Benevolent dictatorship?

Would a benevolent dictatorship work? Is it sustainable? Want to know everyone’s ideas, there was an interesting thread earlier on this topic and wanted to continue the conversation

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo
cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Mencius Moldbug/Patchwork.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Depends entirely on the leader. You could have a visionary leader who brings your country to prosperity and brings order. But you may also get sociopaths/corrupt people just in it for themselves. So you would have to have checks in place for long term stability, perhaps having the population armed would prevent the state impeding on citizens lives or taking things too far. As for succession you would need a good system which guarantees the best people are given the role of leader. Perhaps there would be a way to work your way up through the system based purely on merit, but this may not be the person which people would follow. If anyone else has a good suggestion for how we would solve that i would like to know.

It seems to be working awesome for Putin and Russia

Someone suggested an aristocratic class of the morally best people removed from the ignorant mob of society. From this aristocracy the dictator would select his successor. Not sure how well this would work, however. I think for aristocratic descendants there will always be the allure of the popular degeneracy

>Is it sustainable?
No. You might end up with a good leader but it's unlikely to last for long. Power attracts all the wrong sorts of people. The best way to ensure good governance is to reduce the role of the government, and give local government more power than the federal government.

perhaps that would work. Although they may lack a certain humble-ness to them and also may have a lack of hardship which would help shape their worldview and give them a better perspective. But the pros to having an aristocratic class would be a well educated/well spoken type of person which has a certain allure of authority to them.

Yes
Hitler
Kikes betrayed him and the havaara agreement
It was going great otherwise

The lack of hardness or challenge could be a problem. It’s one thing to educate them about it, but they may never experience it firsthand. Perhaps mandatory military service for everyone would help instill that into them

All political systems are ultimately dictatorships. Cut away the fluff and it ultimately comes down to the strongest dictating towards the weakest.
A benevolent dictatorship would basically just be a society where the citizens are educated in their ability, as a whole, to change society to their collective will. So yeh, I guess, it would.

Putin would be dragged out in the street and disembowelled if the citizens ever realized the truth.

The redpill is realising neither extreme is optimal. Total autocracy and total democracy are too unstable. Voting rights to men that pay taxes is the best system

A benevolent dictatorship works by definition, otherwise it wouldn't be called benevolent. It's not sustainable at all since you can't guarantee that your next dictator is benevolent.

The title dictator has been completely smeared from its original meaning. Technically the first dictator was cincinattus, an absolute legend in which influenced the american founding fathers. The term dictator was for a leader to obtain absolute control in order to save his people/nation. It was originally a role that a hero would take, not some evil man that the Jews paint

What a good leader needs is experience in; Military, local and national politics, normal work and everyday life (perspective of average countryman). As well as a good level of education on the inner structure of politics/economics/history of the nation. They also need to be well spoken to bring a level of authority to what they are saying. This would demand a lot from someone, but it would be the perfect person to lead. Perhaps if these were the minimum requirements for leadership it would produce good leaders.

Aristocrats seem to skew to leftism though. At least in modern western culture.

A dictatorship works with a small, powerless population. The millions of government employees essentially run america today, the president is irrelevant.

So u would have to tear it all down to really change the system. Need to eliminate about 90% of government jobs and have supporters running everything.

I think I agree with this The best way to try and ensure stability is a limited allotment of suffrage to those that contribute to society. Perhaps those taxpaying men will be a new “aristocracy” that one can attain through work, somewhat like the novi homines in the Roman republic

>yes
>hitler

Aristocrats skew left today because the culture has so thoroughly corrupted. They’re aristocrats because they’re wealthy, not because of morality, skill, or respected heritage. The culture is the primary element that must change for any of this to happen

yes

one of the problems with democracy in modern times is the misinformation, pandering and unfair media. Would the average taxpayer be good at deciding what is best for the country/society as a whole?

theproblem of democracy is that only jews ask for it

It's because they essentially have a monopoly on media which will shape peoples opinions. Mainstream politics is just the illusion of choice as long as it doesn't stray from what they consider normal.

