It is done

I've done it. My recently discovered God Mode hack of reality (helped by a return to Nietzsche) has caused me to crack the code of politics. Here is the problem with politics:

Government is supposed to represent the people, but this is an inversion of reality. In fact, the people represent the government, as follows: "the government" is properly nothing more than a compact of the most rational and necessary structure and legality for protecting the natural rights and freedoms of the people. The government is only an existential extension of the people, an extension into hard political social necessity. The government is a symbol of the people representing themselves. So when government is instead set up to "represent you" you introduce endless creeping expansion of government for its own sake simply because in that role of "representing you" the government as such has the power and initiative. Government is placed first, indirectly, therefore no amount of Constitutional separations of powers and limits on government will work, because in the long term government will grow simply because it has been given the philosophically primary position of responsibility.

Now that I have healed the best possible political ideology and system of its deepest flaw and contradiction, we need to see how to work on this ideology and system itself.

"The people" is an abstraction that does not match 1:1 with the reality on the ground of people in the real world. Likewise, natural rights is a concept that is flawed in the following way: rights are not implicit nor do they come from nature, rather they are "human given" ("God given") via the fact that any being capable of understanding these rights naturally will experience some will to power to attain them. Ironically, the notion of God given rights is more accurate than is the notion of natural rights, except that God here simply means "a certain type of human being".

And many people fail to reach the heights of that type, thus do not actually possess these "nature rights". And this fact is expressed in practice and in the world by how such people do not act as if they had these rights, do not value them, and clearly do not even want them when given the opportunity.

This is interesting.

I definitely agree that "Representation" is usually the thing that prevents work from being done.

I can't see how this would be resolved - but I can see the value in this proposal.
Ill keep reading.

It seems that people would have to man the government not based on what the government is prescribed to consist of, but of what people in that moment have to offer, in leadership qualities.

Am I correct in questioning prescribed forms of government here?

I thought of an analogy: a lawyer and his client. In a court room, the lawyer represents the client, but in reality the lawyer has all the power; to the lawyer are allocated all knowledge, institutional powers, degrees of freedom, money, etc. while the client who is "represented" just sits there. The only power the client has is the power to fire the lawyer, or supersede the lawyer's advice on something, which almost never happens because the lawyer has all the power and responsibility by default.

So while we might think that the client has the power and responsibility, the "existential-ontological grounding" in the situation, it is really the lawyer who has these. This reveals that when you consent to being "represented" you forfeit some or most/all of your actual power and responsibility ...you allow your willing to power only through a proxy that is not you. And the system and larger reality responds accordingly, by allocating to that proxy all powers, responsibilities, and degrees of freedom necessary or available.

And I think that because of the disconnect inherent in the notion of representation, the dissociated will to power of the client manifests as a void, an emptiness needing to always be filled by the increasing existential-ontological primacy of the proxy itself. Remember that logically speaking the proxy is supposed to represent the client, to act as a vessel for the client's will to power, but how can that really happen? Obviously one being cannot simply rent out its will to power, its self-valuing, to another; thus the representative proxy-entity is left with a logical deficiency and gap between its purpose and its actual reality, and this gap is what fuels the endless expansion of bureaucracy and government power.

The government in these current western representative forms is really just a kind of AI, artificial intelligence, that has been tasked with the purpose of "taking care of" that which it exists to represent, namely human beings, and ends up growing so powerful and all-encompassing and destroys the whole world to build a little safe box in which to put its client and care for it by providing food, water and novel stimulations. The AI would naively believe this is what its purpose is, and this is basically what government has been doing all along. We think that government grows and becomes tyrannical because it seeks its own power for its own sake, but I do not think that is actually true; rather, I think government grows and becomes more tyrannical over time because the basic logical reality of governance as such is this kind of naive AI-like "protect at all costs" purpose. Or even that is too simple, it is more like the fact that in order to even begin to carry out its allotted tasks, government always needs a little more scope of power and responsibility. This is because there is never perfect 1:1 alignment between a purpose or function of government and the ability in reality to actually carry that out successfully.

So government must always grow, and grow, and grow, and over time assume all powers, responsibilities and degrees of freedom to itself. And this would apply to every form of government, even non-representative, non-democratic ones. Representation is merely a recent mask that was placed over the logical AI-like nature of governance as such, in an attempt to both hide and constrain it, to make it more efficient in both its increasing of powers/responsibilities as well as in its ability to reduce errors along the way of that increasing. In order for this mask to work best it had to be believed fully by those who created and put it on the face of governance, namely the western tradition of democratic representative government, and in America the Founding Fathers. A large degree of moralism was needed to truly believe this representative government thing was such a high good, and they did believe this, and it is still believed today. This belief is just the rubber band strap that keeps the mask in place.

What I want to do is invert the function back to its proper position. Not,

government
people

But rather,

people
government

Government under people, under mankind, under the human individual to and for whom 'natural rights' actually make sense and apply.


This weird AI government we have and have always had needs to be fixed, before it assumes total power over the earth and all future human destiny. The moment a human valued being "taken care of" by a government, the moment he valued being "represented" by it, was the moment the future died.

To the question of how to build a practical working government on this idea, I don't know yet. Mostly I want more local government and of course I want less government. I also do not want government laws and powers to always be changing, added to, expanding, under the guise of needing to always get better over time at "representing us". Fuck that. Just create a basic, sufficient set of laws and powers that government exists to manage, and strictly ban it from ever assuming any new ones.