antidemos   104

« earlier    

CPC Elite Perception of the US since the Early 1990s: Wang Huning and Zheng Bijian as Test Cases
What makes this paper distinct from previous research is that it juxtaposes two of the most influential yet under-studied America watchers within the top echelon of the CPC, Wang Huning and Zheng Bijian. To be sure, the two have indelibly shaped CPC attitudes, yet surprisingly enough, although Zheng has been written about extensively in the English language, Wang has hitherto largely remained outside academics’ purview. This paper also aims, in passing, to explore linkages between Wang and Zheng ideas and those of other well-known America watchers like Liu Mingfu and Yan Xuetong. It is hoped that this comparison will offer clues as to the extent to which the current advisory shaping CPC thinking on the US differs from the previous generation, and as to whether CPC thinking is un-American or anti-American in essence. The conclusions will tie the study together by speculating based on Wang and Zheng’s views about the degree to which New Confucianism, as opposed to Neo-Liberalism, might shape Chinese society in the future.
I want someone to translate Wang Huning’s book “America Against America”
For the record, in Chinese that's《美国反对美国》。Wang traveled across USA in the '80s, visiting big cities and small towns. Book lambasted democracy, contrasting the 'ideal' of American rhetoric with the 'reality' of American life. Wang is now one of Xi's closest advisors.
pdf  white-paper  politics  polisci  government  leviathan  elite  china  asia  sinosphere  usa  comparison  democracy  antidemos  social-choice  culture  confucian  civil-liberty  civic  trends  multi  twitter  social  backup  unaffiliated  foreign-lang  map-territory  cynicism-idealism  ideology  essay  summary  thucydides  philosophy  wonkish  broad-econ 
july 2019 by nhaliday
State (polity) - Wikipedia
In the medieval period (500-1400) in Europe, there were a variety of authority forms throughout the region. These included feudal lords, empires, religious authorities, free cities, and other authorities.[42] Often dated to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, there began to be the development in Europe of modern states with large-scale capacity for taxation, coercive control of their populations, and advanced bureaucracies.[43] The state became prominent in Europe over the next few centuries before the particular form of the state spread to the rest of the world via the colonial and international pressures of the 19th century and 20th century.[44] Other modern states developed in Africa and Asia prior to colonialism, but were largely displaced by colonial rule.[45]


Two related theories are based on military development and warfare, and the role that these forces played in state formation. Charles Tilly developed an argument that the state developed largely as a result of "state-makers" who sought to increase the taxes they could gain from the people under their control so they could continue fighting wars.[42] According to Tilly, the state makes war and war makes states.[49] In the constant warfare of the centuries in Europe, coupled with expanded costs of war with mass armies and gunpowder, warlords had to find ways to finance war and control territory more effectively. The modern state presented the opportunity for them to develop taxation structures, the coercive structure to implement that taxation, and finally the guarantee of protection from other states that could get much of the population to agree.[50] Taxes and revenue raising have been repeatedly pointed out as a key aspect of state formation and the development of state capacity. Economist Nicholas Kaldor emphasized on the importance of revenue raising and warned about the dangers of the dependence on foreign aid.[51] Tilly argues, state making is similar to organized crime because it is a "quintessential protection racket with the advantage of legitimacy."[52]

State of nature:
Thomas Hobbes
The pure state of nature or "the natural condition of mankind" was deduced by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan and in his earlier work On the Citizen.[4] Hobbes argued that all humans are by nature equal in faculties of body and mind (i.e., no natural inequalities are so great as to give anyone a "claim" to an exclusive "benefit"). From this equality and other causes [example needed]in human nature, everyone is naturally willing to fight one another: so that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called warre; and such a warre as is of every man against every man". In this state every person has a natural right or liberty to do anything one thinks necessary for preserving one's own life; and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Leviathan, Chapters XIII–XIV). Hobbes described this natural condition with the Latin phrase bellum omnium contra omnes (meaning war of all against all), in his work De Cive.

Within the state of nature there is neither personal property nor injustice since there is no law, except for certain natural precepts discovered by reason ("laws of nature"): the first of which is "that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it" (Leviathan, Ch. XIV); and the second is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself" (loc. cit.). From here Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into political society and government, by mutual contracts.

