[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 971



File: 1470472618919.png (274.69 KB, 221x300, judge dredd.jpg)

No.971

I'm not particularly caring to label myself or my ideas, politically, as labels almost invariably lead to concessions to stay under a certain umbrella term. It can also lead to arguing about a definition, rather than the actual ideas.

This is a thread for discussing the philosophy that the average citizen is not qualified to give their opinion in government or influence the operations of such in any meaningful way, asides from, perhaps, criticisms or other notes that need not be given any weight by those commanding the operation.

It is my opinion that a society led by those able to care and excel at leading societies can perform better than those ruled by the tyranny of the majority. Ideally, this means the well-educated and mentally gifted would rule society in the best way they can.

With that written, these ideas don't exclude democracy, nor do they cause a large and invasive government. I believe Democracy works best with small groups, as opposed to groups composed of millions. Democracy is a very valuable tool among those in charge to help settle disagreements, but I don't believe it should be the rule; someone should still have complete control for when important or quick decisions must be made.

Military strategies may be debated, but they are not democratic, merely advisory. I would consider anything else foolish.

A government as described above need not be oppressive either, although we seem to live in a time where increasingly insignificant acts are labeled as oppression.

With this written, many free societies operate on the idea that any possible action won't be taken.

With all of this said, let's discuss and refine this idea now.

  No.972

So how would you stop tyranny by the elite?

  No.975

>>972
>So how would you stop tyranny by the elite?
You don't, and that's kind of the point.

Anyways OP, I always thought a benevolent dictatorship or monarchy would be the best way to rule a country, provided they actually care about people and not just themselves. And since they would have the best interests of the people in mind, it would be a generally free society, but things like laws and regulations would be done by the Ruler instead of congress or what have you. Sounds a lot better than lobbyists selling their votes for cash, at least to me.

This is never going to happen though, but it's nice to think about. Someone with a concrete plan guiding his people to prosperity is the kind of shit you read about in fantasy books.

  No.977

>>972
That's not desirable in this system.

>>975
Luckily, monarchies seem to generally have vested interests in their countries.

One of the worst aspects of popular democracy is how it reduces citizenship to a vote, for the most part. Politicians don't seem to care, until it's time to get your vote. Eliminating a power struggle is a good way to have more focus on the future. Policies don't need to be built in anticipation of successors. There are other advantages.

  No.981

>>971
What is the source of the rulers' authority? What is the point of ruling people and taking away their freedoms "for their own good"? Isn't it up to them to determine what their own good is? Why should the rulers care how they live their life?

  No.989

I share your opinion on political labels, but my thoughts are closer to anarcho-something.
The tyranny of the majority exists because people is politically dumbed down by most corporate information sources; in a system where the average citizen is educated, the state's management is done transparently, etc. the rulers wouldn't be educational tyrants of a majority that handles second-hand tyranny led by ignorance. Instead, you'd be able to set a better voting system (one that's not a boolean media-driven choice every four-six years) that lets the people participate meaningfully in the politicians' decisions.
Even then, I see problems. For example, a coup d'etat would let the country powerless because the citizens rely on a ruling class. Also the political interests of a capitalist society are opposite to the ones of the working class, take for example what >>977 said about monarchies having vested interests in their countries. In capitalism, exploitation of workers is good for the economy and other political interests of the country/state/society. Average citizens would push for acceptable work/life conditions and the rulers would do the opposite and hold onto the greater good/it's good for you argument. That's one of endless analogous examples.
You also take military for granted, not all countries are at war/on a war scare all the time. Actually the big majority aren't. Now, if your group of 'people able to care and excel at leading societies' is one that would send armed people to kill other societies' citizens, then I would disgregard your idea completely.

  No.991

>>989
This board has IDs. Observe that both of these posts are mine: >>971 >>977

>The tyranny of the majority exists because people is politically dumbed down by most corporate information sources; in a system where the average citizen is educated, the state's management is done transparently, etc. the rulers wouldn't be educational tyrants of a majority that handles second-hand tyranny led by ignorance. Instead, you'd be able to set a better voting system (one that's not a boolean media-driven choice every four-six years) that lets the people participate meaningfully in the politicians' decisions.

From what I've seen, democracy works better in Europe than the US, but European countries also have smaller populations. In a country of 310 million, 5 million people can all be very enthusiastic and make no effect on an election; that's the population of the entirety of Norway.

I like what you're writing, but I don't see how this works at scale and when much of the population has already been made politically ignorant.

>Even then, I see problems. For example, a coup d'etat would let the country powerless because the citizens rely on a ruling class.

I imagine people would try to revolt, if they didn't like the new government. Recall that my proposed model doesn't necessarily lead to an Orwellian nightmare.

>Also the political interests of a capitalist society are opposite to the ones of the working class, take for example what >>977 said about monarchies having vested interests in their countries. In capitalism, exploitation of workers is good for the economy and other political interests of the country/state/society. Average citizens would push for acceptable work/life conditions and the rulers would do the opposite and hold onto the greater good/it's good for you argument. That's one of endless analogous examples.

Would you go into more detail with this? I want to make certain I understand what you mean.

>You also take military for granted, not all countries are at war/on a war scare all the time. Actually the big majority aren't. Now, if your group of 'people able to care and excel at leading societies' is one that would send armed people to kill other societies' citizens, then I would disgregard your idea completely.

I believe some of the functions of a government are to protect its citizens and function as an interface for other governments.
This seems tangential to the discussion, but I don't consider foreigners to be very important in the context of a society in that a government doesn't necessarily need to care about them as it would its own citizens.

  No.996

>>991
>I imagine people would try to revolt, if they didn't like the new government.

an attempted revolt against an invading power is not always a successful one. See: Spanish Civil War.

>but I don't consider foreigners to be very important in the context of a society in that a government doesn't necessarily need to care about them as it would its own citizens.


not necessarily, but they definitely should.

  No.1006

>>991
>but I don't see how this works at scale
I think it doesn't. Noone can make good choices about matters that are so far up the social/political hierarchy (such as foreign policies, military interventionism, and other parts of a political campaign), and even if you do, you as a citizen have no say in extra-democratic entities spanned by capitalism (corporations, mostly) that have just as much social, political and economical power as governments, or in the resulting extra-democratic behavior that spans from these two issues.
And this works the other way around, politicians make decisions that impact the people's access to basic resources like food, water, education and shelter. Such decisions have led to the existence of a poor class that doesn't have access to said resources.

>much of the population has already been made politically ignorant.

And the politicians are ignorant and/or negligent about the lives of the lower classes.
That's how a hierarchical system ends up, in our case politics are made overly complicated if you compare them with the goals we're told they should archieve. Should we really need piles of law books and a big percentage of the population working as heavily armed enforcers of such books just to get along with eachother? The answer is affirmative only in a society with big societal gaps, where a person can be starving right next to a guy with a phone that costs a minimum wage, as one form of crime sparks in that gap.

>Would you go into more detail with this?

Paying less to the workers means more profit for a company. In a bigger scale, more profit for a country's companies is good for the economy, but draws back as a less consumerist working class. Thus, they decide to take the work to sweatshops in poorer countries where even more exploited workers work for less than a dollar a day. Such condition of countries is also a scaling up of the social gap and exists as a result of the same societal hierarchy that creates a class of poor people, and because international crime can spark in that gap you get the military to keep that from happening, and the more military you have, the more you can suck on other countries without them subverting. After this, you're left with less in-country jobs in the manufacture industry, and more jobs in other less socially conscious areas.

  No.1008

Thanks for this thread, lainon. I'm fucking tired of these anarchists/commies on my lawn.

