Thursday, February 16, 2006
COLLAPSING RULE-SETS AND PNM THEORY
Jeff Medcalf at Caerdroia posed some arch questions regarding the validity of some key ideas in Dr. Barnett's PNM theory yesterday:
"How does PNM handle the collapse or approaching collapse of rules-sets in core nations? The flow of people from the gap to the core is inherently going to bring gap rulesets — those travel in people's heads, after all — and this is already apparent in Britain, France, Spain, Italy, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway. I suspect we'll see the same in Germany, soon, because they have the same demography/immigrant problem as the rest of Western Europe.
Once the gap rulesets have been imported into the core, can the core rulesets remain established, or are the core rulesets inherently self-defeating? And if they are inherently self-defeating, at least when confronted with a lower-order ruleset from the gap, what changes to the core rulesets (and hopefully there are some short of mass deportation or genocide) can be made to avert the consequences of a core ruleset collapse (the main consequence being moving from the core to the gap)?"
Good questions, all of them. Dan of tdaxp and Dave Schuler made their remarks at Caerdroia, my commentary follows.
First, in regard to the example of rioting Islamist thugs in Europe provided by The Belmont Club link, I would argue that the established rule-set is being undermined not merely by the Islamist thugs but by the local European -probably socialist - political elite that enabled the rioters by ordering the police to refrain from intervening. Of the two, the latter is the far greater threat to the integrity of the rule of law, representing not only moral cowardice but betrayal of the values of a liberal, democratic, open society.
I dealt with this very issue, albeit briefly, in an article on rule-set theory in Dr. Barnett's short-lived journal. We have between secular, democratic, Europe and the ghetto Islamist activists and "underclass" rioters of North African origin, a case of " value-rivalry". European states have the power to easily enforce compliance from the rioters or expel them but the political will to do so is another question. It is admittedly bad form to quote myself, but in this case, it fits:
"An explicit rule-set can be undermined by implicit rules and values that are antithetical, that encourage destructive behavior....Such a conflict is typical of a dysfunctional rule-set that characterizes a system in decline.
....To intentionally ignore criminal behavior as defined by law, to appease enemies, to fail to maintain order in the face of gross violations or violence may be a partial repudiation of the prevailing rule-set by the system's own leaders".
I doubt highly that what was behind the failure of will of the European officials in this case was exposure to the Sharia imported from the Gap so much as homegrown, irrationalist, European postmodernism mixed with a cynical personal opportunism that disconnects Euro-elites from their own countrymen. The problem of Western rule-set collapse can be found in the prevailing ideology of that part of the elite, political and cultural, who subscribe to the worldview of the New Left/'68ers/Crit theorists. A problem that is solved best by politically isolating, delegitimizing them and removing them from positions of power or influence via democratic elections so that common-sense policies may be enforced to defend society.
Secondly and more generally connectivity is indeed a two-way street as Jeff recognizes in his second paragraph, a point which also made by William Lind, the chief 4GW theorist, who would attempt to firewall off the Gap from the Core for that reason. That option really isn't feasible for a host of economic reasons related to energy, capital flows and geography though tightening up on the flow of mass-migration to allow for reasonable screening prior to entry and required assimilationist policies afterward will help. By assimilationist, I do not simply mean language or superficial cultural norms like banning headscarves but economic as well. Ending the bizarrely irrational restrictions on labor mobility by abolishing the anticapitalist EU or national regulations that keep Muslim immigrants poor and on welfare will do more to bring them into the European mainstream than anything else.
So, no I do not think the Core rule-sets are inherently self-defeating. Properly enforced, they are powerful nonzero sum engines of societal dynamism, systemic economic growth and human creativity. I think the real problem is that a part of our Western elite a priori rejects the capitalist-liberal democratic rule-set and would so much like to see it be replaced by something considerably more authoritarian that they indirectly abet those who would attempt its destruction. ¶ 8:45 PM
Jeff Medcalf at Caerdroia posed some arch questions regarding the validity of some key ideas in Dr. Barnett's PNM theory yesterday:
"How does PNM handle the collapse or approaching collapse of rules-sets in core nations? The flow of people from the gap to the core is inherently going to bring gap rulesets — those travel in people's heads, after all — and this is already apparent in Britain, France, Spain, Italy, the Low Countries, Denmark and Norway. I suspect we'll see the same in Germany, soon, because they have the same demography/immigrant problem as the rest of Western Europe.
