[ExI] [tp] Thiel, Anissimov and Neo-reactionary Monarchism

[Anders Sandberg]

On 2013-11-25 14:25, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/

Hmm... where does the analysis of related or interacting ideas turn into 
conspiracy theory? I assume this is when you actually believe the group 
you are talking about has more power than you. Which might explain the 
inclusion of Peter Thiel - if there wasn't at least one rich guy in the 
mess, it would not be more exciting than other groups with weird ideas 
(he seems to be a popular target for nasty claims).

Overall, an interesting read. The main problem with it is of course that 
seeing problems with democracy or other current institutions doesn't 
automatically mean you are in favour of monarchy or are reactionary. But 
certainly the simple structure of monarchies makes them easier to 
explain than the interlocking subtleties of other regulatory systems: if 
one is not willing to dive into the deep end of the sociology/political 
science pool there might be few conceptual options to base one's 
discourse on.

"All exit, no voice" is an interesting suggestion. As an emicrat myself 
I have some sympathy for it. But Hirschman's original point was that 
exit (and even more loyalty) could make things *worse*: if the capable 
members of a community that is going bad in some respect withdraw, it 
leaves the rest of the community less able to correct itself.

Anybody seeking to construct better societies should consider the point 
made by David Brin about the importance of open societies: they are 
self-correcting because members are allowed to criticise what doesn't 
work, people responsible are held accountable, and the system itself can 
be updated. Societies that cannot efficiently self-correct have brittle 
stability, since their flaws tend to grow until they overwhelm them. If 
you cannot tell the boss that why his policies are stupid, the system 
will not make efficient use of available brainpower and information.

In a sense, the idea of a monarchy or technocracy is based on the same 
flawed assumption as planned economy: they all assume that the system 
can be controlled by a sufficiently smart and well informed central 
agency, but all the preferences and information exists at the periphery. 
The von Mieses critique bites technocrats as badly as Soviet planners, 
despite the formers having neater dashboards and dreams of ubiquitous 
surveillance. Yes, in theory all the information is at his fingertips, 
but he either needs to aggregate it or have sub-systems analyse it in 
order to act. Even if those subsystems are AI (rather than layers of 
analysts and bureaucrats afraid of telling bad news to their bosses) 
they can easily introduce nontrivial biases and modelling errors - and 
detecting those requires further checking of reality-vs-model by other 
parts of the administration, subject to exactly the same problems as the 
top level.

I think Virginia Postrel nailed it well in "The future and its enemies" 
when she pointed out that the big split about the future was between 
dynamists who have an open-ended, "let a thousand flowers bloom" 
approach of trial and error open-ended learning, and the stasists that 
think it needs to be regulated by experts because it could be dangerous 
(technocrats) or should be avoided altogether because it is bad 
(reactionaries). The current discussion is not so much about the future 
as about the present. But post 2000 the future and the present are the 
same. We should just make sure we do not make the past the future too.

-- 
Dr Anders Sandberg
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Oxford University