How and or why does anyone think a strong central authoritarian/central(right or left) federal government is a good...

But, speaking purely to the U.S., could that not correlate to the expansion of the federal government?

>some AUSSY shoots up shitskins in NEW ZEALAND
>Looks like we are going to take all your gun rights away from you!
>Nobody voted for this but were going to do it anyway!
>We know whats best for you!
>No, the government is going to keep it's guns!
LMAO why do you pretend like what we have now is anything other than the dictatorship you describe, but ran by globohomo jews. Fucking retard.

the scope of the organizations we create is in proportion to the scope of the problems we are trying to address, even if (perhaps especially if) we don't understand the scope of the problem in the first place

literally nothing about our gun laws changed, I still own a firearm and my club would have sent me out a letter about any law change. Nice try at deflection from the original point though.

Assume they have a 100 year plan, when has any empire ever lasted or worked in the history of humanity? Outside of very small societies, every large empire/ authoritarian government has always failed.

I'm talking about New Zealand you dense cunt. But yeah sure everything is fine, as long as you get to pretend your vote means something.

It has more of an impact than a dictatorship would ever have, I never said democracy is a perfect system but it caters to me more than some cunt enriching himself off of a country for decades. Look at any dictatorship throughout history and marvel at the amount of corruption and leeching it does off of the populace. Oh but I'm sure you think the same way a communist does hey? you'll be a card carrying meeber of the inner circle of the autocrats manor, destitution won't be thrust upon you right?

>Politicians don't enrich themselves off plebs as of now
>Politicians and corporations don't import 3rd world slaves for votes and cheap labor
user I am sorry but democracy is a fucking joke these days and is probably only viable in a homogenous society. And no I am not a commie faggot and I utterly despise the notion of it.

>Politicians don't enrich themselves off plebs as of now
happens in any system just less under democracy because you can try to vote for less taxation
>Politicians and corporations don't import 3rd world slaves for votes and cheap labor
china is doing this and it's an autocracy, they have nigger ghettos popping up because the labour is cheaper than native chinese now. If a dictator wanted to they could open the border on a whim and allow anyone in whereas with a democracy you would have 1 side wanting it open and another battling to close it, an adversarial system like this better serves people.

I guess I will just never understand the cuck mindset of wanting a big daddy to ream your butthole and make decisions for you because you are too weak to take on responsibility of decision making yourself.

people just odnt make good decisions when they are left to their own devices

But when an organization is created and achieves power, is it not in the interest of the organization to maintain that power? Therefore could they could manipulate the scope of a problem to generate more support for a "solution" and solidify their power further?

How is this true? "People" as a whole is nearly impossible to to judge or predict, but have we not seen the best advances and progress when "people" have been left alone to pursue their interests?

corruption happens less in democracy because you can possibly vote to have less taxes?
What the fuck are you on about? I can't even be bothered with the rest of your argument until this is addressed. But in any case don't give me anymore (you)'s, this thread sucks and I am going to bed.

>corruption happens less in democracy because you can possibly vote to have less taxes?
how is it more corrupt than a democratic system? I'll wait.
>conceded defeat by pretending to go to bed
ah fair enough.

>how is it more corrupt than a democratic system? I'll wait.
how is an autocracy less corrupt than a democratic system*

What does having power have to do with it? Most organizations are self-perpetuating by design.

Sad little political theory of my own here:

I've realized on the path from libertarian to fascist that people "want to give up their freedom" not people who live in the country or who are educated of course. People who live in the inner cities want government monitoring of personal issue or want their arms taken away. They want big daddy government to take their place. In essence, a good government would fight to keep the freedom of it's citizens. It would be tough on crime and fair politically. This is an alien concept to someone in America these days because we've witnessed so much of the local and federal government failure in our lives from 1990-2019. All of course perpetrated by Democrats and Neocon Baby Boomers.

Attached: efd.jpg (403x392, 20K)

Doesnt happen less in democracy, it happens more in democracy. Up until the 18th century no monarch took more than 15% of a persons income in taxes, many took even less than 10%.
It's a nice theory that voting could lead to less taxes, but it doesnt happen in reality. What consistently happens is that socialists gain more power as voting rights are given to more and more people, leading to higher taxes. The super rich/companies move to some tax haven, leaving the middle and high income earners to foot the bill for an increasing number of gibs monkeys.