Once the gap rulesets have been imported into the core, can the core rulesets remain established, or are the core rulesets inherently self-defeating? And if they are inherently self-defeating, at least when confronted with a lower-order ruleset from the gap, what changes to the core rulesets (and hopefully there are some short of mass deportation or genocide) can be made to avert the consequences of a core ruleset collapse (the main consequence being moving from the core to the gap)?"
Good questions, all of them. Dan of tdaxp and Dave Schuler made their remarks at Caerdroia, my commentary follows.
First, in regard to the example of rioting Islamist thugs in Europe provided by The Belmont Club link, I would argue that the established rule-set is being undermined not merely by the Islamist thugs but by the local European -probably socialist - political elite that enabled the rioters by ordering the police to refrain from intervening. Of the two, the latter is the far greater threat to the integrity of the rule of law, representing not only moral cowardice but betrayal of the values of a liberal, democratic, open society.
I dealt with this very issue, albeit briefly, in an article on rule-set theory in Dr. Barnett's short-lived journal. We have between secular, democratic, Europe and the ghetto Islamist activists and "underclass" rioters of North African origin, a case of " value-rivalry". European states have the power to easily enforce compliance from the rioters or expel them but the political will to do so is another question. It is admittedly bad form to quote myself, but in this case, it fits:
"An explicit rule-set can be undermined by implicit rules and values that are antithetical, that encourage destructive behavior....Such a conflict is typical of a dysfunctional rule-set that characterizes a system in decline.
....To intentionally ignore criminal behavior as defined by law, to appease enemies, to fail to maintain order in the face of gross violations or violence may be a partial repudiation of the prevailing rule-set by the system's own leaders".
I doubt highly that what was behind the failure of will of the European officials in this case was exposure to the Sharia imported from the Gap so much as homegrown, irrationalist, European postmodernism mixed with a cynical personal opportunism that disconnects Euro-elites from their own countrymen. The problem of Western rule-set collapse can be found in the prevailing ideology of that part of the elite, political and cultural, who subscribe to the worldview of the New Left/'68ers/Crit theorists. A problem that is solved best by politically isolating, delegitimizing them and removing them from positions of power or influence via democratic elections so that common-sense policies may be enforced to defend society.
Secondly and more generally connectivity is indeed a two-way street as Jeff recognizes in his second paragraph, a point which also made by William Lind, the chief 4GW theorist, who would attempt to firewall off the Gap from the Core for that reason. That option really isn't feasible for a host of economic reasons related to energy, capital flows and geography though tightening up on the flow of mass-migration to allow for reasonable screening prior to entry and required assimilationist policies afterward will help. By assimilationist, I do not simply mean language or superficial cultural norms like banning headscarves but economic as well. Ending the bizarrely irrational restrictions on labor mobility by abolishing the anticapitalist EU or national regulations that keep Muslim immigrants poor and on welfare will do more to bring them into the European mainstream than anything else.
So, no I do not think the Core rule-sets are inherently self-defeating. Properly enforced, they are powerful nonzero sum engines of societal dynamism, systemic economic growth and human creativity. I think the real problem is that a part of our Western elite a priori rejects the capitalist-liberal democratic rule-set and would so much like to see it be replaced by something considerably more authoritarian that they indirectly abet those who would attempt its destruction. ¶ 8:45 PM
Comments:
<< Home
European states have the power to easily enforce compliance from the rioters or expel them but the political will to do so is another question.
..
"An explicit rule-set can be undermined by implicit rules and values that are antithetical, that encourage destructive behavior....Such a conflict is typical of a dysfunctional rule-set that characterizes a system in decline.
....To intentionally ignore criminal behavior as defined by law, to appease enemies, to fail to maintain order in the face of gross violations or violence may be a partial repudiation of the prevailing rule-set by the system's own leaders".
True, but remember that intentionally ignoring criminal behavior, and intentionally allowing some criminal behavior, are different. We are managing immigrant crime as well, as well as prostitution, various white collar crimes, and other deeds.
I agree with your larger point on EU authoritarianism. The EU elite may itself be wisely managing these crimes -- just for their own ends.
Dan tdaxp
..
"An explicit rule-set can be undermined by implicit rules and values that are antithetical, that encourage destructive behavior....Such a conflict is typical of a dysfunctional rule-set that characterizes a system in decline.
