site banner
KulakRevolt  1mo ago (anarchonomicon.com)   1500 thread views

After the State: The Coming of Neo-Medievalism and the Great Decentralization

anarchonomicon.com

An Epic length essay of mine in which I lay out my theory of history and why briefly summarized: The Age of the nation state is almost certainly coming to an end under the corroding forces of decentralizing military technology and institutional decay.

The future will not resemble post French Revolution centralized governments asserting their control over each other, but rather will slowly come to resemble the Greek City states (misnomer) or the Holy roman empire's vast network of thousands of polities and war making entities.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Around 2030 all Americans are going to have to turn on eachother and carve that missing million out of their fellow citizen… This might be millennials becoming even greater debt slaves, this might be boomers kicked out of nursing homes to beg in the streets, this might be ethnic conflict to either make the white middle-class pay 2x the income tax forever, or a violent assault on the black inner-city to destroy the millstone of welfare America once and for all and free up millions in real estate in now usafe cities… This might take the form of a communist revolution, the confiscation of all real estate, and the forcing of Americans into work camps, this might take the form of the mass slaughter of Federal employees and IRS agents so that no federal insurance schemes can ever be paid out and no pensions because the government employees are dead… This might take the form of mass Euthanasia of cancer patients, drug addicts, and the non-working… Everyone who shows up at hospital and isn’t expected to be net profitable, axe em.

Why are any of these extreme outcomes more likely than say, governments inflating away their obligations like so many have done before?

Your particular alternative doesn't work for the stated case. Inflating away obligations works if your obligations are for a specific number of a currency that you control. But here what is being claimed is an inequality between the amount of stuff produced and the amount of stuff required; no amount of macroeconomic black magic will turn 1 kg of meat into 2 kg of meat or 1 kg of steel into 2 kg of steel. If you devalue the dollar by half and don't double the nominal amount of welfare, this is effectively the same thing as cutting welfare by half. If you devalue the dollar by half and do double the nominal amount of welfare, then it still uses the same chunk of your budget as it used to and this doesn't help you get out of the hole. Same thing goes for military spending, or for civil service salaries. Interest payments on existing debt are the only thing that can be gotten rid of via inflation, because everything that cashes out in some form of real good or service scales with inflation.

The experience is Eastern Europe after the Berlin Wall fell and in Argentina since forever shows that the state can just say - fuck you we give you 10 cents on the dollar to their citizens and they will take it and the state won't disintegrate.

"Cut spending" is definitely a real solution to deficit, and one that Kulak straight-up noted. Whether doing so would be peaceful or not I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to comment on.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats