Curtis Yarvin wants to replace American democracy with a monarchy led by a 'CEO' | Hacker News Reader

Curtis Yarvin wants to replace American democracy with a monarchy led by a 'CEO'

cnn.com

12 pointstimhigins12 comments

This is a fragile point I’m going to make, and I’m sure somebody has made it before me, but the weird thing about knowledge or philosophy or whatever, and I real plenty of history or philosophy, but you can basically get it to say anything you want it to say.

Maybe it’s sort of like, you can’t become wise without reading history, but you can read history without becoming wise.

And it’s kind of weird to me that someone can read hundreds of thousands of pages of history and write thousdans of pages of blog posts, that basically boils down to Anakin sky walker asking, “but, what if the dictator was good”

No, you can't get it to say anything you want it to say and be taken seriously. It's one of the things that makes Yarvin so unserious.

Right now, votes in both US houses have been made into a currency = cash via lobby, and also by offshore transfers, or even via bagmen. In the UK each party must vote as the party leader directs, or in a free vote where each person can choose freely. In the USA there is some degree of party voting, but this visible vote can be seen and the response to a lobbyist $$ or bagged $$ and the payor knows how he voted and can act to discipline the member of the house or senate. This is a degree of departure from democratic ideals. Yes, I know bribes are outlawed, but there are ways, quid-pro-quo actions. I wonder if there can be 2 votes, one by hand and the other secret, to give deniability and the member can vote his mind in the secret one. The secret one wins, and the show of hands is for show?

Article Mirror: https://archive.is/EWTKx

So? Let him want it.

Personally, I couldn't care less what Curtis Yarvin wants, nor what he thinks is wise or a good idea. I oppose any attempt in that direction.

I think I have more who agree with me than who agree with Yarvin, so Yarvin can take his funny ideas and get lost.

I know. It's not even an imaginative idea. So many more creative people are out there with more interesting desires. I wish ppl who get confused into thinking yarvin's ideas are compelling enough to strive for would divert their energy into 1. Scifi and 2. Existing efforts to make the world good.

The problem isn't simply that he wants it, the problem is that over the decades he's convinced a lot very influential people with a lot of money and a lot of political power to want it as well, and they're actively trying to remake the American government and society in their image. Unfortunately he isn't as fringe as you think.

Just a few years ago, conservatives made a point of calling themselves "constitutional". Has that gone away, or is this another faction?

Trumpism swept away the old guard conservatives for the most part, and they would still call themselves "constitutional," just with a radically different interpretation of the constitution. I think the techno-feudalists are trying to parasitize the Trump movement the way the Trumpists themselves did the conservative movement through Musk, DOGE and Palantir.

"Constitutional" always meant "my specific interpretation of the Constitution". That's part of what made it so easy for the old guards to be swept out and replaced by people with an even more self-serving interpretation.

A bit of both. The ones who said it and meant it were always a minority, the rest who said it were saying it because it let them fit in. Once power shifted, they switched their message because their position has always been about obtaining and retaining power, not about taking a stance.

The power in a political party (in the US) is never really held by a principled faction of the party, it's bolstered by the unprincipled majority that see public support leaning one way or the other and choose a (somewhat) principled faction to throw themselves behind.

Americans place too much faith in CEOs.

If all of top 500 fortune CEOs resigned tomorrow, within a year things would bounce back with new CEOs with new ideas who drive things forward.

Even China realized Mao’s way of running things was bad. A balance of capitalism and long term central planning is ideal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com