Same guy as the previous one
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
He's got a point though. This is something right-wingers need to figure out. This is why the National Socialists have a better case for enforcing morality than libertarians.
If you truly believe in limited government then your fixes to the above problems should be as follows:
That should solve the whole "not the party of limited government" critique.
Murder is murder, so that takes care of abortion. Send them all to jail.
Teachers shouldn't be grooming kids, takes care of that and "trans" kids.
Literacy tests to vote also makes a huge difference.
I'm all for small government, but we have to fix the problems first.
Don't forget that tax payers fund public schools, so we most definitely have a right to decide what gets taught and what doesn't. And I think we're all fed up with being extorted via taxes and not having a say in how things work, so either remove all taxes or they need to stfu and accept that we most certainly have a seat at the table.
I'm all for big government as long as the government does what I want it to do and I'm not going to pretend I'm for small government while I also promote the government using its power to "fix problems".
I just wanted to get people out of politics to make government "smaller". Democracies seem fairly "large". 90% of people don't deserve to have an opinion on politics and shrinking who gets power seems like a good way to shrink "government" instead of pretending each citizens gets an equal say thus "expanding" government.
Sure but a 300 million person democracy that regulates a fire service seems to be quite a bit bigger than a single monarch that regulates a fire and police service. I mean think about the administration required just for the voting alone... over what, a fire service? Way too big of administrative clutter imo.
Still, I threw the monarchy in there because I despise democracies and would never want to ever be in one if given a choice.
Why do you want inbred retards running your country?
Better than malicious inbred retarded evil pedo demonic cannibals tbh.
From your other comments in this thread, you seem to just want some sort of autocracy and throw out "monarchy" as a generic substitute for autocracy. But monarchy is a very specific thing, and its key feature is hereditary succession. (I say the same thing to the leftist retards who flippantly throw around the term "fascism" without understanding a damn thing about what the key features of a fascist political system actually are.) The fundamental flaw of monarchy is that eventually monarchs realize that they can concentrate power by fucking their cousins, siblings, and aunt/uncles. And that's what I mean by inbred retard. See the Habsburgs.
So my question to you is why monarchy specifically? And what form, an absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, devolved monarchy, or something else? And why not another form of autocracy, like a military dictatorship? Or an undemocratic oligarchy?
Don't care what liberals think, just like they don't care what we think when we mock them for being "the party of tolerance."
In fact, you should go into a leftist forum and re-word your entire post as an argument to ending the idea that they're not the party of tolerance. See what they say to you.
I'd try to reform the republican form of government--proportional representation--before scrapping it for a monarchy, even though a monarchy can rightfully enforce some sort of formal moral code. Our institutions, all our sources of moral guidance, have been corrupted though, so I might be overly optimistic about the possibility of reform.
The other reforms sound reasonable but what does any of this have to do with a "national socialist" state?
I'm just pointing out how libertarian types (small government) often still promote moral authority on the people, which isn't small government so there's a logical incongruency in their political stance. It can be spoken to, sure, but usually it's a lot of mental gymnastics to basically say they believe in small government in certain respects and big government in other respects. In the end, it's just big government, another way.
I'm saying National Socialists at least don't try to pretend they're for small government and are 100% honest that they like big government which makes them more honest and logically sound in their political stance compared to libertarians, imo.
The reason I made the comparison is because usually libertarians see National Socialists as their antithesis and I'm saying at least your political rival is more forthright in their intentions.