in a free market, the reputation system will determine your price level, in effect, acting as money itself
The sole principle of Ego-Utilitarian Morality is to perpetuate the Perfect Meta-Self. The Perfect Meta-Self is the Meta-Self that is the best at perpetuating itself. In other words there is no descriptor that is not already part of the Perfect Meta-Self that would make it better at perpetuating instances of this Meta-Self.
when i make an argument that the presence of a necessary condition is evidence for its sufficient conditions, i am often countered with the fact that im making an logical fallacy called the inverse error. when in actuality im making a completely different logical argument (claim 2).
note: each probability that is conditioned on an event occurring assumes the probability of that event is greater than 0. (P(A|B) → P(B)>0)
claim 0: if P(A|B)>P(A) then P(B)<1 and P(A)>0
proof by contradiction:
if P(B)=1 then P(A|B)=P(A)!
if P(A)=0 then P(A|~B)<0 which is an invalid probability!
claim 1: if A is evidence for B, P(A|B)>P(A), then B is evidence for A, P(B|A)>P(B)
→ P(B|A)P(A)/P(B)>P(A) by applying bayes theorem to the LHS
∴ P(B|A) >P(B)
definition: A is a necessary condition for B iff P(A|B)=1 (if B then A )
definition: A is a trivial necessary condition for B iff P(A|B)= 1 = P(A)
note: a trivial necessary condition is not evidence since P(A|B)= P(A)
and that A and B are independent events. independence is sufficient to show that events are not evidence for each other.
claim 2: if E is a non-trivial necessary condition for H, or equivalently P(E|H) = 1> P(E), then E is evidence for H, P(H|E)>P(H)
since P(E|H) = 1> P(E)
by definition, H is evidence for E.
∴ E is evidence for H by claim 1
If E was an absence of genuine perceptual evidence of aliens (not sensing aliens when we observed) and H were the hypothesis that aliens do not exist, we can see that P(E|H) = 1 > P(E). also if aliens existed we would at least expect P(E|~H)<P(E)<1 since P(E)=P(E|H)*P(H) + P(E|~H)*P(~H) and therefore P(E|H) > P(E) >P(E|~H) since it is a weighted average of the two probabilities.
so therefore the presence of a non-trivial necessary condition is evidence for its sufficient conditions.
some people foolishly argue that a non-trivial necessary condition is “compatible” with the negation of its sufficient condition. the term compatible in this context has a formal definition. an event E is compatible with with a hypothesis H iff P(E|H)>0. but this argument omits critical information about the relationships between E,H, and ~H, namely, the likelihood of seeing an event under the sufficient condition is higher than its negation, and therefore the event is evidence for the sufficient condition and evidence against the negation (see my last video on absence of evidence)
this reasoning provides some of the foundation behind things like inductive evidence, statistical testing, and rational belief systems.
lemma 1: by definition, an event E is evidence for a hypothesis H if and only if P(H|E) > P(H), therefore if P(H|E) < P(H) then E is evidence for ~H. (intuitively this seems correct since the derivative of P(H) with respect to P(~H) is negative, d(P(H)/d(P(~H)<0)
if P(H|E) < P(H)
→ -P(H|E) > P(~H)-1 (negating both sides and inverting the inequality)
→ 1-P(H|E) > P(~H) (adding 1 to both sides)
the left hand side can be simplified to this expression
1-P(H|E) = 1- P(H∩E)/P(E)
= P(~H∩E)/P(E) since E
and therefore E is evidence for ~H when P(H|E) < P(H)
and we now can also say that E is not evidence for or against H when P(H|E) = P(H), in other words an event is not evidence if and only if the event E and the hypothesis H are INDEPENDENT of eachother.
