gay

no u

Fucking Nigger

Sometimes you need a tyrant to protect democracy

Authoritarian is nessesary, what people are against when they *think* authoritarian is is actually Anarcho-tyranny

i see authoritarianism as a tool

I can justify anything but you don't have accept my justification. i could justify fascism by saying because I felt like it and that would be my justification

to prepare people for a more chill thingy

Auth should only be used in an emergency and only for emergency

Otherwise, no.

"Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay"

I take the same stance as endeavour. No society can survive with *freedom* as its core value. We must enforce some cultural norm/identity.

@campodin China has existed for over a thousand years

If theres a constitution, do we really have free will?

actually longer than that. but w/e

@Deleted User your point?

China isn't free

Freedom is certainly not one of their core values

And they are still around and will always be around

Does freedom even exist ?

Freedom as a core value Dosen't mean absolute freedom of anarchy you dipshits

'freedom' is a term only people with sub hundred iq would ever use

A republican democracy united in a common culture is completely possible

FullAuths are retarded because it isn't sustainable

Authoritarianism is why China is as successful as it is tbh

At the cost of?

by authoritarianism do you mean the ideology?

or the polical compass sector

Freedom is just the ability to pursue your own interest. Societies need a goal which is given by culture.

"Heaven is high and the emperor is far away" China was clannic rather than authoritarian in the modern sense

I think the discussion is about the military being the most powerful sect in the country

some cultures need more authority than others

If there is a society, there is authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is what creates justice and trust.

We need to protect our culture and discourage foreign cultures, especially from certain areas of the world

No it means power being centralized into a single person mainly

@campodin that's completely possible with a democratic society

Democracy always leads to leftism

Authority might also include a council which is like-minded imo

>power being centralized into a single person mainly
that's an autocracy, power can be shared and still be authoritarian

*mainly*

Nig.

Authority in itself isn't bad or more or less natural, look where it got us today, whther or not the present day is good or not is up to debate but I'm personnaly fine with it.

@campodin Democracy is the pathway to Marxism

There are some things even anarchists are against. Authoritarianism is mere realisation that to preserve something consistently, force over what might be little different is required

I want authority to be absolute in not allowing communism and Muslims, and promoting our culture. Other than that the government should be mostly libertarian.

How can one be libertarian but not a cultural libertarian?

Authoritarianism is too vague

What is the line between "authoritarian" and not?

@campodin what is your culture ?

There is none. All states are authoritarian.

I'm technically a mestizo from California, but what I mean by my culture is the American culture which is Christian, English, European culture.

@Skyrim EthnoNationalist

Every "alt right" hispanic has doomguy as their avatar

Lol, I did it as a meme in another channel

And I would consider myself trad

no, authoritarianism restricts freedom and consequently value to life

Oooo edgy "I hate the state"

it's a legitimate position

i don't agree with it but there are some sound arguments against statism

oh

ouch

someone has "stormcloak" in their name

objectively the worst choice

Alright kids, everyone open up your copy of "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini

*ehem*

"Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay"

Respect for the state is never high

@Deleted User

Fuck Gentile <:SquidDab:459545666725609493>

@Da_Fish no u

?setrole @Deleted User Polls

rip

?help

yeah

individualism is the cancer that afflicts the west

so i would say always authoritarians is required

however, historically the "wrong" people have had the power

excepting monarchy times

Authoritarian Democracy when

never, democracy is whats wrong with it, mate

True

the only way that such a system wouldnt self-implode is if the suffrage is severely limited, and then what definition of modern day democracy does that even fit

what about absolute monarchy municipalitanism

where instead of serfdoms, you give the princes a city and they are mayor

but, yeah, authoritarianism typically wont work anymore since the "wrong" people will usually be in charge

and then everything will go to absolute more shit than today

Authoritarianism is never justified, because certain economic freedoms and civil liberties should always be preserved for individuals, as there comes a point when a government won't be able to make choices that accurately reflect the preferences and future behaviors of the individuals they're ruling over. As a result, this makes centralized planning subject to very inaccurate predictions of outcomes for public policies

whether this fact is realized by those in government or not

Never justified? So, there shouldnt be a final say from anyone? No final authority like judges and so on? So, Ancap?