....To intentionally ignore criminal behavior as defined by law, to appease enemies, to fail to maintain order in the face of gross violations or violence may be a partial repudiation of the prevailing rule-set by the system's own leaders".
True, but remember that intentionally ignoring criminal behavior, and intentionally allowing some criminal behavior, are different. We are managing immigrant crime as well, as well as prostitution, various white collar crimes, and other deeds.
I agree with your larger point on EU authoritarianism. The EU elite may itself be wisely managing these crimes -- just for their own ends.
Dan tdaxp
Following up on dan's observation I think we need to distinguish between the recent demonstrations (with varying levels of violence) in Denmark and the United Kingdom which have a distinct Islamist cast and the riots this fall in France (and, to a lesser degree, elsewhere in Europe). I think that the evidence of Islamist motivations or leadership in the latter is very meager. These were, in my view, mostly just hooliganism and, possibly, a sign that France had abandoned some areas of its own country to their own devices—borne out by the high level of carfires in the country both before and after the riots. Indeed, this may reflect a difference in values but it's a difference between mainstream French values and hip-hop values.
"The flow of people from the gap to the core is inherently going to bring gap rule-sets — those travel in people's heads, after all —" Jeff Medcalf
True, they are bringing rule-sets with them but we need to understand what that means. Implicit rule-sets are potential energy. It is what causes movement. potential energy represents the proportional greatest amount of energy available in a movement of mass (immigration) but it also is the energy which is most easily influenced by the country to which the immigrant is moving to. These implicit rule-sets are most easily zeroed out by non destructive frequencies of the nation state that the immigrant is moving to. What it comes down to is this: can the nation-state maintain the trust of the immigrant. Is its laws legitimate to the rule-set that the immigrant observed when it created movement to the geophysical area of the world?
Another way of looking at this is: did the French react like the immigrants could reasonably expect if they trusted the government of France to react to their implicit laws. If their trust was broken then it would not be unreasonable to presume that the nation-state of France was in violation of their own implicit laws. This would mean that the government of France was not a legitimate government. If this was true then Anarchy must prevail.
If Anarchy did not prevail, then the government of France was a legitimate government. They have legitimate rule-sets that the immigrants can assume represents their needs and potentials for future needs carried over from previous rule-set that were unique to their culture. In other words, the French wanted them, the French needed them, and the French wanted them to become French.
Immigrants keep the government that they are moving to, honest. They represent an attack, not a destructive force. Protect me from a destructive force, not an attack.
True, they are bringing rule-sets with them but we need to understand what that means. Implicit rule-sets are potential energy. It is what causes movement. potential energy represents the proportional greatest amount of energy available in a movement of mass (immigration) but it also is the energy which is most easily influenced by the country to which the immigrant is moving to. These implicit rule-sets are most easily zeroed out by non destructive frequencies of the nation state that the immigrant is moving to. What it comes down to is this: can the nation-state maintain the trust of the immigrant. Is its laws legitimate to the rule-set that the immigrant observed when it created movement to the geophysical area of the world?
Another way of looking at this is: did the French react like the immigrants could reasonably expect if they trusted the government of France to react to their implicit laws. If their trust was broken then it would not be unreasonable to presume that the nation-state of France was in violation of their own implicit laws. This would mean that the government of France was not a legitimate government. If this was true then Anarchy must prevail.
If Anarchy did not prevail, then the government of France was a legitimate government. They have legitimate rule-sets that the immigrants can assume represents their needs and potentials for future needs carried over from previous rule-set that were unique to their culture. In other words, the French wanted them, the French needed them, and the French wanted them to become French.
Immigrants keep the government that they are moving to, honest. They represent an attack, not a destructive force. Protect me from a destructive force, not an attack.
# posted by 
: Saturday, 18 February, 2006
: Saturday, 18 February, 2006
There are two competing rule sets in the West: socialist democracy and liberal democracy. Socialists have been very successful over the past several decades at deligitimizing the Western civilization, the achievements of liberalization and undermining liberal principles. Islamists are now taking advantage of this situation. The principles recently under attack by Islamists, freedom of speech and press, are liberal principles not socialist principles. The weak response throughout the West in defense of these principles is a testament to the success of socialism. We can't be successful at "shrinking the Gap" unless liberal democracy defeats socialism here in the West. "Shrinking the Gap" is not a matter of establishing just any random rule set, but a rule set that can actually foster connectivity and the only rule set that can do that is liberal democracy.