Democracy is evil, even in the time of ancient greeks it was the great merchants who deposed and assassinated real people heros. Democracy is destined to be a lie.

The media helps to shape narratives about our culture as well, which has especially damaged us. I’m not sure what the answer is besides pushing back on the culture front, improving ourselves to be the best we can be. Do not stray from misfortune, but go into it and emerge a more virtuous person

They need to be exiled for our society to function in a healthy way, otherwise they corrupt everything and pit us against each other. And that would probably only be achieved through a dictatorial system.

Autocracy is incredible under an incredible leader. Under mediocre or worse, it's much worse than Republics, which typically does well to avoid the awful ones.

Even the Great Philosophers of that time, which democrats claim to be the time they got the idea, were against democracy because they saw tho evil intentions of those who pushed for it. Plato was pro Sparta (so based), and Aristotle was the mentor of Alexander the Great and Philip II of Macedon, who went and prospered the Great legendary feats we know today.

Democracy is a lie, and going for it is auto destructive and only serve the purpose of the merchants who were always, as it is today like it was then, imperialist liars who trying to control everything pushing the false song of Freedom

They pushed for a negative image of a tyrany, which is also done today, to keep the control and when things go bad you have no one to blame and they are gone. Tyrants were loved heros of the people who made their polis prosper in all levels, culturally, economically and socially. Than was only possible due to the stability brought with the rule of a tyrant. Tyrants isn't a bad word. Only democrats push it as negative because is an attack on their control, which was built on lies

I think America has slid far too much toward a democracy, especially once senators became directly elected. The restoration of state power may be the way to go

...

God already made you free. You don't need a Jewish political system to make you believe you are free.

Democracy sounds good at a time of comfort and prosperity, but when your livelihood is threatened and your country is going to shit you will look for a strong leader and collectivise if you want to survive.

I don't think that it would work; even if we trace back to fiefdom or feudalism there was still a representative (eventually) that would petition on behalf of their people if they didn't get justice by appealing to the landowner - who in turn was supposed to be just and fair. Those representatives would be at court at designated times. Jesters and court intrigue abound in such systems and the rulers would often declare a day when the rabble could actually come close to the courtly ways and petition the King directly. This way they could show the splendor and pomp while showcasing their fairness and benevolence to their subjects directly. This is not so far removed from today. Even JFK's legacy is called The American Camelot.

"Tis a silly place."

It can't work because we are a society that wants the government to replace the concepts of shame and guilt - perfectly natural ways of society keeping it's own social contract without asking the damn government to essentially intrude on people's beliefs and private associations. The King would never get anything done.

Democracy never sounds good. Everyone who pushes for it always have second intentions.

Unsustainable. Power corrupts. Concentrating power in the hands of a dictator will lead to corruption and abuse. History has shown this time and again.

>Not know how propaganda works

But does that not still happen under the current system?, there is a lack of accountability when politicians don't follow through with what they promised. I suppose you could elect someone different next time round, but sometimes they are unable to get things done simply because the opposing party will block/object it. For example the current immigration and border wall shitshow in America. I think having a one party system or a Dictator would simplify things.

Men that pay taxes will vote to give the right to vote to people that aren't just men that pay taxes. Just like they have every other time you've restricted suffrage. Or did you forget that we used to only allow white male landowners the right to vote?

You've heard of neocameralism right?

No, give me a run down

not saying you are wrong but why do you believe absolute power corrupts? I really cant think of many good people who come into power and turn into the devil, while I can think of alot of horrible men who seize power and continue to be shitty.

i think what is more often the case is good men establish good systems with absolute power, but that power attracts bad men who will exploit and destroy that good thing

Yeah but see my last point. If it COULD happen, it would only be if the people were united racially, and also only of the benevolence could be guaranteed by virtue of the public being able to handle their own petty matters. That breaks down in a multicultural. HUGELY populated nation like the USA. Now if each "State" were sovereign entities and governors were Kings, then who's banner would we unite under when attacked?
There's just no way to be able to fund a system that doesn't take from labor; once a King receives monies from their subjects they are beholden to, as a benevolent ruler. give something back. How that's apportioned created our capitalist system. It's all an exchange of labor for reward whether motes or greenbacks or in a serfdom, representation to the King by the landowner.
Making corporations people was a terrible idea and lobbying on behalf of corporations with deep pockets needs to be abolished. Serious campaign reform needs to be implemented to ensure once the swamp is drained it won't fill up again like an infected cyst.