>>1006
>Thus, they decide to take the work to sweatshops in poorer countries where even more exploited workers work for less than a dollar a day.
A country ruled by a benevolent dictator would likely tell corporations which do this to fuck off (at least going by fascist principles -- "It's bad for the country, therefore you won't do it"). Oswald Mosley [1], notable fascist (yes a real one), was against this sort of behaviour. I'd call this more a problem of globalism than exclusively capitalism.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NqG2lAojNQ

  No.1016

>>1008
>I'm fucking tired of these anarchists/commies on my lawn.
It's not just your lawn. :P
>A country ruled by a benevolent dictator would likely tell corporations which do this to fuck off
Mhm. Under fascism, corporations would be operating as state entities within the confines of the country's borders. The distinction between public and private are blurred; such is convenient for authoritarian regimes. You would have to treat corporations just as much as you would any other private citizen; the "corporations are people too" mantra was quite popular among italian fascists during the interwar period for instance. Notions of "fascist corporatism" were idealized; if you're familiar with anarchism from the era, then you'll be able to understand that it was essentially the culmination of a fascist take on syndicalism. It's one of the more interesting derivations of fascism in that it never quite reached its prime. I've always speculated this was because communications technology was still pretty limited in that regard which as a result, just like with the anarchists, amounted to much inefficiency in supplementing State power which is why it eventually devolved into bureaucracy by the end of the second world war.

Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism#Italy

  No.1024

>>1016
>Under fascism, corporations would be operating as state entities within the confines of the country's borders.

Whats the difference between this and just nationalizing everything under a Communist/Socialist government?

  No.1025

>>1024
because nationalization isn't the same thing as socialization. Socialization means that the community, including the workers themselves, take control over the industries, not necessarily with government input. Nationalization means that the workers just have new masters.

  No.1027

File: 1470551583105.png (165.66 KB, 200x200, flag_afaction_detail-d1c8638a.jpg)

PSA for the kiddos ITT: "authoritarianism" (or whatever bullshit label you want to slap onto it) is pretty much diametrically opposed to the entire fucking hacker ethos.

  No.1029

>>996
>an attempted revolt against an invading power is not always a successful one. See: Spanish Civil War.
I don't see how that necessarily matters when discussing government. Any government can fall.

>not necessarily, but they definitely should.

I agree, for purposes of national security and whatnot.

>>1006
I mostly intended for you to go into more detail with this:
>That's one of endless analogous examples.

Regardless, I don't think capitalism is quite so dreary. It has its issues, as everything else does, but it seems to work relatively well. It certainly is an issue that companies are allowed to become pseudo-countries and leech.

>>1027
>PSA for the kiddos ITT: "authoritarianism" (or whatever bullshit label you want to slap onto it) is pretty much diametrically opposed to the entire fucking hacker ethos.
It's funny that you've entirely sidestepped actually pointing out what that is. That's very convenient for you.

As it stands, hacking is a generally fun activity of playful inventiveness and thought. I don't understand why you think these concepts are incompatible.

Similarly to how the FSF provides software to individuals with no hope of ever modifying it, a society as I've described can maintain a generally very free and happy atmosphere, even with most people having no hope of contributing. Those able would be strongly encouraged by those already in power to contribute in the best way they can.

This is very similar to how a Free Software project generally only accepts good submissions. Anything else would almost inevitably very quickly lead to a program that wouldn't work or even compile.

  No.1030

The problem is it assumes a level of benevolence it cannot assure. Sure, having an actually benevolent leader or small group thereof is great. There's a single good plan, everyone's on the same page and working together but for every Charlemange there's a Nero.

The real question is how do we choose these leaders? Their predecessors pick them? People will pick their friends and kids. For a while they might even have a point. They'll have raised their kids to be good for the role, introduced them to the other leaders and taught them their duty as best they could. Generations will pass and they will forget their duty. You'll have a group of spoiled brats who scoff at noblesse oblige. We've done this before.

  No.1031

This is just some impotent daydreaming about finding a perfect daddy who will solve all your problems. Let's face it, even if you somehow find one who is tolerable, you cannot guarantee that their successor won't ruin everything they've built up.

I just can't imagine why would any sane person want a system with a central point of failure this incredibly huge, especially knowing that humans have a tendency to fail.

  No.1033

File: 1470571117428.png (353.84 KB, 200x200, glubb.pdf)

>>1016
I'm not so much familiar with Italian fascism as I am with British fascism ala Mosley. In this model, corporations are made (I assume back then corporation meant guild or something similar) to represent the facets of civilian life, from metalworkers to farmers to women to IT. The members of these corporations vote for someone from their corporation (i.e. the IT people vote for someone who knows their shit about IT) to take a seat in parliament; these MPs then advise the fascist government in their respective areas of expertise. This is done every 5 years as it is done today.

I find this to be quite an interesting model as it's rather democratic for fascism -- the most interestingly democratic choice being calling a national referenda after 10 years have passed since the fascist government comes to power, essentially asking "Should we continue?"

This model also has provisions for calling national referenda should a policy the government tries to enact be too controversial, e.g. TPP. It's interesting to think about, and it's unfortunate it never got its time in the limelight.

>>1030
Societies will collapse regardless of their political creed, often for the same internal reasons -- it's a Sisyphean question you ask. See pdf for citation.

  No.1036

>>1008
>I'm fucking tired of these anarchists/commies on my lawn.
You realize you're on Lainchan, right?

  No.1037

>>1029
>it seems to work relatively well
Indeed it works well for the high income classes relative to the low income classes. It doesn't work well as a whole because it doesn't work well for everyone. If Apple delayed the new IPhone one year it could use the development money to feed every starving person in the world for the year. I made up the example but there are similar examples that are fact. Capitalism is the maker and user of poverty.
I'm not trying to be offensive but you sound like you've never lived hungry or cold times, or had a loved one in that situation. I recommend travelling or getting in touch with people from some parts of the world that you had never heard of before.

  No.1038

>>1033
>Societies will collapse regardless of their political creed, often for the same internal reasons -- it's a Sisyphean question you ask. See pdf for citation.
In a large enough view yes. One day all of this will be dust but in the meantime it's a system with very little in the way of checks and balances and no regard for corruption. It's true that all civilizations rot but that doesn't mean you just ignore it inviting periods of decadence and bloody revolution.

  No.1039

>>1036
What is this supposed to mean?

>>1037
>Capitalism is the maker and user of poverty

That is an interesting perspective on capistlism and I agree with it. However, in your made-up example.. I'm curious about why a company should be expected to assist with developmental, social, or any other type of issues. Wouldn't a company's biggest responsibility be turning a maximized profit?

  No.1042

>>1037
>It doesn't work well as a whole because it doesn't work well for everyone. If Apple delayed the new IPhone one year it could use the development money to feed every starving person in the world for the year.
Why would it ever be the responsibility of a US company to care about everyone?

I support compelling companies to aid their host countries, anything else is usually parasitism.

Regardless, it's not a country's problem if other people in other countries are starving.

Citing a system as bad because everyone doesn't benefit is no different than criticizing genetics because some people are crippled or retarded.

  No.1047

>>1039
>>1042
I didn't mean Apple should do that, I was pointing out that they (and anyone else handling big amounts of money) can, as an act of kindness from human to human, moved by empathy. And it wouldn't be that bizarre if they did, given that the ones who benefit of capitalism do so at the expenses of those who take the worst part.
Governments can act like Apple did in my example too, entities like the UN can too, just like rich individuals. I can't wrap my head around how money desensitizes people. If I was the owner of Apple I would do as in my example, it's not a company's role, it's not the most profitable thing to do, but it saves lives.

>Regardless, it's not a country's problem if other people in other countries are starving.

Yes, power desensitizes people too.
Don't think counties, think people. People starving might not be Apple's problem, but it should be the problem of everyone involved (born) in a system that manages the access to basic needs (money) and in that system there's people holding more than they can expend in generations and people starving, separated by social and political borders that empathy can't cross. This is mostly because the flow of information and education about what happens across borders is managed by groups with interests related to the spread of said information.