Because an autocracy doesnt have government corruption (lobbying) built into the system as a feature. Because and autocratic leader is more concerned about the long term prospering of his country, because it can generally be regarded as his property, whereas a democratic leader is just a steward of his country for 4 years. So the m.o. Of a democratic leader will always be tto use his influence to amass as much wealth as he can within that time, since he will not benefit the rewards of a long term improvement of the country. I mean everyone knows chancellors and prime ministers get comparatively low salaries, yet they are all still rich as fuck, and we all know why this is, the news and your teachers just never call it corruption (guess why).
I really reccomend reading some moldbug/hoppe if you are really interested in this.

Corruption is the reason Aipac, lockheed and the oil lobby can send aircraft carriers to the middle east.
They would not be able to do this if corruption was not so ingrained into democracy.

>Doesnt happen less in democracy, it happens more in democracy. Up until the 18th century no monarch took more than 15% of a persons income in taxes, many took even less than 10%
total bullshit, monarchies tend to overtax in order to fuel their lavish lifestyles.
>It's a nice theory that voting could lead to less taxes, but it doesnt happen in reality.
it's happened before it's just that most people like to keep their social programs which is why taxes have to go up for them.
>The super rich/companies move to some tax haven, leaving the middle and high income earners to foot the bill for an increasing number of gibs monkeys
this happened under venezuelan autocracy so what's your point exactly? you think that a different system wouldn't have rich companies put their money into tax havens? it would probably happen more as all the companies need to do is bribe one guy to do it rather than bribing hundreds of different politicians to look the other way.

>Country becomes shithole
>no immigration
>homogenous, beautiful people
>forests and streams exist because not overpopulated or rich enough to exploit
>poor people living simple happy family lives
>not allowed to have gay pride parade

Fuck man, don't know how those people stand it not being able to suck dicks in the street.

>Because an autocracy doesnt have government corruption (lobbying) built into the system as a feature
yes they do in fact it's more prevalent because thy will be more inclined to help family and friends whereas with lobby groups at least some plebs could potentially form one rather than not having the option.
>Because and autocratic leader is more concerned about the long term prospering of his country, because it can generally be regarded as his property
jesus cucking christ that's sad, you literally want to be property and anyway that's untrue he views you as almost worthless and disposable if anything and what can you do about it? oh nothing because you have no say.
>I mean everyone knows chancellors and prime ministers get comparatively low salaries, yet they are all still rich as fuck
yeah okay because the nobility and the autocrats inner circle aren't rich either right? at least with the other scum bags you can vote them out if they are too shitty and are too corrupt rather than having them stay there in order to maximise the efficiency of their corruption.
>Corruption is the reason Aipac, lockheed and the oil lobby can send aircraft carriers to the middle east.
so one of the autocrats higher up goons who owns arms manufacturing can't just beg him to equip and send the army into a war to benefit himself? of course he can....

This, there is a reason our Founding Fathers restricted voting to white landowning men of good character. It was a feature, not a bug.

Attached: america_is_for_whites.jpg (2500x5000, 3.95M)

>implying the dictator won't open up borders
>implying a dictator couldn't also be pro fag
>implying the dictator wouldn't just allow industry to rape nature because it would enrich him and his inner circle
read the fucking thread before you spout off your inane shit

>Devolution
This user gets it. Democracies are only possible in populations with an average IQ high enough to make good decisions for the group. IQ has been decreasing in America for over a century. The age of democracies and democratic republics is coming to an end.

Can you provide any examples of dictators doing those things?

They should just rape children into existence, at least the government would acknowledge what it stood for.

Because it's how progress had been made through all of history

Egypt to ceaser to the Chinese to the Mongols to Britain to sadly America who got most of it's wealth from the British after WW1

Progress demands someone who can cull retards

Attached: 1552021139459.png (2000x1410, 406K)

Only retards can't separate social and economic political alignment.

Left economic
Right social conservative
Nationalist
Global trade can be good if the nation state is not harmed as a result.

Oh wow it's natsoc

Left and right two party systems in the west allow the Jews to have their cake and eat it too, no matter which party wins.

It's why Shapiro, tucker et al are retarded. Because they have the social side correct, but not the economic side.

The left are retarded because you can't have left either wing economics AND a progressive, separated, Mish mash of values and religions, because there's no overarching cohesive structure (the national pride).