The main problem with this system is that it fails over time due to degradation of moral standards whilst in power, and that the humility that would usually create the moral standards that would allow someone into this inner circle is also lost in the same situation, if not in the first generation, the second raised within it.

The best leaders are those who do not wish to lead by personal desire, but because he feels it necessary and that he sees no one else willing to help his fellow man. And once his task as leader is accomplished, he will willingly step down of his own accord and rejoin the regular populace from which he came and worked with his entire life.

Two good examples of this are Trump and Washington. They are not just in it to fix problems that they themselves have been wronged by, but to help alleviate the struggles of their fellow men because they worked alongside them their whole life, so they act solely in their behalf. They work against their own desires, and without seeking gain. To lead, to accomplish, and then step down when their time to pass the baton has come. That is true benevolence, and true respect for the responsibility of power.

>Democracy never sounds good. Everyone who pushes for it always have second intentions.


thats communism comrade

Benevolent dictatorship is objectively the best form of government.

Problem is, where do you get one?

I think it's like this: No one really knows how they would live with such responsibility of power (I mean look at how hard it is, seriously) or the unfettered access of money that brings you such power or even MORE so than the most powerful political figure on the global scene (the President of the USA vs. Rothschilds).
There is no way in hell that any of us could even fathom how it must be like to be born absurdly rich.
It has to fuck with your psyche. You have access to ANYTHING.
So we can't even speculate as to how one might use a dictatorship, but experience tells us it does not end well. Money creates power, money is the means to purchasing the things we need universally - money is truly the very root of all evil for without money, how do we define control other than brute strength?

I'll do my best. Basically:

A sovereign is given absolute authority over a patch of land. The goal of the sovereign is to maximize profits for a group of anonymous shareholders. Those that live in this patch of land pay a fee (tax) to live there. The sovereign can do with this piece of land and those that live in it, whatever he wants, the people have NO say on government policy. The only right a citizen is guaranteed to have (in theory) is the right to leave the country. The catch is, the sovereign can be deposed by his shareholders at any time if a majority vote to remove him. This is done by giving a set of cryptographic keys that control the military (ideally 100% robotic) to the shareholders. The idea behind this is that the best way to gather profit is to increase the value of the property that exists on the patch of land, and the best way to do this is to create a society in which people want to live. CEO is running the country into the ground causing people to flee? Remove him and put someone else in charge. This is often coupled with "patchwork" which is just the idea that the world has been separated into hundreds of thousands (imagine each city is a sovereign nation) of different states instead of hundreds. These states can run themselves in a multitude of ways, to attract citizens (customers). In effect, free market competition between states determines government policy. This creates a government constrained by free market principles (which are real) instead of moral principles which have no practical reason to be upheld. This is based on the joint stock model, and is the brainchild of Mencius Moldbug aka Curtis Yarvin.

If you're interested beyond that, you need to read Moldbug. He goes into much more detail.

Short term: yes
Long term: hell no

>Two good examples of this are Trump

Stopped reading. Seriously, you have to be a special kind of retard to think Trump has the slightest sense of any kind of humility anywhere in his body. Trump is an obvious narcissist who only cares about himself and you're a fucking rube if you think otherwise. Get a clue dude.

While fascism can be a temporary solution to a larger problem, it usually fails disastrously in terms of succession. Monarchism on the other hand, is much better at this. It is one of the oldest and most successful forms of governance in history. It has all the benefits of a fascistic state without any of the negatives.

