Government as Market

A Libertarian-Tectocratic Reform of the Taxation System

Market, Progress and Tectocracy

One of the foundational principles of Tectocracy is that for one to be social - one must be political. Simply put, politics is the way of expressing sociality akin to the way that the market is a way of expressing one’s consumer preferences. Consequently, it follows that much like we have expanded our freedoms of selection over the market and experienced progress, we must also optimize our means of expressing our social and political views such that they will cause the nation to also experience progress in the realm of politics. The other principle is that we ought to emulate successful organizational structures. Given that what we refer to as the “mixed market economy” happens to be the most successful economic organization that there is, the organizational dynamics existing within it can also be emulated outside of the market economy for such dynamics have predated the market economy and are also present in all systems defined by synotic relationships, differentiation and the organization (integration) of its elements.

The dynamics we observe in the biosphere and its ecosystems as well as evolutionary and selective forces all function in accordance to the ways in which the market economy functions. Through the self-balancing dynamics of the synotic exchanges of differentiated elements producing superior organizations that find themselves to be synergizing with the forces of selection both on the order of one unit of organism or a collection of organisms. Such is the law of universal progress - producing continuously better organizational dynamics in conjecture with the continuously adapting forces of selection. If an organism survives selective pressures of the environment to then turn the environment around for its own benefit and thrives, its organizational dynamics are worth emulating. If an improvement of an organism does not go against the laws of nature and general systems and they also happen to work they must be studied and replicated.

In order for the process of progress to occur in any sphere, there needs to be some form of selection which cannot by default exist without feedback loops and literacy. Applied to politics - a functioning feedback loop is a natural occurrence in any free society (that is to say, it exists in limited numbers in the political arena, compared to the market) while literacy naturally emerges with better epistemic and knowledge systems (it begins to arise in the West, but it is being heavily suppressed). Because we lack both the former and the latter - we do not experience political progress. The task of the emerging right wing progressive ideology is to change that for a right wing progressive does not ask if a system is aesthetically democratic or authoritarian. A right wing progressive asks whether there are functioning feedback loops or are there not? Is it a closed system or an open one? Do citizens engage in political selection as they engage in social-selection or product-selection? Do citizens possess the proper knowledge in order to engage in political selection or do they not? Some of these questions will be answered in this chapter, while another portion will be answered in the chapters concerning moral and epistemic progress.

Reforming the Taxation System in line with Market Dynamics

The synthesis of liberty and democracy does not end with voters directly voting and modifying laws bypassing the third party of nomenklatura. It extends far beyond the bounds of what's been dreamt of thus far. It completely escapes the bounds of legislation, execution and judiciation as it takes over the apparatus which gave rise to the government - the system of taxation itself.

I am thus proposing a radical Tectocratic reform of the taxation system to mirror the organization of the market. While I always found the argument of “taxation is theft” to be exclusively repeated by low IQ populists or extreme close minded ideologues and in worst cases unironic psychopaths, the argument “taxation without representation” on the other hand was the catchphrase that has undeniably set the United States and various other revolutionary developments into motion. Back in the old days of course, that was related to the lack of colonial representation in the legal institutions of the British Empire (mainland Britain). However, in contemporary times, "taxation without representation" signifies an involuntary form of taxation where the taxpayer's funds are allocated to causes contrary to the taxpayer's wishes. Why should one’s taxpayer money be sent to LGBTQ indoctrination in school, or as aid to some foreign country when the taxpayer is morally opposed to that? Why should taxpayers continue to fund poor quality services? Shouldn't they be selected out by the forces of the market? Why are poor social and governmental services exempt from the forces of market selection? These are all legitimate questions to bring up and if we want to see an improvement in the quality of our services, we need to allocate money away from those who are performing their job poorly while incentivizing those who are doing their job well.

Consider the Conservative argument of “school choice” in which one should be able to move one’s kids out of poorly performing schools into better schools and while Coleman’s report has already established that schooling has little to do with how ones kids are performing academically, school is also about peer-influence, location and other variables so the argument still stands. This Conservative argument advocates for a primitive form of market selection, in which the people are to “vote with their feet” so to speak. The argument is not bad, but the solution that is proposed will cause selection indirectly and only to a limited extent for not many people will actually bother to vote with their feet, just like not many people cross state lines or entire nations for better opportunities. But most importantly, the funding for a poorly performing school will keep rolling in from the federal and state budget. A much better solution will be to directly relocate funding away from school X until it reorganizes itself or gets replaced by another school by sending the money towards a school that does its job better. That way, a selective pressure will be felt immediately, and if the school X does not reorganize itself in a short period of time, it may be closed entirely. Assuming of course people will move the funding away and not towards the school in hopes of it improving educational outcomes (but actually even further diminishing selective pressures).

That is how it is done in a competitive market where people exert robust selective pressures on goods and services. For the time being, government-funded products and services are kept on the market using taxpayers' money without their consent, thereby diminishing the impact of selective pressures. Consequently, these products’ organizational properties always give in to those that excel under a more competitive market.

This toxic relationship cannot continue indefinitely and just like the original purpose of the taxation as a form of exertion by the tyrant has outlived its usefulness, an anti-democratic and anti-tectocratic form of bureaucrat-decided taxation allocation must end likewise.