The only way forward from here is acceleration. Vote for dumb shit and watch it burn. We'll come out the other side just fine

Wrong. Read my post here. Educate yourself idiot

Attached: bog_compass.png (500x522, 126K)

>Tucker has the economic side wrong

You should watch his show sometime user. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Most empires last around 300 to 400 years
Last Chinese golden age lasted from 960 – 1279 and Russian empire lasted for 200+

Meanwhile American """""empire""""" of democracy has been on the verge of collapse since the 90s and and it only got into power in the 1950s and only because no one considered them enough of a threat to bother with them

So uh
Big number > small number

read the thread, its literally happening in china as we speak

>total bullshit, monarchs tend to overtax
You're wrong on this, and you dont know what you're talking about.
knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2017/taxes-through-ages
>rarely exceeded 5% of GDP!!
>meanwhile most modern countries have a tax rate of >30%
>taxes generally do not go down but up, since the mob generally votes for more gibs
Exactly.
>happened under venezuelan autocracy etc.
Yes, these companies move out because of an increasing tax burden, thereby moving a lot of worth (jobs, infrasrructure) put of the country. You conflagrate this with corruption here, even though it has nothing to do with it, it's just rational acting, no influencing of government necessary.
And yes, of course autocrats can be and often are corrupted, all power corrupts. Autocrats just generally (especially in the case of monarchism) don't get as corrupt.
Communists are generally bureaucrats, not autocrats. (power in the hands of many vs few; i.e. Aparatchicks, party members, state officials etc.)

Because we would literally be cucked by every other nation if we didn't. To play in the game, you have to be on par with the rest of the players. To win, you must be smart enough to know how to play by the rules to break them.

Are you telling me the cheap labor China uses get to stay in China as long as they want and be considered citizens? Pleas show me a picture of niggers in China or it never fucking happened.

>You're wrong on this, and you dont know what you're talking about
most have been monarchies kiddo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_acts_of_tax_resistance

>rarely exceeded 5% of GDP!!
>meanwhile most modern countries have a tax rate of >30%
>taxes generally do not go down but up, since the mob generally votes for more gibs
yes because autocrats have never done gibs before!
>what is the grain dole
do some cursory research before you talk son
>And yes, of course autocrats can be and often are corrupted, all power corrupts. Autocrats just generally (especially in the case of monarchism) don't get as corrupt.
completely unfounded assertion, they get more corrupt rather than less.

The US is an enlightenment project and rational thought as well as racial theory was a big part of the enlightenment. This changed for good in the 60s when postmodern thought and critical theory were successfully used as counter enlightenment. Now racial theory is pretty much prohibited and replaced by irrational postmodern notions about race, gender and power structures. This is very damaging especially for white people.

At this point it seems harder for me to enter the US as a well-educated European than an uneducated third worlder. I have to have employment prior to immigration and then hold it for years, whereas many illegals just get naturalized.

Right. But what I was getting at is that they have all at some point or another failed.

>more corruption in autocracy
Not true and I will not continue engaging in this if you dont start giving examples.
>blah he views you as worthless
As does every democratic politician, complaining about this is like complaining about rain, it's a part of human nature.
>wah but kings are rich too
Way to miss the point, ofc you will always be ruled over by rich people, again you are complaining about rain, this is how human groups work. The point is that a king is rich because he has property, and a democratic leader is rich because he abuses other peoples property repeatedly for personal gain.
>cant beg the king to go to war
Historically it is the other way around. This is where the word parlament comes from: it uses to mean a journey the king would make to his industry to beg them for money so he could pay his soldiers. Wars between monarchs usually had smaller armies and less casualties because they were properry disputes and not ideological disputes (as in democracy). Again nice theories, but without anything to back them up, you are just venting steam into the abyss.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with your first point but your post doesn't really address my question. How is natsoc a good idea? When has the good of the many ever worked out? And where do the ones promising this derive their power? From a majority? What gives the right of 5000(just to use a number) to tell 1000 what to do and how to live? Majority rule?