  No.1049

>>1047
>I can't wrap my head around how money desensitizes people.
I don't understand why you believe all life is worth saving. A fairly basic idea necessary for this political structure is the acknowledgment that people are different and some are better than others, at least at different tasks.

>Don't think counties, think people.

That's the type of thinking that destroys countries. Whether you like it or not, people appear to very much enjoy being around similar people.

Altruism isn't necessarily bad, but it's very often taken advantage of. A country is far better off only caring about itself and any allies it has. No one else, asides from enemies, are relevant.

  No.1056

>>1049
We're polar opposites in political thought because we have opposite moral values, it's important that it's not the other way around because a socio-political system should exist to improve the lives of everyone involved or not exist at all.
One shouldn't forge one's morals about the wellbeing of people ofrom the ideas of a political structure, but the other way around.
>A fairly basic idea necessary for this political structure is the acknowledgment that people are different and some are better than others
That idea is not necessary, but created by a structure that forges not only politics and economics, but also the people's cultural and moral values. In this case, it tends to weaken empathic moral values while giving the illussion of providing stronger morals by racism, classism, etc. because it benefits from them.
I have a home and food because I was born in certain conditions, were I to be born in a poorer place I'd be starving, and I'd be the same person with the same human capabilities which are afterwards modified by the social system.

>Whether you like it or not, people appear to very much enjoy being around similar people.

That's relative to one's culture, experience, social status and environment, education and more factors. In my environment, what you say is not true.

You sound like >>1042 in
>Citing a system as bad because everyone doesn't benefit is no different than criticizing genetics because some people are crippled or retarded.
One difference between a social structure and genetics is that we created the social structure, and can change it.

  No.1060

>>1056
>We're polar opposites in political thought because we have opposite moral values, it's important that it's not the other way around because a socio-political system should exist to improve the lives of everyone involved or not exist at all.
That's an interesting approach. Why do you believe that's important?
I believe a political system intended for a population that leads to good lives for most involved individuals is probably the closest to achievable. This is why capitalism is acceptable, because most people are able to lead good lives under it.

>One shouldn't forge one's morals about the wellbeing of people ofrom the ideas of a political structure, but the other way around.

Why? Also, why do you get the impression that this proposed system isn't such?
Is acknowledging that people are better at doing certain things not good for the well-being of people? Do you hire a writer to fix your sink?

>I have a home and food because I was born in certain conditions, were I to be born in a poorer place I'd be starving, and I'd be the same person with the same human capabilities which are afterwards modified by the social system.

That's not necessarily true. A plant without water proper care will die and so will not be the same flower. We're very influenced by our environment, but this doesn't mean that our innate state doesn't matter.
If you didn't receive the same education, you wouldn't really be the same person. The early environment is important because it compounds.

>You sound like >>1042

Look at the IDs. I am that user. I'm also the OP, but my IP changed.

>One difference between a social structure and genetics is that we created the social structure, and can change it.

There's progress being made in changing a person's genetics. When that advances, will it become bad for some people to be genetically superior? Is that bad now?

The basis for the system is acknowledging that most people probably aren't fit to lead society, so they shouldn't be allowed to.

  No.1070

>>1060
>good lives for most involved individuals is probably the closest to achievable
It looks like it's hard to not have a billion of starving people, but as in the Apple example, it really is not.
Giving access to food producing and shelter building to everyone is perfectly doable and making everyone's lives better from that point is healthier and more stable growth that wouldn't lead to inequity-inspired violence (both interpersonal and intersocietal, and both poor-to-rich and rich-to-poor) along the way.

>Also, why do you get the impression that this proposed system isn't such?

So you based the system on your moral values. I explained in the above paragraph one reason why I disagree with them and that's the reason why I don't think authoritarianism is the best way and I've explained how I see that capitalism can make any power peak into a society-wide inequality that leads to violence.

>That's not necessarily true

I still disagree. We're all human, we're all capable of learning, developing and helping other humans just like we're all capable of dying of starvation and in ignorance. A social system in which you're born should make sure the former happens because anyone can follow both paths.

>The basis for the system is acknowledging that most people probably aren't fit to lead society, so they shouldn't be allowed to.

That's a byproduct narrative.
The basis for the system is that it should be made so that most people won't be allowed to change it or to challenge the power of thsocial class that's setting the system's basis.

  No.1196

utopians are met w\ realists...>>1070
>byproduct

  No.1212

>>1038
The point isn't to ignore it but to know that things will work for a time, but then turn to shit no matter what kinds of safeguards you have. How a leader is picked is irrelevant, really; what I think matters is that they're a strong one. There is no perfect way to guarantee Lee Kwuan-Yew tier leadership, though.

>>1039
He means this site may as well be an anarchist commune due to the majority of the userbase being filthy reds.

>>1037
I'm pretty darn poor and I don't blame capitalism for it, because it isn't capitalism's fault I'm poor. I'd also go so far as to say it's not exclusively why others are poor; usury saps away money from governments and people that could use that money to instead improve their situations.

  No.1217

>>1212
>The point isn't to ignore it but to know that things will work for a time, but then turn to shit no matter what kinds of safeguards you have.

So your solution is to not even try? That's awfully defeatist.

>He means this site may as well be an anarchist commune due to the majority of the userbase being filthy reds.


it's one of the reasons why I like it.

>because it isn't capitalism's fault I'm poor.


why are you poor then? Insufficient gumption? Not enough elbow grease? Just couldn't pull yourself up by your bootstraps, no matter how hard you pulled?

  No.1232

>>971
The fact that you use a comic book character to begin talking about your belief system shows just how little you actually understand about the world around you.

Read some actual stuff not comic books, try to broaden your horizons

  No.1288

It's like the weather. When there's too much freedom people crave order, when there's too much order people crave freedom.

Equating "muh hacker ethos" with random anarchism is so basic... I think it just means you pay attention. Why break the law unless it's in the way. Not worth the effort. Glorifying crime is for schoolkids and ethnics.

Have you ever noticed who seems excited and pleased over a muslim attack or some such event? It's not the leftists at all. They all trip over themselves to come up with hilarious ideas like censoring the names and faces of all terrorists (I really don't get this, people will just assume that all terrorists are muslims automatically). The only thing a state of lawlessness does is validate the far right. And it seems that most people realise this on some level too.

Somehow a storybook idea of "good and bad" got ingrained into people, probably through too much kosher media consumption. It's a luxury to get to think that way, all luxuries have to be paid for and not a lot of people can actually afford it. It's the people who are most used to luxury for their entire life that most easily take to the "I am a good person" fantasy and latch on to anything that seems to support it. It is ironic. It's OK to betray your own blood or whatever as long as you have the fashionable opinion about brown people the TV was advertising. It's completely self centered and never had anything to do with helping others in reality. That's what really gets to me about it. The fraudulence of it.

You know who are the ones convinced they will save the world? The people who eagerly failed themselves, their family, their town, their nation and their race. Mainly because of shit they saw on TV an read on tumblr. But sure, the world should be an easy target after all that.

  No.1289

File: 1471201042941.png (61.04 KB, 200x200, remi maleek hacker.jpg)

>>1288
>You know who are the ones convinced they will save the world? The people who eagerly failed themselves, their family, their town, their nation and their race. Mainly because of shit they saw on TV an read on tumblr
B-but I watched all those Mr. Robot episodes and his multicultural and anti-capitalistic message really struck a cord with me


Look at that dirty tumblr style pic montage with a smile
I can sense all those feminist girls that looked over this pic and got hot and bothered by thinking about destroying "DA SYSTEM MAYN"

  No.1295

>>1217
Workplace corruption at a co-worker level leaving my dad jobless and barred from his profession, if you must know. No corrupt bosses, no bankers getting us down, just assholes framing an innocent.

  No.2205

This discussion isn't due to die, yet.

  No.2209

>>971

You're not describing fascism. You're describing something along the lines of Plato's original republic. Or whatever government they have in star-ship troopers.