"...the evidence of Islamist motivations or leadership in the latter is very meager. These were, in my view, mostly just hooliganism..."
It doesn't really matter whether it was one or the other, the consequences are the same. The fact that France was powerless to stop the riots and that there was fear of Islamist influence whether they were actually involved or not is a success for the Islamists. If they weren't involved then they were able to terrorize without doing anything. The logical conclusion that the Islamists will draw is that the West is ripe for toppling, after all, if they are unwilling to even defend themselves against hooligans, then they don't stand a chance against the brave warriors of Allah.
"...the evidence of Islamist motivations or leadership in the latter is very meager. These were, in my view, mostly just hooliganism..."
It doesn't really matter whether it was one or the other, the consequences are the same. The fact that France was powerless to stop the riots and that there was fear of Islamist influence whether they were actually involved or not is a success for the Islamists. If they weren't involved then they were able to terrorize without doing anything. The logical conclusion that the Islamists will draw is that the West is ripe for toppling, after all, if they are unwilling to even defend themselves against hooligans, then they don't stand a chance against the brave warriors of Allah.
# posted by : Saturday, 18 February, 2006
: Saturday, 18 February, 2006
There are two competing rule sets in the West: socialist democracy and liberal democracy. Socialists have been very successful over the past several decades at deligitimizing the Western civilization, the achievements of liberalization and undermining liberal principles. Islamists are now taking advantage of this situation.
This American Righty delusion.
Social Democracy is hardly "socialist" per se - I leave aside the empty assertion of 'only two rule sets' as I find the entire paradigm ridiculous - and the assertion of 'delegitimising' Western civilisation is mere paranoia.
The principles recently under attack by Islamists, freedom of speech and press, are liberal principles not socialist principles.
Nor Statist proposals. Although it seems to escape Americans, European political tradition does not break out as Right=small state / Left=big State.
Europe has a robust right wing statist tradition, which is certainly illiberal, but not socialist.
Shoe horning Europe (or other places) into American obsessions usually results in strange distortions like this comment.
Mind you, I am a fan of economic and social liberalsm and not a fan of statism, but ignorant blithering on about 'socialism' like this is annoying.
The weak response throughout the West in defense of these principles is a testament to the success of socialism.
This comment is a testament to the commentor's ignorance of European political history.
The fact that France was powerless to stop the riots and that there was fear of Islamist influence whether they were actually involved or not is a success for the Islamists.
French authorities did eventually bring an end to the riots, and fear of Islamist influence was almost exclusively among mono-lingual over-heated American commentators who convinced themselves the riots were Muslim driven, when in fact they included large numbers (sometimes majority) of non-Muslim African "immigrants" (2nd, 3rd generation suburban youth).
There was no "success" based on this ignorant supposition, although there may be successes in the future if the Islamists succeed in organising the angry youth (Muslim or not) in the suburbs who continue to face severe discrimination in a disfunctional job market.
It is a story of the disfunction of statist employment markets though.
If they weren't involved then they were able to terrorize without doing anything.
Nice story, if it had anything to do with the actual riots. However, it doesn't.
The logical conclusion that the Islamists will draw is that the West is ripe for toppling, after all, if they are unwilling to even defend themselves against hooligans, then they don't stand a chance against the brave warriors of Allah.
There isn't any such conclusion, but then the Islamists who would be concerned - largely from Maghrebine networks - know the real weaknesses of the French system, as well as its strengths including the breaking of the mid-90s groups with methodical efficiency.
I really wish US paraniods would learn not to spout off about things they know little about.
This American Righty delusion.
Social Democracy is hardly "socialist" per se - I leave aside the empty assertion of 'only two rule sets' as I find the entire paradigm ridiculous - and the assertion of 'delegitimising' Western civilisation is mere paranoia.
The principles recently under attack by Islamists, freedom of speech and press, are liberal principles not socialist principles.
Nor Statist proposals. Although it seems to escape Americans, European political tradition does not break out as Right=small state / Left=big State.
Europe has a robust right wing statist tradition, which is certainly illiberal, but not socialist.
Shoe horning Europe (or other places) into American obsessions usually results in strange distortions like this comment.
Mind you, I am a fan of economic and social liberalsm and not a fan of statism, but ignorant blithering on about 'socialism' like this is annoying.
The weak response throughout the West in defense of these principles is a testament to the success of socialism.