>Not true and I will not continue engaging in this if you dont start giving examples.
I'm not holding your hand through the countless historical examples lil guy
>As does every democratic politician, complaining about this is like complaining about rain, it's a part of human nature
you ignored the part about lobbying and interest groups being able to sway things for people with less power but yeah keep ignoring every point I make though to try make yourself look smart and logical.
>Way to miss the point, ofc you will always be ruled over by rich people, again you are complaining about rain, this is how human groups work. The point is that a king is rich because he has property, and a democratic leader is rich because he abuses other peoples property repeatedly for personal gain.
another unfounded diatribe choc full of evasion, A king can seize property at anytime he likes a democratic leader whilst yes they can seize property they are FORCED in most western states to give you just recompense.
>Historically it is the other way around. This is where the word parlament comes from: it uses to mean a journey the king would make to his industry to beg them for money so he could pay his soldiers. Wars between monarchs usually had smaller armies and less casualties because they were properry disputes and not ideological disputes (as in democracy). Again nice theories, but without anything to back them up, you are just venting steam into the abyss.
you've backed up nothing you've said right here and you're claiming I'm not, the hypocrisy is absolutely palpable and sweet. Now to the meat of your horseshit assertions no that is untrue a democracy has lots of pressures to halt warfare through voting, lobbying and outright protest. A king or autorat on the other hand has no such pressure other than themselves and perhaps some family members to stop fighting.

>list of tax resistances
Moving the goal posts because you were wrong on tax rates. Ofc they revolted more, more was at stake back then. Also not as many distractions.
>autocrats never did gibs
Attacking a straw man, also comparing the grain dole to the gibs carussell we have today is grasping at straws.
>get more corrupt rather than less
Someone like you doesnt even view the arbitrary breaking of property rights as corruption, so it is pointless for us to keep going on about this.
I have to go now. Happy easter.

How so? I believe the US under a strong federal government is weaker generally(minus actual moments of crisis) than the states being more independent.

oh you're leaving too and making up a fake reason like your mate here don't let the door slam you on your ass on the way out lil cuckboi but maybe you'd like that since you need a strong daddy to put your sub ass into line. faggot.

But for every absolute power have we not seen the dissolution of it as well? I will concede at moments of crisis I believe one unified leader or voice or however is the best course of action but for a society or mankind as a whole when has consolidating power long term ever worked out?

You're right, the federal system has some great advantages we can make more use of.
Congressmen and senators spend far too much time trying to impose various policies on each other when they could simply each adopt their own preferences in their own states.
Most of the social issues shouldn't be national at all.

Is perhaps the "failure" of local government placed on the importance of "big" government? And from libertarian to facist, if you can see the faults that our government has and has largely created, how can you expect or believe a government to solve those problems? I just don't understand how anyone upset with how things are, speaking in the US, can expect any change from an ever more powerful central government.

I can't really think of any social issues that should be regulated by the federal government. I don't think social issues should be regulated at all I think government interference in to people's lives is what largely creates social issues.

I still think it's funny that people still think the left or the right makes a differance at all its like voting for your favorite sex position in which to get raped first. Everyone's trying to win at checkers while the government is playing chess. Everyone wants freedom but no one wants to mind there own damn business. So we get to pay all these taxes so government can keep us "free" and alow us to play the game in which they make up the rules as they go.

you take that authoritarian state and shove it up your ass. most don't want it thats why we have allergic reaction to commies, but we don't say much to the nazilarp tards because they do not mention it much, when they do, they find themselves beset by their "folowers" in a hurry, the nazi smoking ban is a good example. all control freaks can get killed.

whilst I'm not against the idea of federal voting I think states should definitely be empowered more because they serve a more local community that is more connected to their local candidates. More power that's devolved to localised communities the better in my opinion. I somewhat envy the american system because it has way more state power than our does but it could always use more. Would also decrease tensions massively as like minded people who like similar policy positions might move and congregate into a single state meaning that an ethnostate could be viable if say everyone moved to arkansas or wherever and explicitly voted pro white policies without the federal government intervening but the problem is once a federal government is established it only gets stronger over time.

Would love a less authoritarian government but this is literally impossible in a multiracial society especially one with niggers

I don't think that to be true at all. I would say that a lot of the problems the black community faces are a result of federal intervention in areas.

The states originally were more powerful than the fed in theory as the powers and limitations of the fed gov were explicitly laid out. This all came to change tho of course in the middle 1800s and honest Abe's tyrannic war.

You should think further than left or right. Think about the whole idea of a group of people telling you how to live at all and if you don't follow their rules you are threatened with violence. Now of course there are rules or behaviors we should follow such as don't just fucking kill someone, or things of that nature but beyond that what rules should there be?

It's not an inherently bad idea, if that authority is limited in scope.

I like the idea of keeping a Constitutional Representative Republic style of government as outlined in the US constitution, but we've deviated far away from it's origin designs.

