My hot take (which should in no way be interpreted as simping for monarchy, authoritarianism, fascism, or the like, as I do think a representational system is more likely to remain good and free for longer)...is that the primary distinguishing feature we have compared to the feudalist systems of old isn't representation, isn't freedom, isn't democracy, or anything of the like. It's simply more advanced technology, which naturally increases quality of life.
If you took our current system and set it back a couple hundred years, you'd have similar quality of life to the feudalism of the time. If you took a monarchy and advanced it into the present...you'd have similar quality of life.
There are always elites, there is always a disproportionate distribution of power. All those "oppressive" systems were merely systems of their time, and their main failings were just the limits of the time. Again, to be clear, that isn't me saying they're completely equal. I do think a system that tries to provide the people with representation is better...although on the flipside it's also a trap, since people are propagandized to believe they're much freer than they actually are.
If this was a monarchy, we may well have murdered our king many times over by now...for better or worse.
My hot take (which should in no way be interpreted as simping for monarchy, authoritarianism, fascism, or the like, as I do think a representational system is more likely to remain good and free for longer)...
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'? Do you think that Putin and Xi are more in line with the Russian and Chinese populations, than European critters with European populations, or vice versa?
If you took our current system and set it back a couple hundred years, you'd have similar quality of life to the feudalism of the time. If you took a monarchy and advanced it into the present...you'd have similar quality of life.
This is mostly right. But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor. That is unlikely to be the only thing, just like the system of government perhaps also played a role (while also a result of geography and the lack of a rival).
If this was a monarchy, we may well have murdered our king many times over by now...for better or worse.
Or perhaps there would be a modus vivendi between the kings and the elites that would prevent such a thing. It's a mistake to assume that in a monarchy the king has 'all the power'. There is a reason the people who elect the president and the Congress can 'throw the bums out' many times over without anything changing.
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'?
I think all systems get corrupted, but that's a good point. A lot of dictators or authoritarians do represent their peoples better. At least in the short term. Less representational systems can move faster, which is both good and bad. You can have populist leaders who give their people want they want, and you can have out of control despots.
But the same is true in a representational system...but it seems to just make it harder for the populists. Uh oh.
But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor.
I do think founding principles still carry a big impact, but that's more societal than governmental.
you don't even know what "leftist" or "rightist" means. "Right wing" doesn't mean libertarianism. "Right wing" means traditionalism. The first right wingers were not libertarians they were the monarchists of France. Its why a theocracy would be considered right wing. By your retarded logic of what "right wing" is you think a person who wants to ban LGBT is left wing whilst the person who wants it legal is right wing because banning LGBT would be "authoritarian"
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements. Because you are a deluded propaganda victim, or a delusional propagandist. I define them by objective measurement standards. The correct definition for ANY measurement must be objective.
Your goblinoid tactic here is to try to claim my view is wrong through claiming a moral argument against a right wing position. It does not work.
I do not pretend that left and right are the sole arbiters of moral standards. Yes, a right wing government would tolerate fags in theory. I do not advocate for anarchism, nor am I a libertarian. I am a constitutionalist and a nationalist. I argue for limited government. You are a hitler humping clown who argues for authoritarian government but "your guys" because like every retarded commie faggot, you think you or your friends will be in power, and you lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and see the consequences of trying to surrender all responsibility to the state.
The moral superiority of right wing positions doesn't come from individual elements of modern cultural conflicts. It comes from an understanding of history and human nature. No matter how based the ideal benevolent king is, he will be replaced. No leftist system is tolerable because it is infinitely more vulnerable to corruption and will inevitably be turned against the people. Political power attracts sociopaths, who are skilled at manipulating people and systems - they don't care what dogma they need to spout, only that they can use it to gain power. It is objectively better to have systems with minimal power that can be corrected by the people, instead of massive oppressive regimes that are extremely difficult to fight when they become corrupt.this is one of the most BASIC lessons from the founders of the US. All actual AMERICAN NATIONALISTS know this. Subversive goblins and anti-american commie fags should all be deported to Europe. Leave my country, faggot (if you aren't actually some basement shitpost goblin from some inferior country).
You have your own ideal of what you think things should be. That's fine. But you don't get to claim that whatever you think is ideal is what "right wing" is.
You cannot change the fact that "right wing" does not mean "libertarianism"(you claim you are not a libertarian but yet you define the "right wing" by libertarian definitions) . Read a fucking history book. Where do you think the concept of "right wing and left wing" even came from? The very first right wingers were the monarchists of France(you understand what monarchists means right? it means they were loyal to the royal family, loyal to the king), but you can't seem to accept that because you are a retard or you know nothing about history.
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements
Morality is not "subjective" if you believe in God.