>billionaire who has it all
>decides to give all of it up to be president
>this is somehow narcissistic

Under a Fascist government it would still be a capitalist system but everyone would have to adhere to certain rules. It's not as if it is just transactional. The state is the embodiment of society, and society needs to be led so it can function properly otherwise it falls to shit. What they get in return is safety and stability. Under NatSoc people believed it was more than just a system but an embodiment of the people/nation, and everyone would adhere to the system because it would be for the greater good of the country not because they expect something in return.

Could Mosley’s fascism have worked? A fascist-republic sort of deal, with parliament/congress made up of single party corporate representatives?

You are a fart huffer

>Short term: yes
>Long term: hell no
The same can be said for democracy or republicanism user...

That is the best type of man. But don't they only surface in times of great need, as they are not the type to seek power for power's sake. So who do you have leading you when the times are good?

Fascism and National Socialism are inherently corporatist in terms of economics. So far no state has been able to do that a free market system is needed.

>Would a benevolent dictatorship work?
Why wouldn't it work?
>Is it sustainable?
If you address the genetic quality of the people of the nation, then you should always have a supply of capable leaders; whether the specific leader in question is capable depends on that leader's qualities, which must be judged according to an objective standard. What you choose that standard to be will determine how successful your civilization will be. The value I would choose is nobility, not in the sense of an aristocrat but someone who shows high moral principles and ideals (I would have a more rigorous definition, like that the individual refuses to tolerate suffering and enslavement of other beings whether physical or spiritual, but that gets the basic idea). The individual should also not personally profit from being the leader, being the leader should be its own reward; you'd want a more Apollonian ascetic individual for the job.

It wouldn't last long. I would be fine with a fascist uprising in times of war or collapse, whether it be social or economic, but no system is perfect and such a system has glaring faults.

The problem of a benign dictatorship is one of succession (Rome is a fine example of this). All systems created by man are doomed top fail, that is why deus vult is the only way forward for civilization.

White absolute monarchist minarchist ethnostate is the ideal form of government

Moldbug has solved the problem of succession using the joint stock model... nobody in this thread should be talking about monarchism without having read Moldbug. It's like talking about Communism without having read Marx.

>absolute monarchist
>minarchist
pick one

I mean, for the most part you're fine. I still personally think authoritarianism is better than minarchism/libertarianism. Example: Pinochet(helicopter guy)

Huh, sounds interesting. Just wondering how are the shareholders put into power? do they own the land before someone else buys it?

Reminder that the only argument that democracies throw at monarchy is the 'shit heir' argument
Reminder that the same argument applies to democracies, if not worse, because the heirs can and will actively sabotage any genuine long-term policy or effect made by the predecessor with the exact opposing policy, and said heirs are almost always lacking any sort of meaningful education to ruling, whereas a bad monarch receives the education and merely underutilizes it

>white
why white? who is white?
>absolute monarchist minarchist
This is an oxymoron, if you have an absolute monarch then that monarch will not be limited, if you have a minarchy then you will limit the size of the government and thus the potential of the monarch to fulfill his goals and vision for society
>ethnostate
ethnicities are the result of the fragmentation of a root race, wanting to preserve an ethnic group or group of ethnic groups perpetuates that disunity. Far better to create a racial ideal i.e. the Aryan and unite the populace around approaching that ideal.
>Moldbug
Zionist Jew, I'm not going to just give power to a group of elites to make things more efficient, and using a joint stock model limits the power of an individual who has a vision, scope, and purpose to unite a society and will only serve to divide people further, not to mention forcing people to move from where they live because they have shitty leaders (I don't know if this "joint-stock" model works off money, but if so it is a plutocracy which is unacceptable).
>Nobody in this thread should be talking about monarchism without having read Moldbug
I read enough of his blog to know that he is a libertarian monarchist Jew, and that was enough for me to realize that he wants to perpetuate disunity by preventing unification around ideals and instead promotes separatism to keep everyone weak and from uniting against common threats, i.e. Jews and other nepotistic groups.

youtube.com/watch?v=mfHrMnl1uLo

>An excerpt from 'Liberty or Equality' by Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

