Scott Alexander examines how Curtis Yarvin's current support for Trump-style populism directly contradicts his earlier detailed writings warning against exactly this type of right-wing populist movement. Longer summary

Scott analyzes how Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) has contradicted his own earlier writings by supporting Trump-style right-wing populism. Scott shows how Yarvin's original work specifically warned against populist strongmen and laid out specific requirements for legitimate autocracy, including non-democratic selection, oversight by a board of directors, and cryptographic safeguards. The post details how Yarvin previously called right-wing populism a dangerous failure mode of his philosophy that would lead to disaster, making his current support of Trump particularly hypocritical. Scott quotes extensively from Yarvin's old blog to demonstrate the magnitude of his reversal. Shorter summary

Scott examines and rejects conflict theory (the idea that political disagreements come from material self-interest), arguing instead that political positions are primarily driven by psychological needs and identity rather than material interests. Longer summary

Scott argues against conflict theory, which posits that political disagreements stem from material self-interest, and instead proposes that political positions are driven by psychological needs. He demonstrates this through several examples: the SALT tax cap affecting coastal elites garnered little attention despite significant financial impact, vaccine debates can't be explained by material interests, and most hot-button issues like wokeness or Ukraine have minimal material impact on Americans. The post explains how psychological factors, such as desire for self-esteem and group identity, better explain political positions. Scott concludes that while this makes persuasion theoretically possible, it also explains why genuine compromise attempts are rare. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the misconception of utilitarianism, arguing that many common political actions are more ethically questionable than his own 'utilitarian' views. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the perception of utilitarianism and how it's often misunderstood. He argues that many common political actions, which violate ethical rules for a supposed greater good, are not seen as utilitarian. Meanwhile, his own views labeled as 'utilitarian' are often less extreme. He suggests this disparity stems from people's discomfort with applying calculations to morality, rather than from the actual ethical implications of different actions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues that misusing terms like 'democratic' and 'accountable' can inadvertently justify totalitarianism, and suggests more careful usage of these terms. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques the misuse of terms like 'democratic' and 'accountable', arguing that when taken to extremes, they can justify totalitarianism. He illustrates this through examples in religious freedom, charitable donations, and AI development, showing how demands for complete 'democracy' or 'accountability' in all aspects of life can lead to the erosion of personal freedoms. The post suggests that these terms should be used more carefully, with 'democratic' applied mainly to government structures and 'accountable' reserved for specific power dynamics, to avoid inadvertently promoting totalitarian ideas. Shorter summary

A review of Ray Huang's '1587, A Year of No Significance', examining the decline of the Ming dynasty through the lens of an apparently uneventful year. Longer summary

This book review examines '1587, A Year of No Significance: The Ming Dynasty in Decline' by Ray Huang. The reviewer details the book's exploration of a seemingly uneventful year in Ming dynasty China, highlighting how it exemplifies the systemic inertia and decline of the empire. The review covers key figures like the Wan-Li Emperor, Grand Secretaries Chang and Shen, and other notable individuals, while drawing parallels to other historical contexts and discussing the broader implications of the Ming dynasty's governance style and eventual fall. Shorter summary

A critical review of 'The Dawn of Everything' by Graeber and Wengrow, examining their challenge to standard prehistory narratives and proposing an alternative hypothesis. Longer summary

