People often ask me how I reconcile my more Nietzschean views and classical liberalism, which means support for not only markets, but even democracy and the oft mocked “rules based international order.” Many thinkers who believe in things like the importance of IQ and the dominant impact of heredity tend to be more partial towards monarchy or some other kind of dictatorial system. I’m thinking here of BAP, Yarvin, and their admirers among the reactionary right.
Since we’re reconciling Nietzsche and Liberalism here, we can call my philosophy Nietzschean Liberalism. The Nietzschean part consists of the following beliefs.
This is not a paywall. The rest of this article is available to free subscribers of the newsletter. Just leave your email below to continue reading.
Taking moldbug's cue and turning this into a reasoning-from-first-principles exercise is a mistake. We do not actually have to rely on aristotelian wordcelism in order to compare democracy with autocracy. It should be sufficient to reject authoritarianism because authoritarian countries in practice regularly commit uniquely absurd atrocities and because we have a plethora of natural experiments where the same ethnic groups completely diverge in general prosperity and economic growth (such as East vs. West Germany, SK vs. NK, or Taiwan vs. China). Speculation as to *why* these countries seem to do better is fun, but the last hundred and fifty years of trying out these alternatives in various places and among various peoples has been quite enough for me to reach my initial conclusions.
How can you say that "we can't" predict what the ultimate political impact of immigration will be, but also that immigration "arguably makes small government more likely"? Saying that immigration makes small government more likely is a prediction.