>Monarchy Compared with Democracy
>pic related
>We have to preface this section with the observation that the individual (as individual, not person) is, within the historico-politcal perspective, practically powerless. We have said before that the democractic principle of 'one man, one vote,' viewed against a background of voting masses numbering several millions, only serves to demonstrate the pitiful helplessness of the inarticulate individual, who functions at the polls as the smallest indivisible arithmetical (and not always algebraic) unit. He acts in total anonymity, secrecy and irresponsibility.
>The articulate (and "original") person, on the other hand, has a great or small a chance to exercise his political influence under EITHER form of government. The effective influence of men such as Leibniz and Voltaire, Hobbes, Stahl, or Wagner on monarchs was as least as great as the persuasive influence of other thinkers or writers on the political masses. Yet since the educational standards of monarchic rulers are usually above average, the persuasive efforts of intellecutals, for better or for worse, have greater chances in a royal framework. One would therefore expect in a democratic society to see the thinker depreciated on account of his ineffectuality. Who can doubt the Swiss nation is far less affected by the writings of Burckhard, De Reynold, Amiel or Vinet than was the French eighteenth-century aristocracy by the philosophes?
>And now to the points of comparison.
(cont.)

>Monarcy is BY ITS NATURE dissociated from party rule. Only in the 'constitutional' (parliamentary) monarchy are royalist parties imaginable; yet in a sound, organic monarchy all parties accept the common monarchic denominator, and the opposition is thus "His Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition."
>Democracy is BY NATURE party rule. The President (or PM) is a 'party man'. He lacks originally - and often permanently - GENERAL backing.

>The monarch is the political AND social head of the nation.
>The President of the United States, on the other hand, is decidedly not a 'social' leader, even though his wife figures as the 'first lady'. The monarch can, unlike a republican leader, rule not only through the mechanisms of the laws but also through his prestige - an 'endogene' force.

>Even a monarch of mediocre talents and natural gifts has the advantage of having received an education for his profession. A democratic leader can only have the hasty technical training of those with a 'late vocation,' and in most cases he is nothing but a dilettante. Yet this harmoizes well with the general tenor of democracy, whose raison d'etre is not truth, efficacy, reason, study, and reflection, but volition pure and simple. Some apologists of democracy, in order to arrive at an intellectual justification of their theory, propose an enormous increase in general education which will enable all citizens to judge the important issues of the day. Yet the goals they set can only be reached by small fractions of highly gifted individuals. Caught between the Charybdis of intellectual qualifications for the franchise (which is plainly incompatible with very elemetary democratic principles) and the Scylla of an orgy of emotional irrationalism, they steer their course towards the noble goal of education and 'brains' for all. What they do not take into consideration is the hard fact of human inperfection, of original sin.

The enlightened despot is my ideal leader and system. The problem is the same one Rome and so many others had, the successor might suck.

cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/Mencius Moldbug/Patchwork.pdf

Don't feel like typing up much more. I guess a simple answer is "whoever wants to invest" much like companies today. I'd read the above for a more detailed answer.

>and using a joint stock model limits the power of an individual who has a vision, scope, and purpose to unite a society
How?
>only serve to divide people further
Why is this a bad thing? Do you want to be united with people who you have irreconcilable differences? Like... the Jews?
>not to mention forcing people to move from where they live because they have shitty leaders
How is this a bad thing? Now it's not even an option to go somewhere that is run well (unless of course you want to go to Singapore..) and there's not even an INCENTIVE to run things well.
>by preventing unification around ideals
If you want you can literally move to a retarded larping National Socialist state run just like Hitler would have run it under patchwork. Nothing is stopping you.

>why white? who is white?
Because homogeneous societies actually work
>jew
Chad-Hominem

I think a homogeneous-Protectionist/ Internal Free Market- Monarchist State with a Senate to debate Policy would be ideal. Thoughts?

Could you elaborate as to why you think it should be protectionist?

It will either work well or terribly. It's a dice roll like monarchy. The issue is a system that works for this leader and the next and the next and so on.

plato answered this 2k+ years ago

a monarchy is good if you have a good monarch, duh

Oh and why are you using a fascist flag? You seem to be pro free market+monarchy. Both concepts are incompatible with fascism.