H = the hypothesis that X exists (the conceptual set X has instances in reality)
E = the event that evidence for H was present during perception
~E = the event that no evidence for H was present during perception
T= what is perceived is a true/accurate representation of reality ( when X = aliens, H= “aliens exist” and E=”i perceive evidence that alien exists” then E∩T = “i perceive evidence that aliens exist and that evidence does exist”)
F=~T= what is perceived is false/inaccurate (due to being a hallucination/illusion) = ∼T ( when H= “aliens exist”and E=”i perceive evidence that alien exists” then E∩F = “i perceive evidence that aliens exist and that evidence does not exist”. )
claim 1: if E∩T is evidence for an uncertain hypothesis H (P(H|E∩T)> P(H)) and there is a non-certain possibility of hallucination (1>P(E∩F)>0 and E∩F is not evidence for or against H (P(H|E∩F)=P(H) by lemma 1) , then E is evidence for H
1.the probability function P(X) represents the subjective probability of a “perfectly rational” (mathematical) perceiving subject.
2.we are unsure about H (1>P(H)>0)
3.we have some faith in our experiences (1>P(E∩T)>0)
4. P(H|E∩T)>P(H) E∩T is evidence supporting H
5.P(H|E∩F)=P(H) can a hallucination of perceiving X be evidence against H? here i assume no. having a false experience is equivalent to no evidence for or against H since hallucination is now equivalent to no attempt at perception. (in claim 2 i go by the strict definition of E∩T and E∩F)
P(H|E) = P(H∩E)/P(E)
= P(H∩((E∩T)∪(E∩F))) / P(E)
=P((H∩E∩T)∪(H∩E∩F)) / P(E)
=(P(H∩E∩T) +P(H∩E∩F))) / P(E) by mutual exclusivity
=(P(H|E∩T)P(E∩T) +P(H|E∩F)P(E∩F))) / P(E)
=(P(H|E∩T)*P(E∩T) +P(H)P(E∩F))) / P(E) by 5.
and by 3. and 4. the following strict inequality holds
>(P(H)*P(E∩T) +P(H)P(E∩F))) / P(E)
=(P(H)(P(E∩T) +P(E∩F))) / P(E)
=(P(H)P(E)) / P(E)
if 1>P(E∩F)>0 then the following equality holds
∴P(H|E) > P(H)
∴P(~H|~E) > P(~H) by the absence of evidence theorem.
claim 2: if E∩T is evidence for an uncertain hypothesis H (P(H|E∩T)> P(H)) and there is a non-certain probability of hallucination (1>P(E∩F)>0) , then E is evidence for H iff P(E∩T)/P(E) > P(H)/P(H|E∩T) or equivalently P(T|E)> P(H)/P(H|E∩T).
1.the probability function P(X) used here represents the subjective probability of a “perfectly rational” (mathematical) subject.
2.we are unsure about H (1>P(H)>0)
3.we have some faith in our experiences (1>P(E∩T)>0)
4.P(H|E∩T)> P(H) E∩T is evidence supporting H
P(H|(E∩F) <P(H) E∩F is evidence supporting ~H (by lemma 1), or alternatively evidence against H
P(H|E) = P(H∩E)/P(E)
= P(H∩((E∩T)∪(E∩F))) / P(E)
=P((H∩E∩T)∪(H∩E∩F)) / P(E)
=(P(H∩E∩T) +P(H∩E∩F))) / P(E) by mutual exclusivity
=(P(H|E∩T)P(E∩T) +P(H|E∩F)P(E∩F))) / P(E)
>(P(H|E∩T)*P(E∩T) +0*P(E∩F)) / P(E) (the strong inequality becomes an equality when the strength of E∩F is sufficient to prove ~H)
=P(H|E∩T)P(E∩T) / P(E)
P(H|E)> P(H) if
we can call the probability, P(T|E), the trust function since it is a measure of how much we trust our perceptions.
as the evidence gets stronger, P(H|E∩T) → 1, (as in the case of directly seeing an instance of X) and if our trust is greater than the unconditional probability of H then we can necessarily say E is evidence for H and by the absence of evidence theorem ~E is evidence for ~H. notice in this case, the higher the unconditional probability, the greater trust we need in order for our perceptions to be evidence. in the case of no information and a prior uniform distribution for H and ~H (50/50), then all it takes for any direct perception of X to be evidence is for us to have more trust in our senses than distrust.