Among other changes (mostly returning to the original Constitution), I would definitely be open-minded about a more Imperialistic executive branch.

We're suffocating ourselves with democracy; uneducated, unsuccessful people were never intended to vote; the Senate was never intended to be directly elected; the Presidency was never intended to have term limits; the government we have today is a weaker, bastardized version of the government our founding fathers created.

You kind of made sense until the end there. But what difference is there really between communists and fascists?

>unsuccessful people were never intended to vote
I can get behind this as a reform of democracy, only people earning over a certain amount or perhaps just landowners should have a say
>Presidency was never intended to have term limits
whilst I'm not against term limits you are right they are way to short and are not conducive to long term planning, perhaps a 15-20 single term is in order and if the people choose to do so they can vote for the same guy after 15-20 years if he's still alive for another term.

Of all the changes to the US since our founding, why is this the only correlation you point out?

Why not the dramatic increase in the non-white population?

Why not Women's suffrage?

Why not removing the requirement of owning property in order to vote?

Why not the requirement of a reading test in order to vote?

Why not the fall of Religion from mainstream culture?

Why not compulsory public education (which didn't exist until the late 1800s/early 1900s?

Also, obligatory
>correlation =/= causality

This perspective is so weak, I can't even decide which angle to go after it from.

How can you advocate returning to a more strict and adherent form of the Constitution while also suggesting a more "imperialistic " executive branch? I agree with most of your points but I don't understand that one. The majority of issues have arisen from a strong executive branch.

>whilst I'm not against term limits you are right they are way to short and are not conducive to long term planning, perhaps a 15-20 single term is in order and if the people choose to do so they can vote for the same guy after 15-20 years if he's still alive for another term.
I support term limits for House and Senate members, because unlimited terms + direct elections = corporate/lobbyist sponsorship for nearly member of Congress.

For the presidency, we should have an unlimited amount (or at least capped around 15-20 years, total) of 4 or 5 year terms. This would allow an effective, popular president the ability to create and implement long-term plans, but still give the people a de facto referendum a couple times every decade, to prevent the 20 year reign of another shithead nigger like Obama.

The founding fathers had a great system, before we fucked it up with (((more democracy))).

>How can you advocate returning to a more strict and adherent form of the Constitution while also suggesting a more "imperialistic " executive branch?
Have you never heard of Manifest Destiny?
How do you think we became a union 'from sea to shining sea'?

There are people in this thread unironically saying that they prefer useless politicians that just try to get elected instead of dictators who have a dream to change the nation.
Im honestly getting to the point where I might leave pol. So many braindead newfags migrated here.

None of these fags have ever visited a inner city in a "democratic" nation before clearly.

Well because look at the points you tried to counter with? Are not they the result of federal government legislation?

As an addendum to this, I should also say:

The majority of our issues have not arisen as a matter of executive overreach, but rather, as a deferral of duty (mostly from the Legislative, to the Executive).

If we had a Congress that would do its job, then we wouldn't be putting Presidents in a position where their only choices to use executive orders, or do nothing.

The problem isn't inherent to authority, but rather the misuse of authority, and our system has been modified in such a way that it encourages the misuse of authority. Authority has no inherent good or bad properties - morality of it is determined only by the goals it seeks to achieve, and the means that it uses to achieve them.

We shouldn't be afraid of authority - the weltgeist of society at large is beginning to cry out for it, because we've such a deficit of it for generations.

I think I read about it once.

>There are people in this thread unironically saying that they prefer useless politicians that just try to get elected instead of dictators who have a dream to change the nation.
disproven countless times nothing makes an autocrat have to serve the people
>Im honestly getting to the point where I might leave pol. So many braindead newfags migrated here.
leave then newfaggot, Jow Forums has always been a libertarian controlled board, we've hated bootlicks since time immemorial but you must not have known that considering you probably came here during 2016 and never left

I do watch it. He's very right wing economically, which is semi-fine, but not ideal.

Natsoc in Germany picked a country up from economic depression, United the people, removed degeneracy and Krony (((Jewish))) capitalism creating an environment that allowed true capitalism, and efficient left wing economics to function. The government took unemployment to zero, with projects like the Autobahn and grew a country in a small period of years to world beating potential.

The Jews larp the six million figure not just for social propaganda reasons, but because the economic structure ensures wealth is legitimately distributed better, and a Jeff bezos type couldn't exist without really working for the nation.. it's not communist or economic socialism through the normal lense, because you can have it without the strong national pride

A dramatic over-simplification (and also not true, for some of them).

