What's Good for the Goose is...

As I mentioned last post, it seems the American, (and to some extent the general Western) ideal of equality under the law is reforming, or at least under pressure to reform.

MULTI-LEVEL FRAMING

Equality under the law and as a social contract can, from a multi-level selection lens, both be seen as a necessary condition for inter-dependency / coordination / conflict minimization and as a limiter for each of those. These conditions are of course the main factors required to stabilize selection at a higher level. Equality basically ensures there is no gamesmanship. Everyone, in theory, gets treated equal.

Yet, you wouldn't think your brain needs the same amount of energy as your skin? Both are organs, but some organs are more equal than others. Thus, at some point selection at higher levels requires specialization. That's one way of viewing todays lukewarm civil war. The American social contract no longer works. Specialization is required to prevent structural issues from solidifying different classes of life.

But, ironically, this position seems to occur by solidifying Orwell's famous quip "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". System rules against the solidification of caste are being asked to be broken by solidifying a new type of intersectionalized caste.

The rub seems to be the grift that occurs in elite allies and elite allied leaders. This comedy bit highlights this issue - are protests for Black Lives Matter and against the President alright in a Covid world? If so, what about protest for All Lives Matter and for the President / against a politically-moralized priest caste?

Tim Pool takes a long time to get at these same ideas. He is very concerned about the implications of two-sided standards where the government clearly provides immunity for one politicized side.

It seems inevitable that if society can't solve issues of protracted disparities in outcomes, either operation at this level of selection must stop, or the system itself will stumble into untested experimental remedies. The probability of stumbling into something sustainable is very low. The probability of breaking into smaller more cohesive units is very strong, especially in a world with few major existential threats that require operation at a higher level to survive.

Climate change and open borders can be seen as one attempt of the system to frame things for selection at a higher level. But, despite the new priest class' exhortations that the world will end, the threats are just not credible at an "organize or die" level of immediacy.

IMPLICATIONS

It was always certain that excusing rioters from Covid critiques was going to end lockdowns one way or another. People are now free to ignore what they don't like. That leaves local governance in an awkward position about enforcement. Will they go down the one-sided enforcement trap? Probably. But a demoralized police system may have little energy to attack their historic supporters (like churches, Trumpers, and small business owners).

This energized system makes a whole bunch of trigger points possible. For instance, imagine Trump decides to hold some rallies in key states where the governor or mayor has TDS. Let's imagine Governor Whitmer in Michigan gets mad about a Trump rally. She works with her ally mayor in Detroit to prevent Trump from selling a "Trump is for black business" line and they decide to ticket everyone in line.

There will be some angry people, but that is fine. I don't imagine many people will give their name, so the police will be forced to decide if they arrest some as a show of force. I imagine they will have to... "for law and order".

Now the Trump supporters see themselves as singled out in their protest movement. Who will protect them from incarceration next time? Well, violence worked for the rioters, so maybe instead of physical violence, you get a number of militia folk, putting up a similar wall of pressure, albeit with a quiet 2A show of force. Militia folk, especially people of colour, now guard the perimeter. What will the police do?

Now things are at such powder keg levels. There is near certainty that the protest dynamic of a Trump rally energizes this demographic in the same way BLM protests energize other demographics. The application of governmental force to shut them down (or fine them) is equivalent to the police shutting down BLM protests. The lack of violence at the Trump rallies will accentuate feelings of oppression. So while you can say Trump ralliers aren't oppressed like minorities, it will not feel that way to them.

Will Trump no call in a national guard to protect his ralliers from a politically controlled police? Under Whitmer, no. But under a Republican governor who is going to get voted out due to a Democratic Mayor's? Probably. What about Trump using a federal force to protect his rallies and ensure peace? That sounds a lot like what happened down in the south during the civil right's era. I would weigh that possibility as very likely. It is the natural landscape trap for this space.

Both sides will feel incredibly aggrieved, and both sides will be highly energized. Polarization is certain.