I suppose most of it yeah

The issue is

It is good for a quick fix

I like the Authoritarian side the most.

but for long term it isn't realistic

Yeah

It hasn't been tried for long enough to say that.

Ideally a fascist government would rise and dissolve it's fascist elements after whatever needed to be accomplished was accomplished

So I don't know where you're getting this from.

Any authoritarian government will destroy itself given long enough

Spain tried it for a little over 40 years

Wasn't exactly a paradise

I liked it.

Personally I prefer a balance of libertarianism and authoritarianism

The only reason I support having a state is for an army and a standard of law honestly

Enough power to where the state is strong and efficient but not to the point where the people can be easily oppressed

The problem with that is in most cases the state seeks to increase it's power

No matter howl liberal it begins it will always end up in a state like the US federal government

Yeah but you can reverse the damage

Its not impossible

An armed population can keep the government in check

but they don't

Not true

The army could steamroll the entire US population easily

Tell that to the Vietnamese

And the Taliban

That's if the Army sides with the government

^

@Vilhelmsson and they couldn't

Its a little over 1 million people against over 300 million people

That and it would be very hard to motivate US troops to do that

Most people would have no chance, of course.

like 60%

at least

The rest can be dealt with using artillary

They are still an obstacle

also, you might be underestimating the loyalty of soldiers

And anyone who can get their hands on alcohol, a sock, and fire can do damage.

Wuts Gud you degenerates you

Hey

Even if we lose we can cripple libtard cities for years