America could REALLY do with a guy like Bukele right now to be president and governor of states to take out the trash..
200%. And I say this as a still mostly libertarian. We need a purge, though. We need someone to take the helm. We need a strongman. We need a benevolent borderline-dictator, or nothing will change. We need someone who gives no fucks, and will do the necessary thing.
It's tricky, though. It's always hard to pull off, even in the best case scenarios, because dictators are, well, dictators. It can go South real easily. The other problem is also one of America's big strengths; the respect for freedom. In theory, I mean. It's a double-edged sword and I think, if it gets to the point that the people decide they need to go that route, the resulting dictator would put these other guys to shame. We've put it off too long, and the resulting swing back will be incredibly drastic, if it happens.
The system is so corrupt that someone has to defy the system if change is going to happen, and that's viewed as "undemocratic" and unamerican within the current paradigm. It's a hard pill to swallow and one which, like I said, is hard to balance, and can end very badly, even if we do decide it's a pill that needs to be taken.
I'm a recovering libertarian. I've come to the conclusion that it won't work for the same reason communism doesn't work. People suck. Too many are stupid, lazy, and selfish. They will take whatever they can even if it hurts other people. The only way to have a fair and free society is to stamp out any elements that would seek to disrupt it. If there is to be voting the franchise must be severely limited to those with the moral and mental capacity to make the choices that will benefit not them but the people as a whole. Only a morally homogeneous people can be free.
One problem with Libertarians (big L) is they think incrementalism goes in both directions. It doesn't, the pendulum is a ratchet. Another is that any political gains they do make are at the pleasure of the powers that be. They'll always be subservient to whatever system is already in charge. I'm still (small L) libertarian and agree with Kienan. I don't see any inconsistency between the minimal state society and "Communists must be physically removed." It's a hard rule. You have to win the war first before you can replace the system.
The problem with that though is the other one shared with communism: To get there you need a strongman to utilize the State to destroy the State. In practice it doesn't happen. At best we'll emerge from the rubble with a better State for a while, which most people here would be fine with.
I'm a recovering libertarian. I've come to the conclusion that it won't work for the same reason communism doesn't work. People suck.
I've reached much the same conclusion, but still consider myself mostly a libertarian because I still think it's perhaps the ideal situation, at least on the small scale. I want drastically reduced government, to such a degree that most people who utter the phrase 'limited government' would be like, 'no, whoa, take a step back there, buddy.'
Similar to how, to some extent, communism can work on the small scale, when it's voluntary, it's opt-in, and everyone shares the same specific goals.
So even though I see and readily admit the flaws in libertarianism, I'm still attached to libertarian ideals. I just don't think it will magically fix anything. Libertarianism as a large scale system is a utopianist pipedream.
I'm right there with you. I want to live on a small commune with like minded people working for the betterment of our community. I cannot see how that works on anything other than a micro scale
Very interesting, thanks for the recommendation. Listened to a bunch of his stuff while working today. It's thought-provoking, although not always fully thought out, in my opinion. Still enjoyed the listen, and plenty of his stuff was on point, but I think he can talk himself around in circles sometimes, and his logic isn't always sound.
As to that particular one, I agree with a lot of it, but think he's being overly optimistic/utopian. You can't check a dictator, unless you set up those checks before you need a dictator. The "courts and congress" that would remove a dictator from power are the exact same people that I think we need a dictator to deal with.
Our system is broken, and is incapable of providing checks for a dictator. We need a dictator to come in and clean up their corruption and tyranny, not the other way around. The exact type of dictator the system needs is the one who won't follow the rules. Ideally still with the will of the people, though. That would be a chad move, just run for office with the overt platform that you'll be a dictator who will ignore the courts and at times congress, will jail or deport traitorous politicians, possibly even down to the mayor level.
I agree it's a hard balance, you'd need someone so jaded by the left that they would burn their own political career if necessary to just remove them by the root from power but enough empathy towards groups like kids, elderly and rural areas that they wouldn't risk going the route of centralised power like the commies as they would be harmed.
But for that to workout, you'd need MULTIPLE 'strong men' which in America's case would be president and a majority of governors to go as hard as possible yet retain local autonomy, too few guys to do this naturally would lead to more centralised power to remove the enemy.
Here's your libertarian solution: bounties on the heads of criminals. Let the public solve its own problems and rejuvenate the economy in the process. There are no downsides.
Criminals are a problem, but are far from my chief concern. Bounties on politicians, DAs, some judges, and the like, and that's more in line. But, honestly, that would be even more messy and less freedom-oriented than just electing someone who will act the dictator and ignore courts and congress.
Bounties are a funny thought, but not particularly practical...so I suppose it's the perfect libertarian suggestion.
I'd settle for a law that says if any politician has been found to have accepted money from a foreign entity, that politician is to be executed via blowing from a gun.
