Scott Alexander reposts his 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' critiquing libertarian philosophy and arguments, noting it no longer fully reflects his current views. Longer summary

This post is a reposting of Scott Alexander's 'Non-Libertarian FAQ' (aka 'Why I Hate Your Freedom'), which he wrote about 5 years prior. The FAQ aims to provide a comprehensive critique of libertarian philosophy and arguments. It covers economic issues like externalities and market failures, social issues like social mobility and taxation, political issues like government competence and specific policy areas, and moral issues around rights and consequentialism. The author notes that this version no longer fully reflects his current views and is being reposted by popular request and for historical interest. Shorter summary

Scott explores the concept of an 'Economists' Paradise' to derive a form of contractualism as a basis for morality, potentially grounding utilitarianism and resolving some of its paradoxes. Longer summary

Scott explores the concept of an 'Economists' Paradise' where all game-theoretic problems are solved and all transactions are voluntary and honest. He uses this to derive a form of contractualism as a basis for morality, suggesting it might ground utilitarianism and help resolve some of its paradoxes. The post discusses how this ideal state might solve issues like bullying and world hunger, and how it relates to concepts like Rawls' Veil of Ignorance. Scott concludes by proposing the metaphor of an 'Invisible Nation' to represent this ideal moral framework. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander addresses misconceptions about Moloch and human values, clarifying points from his previous post on the subject. Longer summary