also notice, if we had certainty our senses were deceiving us, P(F)=1 and P(T) =0, then we could be certain that E is evidence against H since P(H|E∩F)<P(H) and by lemma 1 .
the exclusion axiom/criterion of property states: an object (another meta-self) is owned by a person or group of people (a meta-self) if the instances of complement of their meta-self are excluded from the object AND no meta-self component/sub meta-self is excluded from the object (notice it does not matter who is providing the exclusion service). The corollary of this is that at any point in time, the CUMULATIVE will and ability to exclude others determines what object is what meta-self’s property (just like the sum of all forces in a closed system on a physical object result in a net force).
this video is the second of a two part presentation of a comparison of the libertarian ethic of property rights and the exclusion axiom/criterion of property in a free market. the first part was a critique of the concept of rights and why they are logically inconsistent and with the free market. in this video, i will present the ego-utilitarian alternative that i claim is the only general ethic the free market can sustainably adopt.
meta-self: an object’s concept. a conceptual set that contains all the descriptors of the object and nothing more. each partition of components have a weighting that is inversely proportional to its set size and proportional to their importance to the existence of the entire meta-self.
economic profit: The difference between the revenue received from the sale of an output and the opportunity cost of the inputs used.
ego-utilitarianism is only concerned with the morality evolution imposes upon us. namely, it selects for the meta-selves that perpetuate WEIGHTED instances of themselves (meta-self interest).
so if you accept my argument that rights are inconsistent with a free society (part 1 of this presentation here), then one must ask “what desires and abilities would exist AND BE SUSTAINABLE (ego-utilitarian morality) in a free market?”. what would a perfectly rational person or society do in the face of an aggression against another’s property? and when would it be in the interest of a meta-self to provide defense, restitution, or punishment services with respect to property? is it ever in the meta-self interest of a market/society to commit aggression?
we start with a simple analysis applying the exclusion criterion of property. notice that the exclusion axiom/criterion is a positive definition of property. this well-defined universal axiom describes property in all cases. it describes property whether the hypothetical under consideration has a state or free market. the analysis works in all time periods past, present or future. it has consequences for a society populated by one man, billions of people, and everything in between. in order for something to be property it must be maintained and defended/excluded from others. these are the explicit cost of owning property that is foolishly assumed or ignored by libertarian property rights theory. the criterion must be satisfied in all cases by some actor. it must also be true that something becomes property when the CUMULATIVE will AND ability of ALL actors are such that everyone but the owner is excluded from the property.
let us first accept some necessary consequences. in a free market context the term”legitimacy” becomes irrelevant. the concern of ego-utilitarian analysis is what people are willing and able to pay for and what is sustainable. legitimacy only makes sense with a state or a social contract. if a thief steals property from another person and can successfully exclude others from it, then a transfer of ownership has taken place. if the property that was stolen was a piece of candy, it would be nonsense to say that the victim still owns the candy once the thief has long since consumed and digested it. applying the same analysis to the slaves of the antebellum United states, one must conclude that they did not own their labor since their slave owners were not excluded from their labor.
let us begin an abstract analysis on an “island” economy starting with one person. in this simplest of contexts, protecting property that yields less utility than the cost to maintain and defend it from the agents of nature is a losing evolutionary proposition. nature punishes such behavior proportionally. the greater the difference between costs and benefits (loss) for the meta-self, the greater the punishment. this mechanism imposed by nature (of which humans are a component of) is the very foundation of free market morality.
let us adjust the population of the island economy by adding another person. introducing other people that have the ability to cooperate due to specialization and trade creates high potential for establishing mutually beneficial relationships.
i am ignoring some aspects of meta-self interest here since it over-complicates the calculation. in this reality, the fact that they are the only two humans creates a very strong meta-self relationship since weighting is inversely proportional to component meta-self set size. ego-utilitarianism says there may be some moral value in helping another person even if there is no economic relationship in a small population hypothetical. for the sake of simplicity we can ignore its contribution to the analysis since it is significantly eroded for a large population .