According to Hobbes the state of nature exists at all times among independent countries, over whom there is no law except for those same precepts or laws of nature (Leviathan, Chapters XIII, XXX end). His view of the state of nature helped to serve as a basis for theories of international law and relations.[5]

John Locke
John Locke considers the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written around the time of the Exclusion Crisis in England during the 1680s. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature." (2nd Tr., §4). "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that "no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property" (2nd Tr., §6) ; and that transgressions of this may be punished. Locke describes the state of nature and civil society to be opposites of each other, and the need for civil society comes in part from the perpetual existence of the state of nature.[6] This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology).

Although it may be natural to assume that Locke was responding to Hobbes, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name, and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day, like Robert Filmer.[7] In fact, Locke's First Treatise is entirely a response to Filmer's Patriarcha, and takes a step by step method to refuting Filmer's theory set out in Patriarcha. The conservative party at the time had rallied behind Filmer's Patriarcha, whereas the Whigs, scared of another prosecution of Anglicans and Protestants, rallied behind the theory set out by Locke in his Two Treatises of Government as it gave a clear theory as to why the people would be justified in overthrowing a monarchy which abuses the trust they had placed in it.[citation needed]


Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Hobbes' view was challenged in the eighteenth century by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who claimed that Hobbes was taking socialized people and simply imagining them living outside of the society in which they were raised. He affirmed instead that people were neither good nor bad, but were born as a blank slate, and later society and the environment influence which way we lean. In Rousseau's state of nature, people did not know each other enough to come into serious conflict and they did have normal values. The modern society, and the ownership it entails, is blamed for the disruption of the state of nature which Rousseau sees as true freedom.[9]
Ulpian's statements were known in medieval Europe, but sovereignty was an important concept in medieval times.[1] Medieval monarchs were not sovereign, at least not strongly so, because they were constrained by, and shared power with, their feudal aristocracy.[1] Furthermore, both were strongly constrained by custom.[1]

Sovereignty existed during the Medieval period as the de jure rights of nobility and royalty, and in the de facto capability of individuals to make their own choices in life.[citation needed]



Sovereignty reemerged as a concept in the late 16th century, a time when civil wars had created a craving for stronger central authority, when monarchs had begun to gather power onto their own hands at the expense of the nobility, and the modern nation state was emerging. Jean Bodin, partly in reaction to the chaos of the French wars of religion, presented theories of sovereignty calling for strong central authority in the form of absolute monarchy. In his 1576 treatise Les Six Livres de la République ("Six Books of the Republic") Bodin argued that it is inherent in the nature of the state that sovereignty must be:[1]

- Absolute: On this point he said that the sovereign must be hedged in with obligations and conditions, must be able to legislate without his (or its) subjects' consent, must not be bound by the laws of his predecessors, and could not, because it is illogical, be bound by his own laws.
- Perpetual: Not temporarily delegated as to a strong leader in an emergency or to a state employee such as a magistrate. He held that sovereignty must be perpetual because anyone with the power to enforce a time limit on the governing power must be above the governing power, which would be impossible if the governing power is absolute.

Bodin rejected the notion of transference of sovereignty from people to the ruler (also known as the sovereign); natural law and divine law confer upon the sovereign the right to rule. And the sovereign is not above divine law or natural law. He is above (ie. not bound by) only positive law, that is, laws made by humans. He emphasized that a sovereign is bound to observe certain basic rules derived from the divine law, the law of nature or reason, and the law that is common to all nations (jus gentium), as well as the fundamental laws of the state that determine who is the sovereign, who succeeds to sovereignty, and what limits the sovereign power. Thus, Bodin’s sovereign was restricted by the constitutional law of the state and by the higher law that was considered as binding upon every human being.[1] The fact that the sovereign must obey divine and natural law imposes ethical constraints on him. Bodin also held that the lois royales, the fundamental laws of the French monarchy which regulated matters such as succession, are natural laws and are binding on the French sovereign.