i'm speaking of authoritarianism; not authority in general

i'm not that opposed to the limited government that minarchists advocate

You can't equally guarentee everyone's sovereignty; some people have incompatible interests, and there is often asymmetrical economic and social power between different types of people as well. No right can be guarenteed outside of the state, so the very notion of rights implies planning from the beginning. Not all lifestyles and interests are conducive to a sustainable social order either, so those interests need to be denied by the state.

i can see the argument for how the notion of rights implies planning, but typically centralized planning and legal rights are regarded as distinct concepts

actually, probably always

yeah, but for the purposes of this question it says any authoritarianism of any kind. So, you have to break it down on the continuum. Basically this is the mirror continuum to liberty. So, whats the "healthy" amount of authority in a society? This would run the gamut from the government being powerless to stop a mass murderer, to having the government decide what you eat for every meal and at what time. Essentially ancap to totalitarian. Where do you cut it off, and why?

I mean anytime you think about rights, you're imagining arbitrary modes of sovereignty in this or that manner, for this or that group

no, this is talking about enforceable final authority, not some imagined world where every law is policed completely

so, for the purpose of the exercise, imagine that of course people can rebel and get away with it, but if the hammer comes down it would come down as hard as you imagine it should

i'd say i'd cut it off where government should recognize certain 'natural rights' by protecting them as 'legal rights'...particularly like the right to self-organize in business, certain basic property-rights, right to life, etc.

So, you are okay with someone owning a business specifically designed to manufacture firearms, imagining its a conglomerate this business too has a media department that agitates for the overthrow of the current government. So, this business is arming antigovernment elements, and agitating for more of them and more intense elements. This is okay for you? Government should not step in?

hm...things like threats are rightly excluded from the 'right to free speech', from my perspective, and this includes threats of revolution and killing those in government

intentional disastorous false alarms too, like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater

Is there any form of non-violent cultural or government subversion that you are uncomfortable with. Any speech whatsoever that doesnt explicitly advocate violence that you think should be revoked or prevented?

i think all forms of speech that don't explicitly advocate violence should be protected

Would you not have a way for the government to intervene in the case that, people with dispraportionate social or economic power use that power, either against the interests of the people, or the government.

i think union-representation and tripartism take care of that

I mean nowadays you have people with antisocial market behavior, using their economic and cultural power, in lieu with those civil liberties you mentioned, against the interests of the people and the government.

hm...well, for example, i think the reason norway's model has worked is because of its tripartism, where there are contracts b/w government officials, union representatives, and business owners that aim to establish wages that are tolerable for all involved parties. a lot of people think norway's been doing well because of it's social democratic model, but i attribute it to tripartile contractualism

marxists label this as "unironic class collaboration"

but it works to tame the so called "wage slavery"

I think one of the bigger problems of democracy and the system you are suggesting is that when there are "bad actors" in the ecosystem of market economy or whatever else, the government is essentially powerless to stop them. Whether its an anti-social message, an anti-government message or so on. As long as they dont advocate violence they are within the "laws" and thus able to act with impunity.

Also, personally i think that the myth of democracy itself is damaging to a society. In reality, people do not have control over outcomes politically in a democracy, and yet we are all fed the lie that we need to do our "civic duty" to go vote. Have you ever once cast the deciding vote? Have you ever once swayed a politician with power on an issue? All the time we spend thinking and deliberating over who to vote for and what policies to go with and so on and so forth, the collective energy expended and in my opinion truly wasted is a travesty unto itself.

i think it matters in the aggregate though, even though it seems ineffectual on the individual level. and i'm willing to make the sacrifice of having a majority population of idiots vote for garbage government officials

in the name of muh democracy

😉

I honestly wouldnt mind a society set up where there is a justice system for the market economy, and rules and laws very similar to how it is in america, but that at the top there is a class of elites who are not voted in and not truly beholden to the public except the pitchfork public, and remove the lie of democracy i just described. I think it would once and for all unleash the collective energy of america to focus on real problems in their life. Real problems that overlap their circle of influence. Honestly i think thats important for everyone on a small scale, but just look at how much time america spends on their circle of concern, especially when it lies outside of their ability to influence it

america has become somewhat of a corporatocracy at this point, in my view

a bit, but more so just dysfunctional

yea i'd agree

because of the election cycle, politicians cannot do long term planning

they can never make tough decisions that are unpopular

the "occams razor" of politics is: Is this popular? Will it get me elected?