in most cases, people will realize the value of establishing a trade relationship since it increases consumption possibilities beyond one’s own production capabilities. once a trade relationship is established, there exists a meta-self interested reason why a person should respect or even expend resources to help defend the other person’s property. meaning there exist some non-zero evolutionary incentive for people to choose to defend property of others that trade with them over simply taking it from them.
as we already learn from basic economics, trade allows people to consume beyond their own production possibilities allowing each participant the ability acquire more evolutionary utility. now the owner should not spend more money than the total utility gained from consumption and trade from the production of the property . also, a rational actor should never spend more to defend another’s property than the utility gained from the total trade that is a direct result of the production of the property. (more rigorously, both should not spend resources when it does not maximize economic profit). so taken together, the most sustainable strategy is for an person to own the property only if owning the property maximizes production and economic profit for the entire market. doing otherwise is again punished proportionally by evolution.
if no trade relationship exists between the two people (maybe due to irrationality), then there is no reason to expend resources to help defend the others property and the option of aggression is more likely to be economically profitable.
this analysis explains why humans dont respect the property of other animals. since the genetic meta-self relationship drops off very quickly, the meta-self relationship between other animals becomes relatively insignificant because of their lack of ability to provide economic value through trade.
the analysis also explains why even governments tend not to expend resources to defend and even violate the rights of non-citizens.
in general this mechanism explains why two meta-selves, people or nations, are more likely to aggress against each other when there is no trade relationship. as the late 19th century economist fredrich bastiat stated, “if goods dont cross borders, soliders will”.
so far this was just an analysis of whether the other person will help defend property, but does the analysis significantly change if we include the strategy of taking property by force? ego-utilitarianism and evolution say no.
let us look at a special case of capital property. it is possible that a forceful confiscation of property could benefit both people. if the opportunity cost of that person owning the capital is an increase in production sufficient to lower the price level by a greater percentage than the marginal loss of nominal income and cost of theft, then stealing and reallocating the property will make everyone better off including the victim. this possibility introduces the argument that even the victim should prefer the theft even though in the immediate present he may not.
similar to a mathematical induction argument, this two man analysis does not change for any given population since you can replace any person with a group of any size. we can then say, a market or society should not support the ownership of the property if the costs of defending exceed the total utility of those willing and able to pay those costs. and more rigorously, the owner will own the property only if it maximizes total production in the market. this is the normative ethic of the exclusion axiom of property and egoutist morality which is superior to an irrational ethic like homesteading which endorses supporting ownership on a mere first use basis.
this scenario is just a potential but not a necessary byproduct of confiscating capital property. the victim of property theft will not necessarily be better off even in the case of increasing total production through confiscation. but stopping the analysis here is incomplete since we are only focusing on costs suffered by the victim and not benefit of to the rest of society. it is fair to say that even if the victim may lose buying power in a specific instance of confiscation of his own property, he necessarily benefits when this same confiscation rule applies to all other property owners. this comprehensive view necessarily makes him better off by increasing everyone’s standard of living. this strategy is what egoutism claims evolution will select for and force all civilizations to converge to.
ego-utilitarianism says the only perspective that matters when measuring morality is actor’s (weighted) meta-self. the meta-self of concern in this analysis is the group of people willing and able to contribute to the defense or confiscation of a property. so the well-being of that meta-self is what determines morality. so ego-utilitarianism differs from normal libertarianism by saying that all aggression isnt necessarily immoral in a free market since evolution rewards particular forms of aggression. this is why ego-utilitarianism’s political ideology is called weak-libertarianism. weak libertarianism endorses freedom only from government and not aggression. watch my presentation on weak libertarianism and the non-aggression aphorism here.
the current owner has an absolute advantage in owning the capital property since defense is cheaper than aggression all else equal. also there are transition and transaction costs associated with a transferring of ownership which only increases if the transfer is involuntary. but an absolute advantage can be overcome if the opportunity cost of lost production is great enough.