I hate to say it but there are some benefits to a 'limited franchise'. Especially in an organisation like a political party I think what is happening right now in the US is proof enough of that.

  No.2383

>>975
how do you stop the elite from abusing their power

  No.2386

>>975
my opinion on this though, is that thing is though once you get people in such a position of power, the rule is that eventually, they HAVE to become corrupted, even if the office is filled with people with good intentions. absolute centralized power, even if held by Christ himself, can't be wielded in a way that would allow such a society to function as a free and just society. things might not turn into the DPRK, but people are going to attempt to get the leadership to do things that place them in a position to exploit others for profit. only in a decentralized system, where no one has absolute power, can power not be exploited

  No.2398

>>2383
stop giving power to them

  No.2399

>>2398
this

  No.2400

philoshoper-king is a bullshit ideology.

You think the people that elected FDR are any better informed than the people today? Stupidity is relative and on average people are more intelligent and have access to more information than any time in history.

I think helping advance this trend will continue to produce more accountable governments.

  No.2402

>>1288

>failed their race


like i have any sort of obligation to an arbitrary classification of people.

  No.2415

One criticism of modern democracy is that it isn't the Greek ideal, where everybody votes on everything, but the Greeks only had so many people who could vote anyway, the OP's "ruling elite".

Starship Troopers had citizens and civilians, only those with military service had the right to vote.

You could try a meritocracy, like Singapore. It's always accused of being elitist, but as a consequence of putting the best qualified person in each position, the place runs like clockwork.

  No.2417

>>2415
technocracy or syndicalism could be okay to

  No.2418

>A government as described above need not be oppressive either
>the average citizen is not qualified to give their opinion in government or influence the operations of such in any meaningful way

>trust us though, we won't "oppress" you


Yeah because it has EVER worked out this way in the entire history of the world, right?

  No.2422

>>2209
I specifically avoid labeling the notion.
I suppose the main point of the system is placing power in fewer hands. A system anyone can influence is prone to appealing to the dregs of a society while also making them more dependent on that system.

>>2415
>>2417
I would imagine my proposed system is rather inherently meritocratic.

>>2418
Something important to remember is that oppression is arbitrary. A mentally retarded human may believe that they are being oppressed, but their opinion should probably have absolutely no weight.
Similarly to the Dredd I've opened this thread with, there are laws and they must be followed.

Now, regardless, we have many bad laws. The only difference is that politicians had to convince idiots of them first.

I observe laws that make sharing certain numbers illegal in my republic and don't believe my system would be more prone to manipulation by malicious individuals, especially with the memories of this current system being present.

So, ideally, intelligent people would have more weight in decisions and so not create such hellish and stupid laws.

  No.2423

>>2422
>Now, regardless, we have many bad laws. The only difference is that politicians had to convince idiots of them first.

...and under fascism they can skip that step before installing whatever bad laws they like.

  No.2438

>>2422
oppression is arbitrary? holy mother of semantics..

  No.2565

>>1036
Just going to pop in here and state that lainchan isn't about politics, it isn't about anarchists circlejerking to their ideals. Lainchan is about the /tech/ fringe with its LISP threads and extra tinfoil attitude and actual Gentoo users etc slackers and hackers. Fuck anarchism here, also fuck any other form of politics: the process of asserting power upon people. You can flip back to whatever hugbox IRC channel you came from!

  No.2568

>>2565
> EVERYONE WHO HAS AN OPINION IS FROM A "HUGBOX" LOL I AM MAD ON THE INTERNET

You should search for the etymology of the words "punk" and "cyberpunk" sometime, then get back to us.

  No.2569

This thread's reasonably good.

It's important to keep it quality, however.

>>2568
You have a valid opinion, but are explaining this in a low quality fashion.

Avoid this in the future.

This is, of course, to everyone here making lower quality posts. We prefer to avoid deletions.

  No.2570

>>2569
You're new here, I can tell.

  No.2571

>>2568
Cyberpunk shares no connection to punk beyond the name. It's just a misnomer from when the genre was first taking off.

  No.2733

>>2570
How can we trust you?

  No.2757

>>975
I'm not really a big fan of benevolent dictatorships, or monarchies. We were ruled with an iron fist for 21 years, and the results isn't good.

I prefer the Japanese/Singaporean style "democracy" where one party is guaranteed to win every election. This system creates a sort of meritocracy. Another one that I like is that the government acts like a corporation. The president/prime minister is like a CEO of the whole country. The CEO gets replaced every couple of years, or when the situation gets really bad.

  No.2764

>>2757

Seems like you won't mind living in North Korea either

  No.2765

>>2764
If NoKor has freedom of speech, and economic freedom. Sadly, neither is happening.

  No.2766

>>2765

Japan and Singapore are not good example of those virtues either

  No.2768

>>2757
so like the Soviet system?

  No.2771

File: 1478801796959.png (78.92 KB, 157x200, drifting.jpeg)

>>2757

To whom is this "merit" you speak of being attributed?

Are these polluted countries with diseased, overfed, elitist politicians capable of objectively determining when things are "bad" for the productive, working population?

They have consistently defunded and disengaged the medical and scientific community when the truth is politically inconvenient. To them, perception = reality and manipulating the press to create a false narrative is a means to maintaining the perception that domestic living and working conditions are better than foreign living and working conditions, stifling dissent.

Even in countries where the press is not an executive arm of the plutocratic autocracy (fucking where?), working and living conditions are being deliberately destroyed at an accelerating rate. If the numbers look good on paper, who cares what the public is really saying? You can simply reduce standards and increase "competition" by bringing in a bunch of "refugees" from a country that you willfully destabilized and destroyed with no concept of human rights, justice, and an culture of terror; attribute the increase in "profitability" to your actions (MUH DIVER'S TEA!) and justify a massive bloat in your own pay rate so you can afford to get your overfed, diabetic, gout-ridden pantsuit-wearing ass to a private gym where you won't be disturbed by the sight of malnourished, overworked onlookers.

Elites are enriching themselves to the exclusion of all others by lowering the standards of those who are working and those who are looking for work. Those who are working are doing so more productively than they ever have in recorded history in exchange for less than they've ever been afforded. Negotiations have not just failed, as Tromp has correctly implied, they've been completely hijacked by the "benevolent job creator" narrative. The result: the smartest, most highly productive people that have ever been alive have nothing to show for their actions. Criminal elites have been allowed to rise in power.

There is no living example of a "meritocracy" on this planet right now. 62 people control more than 50% of the entire planet's resources to enrich their own lives and destroy the conditions that support life. The people most deserving of merit are the ones least likely to receive it.

  No.2865

File: 1478940003366.png (18.94 KB, 200x134, ancom.png)

It may sound like a meme from /leftypol/ but all you need to read more. If you think you can develop new systems or analyze current and past ones just with the knowledge that you have acquired in your 16 to 20 years on this planet without any kind of proper academic or theoretical backing, think again.

All the discussion boils down to mental masturbation and feeling smart, which is the anti-thesis to knowledge and intellectualism.

Two maxims worth following:
1. A wise man knows he knows nothing.
2. Talk less, listen (read) more.

  No.2875

>>2865
This is a fine thread and it's disturbing that you believe only the so-called educated should discuss it. The /civ/ board may as well not exist if your advice is followed.
We appear to be more than capable of discussing the topic. You have no argument against anything here and instead seem to merely want to discourage the topic through more subversive means.

>1. A wise man knows he knows nothing.

There are things that can be known. Only a fool is happy with knowing nothing.
>2. Talk less, listen (read) more.
One can talk and read to learn.

You give advice that is subtly encouraged against following. Do you think Genghis Khan or Napoleon took this advice? No.

  No.2877

>>2875
Genghis Khan and Napoleon aren't people that should be looked up to IMO.

  No.2878

>>2877
Whats so wrong with Napoleon? Benevolent dictator defending and spreading the ideals of the revolution.