Age of Enlightenment
During the Age of Enlightenment, the idea of sovereignty gained both legal and moral force as the main Western description of the meaning and power of a State. In particular, the "Social contract" as a mechanism for establishing sovereignty was suggested and, by 1800, widely accepted, especially in the new United States and France, though also in Great Britain to a lesser extent.

Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651) arrived a conception of sovereignty … [more]
concept  conceptual-vocab  wiki  reference  leviathan  elite  government  institutions  politics  polisci  philosophy  antidemos  spatial  correlation  intersection-connectedness  geography  matching  nationalism-globalism  whole-partial-many  big-peeps  the-classics  morality  ethics  good-evil  order-disorder  history  iron-age  mediterranean  medieval  feudal  europe  the-great-west-whale  occident  china  asia  sinosphere  n-factor  democracy  authoritarianism  property-rights  civil-liberty  alien-character  crosstab  law  maps  lexical  multi 
august 2018 by nhaliday
Imagine there’s no Congress - The Washington Post
- Adrian Vermeule

In the spirit of John Lennon, let’s imagine, all starry-eyed, that there’s no U.S. Congress. In this thought experiment, the presidency and the Supreme Court would be the only federal institutions, along with whatever subordinate agencies the president chose to create. The court would hold judicial power, while the president would make and execute laws. The president would be bound by elections and individual constitutional rights, but there would be no separation of legislative from executive power.

Would such a system be better or worse than our current system? How different would it be, anyway?
news  org:rec  rhetoric  contrarianism  usa  government  elections  democracy  antidemos  alt-inst  proposal  institutions  axioms  law  leviathan  leadership  obama  nascent-state  counter-revolution  journos-pundits  douthatish  responsibility  the-founding  benevolence 
april 2018 by nhaliday
Mistakes happen for a reason | Bloody shovel
Which leads me to this article by Scott Alexander. He elaborates on an idea by one of his ingroup about their being two ways of looking at things, “mistake theory” and “conflict theory”. Mistake theory claims that political opposition comes from a different understanding of issues: if people had the same amount of knowledge and proper theories to explain it, they would necessarily agree. Conflict theory states that people disagree because their interests conflict, the conflict is zero-sum so there’s no reason to agree, the only question is how to resolve the conflict.

I was speechless. I am quite used to Mr. Alexander and his crowd missing the point on purpose, but this was just too much. Mistake theory and Conflict theory are not parallel things. “Mistake theory” is just the natural, tribalist way of thinking. It assumes an ingroup, it assumes the ingroup has a codified way of thinking about things, and it interprets all disagreement as a lack of understanding of the obviously objective and universal truths of the ingroup religion. There is a reason why liberals call “ignorant” all those who disagree with them. Christians used to be rather more charitable on this front and asked for “faith”, which they also assumed was difficult to achieve.

Conflict theory is one of the great achievements of the human intellect; it is an objective, useful and predictively powerful way of analyzing human disagreement. There is a reason why Marxist historiography revolutionized the world and is still with us: Marx made a strong point that human history was based on conflict. Which is true. It is tautologically true. If you understand evolution it stands to reason that all social life is about conflict. The fight for genetical survival is ultimately zero-sum, and even in those short periods of abundance when it is not, the fight for mating supremacy is very much zero-sum, and we are all very much aware of that today. Marx focused on class struggle for political reasons, which is wrong, but his focus on conflict was a gust of fresh air for those who enjoy objective analysis.

Incidentally the early Chinese thinkers understood conflict theory very well, which is why Chinese civilization is still around, the oldest on earth. A proper understanding of conflict does not come without its drawbacks, though. Mistakes happen for a reason. Pat Buchanan actually does understand why USG open the doors to trade with China. Yes, Whig history was part of it, but that’s just the rhetoric used to justify the idea. The actual motivation to trade with China was making money short term. Lots of money. Many in the Western elite have made huge amounts of money with the China trade. Money that conveniently was funneled to whichever political channels it had to do in order to keep the China trade going. Even without Whig history, even without the clueless idea that China would never become a political great power, the short-term profits to be made were big enough to capture the political process in the West and push for it. Countries don’t have interests: people do.