>Would a benevolent dictatorship work? Is it sustainable?
They work, as they've worked in the past. They're sustainable only as long as the benevolent dictator lives and maintains power unless the BD grooms a replacement that is equally competent.

The truth is Benevolent Dictatorships are the best forms of government, but it's difficult to maintain the benevolent part as the dictators pass.

>Would a benevolent dictatorship work? Is it sustainable?
Only for a short period of time. This system of governance is best in times of crisis (see: Adolf Hitler, Cincinnatus, Pompey, Pinochet) but will not be able to maintain itself due to corruption (see: Rome in the 3rd-5th centuries, Austro-Hungarian Empire, British civil war in the 12th century).

Also, I love that fashwave. Good job if it's OC, I've never seen it before.

>Wandering
Are you a Jewish tripfag?
>The Patchwork is a business, a corporation
I fundamentally disagree with running a nation as a business, because production is not a good in itself. I am not a capitalist, and hence I oppose a monarchy based on capitalism.
>How?
The way I understand it, people invest in this society, and the more you invest, the more you can say about where the society goes. Do you believe that the wealthy have an individuals interests at heart? Why should it be necessary to tie money to whether or not you care about your neighbor? As I said, this is an extremely Jewish idea. It prevents individuals with good ideas (i.e. vision, scope, and purpose) from enacting their policies if they go against what the wealthy want, forming an eternal plutocracy.
>Why is this a bad thing?
If you believe unity of people is a bad thing, you're definitely a Jew.
>Do you want to be united with people who you have irreconcilable differences? Like... the Jews?
No, tribalists should not have the same rights in a universalist society as a normal citizen. If you are a tribalist, you are an enemy. We should work together to get rid of nepotists and cheaters in our society rather than letting them cheat elsewhere.
>How is this a bad thing?
Yet again, a very Jewish thing to say. Some people have something called "rootedness," they don't want to have to move different places all the time, they want to settle down.
>If you want you can literally move to a retarded larping National Socialist state
So nothing is stopping me from disbanding "patchwork" and helping other people disband it as well? Sounds fine to me.
A homogeneous society has a homogeneous culture, correct? I'm saying that you should create a new culture and unite people around that rather than choosing only a subset of the population and telling them you want to isolate from the all other members not in that subset, with no other commonality between you.
>Chad-Hominem
Thank you

>there are people ITT RIGHT NOW who dont want to embrace the government system that best transcends beyond the material earth into a higher existence
RIDE THE TIGER

It will work when it's inevitably implemented by the Lamb of God.

That is the best image I've seen in a long time.

Last time i checked, he destroyed most of europe, got millions of his own people killed, and lost the war.

Oh, and he offed himself like a bitch, what a powerful leader!

We must change the way leaders are elected : here take your pick - the corrupt fool 1 or the corrupt fool 2. Why settle for idiotic pupets as leaders when we could create an institution that whould pick the most intelligent 200 six year old native boys from a country and then teach law, politics, economy, military, philosophy and all the rest for 20 or 30 years and then make the first one the leader, those from spots 21 to 72 will form the Council of Elders that will come up with new law projects that the Leader will be able to adopt or reject and those from spots 2 to 10 will be strictly guarded and offered a lavished life but they will not be allowed to mingle with the society and they will always be ready to act as heirs and those from 11 to 20 will be made generals ready to take action at the proposal of the leader. And of course more measures can be taken for balancing purposes like the children of an ex or actual leader will never be allowed in this school or the 10 generals will always have exactly the same number of forces under their comand and same level of military equipment and so on...