  No.2879

>>2878
in general, conquerors are people I don't look up to, and I don't think they are people who should be emulated. Conquerors are warlike, avaricious, and brutish.

  No.2881

>>2879
>brutish
What's brutish about Napoleon ?
He's the total opposite of Brutish.
He simply lost hope in the republic after witnessing the brutality, the violence, and all the blood caused by the revolution.

  No.2899

File: 1479116810303.png (7.52 MB, 200x150, slippery-slope.webm)

>>2878
>Benevolent dictator

No such thing. Dictation isn't benevolent, it's authoritarian fascism.

  No.2916

>>2423
As far as legal legitimacy goes, fascism has a leg up on democracy because it doesn't enable merchant/corporate interests to lobby in ways that undermine the state. A fascist always has the good of the state in mind, because it's the only thing he's accountable to outside of himself.
The citizenry is a part of the state, and unless the regime holds power and maintains itself by some other means, their interests will necessarily be looked after.

In democracy, your constituency can be fuarrrking anything under the sun, so loyalties are never guaranteed. In fascism, your loyalty is always to the state, and the state is constituted of the population just as much as it is the regime.

  No.2917

>>2865
>1. A wise man knows he knows nothing.
And the unexamined life is not worth living.
If you have any actual criticisms, voice them. You're not contributing anything just by telling people to read more.
Also it's ironic that you quote Socrates and then tell people they should read before they participate in discussion.

  No.2919

>>2899
Can you actually demonstrate a causal link between the two, or are you just regurgitating what other people have told you?

  No.2920

>>2915
>>2897
How is RT biased? Is it because they don't condemn Russia and $hill for Clinton? *cough* ¢ии *cough*

  No.2921

>>2920
I think you're in the wrong thread here, but RT is directly funded by the Russian government.

  No.3011

>>2865
OY DON'T YOU DARE CRITICIZE SOCIETY AND THINK FOR YOURSELVES AND MAKING YOUR OWN OPINION BEFORE GETTING A DEGREE. IT'S NOT FAIR

really, genetic fallacy at its finest. focusing on the (lack of) academic background of a person instead of discussing his observations. and then you even have the shameless guts to mention socrates.

>>2877
they achieved historical greatness. napoleon in particular is the very epitome of the great man theory. just for that, he's someone who should be admired and looked up to

  No.3013

>>2865
Theory is important comrade and everyone should read to learn and supplement their own beliefs, but no one should ever follow an idea just based on academic credibility. In the same light no one should ever believe purely their thoughts without factual evidence backing it up. In either extremes you get a blind scholar or an ignorant conspiracy theorist.

Everyone should have their opinions and develop their own self-ideology. The only important part is how effective their ideas are rather than whether or not they've been academically discussed.

  No.3024

>>3011
>just for that, he's someone who should be admired and looked up to

see, I disagree that those are qualities that qualify someone as someone to be looked up to. Instead I'd prefer kindness, or the quality of "being a good person".

>>2916
> fascism has a leg up on democracy because it doesn't enable merchant/corporate interests to lobby in ways that undermine the state.

not really, the dictator can be bribed just as much as a senator.

>A fascist always has the good of the state in mind, because it's the only thing he's accountable to outside of himself.


they need to keep their underlings in line and suppress the people into supporting them. That's about it. You can see this in basically any dictatorial regime -- dissidents were killed, expelled, or otherwise suppressed to ensure that the leader could keep power.

>In democracy, your constituency can be fuarrrking anything under the sun, so loyalties are never guaranteed. In


well, since your main argument in the above post is that the dictator is accountable to the people, and in democracy the leader(if they exist) is accountable to the people... seems like you're trying to say that fascism is "as good as" democracy, which is specuous.

  No.3039

>>3024
>not really, the dictator can be bribed just as much as a senator.
No he can't, not to undermine the state, because HE EMBODIES THE STATE.
A dictator wouldn't undermine his own power any more than you would cut off your own leg.
>they need to keep their underlings in line and suppress the people into supporting them. That's about it.
No, suppression is not sufficient in any system. Cooperation on some level is always necessary. Non-compliance alone is sufficient to bring a dictator to bear, and is actually enjoys a higher success rate than violent resistance. And furthermore, it's estimated that only around five percent of the population needs to participate in order to force a dictator or some other form of government to make concessions (source: Why Civil Resistance Works, Erica Chenoweth).

A dictator that is in power always has the acceptance of the majority of the people living under him, even if he doesn't enjoy their support.

>seems like you're trying to say that fascism is "as good as" democracy, which is specuous.

It is. Care to justify your doubt?

  No.3040

>>3039
Aside from the political rammifications of a fascism V. democracy, fascists states are virtually never stable, long lasting, and economically wealthy. The longest lasting fascist state was Spain, and it was hardly a utopia.

Further more, yeah, fascists can be bribed. Party officials can be bribed. Anyone can be bribed. No matter what.

  No.3041

File: 1479436204556.png (244.18 KB, 183x200, runescape POW.png)

>>3040
>Aside from the political rammifications of a fascism V. democracy, fascists states are virtually never stable, long lasting, and economically wealthy.
That sure doesn't stop the commies or anarchists from trying, either. People rarely care about successful past attempts of their ideological wet-dream. And if you suggest changing some things, you'll be attacked for not being "pure" enough (kinda like how revisionist is a dirty word).

You just can't win.

  No.3042

File: 1479443754338.png (1.1 MB, 200x113, 1467432298571.jpg)

>>3041
Yeah, because any and every "Ideology" if fuarrrking dumb because it's assuming the future follows a foreseeable set of rules. The reason democratic republics or totalitarian capitalists states are so successful is because they're able to change face completely in ten years with out a Stalin taking you out back and shooting you behind the old shed.
Successful government are flexible government, and flexible governments can't follow centuries old political philosophies, and they definitely can't follow the will of a single individual.

  No.3045

>>3041
>People rarely care about successful past attempts of their ideological wet-dream. And if you suggest changing some things, you'll be attacked for not being "pure" enough (kinda like how revisionist is a dirty word).
That's precisely why I made the thread discussing the idea of government described in the first post, rather than discussing a vague label that would almost invariably lead to concessions to stay under a certain umbrella term.

  No.3052

>>3040
>>3041
>Further more, yeah, fascists can be bribed. Party officials can be bribed. Anyone can be bribed. No matter what.
Sure, but the point was that the authority of the state can never be directly undermined in the way that it can with democracy.
>Aside from the political rammifications of a fascism V. democracy, fascists states are virtually never stable, long lasting, and economically wealthy
>People rarely care about successful past attempts of their ideological wet-dream.
Virtually all of them only fell because of the War. Remember that fascism itself is a pretty loose political term; it's really just a modification of a monarchy by ideological means. And monarchies have by far been around and lived much longer than democracies have.
Furthermore, to point to one or two examples and to say that these states are why such and such a system would never work is foolish. There aren't many examples of fascist states, while there are many examples of socialist/communist/democratic states. You can't just point to one success story or one failure and say that it's proof of the system.

  No.3053

>>3042
>Successful government are flexible government, and flexible governments can't follow centuries old political philosophies, and they definitely can't follow the will of a single individual.
I wonder what 17th, 18th and 19th century Europe would have to say about that. Where we saw some of the farthst reaching and most successful empires in history led by monarchs.

  No.3062

>>971
Ey, OP, just out of curiosity, ever taken the Political Compass test?

  No.3063

>>3053
Consider the complexity of society then and now. Many people spent their lives in the village they were born in, and literally thanked God for good weather. Chances are, being a monarch got a tiny wee bit more demanding.

