Incorporation
Maybe you're right. I don't rule it out, but generating possibilities is helpful in thinking it through. In a country without a hereditary monarchy, in particular one that's never had one, a (for example) ruling junta that takes power in a crisis and is looking for someone to hand over permanent power to might find that trying to choose the head of one among many virtually indistinguishable families is more likely to restart the crisis than a system that the leading executives could agree with.
---
But that's a different question than being "up to the task." I was thinking there of the kind of rulership a highly innovative social order might need, so it seems reasonable you'd want a ruler who comes out of the hub of innovation.
---
But that's a different question than being "up to the task." I was thinking there of the kind of rulership a highly innovative social order might need, so it seems reasonable you'd want a ruler who comes out of the hub of innovation.
---
And I suppose he wouldn't be the leader on offer if he wasn't presumed competent and stable enough. I don't have any objection here, but I am still thinking about it. In this post in particular, I'm on terrain marked out by the various "sovcorp" proposals, so I want to take into account that line of reasoning as well.
---
I agree, which is why I could never get all that interested. But Imperial Energy is back making the argument in a rather energetic way, and he's certainly interesting, and it seemed to me that someone thinking in terms of the state as corporation would be encouraged by Ciepley's essays--he gives an interesting historical basis for the idea.
---
It's funny--my next post will deal with these issues much more than this one does,
---
It's not a typo--the state should be made up of corporations but itself needs to be outside of the corporate structure--because who would have charted the state corporation. Since you speak of "selling," though, i would certainly agree that what you propose would be an immense improvement over what we have now. I'm more optimistic than you, probably because in my anthropological understanding, humans as a species are founded on "peace" (the deferral of violence) not war.
I can see the need for a "minimal" approach that avoids "metaphysical" arguments. That's really what the liberals were originally after as well. But maybe "selling" is not the only way to think about the process.
---
You can post a game on your blog? I don't think I'm the only one who'd want to see it.
---
I don't want to sound discouraging, and you may be right to want to get these models right and ready to go when the time comes, but I'm much more interested (if we are to refer to Moldbug) to the "antiversity" side of his thinking: building the elements of the new order through the relentless scrutiny--economic, moral, aesthetic, everything--of this one. It seems to me, perhaps naively, that if we figure out how to become, and help others become, the kind of people that can attract the attention of the most responsible parts of the power structure, all these other questions will be easy to answer when we need to.
---
Sure, there really isn't a contradiction, just a difference in focus and priorities.