I feel like you're not actually trying to understand a pro-authoritarian perspective.

If you really don't know about Manifest Destiny, you need to brush up US history. It was the general US foreign policy doctrine that oversaw our expansion west to the Pacific, as well into our Caribbean/other territories.

Ironically, the only thing that stopped was the prevailing attitudes of racism at the time, because the general public didn't want non-whites in captured territories to dilute the racial demographics of the Union.

obv. just a cliffnotes version; take a US history class.

Problem with dictators is how to select them.
History shows that if you let them choose themselves, you will end up with shitty tyrants 9 out of 10 times.
Why don't you propose a mechanism for finding a good one?

>How and or why does anyone think a strong central authoritarian/central(right or left) federal government is a good idea?

The nature of politics is such that even a collection of humans struggle to properly govern a population due to the amount of information to take in.

That being said, as time passes there arises a demand to change the current system. How well the government can adapt to that change (INCLUDING the demand to revert that change or change from the new type of governance to yet another) is where things really test the strength of the deeper underlying systems.

Currently, IMO, the USA screwed itself with the last election. Trump was the best option, but he isn't a great leader and he hasn't delivered nearly anything. His best bet was to actually go fascist, like Hillary planned to do, but he would have failed anyways due to his strange relationship with Israel.

There is a lot to dissect in this.

I would say that the problems are directly linked to authority and that the issues haven't come from the legislature deferring their duties(perhaps now but it is such a partisan shit show) but from executive overreach stemming from the middle 1800s that incrementally led to the situation we currently face. Which to myself demonstrates that authority(power) cannot and should not be granted nor trusted. Authority just as a concept is morally grey because sometimes it is necessary to preserve and protect however authority is never gained much less maintained without direct, or the threat of violence and once that power is established it does not, or very rarely has, relinquished it. It is the absolute virtue of authority to maintain itself. We should always "be afraid" of question authority. Never should 1 person nor a group of 500 be expected or entrusted to dictate what is right or wrong outside of crisis.

That's exactly the question in which cultures and society's are made. A group of people that share like minded principals. that's what I think is wrong with the US there are to many different cultures with completely different views "left vs right" making thousands of new "laws" each year. That is enforced upon everyone no matter their culture or even what they think.

Because they're low IQ. They think a strong central government will work in their favor, but it'll just as soon repress them as easily as they want the strong government to repress people they don't like.

>lobbying and interests for the little guy
I didnt forget about that part, i call it the gibs carussell. I dont think the little man is right by default or some holy entity that can do no wrong. In our current situation the little man is holding the rest of us hostage and we are all worse of because of it. This is why socialism always fails, because it chases away the most productive members of society.
>democracy is forced to give just recompense
We clearly have very different conceptions of justice. This is actually the core of the issue. You are an alinskyite who believes the have nots are right by default, I believe in private property. In the end it comes down to subjective morality; neither of us will "prove" the validity of his morality to the other. If you believe the highest moral good is democracy by definition, then there will be nothing that can sway you. The fact is that a bureaucratic democracy can be no more "forced" to do anything than a king can, the biggest difference is the ammount of boots you have to lick, since power is not really divided, but rather just given to a larger group of people. The king can force you to accept jus primae nocte and a democracy can take your kids away if you dont chemically castrate them for life. My original post just showed you were wrong about taxes ;)
>lots of pressures to stop warfare
And they're all so effective right? You cant vote on whether to go to war or not because politicians lie when they campaign and the structure of democracy is such that every side gets lobbied; democrats and republicans both warmonger to the same degree. Also almost all the most devastating wars have involved democracies (world wars, napoleon) that got all their moral justifications to slaughter millions of people from their "little man (volk or worker also applicable obviously) can do no wrong"-morality.

Projecting.

The logical endpoint of libertarianism/ancapism is local monopolies (autocracies). Economic freedom is more important than political freedom.

I agree with this plus that is why George Washington is said to be the greatest president cause after the revolution he gave his said to have "authority" of the military back to the people. Only person I ever heard of doing so. Is there anyone else that done this sort of thing?

