Dictatorships have always been one of the fastest forms of government, its one of the unironic benefits of it. What Big Dog says goes, everyone knows better than to question or delay, and bureaucracy works for him rather than against him.
That's of course why its also so terrible. Because if what Big Dog is saying is fucking awful, it still has to happen and it has zero impediments.
Dictatorships are not exactly the same as Autocracy. A Dictatorship isn't necessarily fast if the leader is slow, his enforcement is slow, his knowledge gathering is slow, or his assembly is slow. An autocrat is fast because it's in-built for him to be a kind of god-king for power. Was what he said reasonable, or even sane? Don't know, don't care, one way or another, every squirrel in the kingdom must be charged with sodomy.
What we have here is a strong executive fighting a bureaucratic state.
I understand why people are concerned about the executive having power. But there is no problem with the executive having power over his own apparatus. The issue is that the Legislature has basically ceded all authority to the bureaucracy and the executive; while the judiciary has become a confederate bureaucracy.
I would like for the Legislature to start asserting itself, but we currently keep filling it with cowards and criminals.
Historically a dictator was an appointed position in the Roman Republic who was given full power for a short period of time, basically only in times of emergency.
Before the empire there were dictators who led the country and then retired to farming. It only became a new word when the Caesers became dictators for life.
I had an interesting thought pop into my head a year or so back, that, while I'm sure people talk about in circles I don't run in, was all new to me, and kind of blew my mind when it occurred to me.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating for any of these forms of governance. Feudalism, monarchy, dictatorship, all that...it was all discredited, due in large part to poor living conditions. Well, that was more an aspect of the time than that style of leadership, generally. They didn't have the technology to have a super high quality of life.
We currently live in a time where we have the technology to live more comfortable lives, and our Democratic™ rulers have the technology to oppress us easily, without making most people even realize they're oppressed. Our "elected" representatives have more direct control over our lives than kings or dictators did a hundred years ago.
A half-functional modern monarchy or feudal system may - emphasis on may - actually provide more freedom. Doesn't even have to be a benevolent ruler, just not an outright awful one.
It's interesting to think about, trying to imagine old systems with current living conditions. As well as comparing current Democratic™ governance with older systems, and looking at things like tax rate.
People think they're free because they're told they are.
Again, not advocating for any of that. In fact, I'm generally opposed, but just pointing out they're probably nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. I do think something close to representational republics are ideal, if you can massively downsize it. But, again, we've seen the issues with this as well, and it doesn't stay downsized. Likewise, though, kings etc. don't stay benevolent or even competent either.
The strength of a feudal system, from a freedom perspective, is that the rulers are much closer to the people they govern. Your lord literally lives on the hill nearby. He not only wants your neighborhood to flourish because it's his as well, if he doesn't, you know where he sleeps.
I think the main issues with autocratic systems generally come from succession issues; even if the king/dictator/ruler has a handpicked successor, their acceptance by the common man or the elite isn’t a guarantee. Like republics or not, it would be extremely difficult to cause a genuine succession crisis without doing some major hijacking of the system due to the selection system.
But is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Or a neutral thing?
Biden was "allegedly" not the winner, and he was still allegedly President for a full term. JFK was assassinated, and all sorts of fuckery happened. Various other presidents have been ousted in suspicious manners. If the people at the top can install whatever leader they want, and the people just go along with it, isn't that at least potentially an angle for more oppression? The common man doesn't get a say in such a system, ironically.
So, yeah. Good? Less chance of conflict. Bad? Less chance of representation, sometimes. Neutral? Both systems can install good or bad people and get away with it, legitimately or illegitimately. Humanity is so complicated it's hard to reach one solid answer, but it's certainly not clear cut.
Trump will not be the only person seeking revenge. His administration will be filled with people with enemies’ lists of their own, a determined cadre of “vetted” officials who will see it as their sole, presidentially authorized mission to “root out” those in the government who cannot be trusted. Many will simply be fired, but others will be subject to career-destroying investigations
And every single one of them will have it coming. Treason is a hanging offense, so they should count their blessings if it only costs them their career.