  No.3065

>>3063
The monarch has NEVER done everything himself, and the increase of the complexity of governance doesn't mean that handing the reigns of something so important as administration over to the public is a good idea. Hell, we barely do it ourselves. The best bureaucracies in all democratic systems are those which have secured the greatest autonomy for themselves and are led by a strong executive with political foresight and the ability to plan around the shortcomings of his political system (read Terry Moe or James Q Wilson on Bureaucracy- the latter is our most influential thinker in the field of democratic bureaucracy).
I'd like you to compare the efficiency and pragmatism of Prussian bureaucracy to any modern institution in the United States and try to tell me that Democracy is better suited to governance.

As I have just said, you need to find basic flaws with autocratic government, you can't just point to general vagaries about the difficulty of government, (and increasing complexity of ALL governance necessarily affects ALL systems of government) and conclude with no link that autocratic government doesn't work.

  No.3074

>>3053
Well, I hate to break it to you, but by the time the British empire was really roaring and successful parliament had plenty of power, and most of that success came from privately own or semi state owned businesses. Furthermore monarchs were rarely, if ever, truly in control. They almost always controlled by a collective to dukes and lords who held the real power, and gave the monarch legitimacy: which is almost exactly how modern republics work.

>>3065
The basic flaws of authoritarianism are the same basic flaws of elected systems, just cranked to 11. No autocratic system has found a way to make the transfer of power not consistently be tumultuous, and has yet to find a way to stop leaders who have passed their prime.

  No.3075

>>3052
>Sure, but the point was that the authority of the state can never be directly undermined in the way that it can with democracy.

see, you haven't actually shown why this is the case. The furher is, after all, a man.

>>3042
sure, but this presumes there is only one "right way" to respond to a situation. There are multiple right ways, each of them seeming better or worse depending on your ideology.

  No.3079

>>3074
>They almost always controlled by a collective to dukes and lords who held the real power, and gave the monarch legitimacy: which is almost exactly how modern republics work.
Only true in England (and only true in England because England is a fuarrrking island, ever tried to conquer an island?), and maybe slightly true of the rest of them toward the end, but on that, you need to take a good look at why Germany kicked their fuarrrking asses over and over again during the Bismarck era, and nearly defeated them virtually all on its own during both world wars.
>No autocratic system has found a way to make the transfer of power not consistently be tumultuous, and has yet to find a way to stop leaders who have passed their prime.
The transfer of power isn't any more unstable than democracy. Or have you completely ignored modern history? Europe and the United States are the exception, not the rule. Democracy around the rest of the world has been subject to coups, revolutions, and splintering.
Most monarchies that pass rule down by birth have been quite stable. Take a look at the Shogunate or many of the dynasties in China.

>The basic flaws of authoritarianism are the same basic flaws of elected systems, just cranked to 11

They aren't, because they don't have any of this nonsense about the separation of powers.

  No.3080

>>3074
>>3079
>The basic flaws of authoritarianism are the same basic flaws of elected systems, just cranked to 11
Also, ELABORATE, for christ's sake.

  No.3081

>>3075
>see, you haven't actually shown why this is the case. The furher is, after all, a man.
See, I did actually, you just weren't paying attention.
>>3039
>No he can't, not to undermine the state, because HE EMBODIES THE STATE.
>A dictator wouldn't undermine his own power any more than you would cut off your own leg.

  No.3082

>>3081
you're makeing two big jumps here. First, you're saying that what's good for the dictator is what's good for the state. I don't think that's the case -- the dictator is interested in his own power and his own power alone. The state is only important insofar as it reinforces the dictator's power.

Second, you're saying that what's good for the state is good for the people. This is false for the same reason -- the state is interested in its own power and its own power alone.

  No.3083

>>3082
>I don't think that's the case -- the dictator is interested in his own power and his own power alone
Which he doesn't have unless the state is strong. Therefore he will never act to undermine the state.
And to hold power, it's necessary to have the approval of your constituency, whatever that may be. The public MUST accept the government on some level for it to exist at all.

And yes, you can be a pedantic twat and say, 'not necessarily,' to literally every political theory that exists, because there isn't any such thing as a unified theory of politics. You could say the same thing about the basic tenets of democratic government and point to instances of such tenets not being true.
'Democracy is better at representing the public,'-well not NECESSARILY, since democratically elected leaders often take most of their qeues from private interests.
But it's still a true statement and it highlights a basic dynamic of democracy in comparison to other political systems.

  No.3084

>>3083
>Which he doesn't have unless the state is strong

i disagree. The dictator can have plenty of power with a weak state. Take, for instance, Stalin's Russia: rather than keep his best generals, Stalin saw them as threats and had them executed.

>And to hold power, it's necessary to have the approval of your constituency, whatever that may be. The public MUST accept the government on some level for it to exist at all.


yes -- on *some* level. I don't think "the people aren't literally staging a revolution" is the same as "the people accept this regime".

>'Democracy is better at representing the public,'-well not NECESSARILY, since democratically elected leaders often take most of their qeues from private interests.


which is why for true democracy to exist you must abolish both leaders and private interests ;)

  No.3085

>>3084
>Take, for instance, Stalin's Russia: rather than keep his best generals, Stalin saw them as threats and had them executed.
Stalin prized loyalty. If the most skilled people don't share interests, then only instability can result. This is true in democracies as well: when the opposition is elected into office, they will usually sabotage their predecessor's work and replace their appointees, regardless of whether or not their replacements were up to the task. Futhermore, the existence of such dissent in the first place is a telltale sign of bad leadership. Had the leader done enough to secure the loyalties of his most important constituents, then he wouldn't fear his opposition, because they wouldn't have the ability to remove him.
>yes -- on *some* level. I don't think "the people aren't literally staging a revolution" is the same as "the people accept this regime".
In other words, they have to be doing something right.
>which is why for true democracy to exist you must abolish both leaders and private interests ;)
Sure, but the reason true democracy doesn't exist is because the people are even worse at ruling themselves than their elected leaders.
They have this awful tendency to vote for higher benefits and lower taxes, you see...

  No.3088

>>3085
>Futhermore, the existence of such dissent in the first place is a telltale sign of bad leadership.

that's why he had them removed.

>In other words, they have to be doing something right.


Yes, they're using just the right blend of suppressing their enemies and bribing their allies. I don't think that constitutes good governance.

  No.3101

>>3088
>that's why he had them removed.
Right, but that decision doesn't contradict what I've been saying. Eliminating conspirators kept the state stronger than the alternative.
>I don't think that constitutes good governance.
Well we weren't talking about good governance in that point, we were talking about whether or not the dictator had to secure the goodwill of the people. To some extent he always does, and the same can be said of literally every form of governance. No leader is explicitly required to keep their public happy. They just need to keep them happy enough.

But to build on the other point in my post, it's generally a good thing for an autocrat to have the goodwill of his people, because then conspirators will find it very difficult to remove him without angering the much more powerful public.

  No.3105

>>1033
You should read about Italian Fascism, it's rather interesting for many reasons, not least to note the speed with which it went from the kind of reasonable proposal you describe to purges and power used purely to maintain power at everyone else's expense

Also, what you describe sounds rather like syndicalism, so you might find that interesting too.

  No.3106

>>1049
>I don't understand why you believe all life is worth saving.
Why should the criteria for whether a life is worth saving or not be the particular patch of the planet they were born on?

How many Feynmans/Aristotles/Stallmans/[whoever you value] died from dysentery before they learned to speak, or were born in an area without the educational infrastructure that would allow them to make the advances that benefit all humanity (including you)?

  No.3108

>>3106
That's an absurd argument.
The people in your patch of grass are proven to be of direct value to you, because of their ability to pay taxes and contribute to the system which you live in.
We have a known benefit staying on the present course, and a known risk for going off it for an unkown possibility of benefit.
Sacrificing your own resources for people who more than likely won't return that investment is an illogical action.

  No.3109

>>3108
Your worldview assumes that all humans are utility-seeking rational actors with no empathy.

I perhaps have less empathy than most, but I see the benefits to myself of living in a world where humans have empathy for all other humans, both as a safety net for myself & as mutual assistance reduces costly activities like wars, revolutions, border walls etc.