This comment is a testament to the commentor's ignorance of European political history.
The fact that France was powerless to stop the riots and that there was fear of Islamist influence whether they were actually involved or not is a success for the Islamists.
French authorities did eventually bring an end to the riots, and fear of Islamist influence was almost exclusively among mono-lingual over-heated American commentators who convinced themselves the riots were Muslim driven, when in fact they included large numbers (sometimes majority) of non-Muslim African "immigrants" (2nd, 3rd generation suburban youth).
There was no "success" based on this ignorant supposition, although there may be successes in the future if the Islamists succeed in organising the angry youth (Muslim or not) in the suburbs who continue to face severe discrimination in a disfunctional job market.
It is a story of the disfunction of statist employment markets though.
If they weren't involved then they were able to terrorize without doing anything.
Nice story, if it had anything to do with the actual riots. However, it doesn't.
The logical conclusion that the Islamists will draw is that the West is ripe for toppling, after all, if they are unwilling to even defend themselves against hooligans, then they don't stand a chance against the brave warriors of Allah.
There isn't any such conclusion, but then the Islamists who would be concerned - largely from Maghrebine networks - know the real weaknesses of the French system, as well as its strengths including the breaking of the mid-90s groups with methodical efficiency.
I really wish US paraniods would learn not to spout off about things they know little about.
# posted by : Saturday, 18 February, 2006
: Saturday, 18 February, 2006
To be trashed by Collounsbury is certainly an honor. But I am a bit disappointed. Where are the insults and the cursing? There's not even a single "bloody". I've been waiting a long time to be insulted by the master and all I get is "ignorant" and "paranoid"? Come on, don't I at least rate a "bloody daft"? I think I deserve the full, patented Collounsbury Treatment.
# posted by : Sunday, 19 February, 2006
: Sunday, 19 February, 2006
This is a kinder, gentler Collounsbury, Phil.
I thik Phil's point about " delegitimization" probably refers to the Deconstructionist/Pomo/'68er intellectual critique, though that argument actually goes back further to the 1930's with Spengler and Heidegger - which of course exemplifies Col's point about European Right-wing, illiberal, statism.
The two groups, while not exactly embracing each other warmly, have fed off of each other's arguments when attacking bourgeois democratic liberalism. Heidegger in particular bridges extreme Right and Left having been both an enthusiastic Nazi and in his old age, an admirer of the American New Left.
Social Democrats had no problem in angrily confronting the illiberal Right but often became tongue-tied with the illiberal Left and still do, even when that Left bashed them as " social fascists" and other nonsense. And today also with radical Islamism, though for slightly different reasons.
What we would call economic liberalism or moderate libertarianism does exist in continental politics ( ex. German Free Democrats) but it isn't very robust as a political force. Then again, in a parliamentary system you can leverage relatively small slices of the electoate into influence.
Let us hope this comment sticks.
I thik Phil's point about " delegitimization" probably refers to the Deconstructionist/Pomo/'68er intellectual critique, though that argument actually goes back further to the 1930's with Spengler and Heidegger - which of course exemplifies Col's point about European Right-wing, illiberal, statism.
The two groups, while not exactly embracing each other warmly, have fed off of each other's arguments when attacking bourgeois democratic liberalism. Heidegger in particular bridges extreme Right and Left having been both an enthusiastic Nazi and in his old age, an admirer of the American New Left.
Social Democrats had no problem in angrily confronting the illiberal Right but often became tongue-tied with the illiberal Left and still do, even when that Left bashed them as " social fascists" and other nonsense. And today also with radical Islamism, though for slightly different reasons.
What we would call economic liberalism or moderate libertarianism does exist in continental politics ( ex. German Free Democrats) but it isn't very robust as a political force. Then again, in a parliamentary system you can leverage relatively small slices of the electoate into influence.
Let us hope this comment sticks.
Well, my narcotics are dulling my sense of style.
It remains the case that American political bloggers are bloody clueless when mumbling on about foreign political dynamics - and while perhaps that is instructive as to Americans general structural ignorance w respect to other political traditions, it also is sadly leading many astray.
Post a Comment
It remains the case that American political bloggers are bloody clueless when mumbling on about foreign political dynamics - and while perhaps that is instructive as to Americans general structural ignorance w respect to other political traditions, it also is sadly leading many astray.
# posted by : Sunday, 19 February, 2006
: Sunday, 19 February, 2006<< Home