>I fundamentally disagree with running a nation as a business, because production is not a good in itself
Don't care about your opinions on morality.
>The way I understand it, people invest in this society, and the more you invest, the more you can say about where the society goes.
Pretty much yeah. Though I should say that there's a slight misconception here. The shareholders are not necessarily the wealthy elite, though that is a good person to be a shareholder.
>Do you believe that the wealthy have an individuals interests at heart?
No, not really.
>Why should it be necessary to tie money to whether or not you care about your neighbor?
Because morality is frivolous and completely subjective. You can't make people adhere to your specific definition of good and evil, but you can incentivize people to act from a financial perspective. It's far more effective than saying "be good or else" which has never worked.. ever.
>It prevents individuals with good ideas (i.e. vision, scope, and purpose) from enacting their policies if they go against what the wealthy want, forming an eternal plutocracy.
Vision, scope, purpose? What do you mean by that?
>No, tribalists...
In other words, you don't like patchwork because it allows the Jews to live instead of killing them all. Wonderful..
>Some people have something called "rootedness," they don't want to have to move different places all the time, they want to settle down.
They won't have to if they're not complete retards and choose a good place to live. Keep in mind, a bad place to live under patchwork is likely much better than an average place to live under our current system.
>So nothing is stopping me from disbanding "patchwork" and helping other people disband it as well? Sounds fine to me.
Depends on how you want to disband it. Force is a non starter due to nuclear proliferation. Nothing stopping you from banding together multiple states willingly.

once you study fascism and authoritarianism you start to realize that yes, there is a prescribed, 'objective' way that humanity should lead their lives, the problem starts when you start to rationalize the end. social well-being? bringing us closer to God? if so, which one? as you said, each and every person has their own idea of what's best for society, but there can hardly be any discussion because everyone has their own utopian idea of a perfect society.

so we could imagine something to the effect of debating issues to the point where we know the perfect outcome of every single of one of them; i.e., gun control, abortion, immigration, freedom of speech, etc., to the point where we reach a something that pleases everyone. except not, since you can never truly please absolutely everyone. then you find something that will please a great majority, in which case it'll already be a democracy without the voting system which is borderline the definition of a 'dictatorship of the majority' by all means.

and then it comes to a point where the hindrances start to outweigh the benefits. for instance, let's pretend that America turns into a fascist state (>inb4 >suddenly xDD DRUMPF AMIRITE), and every person from age 13 and above has to take mandatory monthly health tests to measure their physical well being, as a way to eliminate obesity and other easily avoidable health issues. those who don't pass are subjected to the mandatory dietary inspection, in which government agents carefully analyze what they eat, how they eat, how often, etc., and then they force a diet on that person whether based on a few select items/foods or based on a callory count, and so on, in which case the government will be violating more than his rights to be an obese fuck, but also his freedom of speech, rights to private proprierty, and so on and so forth, and we all know from history that ideologies like this are all but efficient.
now imagine this but for everything else

It could work to a degree. There have been benevolent or relatively benign dictatorships before, like those of Josip Broz Tito, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Julius Caesar, Lee Kuan Yew, Albert Rene, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Simon Bolivar, and Porfirio Diaz.

what do you think Sup Forums has been doing the past 8 years

i should mention that im fully aware that the main point of fascism isnt the 'please' people, that is democracy. but obviously fascism has got to give sometimes, or you just end up like the USSR. and if you truly want a perfect utopian society and not some shithole like north corea, you'll have to do a lot of 'giving', at which point it'll barely be a fascist state anymore, because you'll have to start killing people who disagree with your views of an utopian society. now whether you think thats a good idea or not is up to debate; to 'cull the undesirables', but i think thats been tried time and again and i think we all know how that ends up. granted, the only fascist who seemed to have an end plan so far was Hitler, who wanted to replace globalist capitalism with national socialism which blended both socialism and capitalism, and look at what happened to that

>every person from age 13 and above has to take mandatory monthly health tests to measure their physical well being, as a way to eliminate obesity and other easily avoidable health issues. those who don't pass are subjected to the mandatory dietary inspection, in which government agents carefully analyze what they eat, how they eat, how often, etc., and then they force a diet on that person whether based on a few select items/foods or based on a callory count, and so on, in which case the government will be violating more than his rights to be an obese fuck, but also his freedom of speech, rights to private proprierty, and so on and so forth, and we all know from history that ideologies like this are all but efficient.
This is assuming Fascism is entirely invasive, and not just "try and take care of yourselves, we'll even help you with govt programs to help you keep the weight off and stay healthy, but if you still become a fatfuck, too fucking bad"

I don't think you know what a narcissist is. They crave attention more than anything else, money is only a means to gain narcissistic supply. The president of the united states is literally the dream position for a narcissist to be in, look how much coverage Trump is getting.