That is true, and should be obvious, but there are dangers to the realization. There’s a reason why people dislike cynics. People don’t want to know the truth. It’s hard to coordinate around the truth, especially when the truth is that humans are selfish assholes constantly in conflict. Mistakes happen because people find it convenient to hide the truth; and “mistake theory” happens because policing the ingroup patterns of thought, limiting the capability of people of knowing too much, is politically useful. The early Chinese kingdoms developed a very sophisticated way of analyzing objective reality. The early kingdoms were also full of constant warfare, rebellions and elite betrayals; all of which went on until the introduction in the 13th century of a state ideology (neoconfucianism) based on complete humbug and a massively unrealistic theory on human nature. Roman literature is refreshingly objective and to the point. Romans were also murderous bastards who assassinated each other all the time. It took the massive pile of nonsense which we call the Christian canon to get Europeans to cooperate in a semi-stable basis.

But guess what? Conflict theory also exists for a reason. And the reason is to extricate oneself from the ingroup, to see things how they actually are, and to undermine the state religion from the outside. Marxists came up with conflict theory because they knew they had little to expect from fighting from within the system. Those low-status workers who still regarded their mainstream society as being the ingroup they very sharply called “alienated”, and by using conflict theory they showed what the ingroup ideology was actually made of. Pat Buchanan and his cuck friends should take the message and stop assuming that the elite is playing for the same team as they are. The global elite, of America and its vassals, is not mistaken. They are playing for themselves: to raise their status above yours, to drop their potential rivals into eternal misery and to rule forever over them. China, Syria, and everything else, is about that.
Heh heh. It’s a lost art. The Greeks and Romans were realists about it (except Cicero, that idealistic bastard). They knew language, being the birthright of man, was just another way (and a damn powerful one) to gain status, make war, and steal each other’s women. Better be good at wielding it.
gnon  right-wing  commentary  china  asia  current-events  politics  ideology  coalitions  government  statesmen  leviathan  law  axioms  authoritarianism  usa  democracy  antidemos  trade  nationalism-globalism  elite  error  whiggish-hegelian  left-wing  paleocon  history  mostly-modern  world-war  impetus  incentives  interests  self-interest  signaling  homo-hetero  hypocrisy  meta:rhetoric  debate  language  universalism-particularism  tribalism  us-them  zero-positive-sum  absolute-relative  class  class-warfare  communism  polanyi-marx  westminster  realness  cynicism-idealism  truth  coordination  cooperate-defect  medieval  confucian  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  literature  canon  europe  the-great-west-whale  occident  sinosphere  orient  nl-and-so-can-you  world  conquest-empire  malthus  status  egalitarianism-hierarchy  evolution  conceptual-vocab  christianity  society  anthropology  metabuch  hidden-motives  X-not-about-Y  dark-arts  illusion  martial  war  cohesion  military  correlation  causation  roots  japan  comparison  long-short-run  mul 
march 2018 by nhaliday
China’s Ideological Spectrum
We find that public preferences are weakly constrained, and the configuration of preferences is multidimensional, but the latent traits of these dimensions are highly correlated. Those who prefer authoritarian rule are more likely to support nationalism, state intervention in the economy, and traditional social values; those who prefer democratic institutions and values are more likely to support market reforms but less likely to be nationalistic and less likely to support traditional social values. This latter set of preferences appears more in provinces with higher levels of development and among wealthier and better-educated respondents.