200%. And I say this as a still mostly libertarian. We need a purge, though. We need someone to take the helm. We need a strongman. We need a benevolent borderline-dictator, or nothing will change. We need someone who gives no fucks, and will do the necessary thing.
It's tricky, though. It's always hard to pull off, even in the best case scenarios, because dictators are, well, dictators. It can go South real easily. The other problem is also one of America's big strengths; the respect for freedom. In theory, I mean. It's a double-edged sword and I think, if it gets to the point that the people decide they need to go that route, the resulting dictator would put these other guys to shame. We've put it off too long, and the resulting swing back will be incredibly drastic, if it happens.
The system is so corrupt that someone has to defy the system if change is going to happen, and that's viewed as "undemocratic" and unamerican within the current paradigm. It's a hard pill to swallow and one which, like I said, is hard to balance, and can end very badly, even if we do decide it's a pill that needs to be taken.
I'm a recovering libertarian. I've come to the conclusion that it won't work for the same reason communism doesn't work. People suck. Too many are stupid, lazy, and selfish. They will take whatever they can even if it hurts other people. The only way to have a fair and free society is to stamp out any elements that would seek to disrupt it. If there is to be voting the franchise must be severely limited to those with the moral and mental capacity to make the choices that will benefit not them but the people as a whole. Only a morally homogeneous people can be free.
One problem with Libertarians (big L) is they think incrementalism goes in both directions. It doesn't, the pendulum is a ratchet. Another is that any political gains they do make are at the pleasure of the powers that be. They'll always be subservient to whatever system is already in charge. I'm still (small L) libertarian and agree with Kienan. I don't see any inconsistency between the minimal state society and "Communists must be physically removed." It's a hard rule. You have to win the war first before you can replace the system.
The problem with that though is the other one shared with communism: To get there you need a strongman to utilize the State to destroy the State. In practice it doesn't happen. At best we'll emerge from the rubble with a better State for a while, which most people here would be fine with.
I've reached much the same conclusion, but still consider myself mostly a libertarian because I still think it's perhaps the ideal situation, at least on the small scale. I want drastically reduced government, to such a degree that most people who utter the phrase 'limited government' would be like, 'no, whoa, take a step back there, buddy.'
Similar to how, to some extent, communism can work on the small scale, when it's voluntary, it's opt-in, and everyone shares the same specific goals.
So even though I see and readily admit the flaws in libertarianism, I'm still attached to libertarian ideals. I just don't think it will magically fix anything. Libertarianism as a large scale system is a utopianist pipedream.
I'm right there with you. I want to live on a small commune with like minded people working for the betterment of our community. I cannot see how that works on anything other than a micro scale
I still think it could work for a small, ethnically homogeneous, nuclear armed nation.
There are no economies of scale politically.
I highly recommend this video by Leather Apron Club as he covers exactly what you’re mentioning. I agree with his assessment.
Very interesting, thanks for the recommendation. Listened to a bunch of his stuff while working today. It's thought-provoking, although not always fully thought out, in my opinion. Still enjoyed the listen, and plenty of his stuff was on point, but I think he can talk himself around in circles sometimes, and his logic isn't always sound.
As to that particular one, I agree with a lot of it, but think he's being overly optimistic/utopian. You can't check a dictator, unless you set up those checks before you need a dictator. The "courts and congress" that would remove a dictator from power are the exact same people that I think we need a dictator to deal with.
Our system is broken, and is incapable of providing checks for a dictator. We need a dictator to come in and clean up their corruption and tyranny, not the other way around. The exact type of dictator the system needs is the one who won't follow the rules. Ideally still with the will of the people, though. That would be a chad move, just run for office with the overt platform that you'll be a dictator who will ignore the courts and at times congress, will jail or deport traitorous politicians, possibly even down to the mayor level.
I agree it's a hard balance, you'd need someone so jaded by the left that they would burn their own political career if necessary to just remove them by the root from power but enough empathy towards groups like kids, elderly and rural areas that they wouldn't risk going the route of centralised power like the commies as they would be harmed.
But for that to workout, you'd need MULTIPLE 'strong men' which in America's case would be president and a majority of governors to go as hard as possible yet retain local autonomy, too few guys to do this naturally would lead to more centralised power to remove the enemy.
The CIA would just kill any politician like that.
Here's your libertarian solution: bounties on the heads of criminals. Let the public solve its own problems and rejuvenate the economy in the process. There are no downsides.
Criminals are a problem, but are far from my chief concern. Bounties on politicians, DAs, some judges, and the like, and that's more in line. But, honestly, that would be even more messy and less freedom-oriented than just electing someone who will act the dictator and ignore courts and congress.
Bounties are a funny thought, but not particularly practical...so I suppose it's the perfect libertarian suggestion.
I'd settle for a law that says if any politician has been found to have accepted money from a foreign entity, that politician is to be executed via blowing from a gun.
Oh, and it applies retroactively.