Neurocracy – What the Fuck is This?

Insertion: I realized I can define this rather simply, so I made this short insertion. One of the dictionary definitions of property is synonymous with quality, trait, characteristic, feature and attribute. A thing or person owns these properties, but one might as well say that these properties are part of that thing or person or that a person or thing is equal to the sum of those properties. This means replacing ‘has’ with ‘is’. What the text underneath spells out is simply that what you ‘are’ I would consider to be justified property, but you can’t claim to own anything that is beyond what you are. Taking something that is external to yourself would thus be akin to stealing.

Neurocracy consists of an ontological foundation, an epistemological foundation, a moral foundation, a moral principle and an economic system.

I believe the world is entirely physical and that there is no metaphysical (free) will.

The epistemological foundation is that of relativism and that science is the best method for knowledge in lack of an absolute truth. All things grow from the bottom up, even the Big Bang might be just a local bulge in the fabric of energy. There is no objective justification for formal top-down hierarchies like theism, monarchy or other institutions of privilege. Neurocracy is therefore also part of the philosophy of anarchism, which is part of socialism.

The moral foundation is the value, however relative, of sentient beings; their thoughts, their feelings, their neurons and the environment with which they interact. Private property, however relative, is defined by this moral. This is therefore part of the philosophy of liberalism.

The moral principle is based on the former two foundations, relativism and neurological property. The principle is that of compromise, as outlined in my blog post on anarcho-pacifism. This principle extends liberalism towards pacifism and egalitarianism, completing the two-pronged circular movement in anarcho-socialism.

The economic system is based on this extended liberalism, relativism and neurological property. The system is a gift economy with no ownership beyond the compromised neurological property. This is not a socialist economy, but something even grander (let’s call it… neuronomics. Or how about proper economy.)

I think disposable property is a useful phrase here and whether alone or in combination with the ideas of no property and neuro-property, I think a new term might be practical. Regardless of terminology, property means owning and belonging, which is clearly distinct from being. While we are our nervous system, all other things are secondary/separable/disposable/alienable belongings. This means that either real property is reduced to being and false property means having, or property is confined to having while being is not property, in which case there is no property at all in neurocracy. The terms personal property for being and private property for having would also work, but I’m not sure what’s best to do here.

What about neuroprostheses like a cochlia implant? Well, once fused with the nervous system, the prosthesis becomes part of being, but cognitive distribution, like having a library at arm’s length, isn’t inseparable from being and the grey area is covered by the compromise principle. The same would apply to a scenario where your brain is plugged into a virtual reality.

Another possible term for neurocracy is anarcho-symbiosis. In the end I believe neuroproperty is the best term for the type of property this economy is based on.

To further detail things:

Anarchism in this system entails no power hierarchies, no formal laws, only advisory rules and organically grown, bottom-up organizations in line with syndicalism, direct democracy, voluntaryism et cetera.

Emotionism in this system entails what I termed neurological property, usage-based economy, viewing the physical environment of the nervous system as interchangeable means to an end.

Compromise in this system means the maximum amount of personal freedom, no predetermined rules but only situation-unique solutions. It is a principle, but by its nature does not require people to adhere to it for it to work.

P.S. I found this comparison between capitalism and communism and thought I’d define neurocracy by its placement in relation to these and I also added social democracy (the Scandinavian state socialist version). I’ve simplified it slightly.

Capitalism:

  • Government is an elected elite
  • Property is private
  • Wealth distributed unevenly
  • Focus is on the accomplishments of the individual
  • People need freedom
  • When people compete against one another, they achieve greater things
  • Some people have more than others because they make better use of their abilities
  • Governments should not interfere with the rights of individuals to make their own living

Communism:

  • Government is totalitarian
  • Property is owned by the state
  • Wealth distributed equally
  • Focus is on the progress of the community as a whole
  • People need one another
  • When people work together as equals, they achieve greater things
  • No-one should have more than anyone else – everybody’s needs are equally important
  • Governments should make sure that everyone’s needs are being met

Neurocracy:

  • Government is anarchist, organized bottom-up
  • Property is limited to what you are
  • Wealth is limited to what you are, thus slightly unevenly distributed
  • Focus is on common achievements but only for the sake of individual well-being
  • People need a compromise between personal freedom and the external milieu
  • When people work more or less together by free organization, they achieve the most
  • Everybody doesn’t need the same things and can’t achieve the same things, but everyone has the same right to need a thing and the same right to attempt an achievement.
  • Government should organize the economy, or facilitate logistics, and solve disputes, preferably at the lowest level, which means between two individuals

Social democracy:

  • Government is an elected elite
  • Some property is private, some is public
  • Some of the unevenly distributed wealth is redistributed to some of those in need
  • Focus is on maintaining a historically and continually produced balance
  • Some people need freedom and work better alone, some people need other people (this attitude is ad-hoc, stemming not from a philosophical origin, but from the focus on maintaining the status quo by rolling with the punches alternately thrown by various individuals, social groups, institutions, lobby organizations etc.)
  • Government writes the law and upholds the law by a monopoly on violence
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: