What creeps me out is that I have no idea of their theory of power: How will they achieve their aims?
Maybe they want to do it in a way I’d consider just: By exercising their rights as individuals in their personal domains and effectively airing their arguments in the public sphere to win elections.
But my intuition is they think democracy and personal rights of the non-elect are part of the problem to rationalize around and over.
Would genuinely love to read some Rationalist discourse on this question.
Why is "theory of power" a necessary framing? "Theory of power" seems to be only a popular idea in "online left progressive" circles which are based on pop readings of post-structuralist continental philosophy. There's plenty of other schools of thought out there and there have been many criticisms of the idea of "theory of power" altogether.
Reading critiques of Hegel is a great starting point for this reading.
Whether you accept it or not though, there's lots of non-rationalist schools that reject the need for a "theory of power".
I didn’t mean the term in anything but a colloquial sense: They believe certain outcomes are right and proper. Such outcomes don’t typically manifest themselves out of good intentions. What’s the plan?
When Curtis Yarvin is at least in your orbit, these should not be surprising questions to get.
you've latched on to some academic sense of the term but I understood exactly what the person you're replying to meant. They mean: are these people you would respect and trust to be in charge of things? What would they do? And a lot of people's vibe-check says it's a big unknown question mark, or worse, which is not something you can put faith in.
It's hard to argue with vibes which is what makes today's culture war based politics so difficult to weigh in on conclusively. It's all just vibes after all. One person's vibes can be cap to someone else.
Maybe they want to do it in a way I’d consider just: By exercising their rights as individuals in their personal domains and effectively airing their arguments in the public sphere to win elections.
But my intuition is they think democracy and personal rights of the non-elect are part of the problem to rationalize around and over.
Would genuinely love to read some Rationalist discourse on this question.