If the taxpayers were to be directly responsible for their choices of spending their taxable money on, both on the local and federal levels, then just like we see on the market poor services and programs will die off, some social services and programs will be optimized for better performance while the programs and services that taxpayers wish to see the most will become much bigger than they already are.

How come we spend so little money on space exploration, medical and intelligence research and other projects that are promising innovation, but so much on trying to educate people who are biologically not disposed to being educated? Currently the American state expenditure is mostly concerned with static social maintenance by spending its money on social services, health and the military while investment in research and development is relatively small compared to its 1960s peak during the space race and 77% of it goes to two major sectors the military and health anyways. The amount of money that is left out for energy research, generalized science and space as well as promising innovations in the realm of the economy remains catastrophically negligible even though certain innovation such as the ones in the tech sector require comparatively less investment than in health and the military with the emergence of algorithmic intelligence serving as the key example. We thus need to transform the taxation mechanism away from its current anti-market phase of maintenance incentivizing statics towards a phase which will maximize function and incentivize dynamics.

Platforms such as go-fund me before banning right wingers from their platforms were excellent examples of the early private attempts at positive fund relocation, but all of the donation was voluntary and the structure in no way was related to the government. In contrast, my proposition is not private but public in its nature. It contains far greater functional abilities than a private alternative would be able to offer. In a Tectocratic taxation system, taxpayers will spend their money not on things that the government decides independently of them, but on things that they decide for themselves. Yes, they will still pay taxes because they will be “compelled by force” to do so but the choice on what their taxes will be spent on will be entirely left out to them - not to the nomenklatura.

A democratic taxation system will greatly expand the scope of our governmental functionality in accordance with people’s innate preferences. A ton of projects, startups and services in need of funding will get that funding and act in the interests of the community to whose benefit they are working for. Industries which were not imaginable years ago for their lack of funding will begin popping out of nowhere. Services that are not financially viable but are deeply socially necessary will come into existence to meet social ends. Knowledge systems will improve and a right wing morality operating under a tectological framework with a monopoly to progress will deliver the final becoming of history.

Imagine how much scientific advancement there can be made if we study the impacts of biology upon the human condition and how many eugenicist, social-conservative and nationalist policies could be supported with these findings. Scientists which are in need of money will begin acquiring it within a framework of a new form of patronage system in which persons of Emil Kirkegaard’s and Michael Woodley’s caliber could focus the entirety of their spare time towards research, thus accelerating the transition of society towards a progressive direction.

A new taxation system will also drive down the amount of people who engage in tax evasion, for they will no longer see the taxation system as an unrepresentative foreign mechanism and begin valuing it as a platform for expressing one’s will that will be immediately converted into action.

Purchasing a specific model of a gaming laptop, donating money to a political cause or investing a couple thousand dollars into stocks is not a form of negative freedom (freedom from coercion). It is the quintessential example of what we know to be positive freedom for it is a decision of a person to directly shape his own future and influence the future of others. Progressives should approach the matter of taxation in precisely the same language that we approach freedom in general - as freedom for action, not as freedom from action. As freedom for reorganization and shaping of external selective pressures that match one’s internal will.

This, like any other proposal of mine, may sound utopian; however, it is entirely practical and is already being practiced right under our noses. Consider how our economic system is structured: those who have money can buy whatever they want, and those with productive capabilities can produce and sell whatever they want. While this doesn't apply in all cases, given there are some restrictions on the type of products one may buy and sell, as well as constraints on how said products are produced, the basic formula is workable. Producing variance causes a selection for their quality which in turn brings about progress and prosperity. If people are already spending up to 75% of their income on the market independently of the wills of the nomenklatura and without causing an economical breakdown, then it is likely that if we give people the freedom of choice of where to spend the rest of their money - our economic system is likely to further enhance.

Unfortunately, our current elites think that capitalism should only be limited to the market, while they prefer the polity and the taxation system to function as a socialist command system devoid of price signals, democratic allocation of resources, and functioning feedback loops for they want to keep making all of the decisions for themselves. This form of undemocratic central planning is the last remaining trace of economic authoritarianism that we are yet to outlive and replace with a better system. This logical contradiction once exposed will immediately be converted into a force of dynamic resolution so it is time for a change, and I am surprised I may be the first one to openly advocate for such a seemingly radical idea, but an idea which would be deemed entirely basic and fundamental and even everyday by our future descendants.

****

What you have just read is not an independent essay, but a mixture of two separate passages from the Political chapter of the Right-Wing Progressive manifesto that will eventually be released in full. As with regards to the political chapter of the manifesto, you will see it appear on Substack and Subscribestar before April 22th (two weeks from now), this time for real.

I would also kindly ask you to upgrade your Substack to a premium if you wish to support the coming about of a new ideology. Presently, I am wasting about 12 hours Monday to Friday either travelling to work, from work or working so as you can imagine my work schedule is greatly limited. That is why my goal is to make at least $300 on Substack so I could quit my job with the money I saved and relocate to a better place where I could quadruple my work efforts on both the manifesto, Substack and YouTube. The faster I attain this goal, the sooner I will quit my job and begin focusing on both YouTube, Twitter and Substack.