"make an adaptable system" makes me suspicious and crabby.

(1) HAIL THE WEAK, OR

(2) HAIL THE STRONG

@Jake Saga ME TOO

an adaptable system is not complex, it's simple

LIKE ANAL ITCHING

it's barebones

@fallot AGREED ON SIMPLICITY

"make an adaptable system" sounds pozzed. liberal. 😃

there is a lot of nuance and discretion involved

BEST "SYSTEM" = RELY ON HUMAN QUALITY

AGAIN WITH THE QUALITITATIVE

OY McVEIGH

NUANCE IS INHERENT TO LIFE

the state isn't such a bad thing, it's the current bureaucratic/mandarin PC state that makes it all look bad

DISCRETION = RELIANCE ON PEOPLE QUALITY

THE STATE IS ASS

SORRY CANNOT AGREE WITH YOU THERE

THE STATE ALWAYS TENDS TOWARD THIS SINECURE/MANDARIN INSANITY

IT IS THE NATURE OF THE STATE

well that's why you need that "qualitative" element

REPLACE WITH ARISTOCRACY

you put something on top of them

NEIN

aristocracy is still state

QUALITATIVE IS INHERENT TO LIFE

SIMPLE EFFECTIVE METHODS LEAD TO MORE COMPLEX ONES

even with aristocrats, at a certain level of complexity

you need mandarins to run shit

NO, PER NIETZSCHE, THE STATE IS THE OPPOSITE OF ARISTOCRACY

whatever, he cried over some dead horse

Aristocracies if strong need FEWER bureaucrats. Stronger executive, more coherent society requires less oversight.

Fear and loyalty and cultural cohesion.

@fallot EVOLA SAID THE SAME

AGREED @Jake Saga

STRONG LEADERSHIP = FEWER RULES = GREATER CLARITY

AND SODOMY

the only real issue I think is

what keeps everyone on message

if one bit fucks up, what motivates the rest to police it

even with aristocracies, you can have the issue of degeneration