if a voluntary buyout is rejected, the cost of defense of the capital must compensate the economic loss of the market. therefore the cost of defense must converge to the production of the most productive owner. therefore in the long run it must be that the person who maximizes total production is the only sustainable owner.
moral theft in a free market would probably still be a rare case. the condition where someone doesnt trade with the market is truly an anomaly since a corollary of the law of comparative advantage says as you increase the number of people in a market the gains from trade becomes enormous. in an economy consisting of the current world population, trade relations with such a market becomes each person’s GREATEST asset. also the conditions under which someone confiscates capital or consumer goods requires some type of extreme shortage and rivalry in the market. the purpose of this presentation is to show that it is possible to have evolutionary moral instances of “rights” violations. any intellectually honest and rigorous analysis of evolutionary morality will try to define all instances where aggression is moral instead of ignoring them.
calling this optimum strategy “might makes right” is an emotional argument. if rights mean privileges then it is correct. if rights describe normative morality then this is false. morality is determined by sustainability and not mere ability. “might makes right” tends to conflate the two. if freedom is the state of being free from any restriction then ability (might and power)determine one’s degree of freedom. it is a fact of a free market and mutually beneficial trade that privilege is proportional to production. the market and ego-utilitarian morality are meritocratic. each individual is a dependent component of the larger organism of the market.
there is also a significant difference between confiscation in a free market and eminent domain in a state society. a sustainable system will proportionally allocate the cost of confiscation to those who stand to benefit from it as opposed to systems that suffer from the tragedy of the commons. for instance in a democracy, special interests disperse costs and concentrate benefits when they utilize common property (tax revenue).
theft is a sunk cost and restitution of property is an inefficient strategy. there is no evolutionary reason to make a victim of property theft whole in all cases. this is an emotional projection of self-interest which leads to a mistake of only considering benefits of the victim without considering the cost of the restitution to society. if defense is truly cheaper than aggression and if defense was insufficient to stop the thief, then it is unlikely that restituting the victim by reclaiming the asset from the thief would be cost effective..
economic systems based on homesteading, property rights, and restitution will lead to a parasitic effect where unproductive ownership will be subsidized by productive owners. this relationship is unsustainable as you will have adverse selection of the former and attrition of the later who will select societies that endorse ego-utilitarian’s property ethic. rights subsidize ownership, just as patents subsidize intellectual property. in the case of subsidized ownership, you will have a surplus of ownership. also you will have a lower price level and higher standard of living in the society that endorses the exclusion axiom. systems that do not encourage ownership that maximize total production do not maximize economic profit and hence are less efficient. any society that subsidizes irrationality and inefficiency is not sustainable (notice its meta-self equivalent to the one man analysis).
ive talked about what how a free market deals with capital goods and resources and in a future presentation i will talk about the distribution of consumer goods in a free society and the optimum strategy of perfect price discrimination.
property. mixing labor and homesteading is absurd because it is not efficient. protecting property merely on a first come first use basis is a dominated strategy in allocating property based upon production and trade. im going to talk about this in greater detail in my presentation on the exclusion criterion/axiom of property. the property ethic of ego-utilitarianism and the free market.
egoutism says we dont respect animals because we cant trade with them. this is the same reason why nations that do not trade with eachother are more likely to go to war. it has very little to do with genetics or not being human. also, domestic animals are dependent upon us. we can manage their lives better by owning them than they can and derive utility in the form of companionship and home defense etc.
and pleasure and happiness is just a meter
utilitarianism is based on subjective value (pleasure)
problem with utilitarianism is its ambiguous (poorly defined). which is better 10 utility units with 20 people or 20 utility with 10 people? having two primary objectives, greatest good and greatest amount of people, creates inconsistencies when put into an extreme rivalrous contexts.
ego-utilitarianism is based on objective relative value (evolutionary value to the meta-self). it says pleasure is just a natural meter to detect utility, but it is far from perfect and can malfunction into hedonism.