  No.3110

>>3109
You asked why the criteria for whether or not a life is worth saving be based on their place of birth, and I gave you an answer.
And if empathy isn't guided by rationality and utility, then there are no benefits.

  No.3119

>>3110
>And if empathy isn't guided by rationality and utility, then there are no benefits.

rationally, it makes no sense to prioritize a certain set of people, because then the other people will get angry and kill you(a la wars). Utilitarian philosophy is universalist, so whether the other people are happy or you are happy makes no difference, and the conclusion is that everyone should be happy.

Empathy evolved because it is evolutionarily advantageouis to work together rather than keep individuals or groups seperate.

  No.3120

>>3119
>rationally, it makes no sense to prioritize a certain set of people, because then the other people will get angry and kill you(a la wars).
What a load of nonsense. Are you actually reading this before you post?
Your people are the ones that contribute to your society, no one else. Wars only occur when it is rational, not because someone is angry, christ.
>Empathy evolved because it is evolutionarily advantageouis to work together rather than keep individuals or groups seperate.
And why did tribalism evolve, then, anon?
Let me answer for you: because there are either not enough resources to go around and because people behave and think differently from one another.

  No.3124

File: 1479592055554.png (77.74 KB, 200x198, spookbuster.jpg)

>>3122
if you're so rational, why are you postrating yourself before another person? Why do you believe in spooks such as nation and humanity?

  No.3125

>>3124
Convenience.
I share political goals with the nation, and the best means of realizing it is through the state.
The best state is one governed by merit and rationality.

  No.3126

File: 1479592670566.png (105.22 KB, 200x171, cyanide & spooks.png)

>>3125
It makes sense to ally with a state, but to consider yourself part of a state -- nay, to consdier a state's goals to be your own -- that is simply silly. Never mind that states are merely spooks which are not real.

  No.3128

>>3126
Did I say I believed myself to be a part of the state?
I'm an individualist first and a nationalist second.

  No.3129

File: 1479593072293.png (26.11 KB, 200x125, -6_9bSipodMp25aECxmJNpGLRp62t222LESX2THvTXE.png)

>>3128
but the nation is directly against your interests. If you would suffer for your nation, you are chained to spooks and are far less rational than you claim to be.

  No.3130

>>3129
>but the nation is directly against your interests
How can you know that without knowing which nation I'm referring to, and who I am specifically?
Besides, I only labor for the nation when I expect to see a return on that labor.

  No.3148

File: 1479625728016.png (52.91 KB, 185x200, 6vofa5tjt5rx.jpg)

>>3130
because there is no nation that wants the best for you. All nations, by their very form, are concerned solely with themselves.

I hope you manage to de-spook yourself. I really do. But based on your previous posts, you're clinging to the idea of a state, and being oh so trusting of others. Sad really.

  No.3155

>>3148
Define what a nation is for me, anon.

  No.3157

>>3148
As Another lainon I'd also like how you can emphatically and across the board declare any nation, in spirit, construction, or theory (much less practice) be considered automatically against an individual in every instance.

Or as some would say, please cite your assurances in the face of generalizations generally being wrong.

  No.3158

>>3157
Not him but I'm almost certain his rationale is that the state requires power and authority over its people in order to maintain governance. This makes more sense in a more totalitarian government but even in a direct democracy people still need to give the state power by being a part of the state. In either case, the state would have to make decisions whether with or without consent of its citizens. Sometimes these will be in your interest and sometimes they won't. However you cannot satisfy everyone's interests and thus the individual would know his or her interests the best.

The state would also want to perpetuate its power over the governed. The United States for example cannot satisfy everyone's conflicting interests and in theory attempts to satisfy the majority decision (but not always the popular decision) through a representative democracy. In the case of an insurgency in the country, the government would take military action against rebels despite US citizens having the right to rebel and even a duty when looking at the Declaration of Independence.

Here are some relevant parts of the Anarchist FAQ that might be worth looking into on the subject:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-03-17#toc2
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-03-17#toc10
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-05-17#toc25
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-08-17#toc24

  No.3159

>>3158
Well in response to that, you just weigh the collected benefits of the state against the costs.

  No.3173

>>3106
Not too much relatively to areas with good infrastructure and higher standard of living, because people there mostly had low IQ which means high load of bad genetic mutations. High intelligence people generally tend to cope better. For example the black death killed up to half of the medieval european population but 80% of that were serfs so it might have strong effect for the selection of higher iq genes.

  No.3174

File: 1479806948741.png (77.42 KB, 173x200, 1891d769873978bc0e28b5115de6c1e55419ae5f1ee74b43de7eebf43e77218d.jpg)

>>971
Fascist systems are democratic creation themselves. They get to power only by populism which is necessary based on lack of knowledge of most people and their prejudices (some of which are based in evolutionary factors so it's hard to get rid of them). They also retain the democratic structure of government which means bloated beurocracy and lack of clear profit counting possibility and so lot of possible place where corruption may occur and no way to really judge the effectivenes of the different parts of the government.

Monarchy on the other hand has incentive system that deals with these problem, and hypothetical systems such as neocameralism or exitocracy may do that even better. The monarch and his family will hold the land for a long time and it's value will be his property so he has a strong reason to take the long term perspective for maximising it's value. To achieve that he needs to govern effectively for it will allow for trade and production to flourish and it will make more people want to come to his kingdom, so there will be more taxpayers. War on the other hand is unwanted because it destroys the value of the king and makes people reluctant to live in his realm.

>So how would you stop tyranny by the elite?

>You don't, and that's kind of the point.
Well that's not the point really. Living in some marxist dictatorship hellhole where the rulers try to put their wicked egalitarian ideology into reality by oppressing everyone is not a nice thing. VERY not nice. But the point is that in some systems rulers have financial incentives to stop the tyrrany and govern effectively.

  No.3227

>>3174
>it's value will be his property so he has a strong reason to take the long term perspective for maximising it's value.
i see some problems with this
1) what if the king, although well meaning doesn't know whats best for his kingdom, like he picks the wrong policy
2)what if the king dosen't care about his kingdom, history is full of examples of monarchs who ignored the problems of his nation,(louis the 16th, multiple tsars, and a few roman emperors). what if the king is stupid (like spains last hapsburg king).

3) why should the nation belong to the king, instead of people who work, to keep the nation going?

  No.3308

>>3120
>Your people are the ones that contribute to your society, no one else. Wars only occur when it is rational

If "your people" is everyone, wars are never rational and everyone benefits.

  No.3312

File: 1480268383868.png (2.71 MB, 200x150, YouIdiot.gif)

>>3174
>it's value will be his property so he has a strong reason to take the long term perspective for maximising it's value.
Why should a king care about the value of the land, so long as he & his family have a luxurious lifestyle?
>War on the other hand is unwanted because it destroys the value of the king and makes people reluctant to live in his realm.
And this is why no monarchies have ever declared war on each other. Right.

Do people really believe this monarchist crap or is it just chatbots trying to influence the popular discourse & move theOverton Window in favour of "strong leaders" like Drumpf & Putin?

  No.3346

File: 1480324431006.png (293.24 KB, 146x200, 1464389473508.jpg)

>>971

I think society produces weak people, but as an anarchist I'm really opposed to most forms of hierarchy though it's also too Marxist of me to lay out some hard-won path through the inevitable post-revolution stagnation. And I just question how many people will actually be alive in ~60 years and if it's best to embrace the sociopathic future; which makes a pretty good case for studying to be come a wizard class hacker.

I would say that reading Nietzsche/Foucault makes a pretty easy transition from Plato's republica to a more anarchist/leftcom perspective. It's kinda like the pot of gold at the end of the gray-on-gray rainbow.

  No.3347

>>3346

Democracy a mega soykaf tho (but seriously don't become fascist OP-kun). In the possible words of Emma G (i forget tbh) the minority isn't even a minority in democracy.

