, longtermist, and high-decoupling. Improve the function of the state as if agnostic to its ends, socialize rent-claims when they must exist and abolish them everywhere else, lean into the innately productive forces of well structured, well priced markets. If anything what stands out in this sketch is what is missing.
I think this broadly captures the political proposals I've seen discussed in those circles, and how they relate. Interested if there's any substantial disagreement, missing pieces or elements of rationalist political thought that should be explained, or policy proposals you think also fit. Also interested in blind spots, or how you imagining something like this list changing in 10, 20 years if the people in question continue to become more organized or active.
Seems mostly reasonable, until:
Bunch of quokkas.
The reason why Open Borders is controversial in the existing system is that migrants (or their children) are given an equal share in governance - a scarce resource currently owned by the existing population. It's not clear why the existing population should give equal shares in governance to the children of new arrivals. I expect free movement of people across borders would be more popular if this were not the case.
Because democracy isn't just an arbitrary principle, it's a political technology for nonviolent resolution of unrest. People who live in your country but don't vote can still riot, can still strike, and can still join insurgent groups. There are ways to suppress the majority, but they are much more difficult and costly to the country than simply having them continue to live far away outside your borders where they can't readily do those things.
In democracies those tactics are mainly relegated to groups with minority political views that can't win at the ballot box, and sometimes they get their way by caring more than the majority or having elite sympathizers, but most of the time it is advantageous to just participate in the democratic system instead. This has made democracies remarkably stable compared to other political systems. Your proposal, on the other hand, seems like it would fall to a Ghandi-style resistance campaign or violent revolution the first time there was a serious dispute between the natives and the disenfranchised descendants of immigrants.
Which is why the Gulf States are a hotbed of insurrection?
Yes, in comparison to established democracies they seem less stable and unlikely to survive as long.
Like most authoritarian governments, they pay the cost to the functioning of the country I mentioned, because they are less responsive to feedback and have to keep things under control in other ways. What democratic countries would actually prefer to live under a government like Saudi Arabia in exchange for some supposed economic benefit from open borders?
Remember we are talking not just about formal democracy but a "share in governance", in particular in the context of open borders. Non-democracies can still do things to keep the support of the majority of residents, both by controlling who enters (and how long they stay) and by being responsive to the desires of residents. But he was talking about a country that both let in anyone and then disregarded their opinions in favor of democratic rule by the minority of natives.
They do. But I'm not inclined to blame that on immigration policy first. Resource-driven monarchies are probably less stable than an old democracy like the UK. But that doesn't mean their level of ethnic tension for their population is well below "simmering on its way to insurrection"
By "feedback" I assume you mean they're ignoring some economic benefit here, because I doubt the public is calling for more foreign citizenship?
Yeah, I suppose it would get tense across generations if people are allowed to stay (though in some edge cases I think migrants would be happy to avoid things like conscription). But, if they aren't citizens, the welcoming nation has options if it wants them. Which is why OP is right that it'd probably be vastly more popular. That is the first demographic you have to please after all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link