Empires have been a part of human history since the beginning of human history . There's nothing "leftist" about it, shitlib.
How did serfs live? Is it really so far removed from working a shit job to pay for your mortgage or rent?
My hot take (which should in no way be interpreted as simping for monarchy, authoritarianism, fascism, or the like, as I do think a representational system is more likely to remain good and free for longer)...is that the primary distinguishing feature we have compared to the feudalist systems of old isn't representation, isn't freedom, isn't democracy, or anything of the like. It's simply more advanced technology, which naturally increases quality of life.
If you took our current system and set it back a couple hundred years, you'd have similar quality of life to the feudalism of the time. If you took a monarchy and advanced it into the present...you'd have similar quality of life.
There are always elites, there is always a disproportionate distribution of power. All those "oppressive" systems were merely systems of their time, and their main failings were just the limits of the time. Again, to be clear, that isn't me saying they're completely equal. I do think a system that tries to provide the people with representation is better...although on the flipside it's also a trap, since people are propagandized to believe they're much freer than they actually are.
If this was a monarchy, we may well have murdered our king many times over by now...for better or worse.
My hot question: do 'representational systems' represent the population better than monarchies and 'authoritarians'? Do you think that Putin and Xi are more in line with the Russian and Chinese populations, than European critters with European populations, or vice versa?
This is mostly right. But most Americans attribute their country's success to 'our system of government' rather than to more mundane factors like geography and the lack of a serious nearby nation-state competitor. That is unlikely to be the only thing, just like the system of government perhaps also played a role (while also a result of geography and the lack of a rival).
Or perhaps there would be a modus vivendi between the kings and the elites that would prevent such a thing. It's a mistake to assume that in a monarchy the king has 'all the power'. There is a reason the people who elect the president and the Congress can 'throw the bums out' many times over without anything changing.
I think all systems get corrupted, but that's a good point. A lot of dictators or authoritarians do represent their peoples better. At least in the short term. Less representational systems can move faster, which is both good and bad. You can have populist leaders who give their people want they want, and you can have out of control despots.
But the same is true in a representational system...but it seems to just make it harder for the populists. Uh oh.
I do think founding principles still carry a big impact, but that's more societal than governmental.
Empires are by nature authoritarian. Authoritarianism is leftist. You dimwit.
you don't even know what "leftist" or "rightist" means. "Right wing" doesn't mean libertarianism. "Right wing" means traditionalism. The first right wingers were not libertarians they were the monarchists of France. Its why a theocracy would be considered right wing. By your retarded logic of what "right wing" is you think a person who wants to ban LGBT is left wing whilst the person who wants it legal is right wing because banning LGBT would be "authoritarian"
You define the wings by subjective cultural elements. Because you are a deluded propaganda victim, or a delusional propagandist. I define them by objective measurement standards. The correct definition for ANY measurement must be objective.
Your goblinoid tactic here is to try to claim my view is wrong through claiming a moral argument against a right wing position. It does not work.
I do not pretend that left and right are the sole arbiters of moral standards. Yes, a right wing government would tolerate fags in theory. I do not advocate for anarchism, nor am I a libertarian. I am a constitutionalist and a nationalist. I argue for limited government. You are a hitler humping clown who argues for authoritarian government but "your guys" because like every retarded commie faggot, you think you or your friends will be in power, and you lack the capacity to look beyond the immediate and see the consequences of trying to surrender all responsibility to the state.
The moral superiority of right wing positions doesn't come from individual elements of modern cultural conflicts. It comes from an understanding of history and human nature. No matter how based the ideal benevolent king is, he will be replaced. No leftist system is tolerable because it is infinitely more vulnerable to corruption and will inevitably be turned against the people. Political power attracts sociopaths, who are skilled at manipulating people and systems - they don't care what dogma they need to spout, only that they can use it to gain power. It is objectively better to have systems with minimal power that can be corrected by the people, instead of massive oppressive regimes that are extremely difficult to fight when they become corrupt.this is one of the most BASIC lessons from the founders of the US. All actual AMERICAN NATIONALISTS know this. Subversive goblins and anti-american commie fags should all be deported to Europe. Leave my country, faggot (if you aren't actually some basement shitpost goblin from some inferior country).
You have your own ideal of what you think things should be. That's fine. But you don't get to claim that whatever you think is ideal is what "right wing" is.
You cannot change the fact that "right wing" does not mean "libertarianism"(you claim you are not a libertarian but yet you define the "right wing" by libertarian definitions) . Read a fucking history book. Where do you think the concept of "right wing and left wing" even came from? The very first right wingers were the monarchists of France(you understand what monarchists means right? it means they were loyal to the royal family, loyal to the king), but you can't seem to accept that because you are a retard or you know nothing about history.
Morality is not "subjective" if you believe in God.