This book review of 'The Dawn of Everything' by David Graeber and David Wengrow critically examines the authors' attempt to challenge standard narratives of human prehistory. The reviewer praises the book's wealth of archaeological evidence but criticizes its political bias. The review explores the book's key arguments about the diversity of prehistoric societies, the non-revolutionary nature of agriculture, and the 'indigenous critique' of Western civilization. It also discusses the book's treatment of the 'Sapient Paradox' and proposes an alternative hypothesis about prehistoric social organization based on 'raw social power'. The review concludes by drawing parallels between this prehistoric 'Gossip Trap' and modern social media dynamics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's anti-technocracy essay, arguing for a more nuanced view of formal mechanisms in decision-making and defending rationalist approaches. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Glen Weyl's essay 'Why I Am Not A Technocrat', arguing that Weyl's definition of technocracy is incoherent and his examples don't fit his own definition. Scott breaks down the concept of technocracy into several axes, including top-down vs. bottom-up, mechanism vs. judgment, and expert vs. popular opinion. He argues that formal mechanisms can be valuable in preventing bias and corruption, using examples like district creation and college admissions. Scott also defends the rationalist and effective altruism communities against Weyl's criticisms, highlighting their successes in areas like pandemic preparedness. He concludes that while critiques of technocracy are important, it's crucial to avoid oversimplifying the issue and to recognize that sometimes technocratic approaches can be beneficial. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes viewing culture as a fourth branch of government to highlight its importance in societal function and governance. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a thought experiment where culture is considered the fourth branch of government alongside executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This 'refactoring' of how we view culture helps to understand its importance in societal function and governance. He illustrates this concept through examples such as nation-building efforts in Iraq, the governance of hunter-gatherer societies, and debates about censorship and immigration. The post suggests that this perspective could clarify discussions about libertarianism, free speech, and the role of cultural norms in society. While acknowledging the idea is hypothetical, Scott argues it serves as a useful counter to overlooking the significance of culture in governance and social structures. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander uses satirical short stories to critique and deconstruct thought experiments challenging libertarian principles, highlighting their flaws and misrepresentations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a series of thought experiments designed to challenge libertarian principles with short stories that satirize and critique the premises of these experiments. He uses humor and irony to point out flaws in the reasoning behind the scenarios, suggesting they are based on straw man arguments or misunderstandings of libertarian philosophy. The stories involve time travelers interrupting the Constitutional Convention, a philosophical paradox causing chaos, and an 'infinitely rich man' scenario countered by unusual insurance. The final story breaks the fourth wall, portraying these scenarios as part of a flawed thought experiment world designed to criticize libertarianism. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander addresses feedback on his conflict vs. mistake theory post, acknowledging criticisms while defending the core concept's usefulness as a starting point for understanding different approaches to societal problems. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about conflict vs. mistake theory. He acknowledges valid criticisms while defending the core concept as useful, even if imperfect. Key points include: 1) The dichotomy is meant as a starting point for understanding, not a perfect description. 2) There's confusion between the theories and specific political ideologies that needs clarification. 3) The theories may be better understood as different perspectives or emphases rather than mutually exclusive worldviews. 4) Some commenters offer interesting alternative interpretations or applications of the concepts. 5) Scott reflects on the complexities around ideas of 'shilling' and bias in relation to the theories. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics, reflecting on his own mistake theory bias and considering the merits of conflict theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces the conflict vs. mistake theory dichotomy in politics and governance. Mistake theorists view political issues as problems to be solved through debate and expertise, while conflict theorists see politics as a struggle between opposing groups. The post explores how these perspectives differ in their approach to free speech, racism, democracy, and revolution. Scott reflects on his own tendency towards mistake theory and considers the merits of conflict theory, especially in light of current political realities. He concludes that while he still leans towards mistake theory, he recognizes the need to engage more seriously with conflict theory perspectives. Shorter summary

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 Alexander reviews Singer's book on Marx, finding Marx's ideas deeply flawed, particularly his refusal to plan for communist governance and his belief in infinitely malleable human nature. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Peter Singer's 'Marx: A Very Short Introduction', finding Marx's ideas even more problematic than he initially thought. He criticizes Marx's refusal to plan for communist governance, his belief in the non-existence of human nature, and his naive assumptions about coordination. Scott does acknowledge one insightful aspect of Marx's thought related to collective irrationality, but notes this wasn't original to Marx. The review ends with Scott suggesting that the real challenge for Marxist intellectuals should be developing systems that solve coordination problems better than capitalism. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander proposes 'Archipelago', a society of voluntary communities, as a potential solution to issues in modern politics and social organization. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Archipelago', a hypothetical society where people can form voluntary communities based on shared values and principles. He argues that this model could potentially solve many problems of modern liberalism and conservatism, while preserving individual freedoms and addressing issues of oppression. The post discusses the challenges of implementing such a system in the real world, but suggests that increasing societal fracture into subcultures and online communities might be a step in that direction. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews and critiques a polite but underwhelming video debate between Noah Smith and Michael Anissimov on neoreactionary ideas. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews a video debate between Noah Smith, an economics professor, and Michael Anissimov, a spokesperson for neoreaction. The debate covered topics such as social isolation, happiness trends, equality, capitalism, democracy, monarchy, organic state theory, aristocracy, and gender roles. Scott found the debate polite but somewhat underwhelming, with both participants making more moderate claims than expected. He provides his own analysis and critiques of the arguments presented, noting areas where he felt important points were missed or inadequately addressed. 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

This post systematically rebuts common Reactionary political beliefs on topics like societal decline, traditional governance, progress, and social issues through data analysis and historical examples. Longer summary

This post is an extensive rebuttal to common beliefs held by the Reactionary political movement. It systematically addresses and counters Reactionary claims about societal decline, traditional monarchies, the origins and nature of progress, corporate governance models, and modern views on race and gender. The author analyzes data and historical examples to argue against Reactionary positions, while acknowledging some valid critiques and interesting ideas within the movement. The post ends by listing various rebuttals and responses to the FAQ itself from Reactionary bloggers. Shorter summary