This post addresses several misconceptions about the concept of Moloch and human values, as discussed in a previous post. Scott clarifies that human values are not just about hedonism, explains how conquering the laws of physics is possible metaphorically, defends the potential truth value of widely-held beliefs, and acknowledges that while human values may have evolved through 'blind' processes, they can still be worth preserving. He uses analogies, philosophical arguments, and references to previous writings to counter these misconceptions, maintaining a somewhat technical but accessible tone throughout. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes Moloch as a metaphor for destructive societal coordination problems, using various examples to show how competing incentives can lead to negative outcomes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of Moloch as a metaphor for destructive coordination problems in society, drawing on Allen Ginsberg's poem and various examples to illustrate how competing incentives can lead to negative outcomes for all. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander buys the Codex Seraphinianus, a long-desired luxury item, and inadvertently turns his post into an Amazon advertisement. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes purchasing the Codex Seraphinianus, a book he's wanted since he was nineteen, as a reward for doing well at his job. He explains that the Codex is difficult to describe and must be seen to be understood, providing links to view it online. Scott was prepared to pay $500 but found a new version for only $80 on Amazon. He then humorously notes that he unintentionally advertised the book and decided to sign up for Amazon Affiliates, turning his accidental promotion into an actual advertisement. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Perfect Health Diet', praising its science-based approach but criticizing its tendency to ignore contrary evidence and present controversial claims as settled science. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'The Perfect Health Diet' book, finding it a mix of good and bad. He praises its science-based approach, evolutionarily informed perspective, and its allowance for 'safe starches' unlike strict paleo diets. However, he criticizes the book's tendency to make strong claims based on limited evidence, often ignoring contrary studies. The review discusses the book's recommendations on various nutrients, its stance on saturated fats, and its overall dietary advice. Scott tried the diet briefly and lost weight, but remains skeptical of some claims. He concludes that while the book offers interesting insights and reasonable dietary advice, it often presents controversial positions as settled science. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander advocates for a political philosophy combining free markets with social welfare, proposing market-based alternatives to current welfare programs and regulations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a political philosophy that combines free market values with social welfare, which he tentatively calls 'bleeding heart libertarianism' or 'left-libertarianism'. He argues that many current welfare programs disguised as jobs or regulations are inefficient and could be replaced by direct welfare payments. The post presents examples like the BART strike, fast food workers' wage demands, and affirmative action, suggesting market-based alternatives that could be more effective. Alexander concludes that this approach allows for more flexibility and innovation while still addressing social and economic problems through government subsidies and taxes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his Anti-Reactionary FAQ, addressing focus on recent trends, class gaps, sexual norms, equality, tone, and the concept of the Cathedral. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to critiques of his Anti-Reactionary FAQ, addressing several key points: 1) His focus on 50-year trends rather than comparing to preindustrial society, 2) The gap between upper and lower class outcomes, 3) His arguments about sluttiness and contraception, 4) Issues around equality of opportunity vs results, 5) Tone arguments, and 6) The concept of the Cathedral. He defends some of his original points while acknowledging areas where critics made good arguments. Scott also explores why social indicators worsened from the 60s-80s but have improved since, and discusses how progressive values might be extended to lower classes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that claims about pro-lifers secretly wanting to oppress women are uncharitable and likely false, and that we should engage with actual philosophical disagreements on abortion. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article arguing that pro-lifers don't actually care about fetuses but only want to coerce women. He argues this claim is uncharitable and likely false for several reasons: 1) It misunderstands the non-consequentialist ethics of many pro-lifers, 2) There's no evidence of widespread secret motivations, 3) It's unclear what it would even mean to 'not really believe' something, 4) It commits the genetic fallacy. Scott argues we should engage with the actual philosophical disagreements rather than impugning motives, and that the principle of charity is important when discussing contentious issues like abortion. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reflects on 13 years of participating in Micras, a complex geopolitical role-playing game, discussing its impact on his life and the lessons learned about leadership and human behavior. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his 13-year involvement in a complex role-playing game called Micras, where participants simulate countries and cultures on a fictional planet. He discusses how this experience has shaped his real-life relationships, skills, and understanding of leadership and human behavior. Scott explains how the game's lack of rules mirrors real-world politics and social dynamics, providing valuable lessons in consensus-building and leadership. He also describes how creating fictional societies in Micras can be a deeply personal and introspective experience, reflecting one's values and evolving worldview. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that virtue ethics is neither how people naturally think about morality nor an effective way to make people more moral, proposing alternative methods and using a grammar analogy to illustrate his point. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques virtue ethics, arguing that it is neither how people naturally think about morality nor an effective way to make people more moral. He describes his own experience of morality as contrary to virtue ethics in many ways. Scott then suggests alternative methods for improving morality, such as certain beliefs and practices, with meditation being his top recommendation. He concludes that virtue ethics doesn't satisfy the criteria for effectively grounding morality and that there are many better alternatives. The post ends with an analogy comparing virtue ethics to a hypothetical 'virtue grammar' to further illustrate his point. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Alasdair MacIntyre's 'After Virtue', finding fault with its arguments for virtue ethics and its historical claims about morality in ancient societies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Alasdair MacIntyre's book 'After Virtue', criticizing its central arguments and historical claims. He finds MacIntyre's critique of modern moral philosophy somewhat valid but disagrees with the proposed solution of virtue ethics. Scott argues that virtue ethics is particularly ill-suited to solve moral dilemmas, contrary to MacIntyre's claims. He also challenges MacIntyre's historical narrative, pointing out that the problems MacIntyre attributes to modern society were present in ancient Greek society as well. Scott expresses confusion about why MacIntyre is so highly regarded, comparing him unfavorably to Edward Feser, another philosopher with similar views but whose arguments Scott found more coherent and illuminating. Shorter summary

The post provides a comprehensive overview of Reactionary philosophy and its critiques of modern progressive society, attempting to present these controversial ideas fairly for the sake of debate. Longer summary

This post provides a comprehensive overview of Reactionary philosophy, presenting its arguments against modern progressive society and in favor of traditional values and governance structures. The author explains Reactionary critiques of democracy, diversity, feminism, and other progressive ideals, and presents Reactionary arguments for monarchy, cultural unity, and traditional gender roles. The post covers topics like race, colonialism, and immigration from a Reactionary perspective. While not endorsing these views, the author attempts to present them fairly to encourage debate and examination of commonly held progressive assumptions. Shorter summary