Message from @Doctor Anon
Discord ID: 515294363899920384
But they don't go out of their way to harm the economy.
They harm it regardless of their intentions
And how do they harm it?
By existing?
Welfare consumption, foreign and domestic aid, not working and supporting the market
But welfare and aid are because governments and cultures CHOOSE to pursue welfare and aid.
Those are leftist economic choices, not intrinsic to the poor.
@MinecraftMemer in attempt to lift them out of poorness so they can contribute to the economy
If we do nothing, they won't harm the economy.
They'll just remain poor.
It lowers the social health
So the issue isn't welfare?
Which is proven to reduce morale
Welfare is an issue because it doesn't sufficiently lift people out of poverty
Therefore it's a misallocation of money and resources
So then why have welfare in the first place?
It's a waste
@MinecraftMemer because it's good for re-election
So you're suggesting elections are the problems?
I prefer job fairs over welfare
Temporarily anyways
Democracy is dangerous to competent statecraft because it forces every political decision to be lowered to a level of stupidity that the masses can understand.
If welfare is intrinsic to democracies, then it would be logical to have a different style of government.
In that case, we would have monarchies.
I disagree
Monarchies are almost never concerned about their nation
I would say quite the opposite.
Nationalism is incompatible with monarchies
Nationalism did not exist during the age of monarchs
This is history
Monarchies are probably the MOST concerned for the long term welfare of citizens.
You need a strong, but empathetic, temporary dictatorship
Why not a permanent monarch?
Or an oligarchy of 3-4
Have you ever read Hans-Hermann Hoppe?
Because monarchies are prone to hereditary corruption
My ideal monarchy would be a non hereditary internally elected one
Hereditary rule is precisely why monarchies is so effective and efficient.
With heavy requirements
Hereditary rule is disgusting