>I didnt forget about that part, i call it the gibs carussell
carousel* but yes autocrats also do this for appeasement stop pretending democracy is the only system that does this.
>I dont think the little man is right by default or some holy entity that can do no wrong. In our current situation the little man is holding the rest of us hostage and we are all worse of because of it. This is why socialism always fails, because it chases away the most productive members of society.
I never claimed the little guy is right by default but under an autocratic system the little guy constitutes 99 percent of the populace as opposed to it being way less and offering more social mobility under a different system. Nothing set in stone when an autocrats wishes can be as arbitrary as he likes it to be. Also to the last point you actually act like a socialist because you seem to think you'll be a card carrying member of the nobility if a king were to take power, just like any other filthy commie you are. Come out from hiding.
>We clearly have very different conceptions of justice. This is actually the core of the issue. You are an alinskyite who believes the have nots are right by default
nope nice strawman though
>I believe in private property.

no you don't you seem to think an autocrat of monarch can't take property when they clearly can because they own all the land and subjects retard.
>And they're all so effective right?
more effective than 1 guy caling all the shots and trying to convince him, I'd rather have multiple avenues open than to rely on 1 dudes whim champ.

democrats and republicans both warmonger to the same degree. Also almost all the most devastating wars have involved democracies (world wars, napoleon) that got all their moral justifications to slaughter millions of people from their "little man (volk or worker also applicable obviously) can do no wrong"-morality.
the reason these wars were more devestating is that we have more population and technology has become better for warfare, most autocratic states tended to warfare in the past because they eventually turn into empires whcih require constant expansion as well as for the monarch or autocrat to gain "prestige" in seizing new holdings and using his populace as pawns.

not at all, you clearly want to be dominated by an autocratic regime of some sort so I think my rendition of what you truly want is accurate.

>pretending that democracy is the only system that does this
Never said this or implied it, it just happens more in a democracy (see tax rate).
>the little guy is 99 percent of the population
No he isnt, some high ranking banker/mason/author/ scientist was not a "little guy" even a well off farmer was not a little guy.
>autocrat can violate property because he owns the land
Oxymoron. If he owns the land, it's his property, so he is not violating property rights when he does with it as he pleases.
The other part of the reason why these wars were so devastating is because peace was only possible through total annihilation of the opposing society, because they were ideological wars, just like the 30 years war. There were monarchical wars around napoleons time, and they were not as devastating, even though they had the same technology available. He also introduced the draft (so much for pawns) which remained a staple of democratic warfare for quite some time.
I have less freedoms, social and economic, under a democratic system.

>Never said this or implied it, it just happens more in a democracy (see tax rate)
you did many times (see monarchic tax wars)
>No he isnt, some high ranking banker/mason/author/ scientist was not a "little guy" even a well off farmer was not a little guy.
everyone is the little guy compared to the autocrat, they literally have no say in the end.

>Oxymoron. If he owns the land, it's his property, so he is not violating property rights when he does with it as he pleases.
>ha gotcha it doesn't matter because I don't believe in property rights even though I pretended to before, I was only pretending to be retarded

>The other part of the reason why these wars were so devastating is because peace was only possible through total annihilation of the opposing society
ok
>because they were ideological wars, just like the 30 years war
monarchism nd autocracy can have ideology bound within them like the right of kings ya nob.
>There were monarchical wars around napoleons time, and they were not as devastating, even though they had the same technology available.
proof and regardless all of the autocratic wars through time outdo the bodycount of any democracy you can name. I mean I'm pretty sure the conquests of ghenghis khans itself outdoes any other democratic war in terms of body count and brutality.

>He also introduced the draft (so much for pawns) which remained a staple of democratic warfare for quite some time.
>what is a peasants draft
I swear you pretend to know history but you actually don't

>I have less freedoms, social and economic, under a democratic system.
so basically you long for something you've never experienced and has proven to be worse hence why europeans en masse overthrew monarchies and autocracies for the most part. There is logic to what your ancestors did. There is a reason we threw autocracies into the trash.
>b-but real monarchististism has never been tried before!
get shot commie bootlick

one more kidney punch for ya, I bet you didn't know bismark (biskike) created the welfare state. You germans always want someone looking after you, honestly worse than niggers. He was appointed by wilhelm btw who didn't do jack shit to stop the spread of communism within your country.

The quality of our leaders in those early days still amazes me.
Any country would be lucky to have a single one of them heading the government, having all of them at once is mind-boggling.

There has to be some way to get that back: that ability to find the right people and put the reigns in their hands.

I'm sure other anons will jump in to say "just take the vote away from women, blacks, poor, etc" but that's pure fantasy nowadays.
Democracy will have to be improved through other means.