>le trump awoo
Is a kike puppet. Wtf happened to /pol, we used to be so much better than this.

then it's not fascism lol
you do realize thats what most places already have, right?

>Don't care about your opinions on morality.
Sure, now explain to me why production is a good in itself. I'm not making a moral judgment, it's a value judgment.
>Pretty much yeah. Though I should say that there's a slight misconception here. The shareholders are not necessarily the wealthy elite, though that is a good person to be a shareholder.
Why would it not tend to be the wealthy?
Why is a wealthy person a better shareholder than a man with a vision for society who wants to change it according to an ideal?
>Because morality is frivolous and completely subjective.
>morality is frivolous
If you are willing to toss it aside then no, I don't want you in my society.
>completely subjective
Morality is subjective, but it can be judged by objective metamoral values, which is what any noble society should do.
>Vision, scope, purpose? What do you mean by that?
What Hitler did and wanted to do is a good example of vision, scope, and purpose. Perhaps you should read into National Socialism more.
>In other words, you don't like patchwork because it allows the Jews to live instead of killing them all. Wonderful..
Tribalists should not be in a universalist society, and a universalist should not tolerate them, otherwise the civilization will disintegrate. There are noble Jews, and there were Jews who wanted to join the volk. If it could be determined that they would be willing to completely give up their identity and Jewish children were raised without the Jewish identity I would have no problem with them. I don't blame the Jews for acting like barbarians any more than the white nationalists on this board, but I still won't tolerate either.
>They won't have to if they're not complete retards and choose a good place to live.
And what if some resources are found there, and wealthy people move in and start dictating their lives, or any number of scenarios.
>Force is a non starter due to nuclear proliferation.
I am not afraid of nuclear war you kike.

Ghadaffi

Well... if you give the people the ability to change their dictator every 4 years or so, and put a term limit to say... twice or something, I could see it going for a few hundred years.

> Sure, now explain to me why production is a good in itself.
Ayn Rand depicted it quite well. You cannot produce indefinitely unless you can trade part of your production. You can't trade unless both parties benefit, which requires empathy.

Without force, selfishness and greed force you to cooperate and provide for others' needs.

>Sure, now explain to me why production is a good in itself.
Not sure what you mean or how this relates to my original argument.
>Why would it not tend to be the wealthy?
I didn't say shareholders wouldn't tend to be wealthy (they would tend to, a well run patch would yield profit, making the shareholders wealthy even if they weren't originally) just that there's nothing stopping you from making your shareholders, shareholders of another sort. For example if you wanted you could have your shareholders not vote based on profit, but based on some other metric. I would argue this is a bad idea, but technically speaking in a patchwork society you can run any type of government you want, even this bizarre version of neocameralism.
>If you are willing to toss it aside then no, I don't want you in my society.
Don't care.
>Morality is subjective, but it..
Don't agree but you're missing the point. Moral incentives aren't good incentives. Nobody cares if what they're doing is viewed as evil, it's not a useful restraining mechanism. The free market is.
>What Hitler did and wanted to do..
Right.. okay. Back to the original argument. Under patchwork, societies are in constant competition with one another. The greatest societies are the societies that are the most profitable. If your "vision" is so great, you have all sorts of people you'll be able to convince to give you a shot at power. The opposite of what you're saying is true.
>I am not afraid of nuclear war you kike.
So you're willing to blow yourself up for your ridiculous Nazi LARPing. Okay, you're insane. We can safely stop here. I got some utility out of this argument because you made one point here that I had to think about for a second. That's good. I'm a bit more prepared to shill for neocam now.

>It prevents individuals with good ideas (i.e. vision, scope, and purpose) from enacting their policies if they go against what the wealthy want, forming an eternal plutocracy.