  No.3350

>>3346
>but as an anarchist I'm really opposed to most forms of hierarchy

Can you explain what you mean by this? I've read some introductory anarchist works but under what circumstance would hierarchy be acceptable for an anarchist? Shouldn't an anarchist be opposed to all forms of hierarchy regardless?

  No.3354

>>3350
most anarchists accept that adults should have authority over small children, for instance.

  No.3364

>>3350

Pretty much this >>3354 If Napoleon is on the battlefield maybe we should submit to him type of thing. For me at least relationships based in respect and experience are usually beneficial hierarchies.

  No.3488

I would love to have a "beneficent" fascism, where actions taken by the state are always taken in the interest of the state and not for individual gain and power, but I feel like there will always be a completely self serving part of the human psyche. In my opinion, there will always be those who take advantage of and exploit those who serve them.

Totalitarian states give these types of people more power to control their subordinates, most likely with unchecked dictatorial power. The points presented by the OP and supporters look appealing on paper, but are idealistic and not practical. While Nazi Germany was ruthlessly efficient, did mass amounts of good for the german people, and lifted Germany out of mass economic downturn, the unchecked power that comes from a totalitarian state would eventually sour and turn in to an Orwellian nightmare. I am all for implementing the best form of government that benefits the people (whatever that may be) but I feel like the wood of the axe will eventually rot and the whole fasces will become useless.

  No.3504

I think we can all agree that having a dictator who takes all the responsibility is more sane than having a legislature that hides behind "the majority rule".

  No.3535

>>3504
possibly better, because dictators are easier to gather support against. Perhaps that's why the communists succeeded in Tsarist Russia where they failed in parliamentary democracies elsewhere(Germany)

  No.3604

>>3227
1) Well that's problem of every system, and more generally of reality itself. You can't know the future, and humans don't understand everything. However kings are taught for their profession since childhood so they're as ready as they can be, with lot of learning and best teachers available. Democracy is different - the president has to spend as much time governing well as promoting himself and getting supporters. And if is able to make himself popular he doesn't have to know how to lead a coutry well at all.
2)If the king really does not care, he can appoint someone whom he trusts to govern in his name. Louis xvi is strongly maligned, but that's beause he lost and the version of revolutionists is more widespread. He cared a lot about spiritual, maybe too much but I would not say that he didn't care. What if the king is stupid? Charles II is a good example - a regent is appointed. In his case it was his mother, the queen-regent. Peter the great got to power, because his older brother was stupid.
3)Because that's more effective way to govern. The king is taught to do his job since early age, he is knowledgeable in it. This is how division of labour works. Also the king is generally born with high intelligence inherited from his family (it's seldom that stupid people get to the top of the society). It slowsly descends to the mean but it takes about dozen generations or so. The working class is on the other side low to average, so less well suited to such job.

Also I don't say that monarchy is a perfect system, just that it's preferable to democracy and has proved itself to work well in most cases. And there are other factors that are important like social cohesion or genetic quality.

>>3312
Trump and Koch brothers paid me to spread right wing propaganda and opress the minorities.

  No.3642


  No.3651

File: 1481506700882.png (1.86 MB, 200x200, cultural-reproduction-and-social-reproduction.pdf)

>>3604
I'm sorry, but intelligence is too different from one generation to the next to have any factor whatsoever in lineage. the skills necessary to be a good programmer, for instance, would not have existed as late as the 1950's.

>>3641

being smart isn't something you're born with, but it can be a form of cultural capital - education costs money, and good education costs good money.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm
http://bookzz.org/dl/908474/1a5b42

Without an understanding of the scientific method, however, the skills required to run a country can't be researched or developed. Dynasties emerge because it's easier for key supporters to maintain a steady transition of power, and relationships with those people constitutes a form of social capital [Bourdieu]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU

  No.3657

>>3651
Intelligence is not too variable, it is generally at level of the biological parents, it is rare that child has enough new mutations to have different iq. And it is something you are born with. There were a lot of projects to raise iq of kids such as headstart and it did not work in a long term.

  No.3670

>>3657
> And it is something you are born with.

This is flat-out wrong. Your IQ changes over time.

Anyway, yes, there is definitely a genetic component, but most studies on the subject(I believe) only found a very weak correlation.

  No.3685

File: 1481619675968.png (269.2 KB, 200x120, iq-heritability-age.png)

>>3670
Studies on twins found that genetic factor is responsible for up to 80% differences in IQ. Generally it is assumed that IQ is heritable in 60-80%. It changes either in childhood and stabilizes in adulthood or changes in case that the test is weakly g-factor correlated.

  No.3687

>>3685
that is a very confusing graph. Do you have any raw data or studies which provide those? It's been a while since I've looked into this.

  No.3723

>>3687
Even wikipedia has that info.

>The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.[5][6] The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood.[7] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[8] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

  No.3736

File: 1481955008868.png (403.75 KB, 180x200, hitler-boats.png)

Who is Lainchan's favourite fascist leader?

  No.3737

>>3736
I'm torn between the one that swallowed a cyanide pill as his enemies knocked at his door, the one whose people turned on him when he started losing the war, and the one who ruled until he died and actually reestablished the monarchy, only for the monarchy to start voluntarily dismantling itself once he keeled over and died like a sewer rat.

  No.3738

>>975
The one time this has happened in recent history is Lee Kuan Yew. Absolutely brilliant leader, quite incredible how he turned Singapore around, it seemed like he truly cared about making his country great.

  No.3742

>>3736
franco.

  No.3744

>>3742
ani diFRANCO?

  No.3747

File: 1482006938070.png (522.65 KB, 200x144, VNDE.png)

>>3736
>Who is Lainchan's favourite fascist leader?
If we're sorting trash then I'll opt for the freshest: Dolan Jey. Tromp; thank you Dolan Tromp for helping to make anime real. May freedom of expression reign eternal.

  No.3762

>>3736
oswald mosley becuase he was to unsuccessful,

  No.3767


  No.3778

File: 1482283456420.png (33.69 KB, 200x100, ansynd.png)

>>3742
But he bullied our anarcho-syndy comrades...

  No.3787

File: 1482353799603.png (66.3 KB, 163x200, rockwell_portrait1.jpg)


  No.3857

File: 1483493738392-0.png (17.32 KB, 57x200, fasces.png)

I believe that fascism is the ultimate form of society, since it is not centered around humans, but it is aimed on a higher goal instead. A human in Fascism is only worth as much as his place in society. Both Capitalism and Socialism/Communism are both egoistic forms of society, since they focus on how it can make the lifes of the humans better. People want a better life for them, that is the reason for them to be a Communist etc.. But Fascism is a pure altruistic form of society, where people give there life and there needs away for a greater good. They are all nothing and the state is everything! Ant-Colonies are a perfect example for a fascistic society, single Ants dont even have the possibility to procreate. If cloning was easy and already available fascistic societies would relocate the breeding away from single humans and give it to optimized breeding places where even better humans will be created.
The fascist societies that existed like Nazi-Germany were not that pure forms of Fascism and I believe there was still some sort of egoism involved, but they were all way better societies than out capitalistic egoistic society now is.
I was raised as an egoistic human and therefore have egoistic reasons as well to support fascism. I am pretty isolated from social life and see the other humans around me talking to each other and having relationships and that makes me sad. in a fascistic society every human gets there social needs fulfilled in the right amount so they can work better and I believe i could profit from it. I also have the strong feel that I dont have a place to belong in society and dont know what to do with life. In Fascism your place in society is given and you get motivations and a reason to work for, too. Fascism gives your life a meaning!

Maybe I am just crazy and i know i should be wrong, but i dont see it, so show me!

  No.3858

The Führer has not to care about the people in a way, that he wants the best life for the people, but for a greater good. Different Humans have different strengths and weaknesses and should belong to different places in society where they work the best and are most needed. A single human is worth nothing without the society and leftists are basically just egoistic.