The opposition’s ability to wield legitimate, peaceful and legal forms of power will already have been found wanting in this election cycle, when Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans threw every legitimate weapon against Trump and still failed. Will they turn instead to illegitimate, extralegal action? What would that look like?
I'll bet it would look like charging Trump with 34 bullshit felonies, and when that fails, attempting to assassinate him twice.
Very entertaining (though long) piece, as well as entertaining pictures with Trump's face photoshopped into Julius Caesar and Napoleon busts and artifacts.
Okay, I can think of a few right off the top of my head, but these fuckers are certainly very, very, very near the top of the list. 99.9999% percentile, if we're taking all of humanity into account.
His first term they pretended that all Trump did was play golf. Then Biden took a four year nap with a rubber stamp in his hand. Now they pretend Trump is doing too much.
If Trump does go dictator, it will be because these lunatics pushed him to it.
And then they'll all scream that they told us so, and we should have seen the warning signs, why didn't we listen?! Never mind that that's what we've been telling them for ages, and especially vigorously these last eight years.
Most of us just wanted to be left alone, and many of us at one point believed we lived in a nation that wasn't ruled by people who hate us and what us dead. We've since been disabused of that notion.
People are more likely to support Supreme General God Emperor Trump exactly because of leftist lunacy and hate. And, most importantly, the left's inability to let perceived political opponents - or even their own allies - live in peace, free from their meddling omnipotent moral busybodery.
If Trump does go dictator, it will be because these lunatics pushed him to it.
I often remember that Stonetoss cartoon with the Nazi putting wokies in concentration camps and saying: "Honestly, we weren't even planning on this, but they wouldn't stop punching us."
Given the progress of barely a week, you're not helping discredit dictatorships as a viable form of governance...
Dictatorships have always been one of the fastest forms of government, its one of the unironic benefits of it. What Big Dog says goes, everyone knows better than to question or delay, and bureaucracy works for him rather than against him.
That's of course why its also so terrible. Because if what Big Dog is saying is fucking awful, it still has to happen and it has zero impediments.
Not necessarily.
Dictatorships are not exactly the same as Autocracy. A Dictatorship isn't necessarily fast if the leader is slow, his enforcement is slow, his knowledge gathering is slow, or his assembly is slow. An autocrat is fast because it's in-built for him to be a kind of god-king for power. Was what he said reasonable, or even sane? Don't know, don't care, one way or another, every squirrel in the kingdom must be charged with sodomy.
What we have here is a strong executive fighting a bureaucratic state.
I understand why people are concerned about the executive having power. But there is no problem with the executive having power over his own apparatus. The issue is that the Legislature has basically ceded all authority to the bureaucracy and the executive; while the judiciary has become a confederate bureaucracy.
I would like for the Legislature to start asserting itself, but we currently keep filling it with cowards and criminals.
Then the police raid their homes and shoot them.
Historically a dictator was an appointed position in the Roman Republic who was given full power for a short period of time, basically only in times of emergency.
Before the empire there were dictators who led the country and then retired to farming. It only became a new word when the Caesers became dictators for life.
A dictatorship with a good leader is extremely rare, but highly prosperous when it happens.
A government with good leaders is extremely rare, to be fair.
True, but a gimped government with bad leaders is preferable to a powerful government with bad leaders.
Our government certainly isn't gimped, though. Sadly.
compared to the rest of the world and history, it's pretty gimped. mostly by bureaucracy.
I had an interesting thought pop into my head a year or so back, that, while I'm sure people talk about in circles I don't run in, was all new to me, and kind of blew my mind when it occurred to me.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating for any of these forms of governance. Feudalism, monarchy, dictatorship, all that...it was all discredited, due in large part to poor living conditions. Well, that was more an aspect of the time than that style of leadership, generally. They didn't have the technology to have a super high quality of life.
We currently live in a time where we have the technology to live more comfortable lives, and our Democratic™ rulers have the technology to oppress us easily, without making most people even realize they're oppressed. Our "elected" representatives have more direct control over our lives than kings or dictators did a hundred years ago.
