Moldbug in using the idea of sov corp and the premise of financial profit and capital accumulation as an overall purpose for the state took his political theory into an area which has been closed off by Liberalism. This can of worms works along the lines of the following simple premise: I (or any agent within society) act in relation to agent B, but both of our actions have to be orientated to the profitability of the sov corp. There are therefore at least three loci in this: agent A, agent B and the sovereign organisation. The number of agents may go on indefinitely, but the one constant is the sovereign organisation. This opens up into a realm of political thinking which is alien to modernity.
Once this avenue of thinking is opened up, then you enter into rejection of liberalism, rejection of economics above all else, rejection of self governance and individual sovereignty, rejection of universalism and rejection of relativism etc.
Moldbug reached this through the prism of Austrian economics, which lends some credence to Barghest’s claims here that economics is a avenue through which communication can occur (though I have serious reservation about vast tracts of that post.) But is this usage of finance as a stand in for the ultimate purpose of the state sufficient? It certainly helps to lead one towards the acceptance of the need for a state with a direction, as can be seen here, here and here but it is limited, and is not compelling for libertarians. The retaining of Liberal anthropology allows for them to remain in fantasy land, and then regression to utopian free trade-ism.
So, is the profit motive of the sov corp a sufficient organizing principle within which the actions of those who make up the society of the sov corp can have coherence? I do not think it is at all, but making the leap to rejecting the liberal concept of the state as a self effacing safe zone provider for “enlightened self interest,” makes this initial thought process invaluable. All actions as noted by Aristotle long ago, are subsumed by the political, the Enlightenment rejection of this has been an unmitigated disaster.
Rejection of this thought process leads to a regression to Libertarianism and all of the errors of liberalism. Acceptance of this process leads to necessary rejection of vast tracts of liberalism which clearly make no sense, and leads us into exotic areas in which true progress in political theory can move forward.
MacIntyre has been following this process of thought from the angle of ethics, noting that relativism and universalism are concepts which make sense only from the concept of the Enlightenment project to base ethics and morality on grounds which are not based on specific political structures, and without reference to a reality to which the success, or failure of traditions such as Liberalism et al can be measured. For example, whilst different tradition may approach the issue of womens place in society in differing ways, they can be judged against each other by how they succeed in their claims by their own logic. Has Liberalism achieved its claims? if no, then this sets off an epistemology crisis for that tradition, and justifies its alteration or rejection for another tradition.
As I quoted in this post, this is an Aristotlean (and Thomistic) position, in which the actions of those in society are only comprehensible in relation to their ends, and these ends are only comprehensible in relation to the greater ends these serve. Remove the ultimate end of the state, and you have an equation which keeps pumping out an error message.
Does this now make sense?