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:
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.