Enlightened One-Party Rule? Ideological Differences between Chinese Communist Party Members and the Mass Public:
A popular view of nondemocratic regimes is that they draw followers mainly from those with an illiberal, authoritarian mind-set. We challenge this view by arguing that there exist a different class of autocracies that rule with a relatively enlightened base. Leveraging multiple nationally representative surveys from China over the past decade, we substantiate this claim by estimating and comparing the ideological preferences of Chinese Communist Party members and ordinary citizens. We find that party members on average hold substantially more modern and progressive views than the public on issues such as gender equality, political pluralism, and openness to international exchange. We also explore two mechanisms that may account for this party–public value gap—selection and socialization. We find that while education-based selection is the most dominant mechanism overall, socialization also plays a role, especially among older and less educated party members.
Does this control for wealth and education?
Perhaps about half the best educated youth joined party.
pdf  study  economics  polisci  sociology  politics  ideology  coalitions  china  asia  things  phalanges  dimensionality  degrees-of-freedom  markets  democracy  capitalism  communism  authoritarianism  government  leviathan  tradition  values  correlation  exploratory  nationalism-globalism  heterodox  sinosphere  multi  antidemos  class  class-warfare  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  left-wing  egalitarianism-hierarchy  gender  contrarianism  hmm  regularizer  poll  roots  causation  endogenous-exogenous  selection  network-structure  education  twitter  social  commentary  critique  backup 
march 2018 by nhaliday
National Defense Strategy of the United States of America
National Defense Strategy released with clear priority: Stay ahead of Russia and China:
A saner allocation of US 'defense' funds would be something like 10% nuclear trident, 10% border patrol, & spend the rest innoculating against cyber & biological attacks.
and since the latter 2 are hopeless, just refund 80% of the defense budget.
Monopoly on force at sea is arguably worthwhile.
Given the value of the US market to any would-be adversary, id be willing to roll the dice & let it ride.
subs are part of the triad, surface ships are sitting ducks this day and age
But nobody does sink them, precisely because of the monopoly on force. It's a path-dependent equilibirum where (for now) no other actor can reap the benefits of destabilizing the monopoly, and we're probably drastically underestimating the ramifications if/when it goes away.
can lethal autonomous weapon systems get some
pdf  white-paper  org:gov  usa  government  trump  policy  nascent-state  foreign-policy  realpolitik  authoritarianism  china  asia  russia  antidemos  military  defense  world  values  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  democracy  chart  politics  current-events  sulla  nuclear  arms  deterrence  strategy  technology  sky  oceans  korea  communism  innovation  india  europe  EU  MENA  multi  org:foreign  war  great-powers  thucydides  competition  twitter  social  discussion  backup  gnon  🐸  markets  trade  nationalism-globalism  equilibrium  game-theory  tactics  top-n  hi-order-bits  security  hacker  biotech  terrorism  disease  parasites-microbiome  migration  walls  internet 
january 2018 by nhaliday
Gladiator Quotes - YouTube
LUCILLA: They care about the greatness of Rome.
COMMODUS: Greatness of Rome? But what is that?
LUCILLA: It's an idea, greatness. Greatness is a vision.
COMMODUS: Exactly. A vision. I will give the people a vision and they will love me for it. They will soon forget the tedious sermonizing of a few dry old men. I will give them the greatest vision of their lives.

GRACCHUS: I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. He will conjure magic for them and they will be distracted. He will take away their freedom, and still they will roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble floor of the Senate, it is the sand of the Colosseum. He will give them death, and they will love him for it.
video  film  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  conquest-empire  civilization  rot  democracy  antidemos  egalitarianism-hierarchy  sulla  tribalism  illusion  cynicism-idealism  quotes  entertainment  vulgar  leadership  civil-liberty  benevolence 
january 2018 by nhaliday
Why ancient Rome kept choosing bizarre and perverted emperors - Vox
Why so many bizarre emperors were able to run a vast empire
Many of these emperors had extremely small circles of advisers who often did the grunt work of running the vast empire. "The number of people who had direct access to the emperor ... was actually rather small," says Ando. The emperors ruled through networks of officials, and those officials were often more competent. They propped up the insanity at the top.

What's more, most people scattered across the vast Roman Empire didn't pay much attention. "It didn't matter how nutty Caligula was," Ando says, "unless he did something crazy with tax policy." While those living in military provinces could have been affected by an emperor's decree, those in far-flung civilian provinces might have barely noticed the change from one emperor to another.