A half-functional modern monarchy or feudal system may - emphasis on may - actually provide more freedom. Doesn't even have to be a benevolent ruler, just not an outright awful one.
It's interesting to think about, trying to imagine old systems with current living conditions. As well as comparing current Democratic™ governance with older systems, and looking at things like tax rate.
People think they're free because they're told they are.
Again, not advocating for any of that. In fact, I'm generally opposed, but just pointing out they're probably nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. I do think something close to representational republics are ideal, if you can massively downsize it. But, again, we've seen the issues with this as well, and it doesn't stay downsized. Likewise, though, kings etc. don't stay benevolent or even competent either.
Anyway, there's my ramble.
The strength of a feudal system, from a freedom perspective, is that the rulers are much closer to the people they govern. Your lord literally lives on the hill nearby. He not only wants your neighborhood to flourish because it's his as well, if he doesn't, you know where he sleeps.
I think the main issues with autocratic systems generally come from succession issues; even if the king/dictator/ruler has a handpicked successor, their acceptance by the common man or the elite isn’t a guarantee. Like republics or not, it would be extremely difficult to cause a genuine succession crisis without doing some major hijacking of the system due to the selection system.
But is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Or a neutral thing?
Biden was "allegedly" not the winner, and he was still allegedly President for a full term. JFK was assassinated, and all sorts of fuckery happened. Various other presidents have been ousted in suspicious manners. If the people at the top can install whatever leader they want, and the people just go along with it, isn't that at least potentially an angle for more oppression? The common man doesn't get a say in such a system, ironically.
So, yeah. Good? Less chance of conflict. Bad? Less chance of representation, sometimes. Neutral? Both systems can install good or bad people and get away with it, legitimately or illegitimately. Humanity is so complicated it's hard to reach one solid answer, but it's certainly not clear cut.
And every single one of them will have it coming. Treason is a hanging offense, so they should count their blessings if it only costs them their career.
I'll bet it would look like charging Trump with 34 bullshit felonies, and when that fails, attempting to assassinate him twice.
Yea, these lists exist for a reason.
It's basically the meme "Who radicalized you?" "You did!".
Robert Kagan is the husband of Victoria Nuland.
Very entertaining (though long) piece, as well as entertaining pictures with Trump's face photoshopped into Julius Caesar and Napoleon busts and artifacts.
Name a worse family.
Okay, I can think of a few right off the top of my head, but these fuckers are certainly very, very, very near the top of the list. 99.9999% percentile, if we're taking all of humanity into account.
Well it starts with an R
Riden? 🤔
Rinton? 🤔
Is Scooby Doo in charge suddenly? 🐕
Roros?
Rush?
It’s funny how anti-Trump fear mongering and pro-Trump fanart basically look the same.
ENTER.
I wish we had the Trump that only exists in their deranged minds and not the flabby, flaccid boomer dem we actually got.
His first term they pretended that all Trump did was play golf. Then Biden took a four year nap with a rubber stamp in his hand. Now they pretend Trump is doing too much.
It's all to protect the status quo grift.
Self-fulfilling prophecy much?
If Trump does go dictator, it will be because these lunatics pushed him to it.
And then they'll all scream that they told us so, and we should have seen the warning signs, why didn't we listen?! Never mind that that's what we've been telling them for ages, and especially vigorously these last eight years.
Most of us just wanted to be left alone, and many of us at one point believed we lived in a nation that wasn't ruled by people who hate us and what us dead. We've since been disabused of that notion.
People are more likely to support Supreme General God Emperor Trump exactly because of leftist lunacy and hate. And, most importantly, the left's inability to let perceived political opponents - or even their own allies - live in peace, free from their meddling omnipotent moral busybodery.
I often remember that Stonetoss cartoon with the Nazi putting wokies in concentration camps and saying: "Honestly, we weren't even planning on this, but they wouldn't stop punching us."
Congrats, you sussed out their very explicit goal.
Sulla Did Nothing Wrong
Every president since Lincoln has been a dictator.
I'm okay with a benevolent dictator, especially if the alternate option is a pack of thieves and tyrants calling themselves a 'democracy'.
Don't threaten me with a good time.