consequentialism is general, egoutism is a subset of consequentialist moralities. but consequentialism isnt specific, it doesnt describe how to assign value to action/strategy (define a value/utility function) on the consequences itself
egoutism morality function adds up all the costs and benefits (payoff) of all meta-selves in reality, that includes a weight distribution determined by each meta-self’s contribution to the existence of the meta-self under consideration. if this sum is greater than any other strategy, then that action is said to be moral. one can also calculate pairwise morality (payoff) between two actions.
knowing all possible utility of all options is not necessary since evolution punishes you proportionally. poker analogy
payoffs are dependent upon all actions and conditions
there are two types of paradoxes. resolvable and genuine contradictions.
resolvable paradoxes conflates ideas and creates an illusion of contradiction.
zeno’s paradox conflates an infinite amount of infinitesmally small time intervals with an infinite amount of time (never catching up to the tortoise).
zeno’s paradox is not a genuine contradiction and therefore cannot be used in proof by contradiction of infinite regress.
you can add an infinite amount of decreasing increments of time and come to a finite amount of time (the time achilles catches up).
so for instance, in zeno’s paradox, if achilles is twice as fast as the tortoise, and the tortoise starts 10 meters ahead. assuming it takes achilles 10 seconds to reach the 10 meter mark. at that time the lead will be cut in half to 5 meters. it will take 5 meters for achilles to reach the 15 meter mark and then the lead will be cut in half. the point at which achilles catches the tortoise will be the sum of all the time it takes to reach mark.
so the total time will be equal to 10+5+2.5+1.25+.625… = 10 + (1/2)10+ (1/2)²10+(1/2)³10+…
and therefore the total time it takes for achilles to catch the tortoise is 10/(1-1/2)=10*2 = 20 seconds
which is entirely consistent with the position equations given by:
x = 0.5t +10
where x = tortoise position and x’ is achilles position. and therefore t=20 is time where achilles catches the tortoise
infinite series can converge by the geometric series test
the universe can be “eternal” and have negative infinity time. thats why science assumes that things like energy and momentum have existed eternally in their conservational laws.
as we say in math, time can be mapped to the real numbers and therefore are infinitely divisible.
one can easily disprove the biblical god IF they define god as omnipotent.
if you define ominpotent as being able to do anything and god is omnipotent
therefore god can create anything
therefore god can lift anything
so can god create a rock he cant carry?
this is valid proof by contradiction.
also if a religious person believes god is omniscient (including knowing the future)
then they cannot reconcile that with the free will they need to be able to justify punishment by god.
this presentation is a response to a video of walter block discussing the topic of libertarians working for the government (link in the description of this video). i contend that block’s view of libertarians working for government with the intention to undermine it is not consistent with the non-aggression principle.
first, block claim’s that murray rothbard said working in a sector that would have been provided in the free market is consistent with libertarianism. the “net equality of consequences” argument is valid only under a cost/benefit analysis. first, it has to be the exact SAME GOOD provided at the SAME PRICE AND QUANTITY otherwise its a net loss for the tax payer. a libertarian cannot make this argument with the belief that government is an inefficent monopoly spender. for instance if government provides the same/lower quality good at a higher/same price then the service provided by the taxation results in a net loss for the tax payer and gain for supplier or government which is equivalent to a transfer by coercion. to make matters worse there is a deadweight loss due to taxation, monopoly, and subsidy suffered by the rest of society.
but more importantly, even assuming no net transfer of utility, the act of taking from the taxpayer by force still qualifies as aggression since it was not voluntary. therefore rothbard’s argument is not consistent with being a libertarian or the non-aggression principle.
