Essay:What do you think of Moldbug's proposal for a political movement that's laser-focused on neocameralism?
He was saying that it's better not to have a broad agenda:
"Racist corporate fascism" is a flashlight. "Elect President Mencius" is a flashlight. Even "secure, responsible and effective government" is something of a flashlight, although the beam starts to be reasonably tight - compare, for example, to sonno joi. "Restore the Stuarts" is a laser. It may not be the best possible laser (we'll look at others), but it is definitely a laser.
What happens if one has a movement that's based on a structural reform like that? From what I can tell, it piques the interest of a few who care about such things as structure, but it bores the masses because structure is not really an emotional issue. Once in awhile you see a politician who brings up, say, instant-runoff voting or interactive representation or even anarcho-capitalism. All that gets people excited about such topics, though, are the implications that it will have for their own favorite policies. If they can't see any such implications right off the bat, they don't care about it.
So for example, when Mary Ruwart put forth anarcho-capitalism as her reform idea in her 2008 presidential campaign, the focus of the media and the other candidates was not so much on how these dispute resolution organizations would bring about much more efficient and customer-friendly judicial services, but rather on how the kiddies might not be protected as well in an ancap society. The public doesn't get excited about efficient services; they get excited about protecting the kiddies.
It makes sense, since in our ancestral past, worrying about protecting the kiddies was probably a lot more adaptive than pondering structures. Whatever structure is set up can often end up being subverted anyway, if the political will to do so is there. Google, for example, theoretically should focus on building great products but instead got caught up in all this SJW stuff, even though the SJWs aren't nominally in charge.
Maybe that's what the customers (including advertisers) want, though, and in a neocameralist society, they would make similar demands of the city-state rulers. They might say, "Expel these racist, sexist, homophobic shitlords from our city, or we'll boycott you" and we could end up withhave as little free speech under that regime as we do now. Even if you can vote with your feet, that's not much different than how in today's society you can always just get on a different platform besides, say, YouTube. You have total freedom to create your own platform, but for reason, people say that getting demonetized on YouTube still hurts.
So anyway. My guess is that if someone tried to start a revolution that was laser-focused on neocameralism, people would focus on the implications of that for various issues of concern, and those would end up being what people talked about. So there's not really any way to avoid a conversation about ALL the issues involved in NRx (or at least the emotionally charged issues), including how these proposed structures would affect our culture, our laws, etc. Thus we end up with a flashlight rather than a laser.
For example, the pro-lifers are going to be all about, "What are the implications of neocameralism for the unborn's right to life?" They won't care about any other aspect of it. The alt-right probably will oppose neocameralism as soon as they hear that it would interfere with single-payer healthcare (unless there's going to be a bunch of city-states uniting together to negotiate as a group). Etc., etc. A lot of the stuff that we would consider features of neocameralism, such as the fact that it's harder for any central authority to regulate everyone's behavior across a region as large as the countries we live in now, antilibertarians would view as bugs. But in terms of launching a democoup that's seeking after a specific reform (like neocameralism), then I guess once one gets strong enough support for the underlying goals of neocameralism, then yeah, one could pursue it with a laser focus.
Lately, people seem to want to revert back to the prehistoric methods of politics, in which everything is just a struggle for raw masculine dominance. E.g., Trump puts Jeb Bush in his place on the debate stage, and shows he's the alpha male of the group. That makes structure (aside from dominance hierarchies) seem even less important, because at that point, even issues don't matter because everything is just about personality: "I'm a guy who can push others around rather than getting pushed around, so you need me to be the one who is representing this country and making it great again."
Thinking about structure definitely seems like an activity for those who are more thoughtful and contemplative. Trump probably doesn't ponder structure too much. I doubt he digs into Unqualified Reservations in his spare time. He said that our current campaign finance system is a bad system, but he didn't have any ideas for fixing it, and hasn't really revisited the topic since the election.