All that underlines the real truth about imperial power in Rome: yes, there were some crazy emperors, and some of the rumors were probably true. But the most bizarre thing about the Roman Empire wasn't the emperors — it was the political structure that made them so powerful in the first place.
news  org:data  org:lite  history  iron-age  mediterranean  the-classics  trivia  conquest-empire  government  polisci  power  leadership  prudence  list  top-n  people  statesmen  institutions  organizing  antidemos  regression-to-mean  big-peeps  benevolence  alignment 
november 2017 by nhaliday

« earlier    

related tags

2016-election  80000-hours  aaronson  absolute-relative  academia  accelerationism  accuracy  acemoglu  adversarial  advertising  africa  age-generation  agriculture  ai-control  ai  albion  alien-character  alignment  allodium  alt-inst  altruism  amazon  analogy  analysis  anarcho-tyranny  anglo  anglosphere  announcement  anomie  anthropology  antiquity  aphorism  applicability-prereqs  applications  archaeology  aristos  arms  art  article  asia  attaq  audio  authoritarianism  automation  axioms  backup  barons  being-right  benevolence  biases  big-peeps  big-picture  bioinformatics  biophysical-econ  biotech  blog  books  bootstraps  bostrom  branches  britain  broad-econ  business  c:**  canon  capital  capitalism  career  causation  censorship  charity  chart  checklists  china  christianity  civic  civil-liberty  civilization  class-warfare  class  classic  clinton  cliometrics  clown-world  coalitions  cocktail  cog-psych  cohesion  cold-war  comics  commentary  communication  communism  comparison  compensation  competition  concept  conceptual-vocab  confucian  conquest-empire  contracts  contrarianism  control  convexity-curvature  cooperate-defect  coordination  corporation  correlation  corruption  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  courage  cracker-econ  crime  criminal-justice  critique  crooked  crosstab  crypto  cultural-dynamics  culture-war  culture  current-events  cybernetics  cycles  cynicism-idealism  dark-arts  darwinian  data  database  death  debate  debt  decentralized  decision-making  deep-materialism  defense  definite-planning  degrees-of-freedom  democracy  demographic-transition  demographics  density  descriptive  deterrence  developing-world  dignity  dimensionality  direct-indirect  discipline  discrimination  discussion  disease  distribution  divergence  diversity  domestication  dominant-minority  douthatish  drama  drugs  duty  dysgenics  early-modern  eastern-europe  econ-metrics  econ-productivity  econometrics  economics  econotariat  eden-heaven  education  effect-size  effective-altruism  egalitarianism-hierarchy  egt  elections  elite  embedded-cognition  empirical  endo-exo  endogenous-exogenous  energy-resources  enlightenment-renaissance-restoration-reformation  entertainment  epidemiology  epistemic  equilibrium  error  essay  ethics  ethnocentrism  eu  europe  evidence-based  evolution  examples  exit-voice  expansionism  expert-experience  expert  explanans  exploratory  expression-survival  facebook  farmers-and-foragers  fashun  fertility  feudal  fiction  field-study  film  finance  flexibility  fluid  flux-stasis  food  foreign-lang  foreign-policy  formal-values  free-riding  frontier  futurism  gallic  game-theory  garett-jones  gavisti  gedanken  gelman  gender-diff  gender  general-survey  generalization  genetics  genomics  geography  geopolitics  germanic  giants  gibbon  gilens-page  gnon  gnxp  good-evil  gotchas  government  grad-school  great-powers  growth-econ  gt-101  guilt-shame  gwern  hacker  hanson  hari-seldon  harvard  heavy-industry  heterodox  hi-order-bits  hidden-motives  high-dimension  higher-ed  history  hive-mind  hmm  homo-hetero  honor  housing  hsu  human-capital  humility  huntington  hypocrisy  ideas  identity-politics  ideology  illusion  impetus  incentives  india  individualism-collectivism  industrial-org  inequality  info-dynamics  info-econ  info-foraging  innovation  insight  institutions  integrity  intel  intellectual-property  interests  internet  interpretation  intersection-connectedness  intervention  interview  investing  iran  iraq-syria  iron-age  is-ought  