How many important decisions overlap with such thinking?

that's a fair point. i wouldn't be against a wider election interval i guess, just to give officials more time to carry out their policies

but i don't think authoritarianism would solve it

give it to them for life, and then give it to their first son

lol

and voila, hereditary representative constitutional republic

is it really representative though?

in the old days if a regions representative was being a douche, the citizens got their pitchforks and worked out arrangements with someone new

the ultimate vote, if you will

I'd imagine doing that gradually, the peasants would vy for more and more suffrage

Personally I'm an absolutist, so I think anytime you frame meaning and power as derivatived from the individual, you will lack any basis other than utilitarian ones for which gradient between anarchy and monarchy one should stop at. Any democratic system necessarily implies that, and over time under those ethics, suffrage has increased more and more, as withholding it has no real moral basis.

oh absolutely, i guess the point i was making is that even rome had its praetorian guard to murder the emperor when he was being a douche

but yeah, more and more ive been noticing how lacking democracy is for a country. Pits individual against individual. No clear societal goal other than make money for oneself. Just kind of a sad system when you look at outcome

i mean

look how dysfunctional, objectively, america is right now. You had one dude (obama) who came to the stage and says that everything america had been doing is wrong, and now we are doing something else. 8 years later another dude comes along says yeah no that dude was wrong, now we do it differently. And on it goes every 4-8 years

doing something different

but why? can anyone really prove why? i surmise its just to pad a different set of buddies pockets

a literal kleptocracy

sad waste of potential

I mean the government clearly isn't unified in which direction they want us to go

The only way you can make a policy stick is if you can prevent the other side from overhauling it, so many policies that are implemented are focused on securing power, moreso than the common good.

I would argue that a major flaw of democracy or any multiparty system is that there rarely if ever is any underlying ideological foundation for what the parties are doing, rather there are multiple ideologies that are brought to the table constantly, and in the end the govorment represents literally nothing like toothlessjay said.

In order for a republic or democracy to work everyone must participate with the same underlying ideological foundation and work from there, say if nationalisms "The good of the nation, the people" is the underlying foundation then all decisions made nad all platforms proposed operate under the same goal, the same relative direction, even if the ideas or methods by which to get to that goal differ. As such the govorment then represents something, and that would be striving for the good of the poeple and generally their will. The issue then arises on how to maintain this ideologicla foundation, make sur eit doesnt slip from the public mind and dissapear into some nether realm where it waits silently for someone to dig it up and clean it of the cobwebs of history.

However authoritarianism is not an irrational position and may be required at times to rip a country from crisis with decicive and focused action which is the major benefit of authoritarianism. A military is hardly a democracy, at best it could be an oligarchy of advocates to a head ruler. However the military needs ot be decisive and as such, for example in times of strife, the people could elect a temporary dictator until stability is returned and a vote is cast to maintain the dictator or remove him from office.

authoritarian is not synonymous with totalitarian

Well, Totalitarianism is a bit hard to define. In its original meaning it was an intrinsically Fascist phenomenon.

Authoritarianism is absolutely necessary in the beginning stages of national rebirth, but within a few years it should dwindle down to federalism or confederalism.

Authoritarianism will always be necessary.

I think authoritarianism is necessary in waves, when leftism starts taking over an authoritarian reaction is required to bring things back into balance, its essentially a strongman jumping in on the right wing team every so often in the political tug of war. He does his job and out of exhaustion eventually leaves.

