I’m going to continue the thought experiment of what a government would have to look like to both maximize social liberalism and minimize inceldom. My efforts include mostly looking at gift economies.
I’m mostly disappointed browsing examples of historical gift economies
Which the previous atomic pill was too dependent on. Every description I read of a gift economy just sounds like an under-the-table market economy. In that you exchange gifts for social status or land. That’s not a god damn gift economy, yo.
The “gift economies” that have been put in practice in the past had a poor track record as far as inceldom, as the vast majority of men did not reproduce prior to birth of civilization. Not that civilization was a panacea either as there were periods during civilization where this reproductive skew was even worse for men.
It may not be possible to have a gift economy where people’s needs are met without higher enforcement to keep the gift economy from having these subtle forms of market dynamics that pre-civilization had (exchanging meat for sex etc). Even Charles Fourier had *rules* and *enforcement* or culture in his phalanxes. So I am updating the atomic pill.
The ideal society for incels would involve a constitutional monarchy to enforce the three things needed to make it so incels don’t emerge. That is by making it so women can’t select along looks, money, and status. Here are those three things which would be etched into the constitution:
1. The monarchy would enforce income equality to reduce female selection of men based on money.
There have been a few centrists who have criticized income inequality measures from guys like Bernie Sanders as, “issues only for men”. The implication being that reducing income inequality only matters for men because it reduces intra-sexual male competition, or at least that’s how I hear those people. After all, you can just make everyone wealthier to combat poverty. Income inquality IS MOSTLY ABOUT MALE INTRASEXUAL COMPETITION.
2. The monarchy would enforce Jante Law to reduce female selection based on social status.
Jante law goes as follows:
You’re not to think you are anything special.
You’re not to think you are as good as we are.
You’re not to think you are smarter than we are.
You’re not to imagine yourself better than we are.
You’re not to think you know more than we do.
You’re not to think you are more important than we are.
You’re not to think you are good at anything.
You’re not to laugh at us.
You’re not to think anyone cares about you.
You’re not to think you can teach us anything
I think that takes care of reducing perceived differences in male (and even female) status.
3. The monarchy would enforce androgyny and nutrition standards to reduce female selection based on sexual dimorphism, and thus looks.
Now this doesn’t take care of all female selection based on looks. It doesn’t do much for incels with genetic diseases. But those are such a small portion of the population, and such a small population of incels, we can forget about them, or just provide them a volunteer corps of hookers or something if they make a big fuss about things.
Below the monarchy it would just be social liberalism all the way down.
So outside those enforcements, people could do whatever the hell they want. You could call it a gift economy I guess, but whatever it is, it’s 100% social liberalism outside of the monarchy. Which would mean much more freedom than people currently enjoy.
Disclaimer: There could also be a separate provision in the monarchy for a separate community where sexual dimorphism is enforced, for those with particularly masculine and feminine brains. But that would be a bit of a more brutal monarchy than the one that enforces androgyny, as sexual dimorphism involves violence, so there’d have to be provision in the monarchy that keeps violence within reason, in the sexually dimorphic community, in such a way that keeps it from being a threat to the andrygynous community. For example, the sexually dimorphic community could be in a graphene fortress that wouldn’t allow them to exit and pillage the peaceful andro community.
What about democracy?
There would be no democracy, because democracy is a bad deal for incels, as shown historically. So it would be a constitutional monarchy, with a system of legal assassination to keep the monarch in check. Here’s how it would work.
It would be in the constitution, and taught to children, that it would be ok to assassinate the monarch if he goes against the constitution. Power would then be transferred to nearest relative, except in cases of familial assassination, in which case the family must all be tortured for x time by the citizens before returning to power. There would also be penalties for frivolous assassinations.