block augments rothbards claim by saying that taking money to teach liberty or undermine the government is ethical. i highly doubt any “rational” libertarian would say that knowingly taking stolen money by providing a service to the thief (or the victim if it wasnt demanded) was compatible with the non-aggression principle. if the money is not given back to the taxpayer in any form other than the original payment or good demanded then the act of providing a service to government is effectively coercing the the tax victim to pay for that service. the possibility that the good provided could contribute to the demise of the taxing entity is irrelevant since it was still involuntary. taking stolen money to teach liberty is effectively stealing money to teach liberty. knowingly using an agent is no different. the fact that the non-aggression principle does not clearly deal with the issue of receiving stolen property shows another weakness of the using nap as a logically consistent morality.
block’s nazi concentration camp guard analogy in which one goes into the business of murdering in order to minimize total murder is also forbidden since the rigidity of the non-aggression principle clearly forbids any aggression regardless of the net result. any rational moral ethic would not punish the person who’s action saved net lives even though an aggression occured since their action was a net good. block’s argument only makes sense using a cost/benefit analysis not restricted by a principle that forbids aggression such as the ego-utilitarian/ accelerationism framework. block’s “ticker tape parade execution” was a ridiculous example of the logical gymnastics libertarians use to reconcile the religious doctrine of libertarian theory with pure reason.
to put block’s argument succinctly, he claims that subsidizing liberty through taxation is ethical. clearly a contradiction when taken with libertarian philosophy.
at the 10:21 mark in the video albert lu talks about how tesla contributes to fiscal collapse by taking subsidies for building “environmental friendly” cars. what lu was describing is egoutism’s strategy of accelerationism which cannot coexist with the of the non-aggression principle.
egoutism and accelerationism
accelerationism is the idea that the government is inherently unstable because it is not a meta-self interested entity. therefore, in simple monetary terms, it consistently takes on projects that do not yield a financial profit, therefore resulting in chronic budget deficits and ensuring its eventual demise. also, the government is an inefficient supplier of goods, consistently providing goods that would never have come to the market (or equivalently providing a combination of inferior goods at higher prices and/or lower quanties). given enough time, its citizens will realize this incredibly high opportunity cost and revolt against this inferior technology. it is an unfortunate feature of reality that people tend to learn through trial and error instead of sound logical theory. it may be impossible to bypass this empirical learning curve of the general population.
therefore, if there is a critical level of debt that collapses the current monetary and government system then all else equal, it would be better to accelerate the process instead dragging out an inevitable fiscal collapse. to do so, an accelerationist will implement LEGAL means to reduce tax revenue and increase expenditures, such as voting for and accepting welfare if qualified.
a complex global banking and debt system (combined with singular events in technology such as nuclear warfare) presents a situation where the critical level of debt can be very high since one can mask insolvency through complex debt mechanisms and accounting fraud.
accelerationism finds the idea of a fiscal collapse appealing since it is a relatively peaceful event with low costs and high benefits. a fiscal collapse of the monetary and state system would be peaceful because international and domestic law enforcement stop following orders when the state’s inability to provide monetary compensation for their services becomes apparent. the lack of enforcement and runaway debt level reaches the point when tax payers will passively stop paying taxes and reject the monetary and banking system. in an active revolt the cost of lives would be much higher and the fiscal loss would not change since the debt due to state promises does not magically disappear. but egoutism carefully endorses limits on the accelerationist strategy consistent with the primary objective of perpetuation of instances of one’s meta-self. in other words dont accelerate the collapse to the point where you jeopardize one’s meta-self.
egoutism goes on further to say that it is moral to redistribute assets from those who support the state (people who buying treasuries and advocate a representative or direct democracy) to those who want freedom from the state and realize its an obsolete technology. to add insult to injury, it only makes sense to use the very same democratic means they provide the accelerationist. this “conscious parasite” will also take measures to prepare for the transition when the fiscal event occurs. this will create a bottle neck effect of the statist meme which egoutism calls a “meme trap”.
since ego-utilitarianism adopts the non-aggression APHORISM it does not preclude accelerationism as a viable strategy toward achieving freedom from the state (weak-libertarianism). this includes the possibility that advocating for things like the drug war and conventional war on the expenditure side may actually be tools to freedom since they bring a quicker fiscal end to the state than merely advocating reducing the revenue side of the income statement of the state.