Where did I say that Moldbug is not a consequentialist political philosopher? I only ever intended to argue that Moldbug is proposing a system that brings other people into slave morality, because his system does not preserve the independence of disciples. Rawls believes he can convince other rational theorists to converge on his system, (a cornerstone of his theory) whereas Nozick's attacking style is like, "Does adopting position A, B, or ... generate the least bullshit results?" repeated over and over. Compare these two analytic philosophers to Moldbug's approach. If someone whose ideals differ even slightly from Moldbug's reads his actual arguments and agrees with them straight up, that man thereby enslaves himself to another's dreams. But you're the one who's taken philosophy classes, so I probably expressed myself badly.

Game theory does not necessarily ask you to subordinate some of your ends to other ends. If you ask game theory to maximize ends A, B and C, and the results negate your other ends D, E and F that you did not tell game theory about, then you can't blame game theory because GIGO. The more ends you tell game theory about, the better the quality of its output.

hence "what may appear to be"

apparently it is a debated issue whether nietzsche advocated master morality or not, i am not sure how much of this is real and how much of it is that nietzsche scholars are librul civet-felchers

brian leiter gently inserts a wee baby civet into his gaping asshole whilst moaning, "lock 'em all up! lock 'em all up!"

So Moldbug may appear to be hijacking your utility function, but... what, exactly? To be charitable, Moldbug says he doesn't really want disciples but independent thinkers only. He's providing geeks with parts to build formalist ideologies for themselves. (Does every worthy formalist geek get hired as an expert for a different city?) But it is also a fact that he pleads with his readers to mortify their will to power and support the state, etc, but maybe he's just being dramatic for the lulz. That kind of thing?

Note that I'm not necessarily saying Moldbug's theories are shit, just that his arguments are by and large shit. There might be better arguments with which to bridge other people's oughts onto Moldbug's ideals, but that's not likely to interest him. His favorite arguments seem to involve firepower because convincing other people gives the game away to universalists, right? He just wants to be left alone as an absolute slavemaster in his own little corner of the world with the chance to out-compete everyone else. I'm not sure I'd like to see that happen for a million obvious reasons involving self-defense alone. (Assuming Moldbug is right that his splendid efficiency will soon spawn imitations worldwide, etc.)

I recall Nietzsche being extremely disgusted with everyone and their sniveling intention-based thinking, so I suppose he would've been less disappointed if they had been more hardheaded about taking what will satisfy them. If this does not imply some form of consequentialism, then the people Nietzsche loves would be rather pathetic, because they'll want a lot of things, but they'll get them less often.

So again, Moldbug wants his slaves anyway. He doesn't want them through argument, but by force.

(Unless all you meant is that Moldbug is shortsighted or something... Oh, if you were saying that liberal-type thinkers have deluded themselves into thinking game theory dictates certain stances are rational when in reality they've sacrificed certain ends to others, well, everyone is aware of this potential problem, and this objection is not always valid. Sometimes people just haven't thought things through. Everyone has to figure out where their priorities lie. But yes, it's better to treat arguments that try to connect ends to each other as tentative suggestions rather than absolute commandments. "I think you should do X because Y" instead of "Thou shalt X." You can always counter this kind of advice with "Yes, but that works against my priority Z." up to arbitrary levels of complexity. Nevertheless, sometimes people are just confused, or haven't considered the ramifications of their ideas.)