From: jimruttshow8596
The discussion between Jim Rutt and Curtis Yarvin explores fundamental differences between monarchy and democracy, with Yarvin advocating for a monarchical system as a practical and effective form of governance for a largely apathetic populace [01:28:07].
Critique of Modern Democracy
Curtis Yarvin argues that modern representative democracy is largely symbolic and disconnected from actual power [00:33:55].
- Symbolic vs. Objective Reality Yarvin suggests a gap exists between the symbolic and objective realities of politics [00:33:42]. While the purpose of democracy is understood to be collecting the “wisdom of crowds” to create good government [00:05:47], a significant goal is also to make people “feel that they’re in charge” and give them a sense of importance [00:07:49]. This “power drive” is a fundamental human psychological need [00:08:53].
- Loss of Control A primary unexamined assumption of democracy is that it actually controls the state [00:09:49]. However, Yarvin contends that democracy is often not in full control of the state, implying that the “steering linkage is actually really not hooked up at all” [01:13:00].
- De-politicization The negative connotation of “politics” (e.g., “politicizing the justice department”) when democracy and politics are often seen as synonyms is perplexing [00:20:17]. Yarvin traces this negative view of politics back to the early progressive era, where the goal was to disconnect “the wires from the voters to power” [00:21:42]. This means people are taught that “democracy sucks” and that de-politicizing the government means taking power away from the people [01:07:11].
- Political Parties and Legislatures Modern politicians, especially in the US Congress, are primarily focused on fundraising [00:17:40], and legislative staff and lobbyists/activists often write legislation [00:16:37]. This leads to a system where politicians are “just pretty faces” [00:44:40], and their debates are largely symbolic, not influencing votes [00:18:21]. This results in a “clown show” [00:24:33].
- Voter Behavior Voter behavior in modern democracies is driven by a sense of collective fear and the need to defend against “the other side” [01:23:41]. Elections primarily determine “which side am I on in the cold civil war” [01:15:11].
Liquid Democracy as a Case Study
Liquid democracy, originating from the Pirate Party in Germany [00:04:08], is a system where citizens can vote directly on everything or delegate their vote to someone else, potentially across different policy categories [00:03:57].
- Goals of Liquid Democracy Its supporters envision it as a way to “collect the wisdom of crowds” and provide effective public policy [00:07:30]. Jim Rutt’s version suggests multiple proxies for various federal departments, where votes would flow up the “gradient of knowledge” to experts [00:04:17].
- Yarvin’s Critique: Herbivorous vs. Carnivorous Yarvin views liquid democracy as a “herbivorous idea” [00:25:01], optimized for policy-making in a world where democracy is assumed to be in absolute control [00:12:34]. He proposes optimizing it for “getting power” and “holding power” [00:24:41], transforming it into a “carnivorous” system [00:25:56].
- “Solid Democracy” as a Power Amplifier Yarvin re-imagines liquid democracy as “solid democracy” [01:14:16], a “power amplifier” [00:25:27] designed to concentrate and project power upwards towards a single, decisive center [00:37:09].
- Irrevocable Delegation In “solid democracy,” delegation would be frozen for a set period (e.g., four years) or even for life [00:28:11]. This “unconditional power bond” provides confidence to the leader [00:47:43], enabling decisive action [00:33:09].
- Eliminating Internal Conflict The system would funnel all political power to a single point, avoiding internal conflicts and infighting characteristic of systems like the Pirate Party [00:55:57].
- Centralized Control This system would allow for the recruitment of candidates, centralized staffing, and strict party discipline, creating a powerful block in the legislature whose goal is to gain more power [00:44:50].
- Beyond Voting Ultimately, “solid democracy” could extend beyond just voting to delegating the “power to participate in the political process” [00:49:35]. This could manifest as a leader using an app to direct followers for “demonstrations of force” [00:51:02], essentially turning a population into a “paramilitary army of voters” [00:27:32].
- The Outcome: Monarchy Yarvin concludes that the logical end point of optimizing democracy for maximum power and efficiency, especially in an apathetic population, leads to the design of a monarchy [01:18:24].
The Case for Monarchy
Yarvin posits that monarchy is the “natural system of government for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population” [01:28:07], arguing it can restore order and efficient governance.
- Sovereignty is Conserved Yarvin’s “basic view on power is that sovereignty is conserved” [01:07:27], meaning there’s always a power structure, even if it’s hidden behind a democratic façade. He points to North Korea’s official name, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as an example of “democracy” being a mere claim to legitimacy [01:07:55].
- The King and the People Against the Nobles Historically, a common alliance was “monarchy and democracy against oligarchy” – the king and the people against the nobles [01:12:55]. This alliance leverages the people’s desire for peace and good government over a desire for power [01:20:11].
- Unity and De-escalation A monarch can act as a unifying force, rising above factionalism and de-escalating political conflicts [01:21:24]. The Roman Empire under Caesar and Augustus is presented as an example where intense “red versus blue conflict” disappeared once the monarch established peace and good government [01:21:56].
- Efficient Governance A monarchy is presented as a more efficient system, capable of cleaning up “chaos and ruin” and improving daily life, leading to public gratitude and universal apathy towards politics once fear is removed [01:29:10].
- Modern Precedents While dismissing “recency bias” [01:41:40], Yarvin cites examples like Singapore and pre-2019 Hong Kong as functional, non-democratic states [01:40:57]. He also praises Deng Xiaoping as the “greatest political leader of the 20th century” for using absolute power to improve China [01:45:59].
Concerns about Monarchy
Jim Rutt raises concerns about the practical implementation of monarchy:
- Finding a Philosopher King The challenge of finding a truly benevolent and capable monarch, a “philosopher king,” is acknowledged [01:08:08]. The risk of corrupt, nepotistic, or “inbred” rulers is a known historical problem [01:05:15].
- 20th Century Tyrants Rutt points to historical figures like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot as negative examples of centralized power [01:41:25]. Yarvin counters that these were “anomalies” or “wartime regimes” that set themselves against the “Anglo-American international community” [01:41:57], rather than true examples of a peaceful, established monarchy from the “center” [01:46:48]. He cites Salazar of Portugal as a more benevolent 20th-century dictator who “killed off the fascists” and communists to establish peace [01:44:25].
- Resistance and Violence The expectation that a transition to monarchy would be met with violent resistance is downplayed by Yarvin. He suggests that such a change, if it comes from the center of power, could be a “joyous peaceful movement” like the fall of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 [01:18:43].
Ultimately, while Curtis Yarvin argues that monarchy is a more “sustainable system” [01:32:46] and a “mature decision” [01:39:51] for a modern society, Jim Rutt remains skeptical, preferring to seek “new thinking in better forms of democracy” [01:48:53].