That wouldn't work, a strongman wouldn't just give up power like that. Furthermore, it is simply easier to suppress dissenters when they are fringe.

Thats why i mention of exhaustion, the exhaustion can be self induced or induced by his enviorment so his own team struggling for breath or desire to get back into the fray. The event of the strongman entering is catalyzed however his removal is not catalyzed so when he is removed I would expect there to be a lot of turmoil.

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

What is the primary purpose of government? What should the role of a nation's leaders be?

the protect the people

and like

make stuff easier for them

and to make sure they dont get spergy

Yeah exactly

Thats what Socrates said

it is to protect the culture of the nation and to help its people

He was right

removing the fucking cultural marxists

"cultural marxists"

<:Chad:476653434637123584>

lol xd

<:Chad:476653434637123584>

the state is everything

I mean

to help the people

Protect the nation, enforce law and order, punish criminals

to ensure as many residents, both within and out of the nation, live the happiest life they possibly can

@campodin and preserve culture

"culture"

way too vague of a term

@The American Nationalist that is contained in nation imo

Socrates made a great analogy, government to the people is what medicine is to the human body

it should only exist in a minimal form, and only when people are in need?

Lol

that's what medicine is, essentially

@Alice Redacted culture is much more defined than "happiness"

Happiness

fine

a high quality of life

The sole purpose of the government is to protect individual rights

based upon standards of wealth, environmental sustainability, and life expectancy

basically just

Try to raise the HDI of the nation, and other nations

if possible

wealth-adjusted HDI, ofc

:doubt

individuals are not important

the collective is where its at

The base unit of society is the family, not the individual

^

to serve the nation and the people, ensure economic success and the safety of the average working man.

economic success or stability*

To protect rights

@The American Nationalist kys

Collectivists are disgusting, extreme individualism is also disgusting

@J E S S E anarchist

@The American Nationalist I'm not but okay.

*anarchoreign is yping*

"anarchoreign is typing"
Here comes dat boi

<:noyoudidnt:459545660698525696>

"the government" makes this question far too vague to answer, you'd need to specify what level of government to be more specific. At the national level, it should be to ensure the rights of its people, both individual rights in the negative and positive, as well as the collective/communal rights

"communal"

@The American Nationalist come on in

Fucking commie get in the helicopter

The one world state that I believe will inevitable arrive should be an ayn rand minarchist state

Objectivist Gang lol

the state needs to get rid of individuals that threaten the culture

change my mind

But that can't happen in a global form imo

Globalism is retarded

@The American Nationalist I mean i don't disagree

end globalism

Just so long as their rights stay in tact

its the state that gives rights

All subversives should be treated as traitors

**N AT I O N A L S E L F I N T E R E S T**

legal rights yes

@The American Nationalist The state's duty is to protect rights, not give them. Rights are not rights if they can be taken away by the government.

@Doctor Anon It only grants you legal rights that are based on inalienable natural rights

Freedom of Speech is absolutely essential, change my mind

people will say things that hurt the state

@The American Nationalist Not always a bad thing

The state is fallible

It should be pointed out so it can improve on it

Freedom of Association is just as essential, probably more imo

@The American Nationalist Gas the state

people never do it out of good intention, they do it for power, wether it's good or not is up to your own judgement

@J E S S E anarchist

I don't care about the state. It is only important in protecting the nation and its people. Outside of that it can get out of my life.

@The American Nationalist authie kike

news: fascist dabs on local libertarian anarchist

lmao

what is a collective, if not for group of individuals?

fascism protects the individual

@Alice Redacted <:facepalm:459545653509357578> <:YouTried:459545653723398144>

what I'm trying to get at

is that serving the "collective" without regard to the individual

is pointless

as you're just going to cause the collective to suffer

''What is the primary purpose of government? What should the role of a nation's leaders be?'' to protect its citizens and make sure the economy is well. The role of a nation's leader should be to deal with foreign affairs

i value the culture and traditions above the economy

but the economy is important

@Alice Redacted did you learn that from Sargon? Because those are some low IQ arguments

nah

fuck sargon

Also, what culture and traditions?