islam  israel  isteveish  iteration-recursion  japan  jargon  journos-pundits  judaism  judgement  justice  kinship  knowledge  korea  kumbaya-kult  labor  land  language  latin-america  law  leadership  lee-kuan-yew  left-wing  legacy  let-me-see  letters  leviathan  lexical  life-history  linguistics  links  list  literature  lived-experience  local-global  lol  long-short-run  longform  longitudinal  lower-bounds  machiavelli  macro  madisonian  magnitude  malaise  malthus  management  managerial-state  map-territory  maps  marginal-rev  market-power  markets  martial  matching  measure  measurement  media  medicine  medieval  mediterranean  mena  meta-analysis  meta:medicine  meta:rhetoric  meta:science  meta:war  metabuch  metameta  methodology  metrics  micro  microfoundations  migration  military  models  modernity  moloch  moments  money  morality  mostly-modern  multi  music  myth  n-factor  nascent-state  nationalism-globalism  natural-experiment  near-far  neocons  network-structure  new-religion  news  nibble  nietzschean  nihil  nitty-gritty  nl-and-so-can-you  no-go  noble-lie  noblesse-oblige  nonlinearity  nordic  north-weingast-like  nuclear  null-result  number  obama  objektbuch  occident  oceans  offense-defense  old-anglo  open-closed  optimate  optimism  order-disorder  org:anglo  org:biz  org:bleg  org:bv  org:data  org:davos  org:econlib  org:edu  org:euro  org:foreign  org:gov  org:junk  org:lite  org:mag  org:med  org:popup  org:rec  organization  organizing  orient  orwellian  oscillation  outcome-risk  oxbridge  paleocon  parable  parasites-microbiome  path-dependence  patience  paul-romer  pdf  peace-violence  people  persuasion  phalanges  pharma  phd  philosophy  pic  pinker  piracy  planning  poast  podcast  poetry  polanyi-marx  polarization  policy  polis  polisci  political-econ  politics  poll  pop-diff  population  populism  postmortem  power  pragmatic  pre-ww2  prediction-markets  prediction  preference-falsification  prejudice  presentation  profile  progression  propaganda  property-rights  proposal  protestant-catholic  protocol-metadata  prudence  pseudoe  psychiatry  psycho-atoms  psychology  public-goodish  public-health  putnam-like  q-n-a  qra  questions  quiz  quotes  race  randy-ayndy  rant  rationality  ratty  realness  realpolitik  reason  recommendations  reddit  redistribution  reference  reflection  regression-to-mean  regularizer  regulation  religion  rent-seeking  reputation  responsibility  retention  review  revolution  rhetoric  right-wing  risk  robust  roots  rot  rounding  russia  sampling-bias  sanctity-degradation  sapiens  scale  science  scifi-fantasy  scitariat  search  security  selection  self-control  self-interest  sequential  sex  sexuality  shakespeare  shift  signaling  singularity  sinosphere  sky  slippery-slope  smoothness  social-capital  social-choice  social-norms  social-psych  social-science  social-structure  social  society  sociology  software  solzhenitsyn  space  spatial  spearhead  speedometer  spock  sports  spreading  stackex  statesmen  status  steel-man  stories  strategy  straussian  stream  study  studying  stylized-facts  sulla  summary  supply-demand  survey  sv  systematic-ad-hoc  tactics  taxes  tcstariat  tech  technocracy  technology  techtariat  telos-atelos  temperance  terrorism  the-bones  the-classics  the-founding  the-great-west-whale  the-south  the-trenches  the-watchers  the-world-is-just-atoms  theos  things  threat-modeling  thucydides  time-preference  time-series  time  tip-of-tongue  tocqueville  todo  tolkienesque  top-n  track-record  trade  tradecraft  tradeoffs  tradition  trends  tribalism  trivia  troll  trump  trust  truth  tv  twitter  unaffiliated  uncertainty  unintended-consequences  universalism-particularism  urban-rural  us-them  usa  utopia-dystopia  values  vampire-squid  video  virginia-dc  virtu  visualization  vitality  volo-avolo  vulgar  walls  war  water  wealth-of-nations  wealth  welfare-state  west-hunter  westminster  whiggish-hegelian  white-paper  whole-partial-many  wiki  winner-take-all  wisdom  within-group  wonkish  world-war  world  wtf  wut  x-not-about-y  yarvin  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  🌞  🎩  🐸  🔬 

Copy this bookmark: