Ideal Form of Government

What is your ideal form of government? I like the mixture of direct and representative democracy practiced in Switzerland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&t=1s.
mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
heretical.com/miscella/14days.html).
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

no kikes

Technically a Democracy, by a more traditional Classical Greek definition of the word, not this horseshit "Western Liberal Democracy".

In order to vote you had to have:

>Served your country through voluntary national service for some number of years
>proven that you are capable of understanding the significance of governmental decision making by proving that you are both intelligent enough and educated enough on topics of psychology, sociology and economics to understand what you are voting for
>political parties are banned

It restricts the stupid potential voters, most of the self-serving potential voters and prevents political party power structures from shitting up reasonable discourse. The only people that vote are those who recognize the importance.

You can have no kikes with any form of government. You have to be more specific than that.

None. Mob rule. Your neighbors said a guy with a scar on his left arm robbed them? Gank the asshole and cut his throat. No taxes to pay for roads? Who gives a fuck everyone wants to be an offroading white trash anyways

I am with you on making people prove that they understand the social sciences. But national service is unnecessary for voting. The foundation of good politics is not altruism. It is mutual self-interest. In pursuit of that, political parties must be legal, and encouraged. People come to understand themselves and their interests by expressing their hopes and fears to those who share those hopes and fears. Political parties and similar institutions are the place for that to happen.

Under mob-rule the meanest toughest guys will eventually band together and become the government. Mob rule is not a sustainable option.

>Democracy
>All

>But national service is unnecessary for voting.

It really is. What gives anyone the right to take away from people they don't know, to suck up others wealth or consume the resources of the collective without having first served and sacrificed for that collective. Western economic systems are built on entitlements that almost nobody has earned. It's unethical and breeds parasites.

>The foundation of good politics is not altruism.

It really is. The greatest societies in history were born from individuals willing to sacrifice themselves for something greater than their own petty needs and desires. Mutual self-interest inevitably leads to degeneration of the social and economic foundation of society and it always collapses into squabbling and petty individual self interest, while disenfranchising most of the population. If there's always going to be a political elite within a political structure, then the smartest thing to do is to make sure that those who get to the top are both intelligent and ethical enough.

Meanest toughest guys with the dullest opinions forming laws is still better than the pussyest skeeviest jews forming laws

In societies in which democracy arises out of a natural will of the people to cause change due to an incompetent aristocracy/monarch/dictator it can be effective in the short term. In the long term, unless you have stipulations like those mentioned in this thread (which generally will degenerate as people question why such things are necessary as one side sees an opportunity to gain support for policies), it eventually degenerates into a plutocracy.
Personally I dislike democracy because it always divides people into one side wanting to satisfy and focus on needs, the other side on desires, one side on the whole, and one side on the part. If the populace could be improved morally and spiritually, I might approve of democracy. As is I don't see it happening.
I'm in favor of a left-wing enlightened dictatorship, with subrulers specializing in various major fields of importance to the nation.

No kikes plus white people plus representative democracy where only white men can vote = paradise on Earth.

The ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The only consequence is the inability to guarantee the benevolence of subsequent dictators.

This.

I would take any form of government with no kikes over any form with kikes

US Constitution version 1.0 minus kikes.

"The greatest societies in history were born from individuals willing to sacrifice themselves for something greater than their own petty needs and desires. Mutual self-interest inevitably leads to degeneration of the social and economic foundation of society and it always collapses into squabbling and petty individual self interest, while disenfranchising most of the population." Can you give me some example of those things happening?

Unless those mean tough guys are also smart, they are going to be really easy for those pussy skeevy Jews to manipulate.

" In the long term, unless you have stipulations like those mentioned in this thread (which generally will degenerate as people question why such things are necessary as one side sees an opportunity to gain support for policies), it eventually degenerates into a plutocracy.
Personally I dislike democracy because it always divides people into one side wanting to satisfy and focus on needs, the other side on desires, one side on the whole, and one side on the part." Can you give me examples of those things?

So a dictatorship run by someone who despises you would be better than a democracy run by Jews who don't even know that you exist, and even if they did know, wouldn't care because they would be too busy trying to get rel-elected. Am I reading you right?

It won't last. Any ruler who prioritizes the welfare of the people over their own power will be overthrown and replaced by someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to acquire and hold onto power.

>In the long term, unless you have stipulations like those mentioned in this thread
referring to this post as an example, though there could be others >which generally will degenerate as people question why such things are necessary as one side sees an opportunity to gain support for policies
Consider the abolition of the property ownership requirement that the Jacksonian movement pushed in the US.
>it eventually degenerates into a plutocracy
This is essentially every western democracy, would you like a chart that shows the adherence of the voting patterns of elected representatives and the support of the wealthy? I can dig that up if you want.
>Personally I dislike democracy because it always divides people into one side wanting to satisfy and focus on needs, the other side on desires
This is largely, though not entirely, the capitalist-socialist split in terms of values. Though some parties focus on other issues (environment, immigration are two big ones) that division is a major one. In the US it's interesting, because the Democratic Party happens to both support satisfying needs and desires, while the Republicans don't want the system to be involved, wanting people to acquire such things through the private market.
>one side on the whole, and one side on the part.
This is a nationalist/identitarian split, or it could be a globalist/nationalist split.

On a philosophical basis I oppose democracy because I trust the masses to be fundamentally self-interested and hedonistic, pic related. I believe that relativism is as valid or invalid as absolutism since relativism is attempting to assert itself absolutely, so why not assert an objective standard by which to judge individuals? At which point egalitarianism and "rights" fall apart and society gains a purpose beyond hedonism.

"Consider the abolition of the property ownership requirement that the Jacksonian movement pushed in the US." Point well taken, once you have democratic government the franchise seems to slowly but surely expand.
"This is essentially every western democracy, would you like a chart that shows the adherence of the voting patterns of elected representatives and the support of the wealthy? I can dig that up if you want." I know about that. I just don't think that the correlations would be any weaker in non-democracies or in democracies with the restraints that you listed.
" In the US it's interesting, because the Democratic Party happens to both support satisfying needs and desires, while the Republicans don't want the system to be involved, wanting people to acquire such things through the private market." The one example you cited contradicts your claim that democracy divides people into those wanting to satisfy wants and those wanting to satisfy needs.
"On a philosophical basis I oppose democracy because I trust the masses to be fundamentally self-interested and hedonistic, pic related." I agree with you on the masses being self-interested and hedonistic. I just don't see it as a negative." "I believe that relativism is as valid or invalid as absolutism since relativism is attempting to assert itself absolutely, so why not assert an objective standard by which to judge individuals? At which point egalitarianism and "rights" fall apart." The 4 items you listed in the picture, relativism, egalitarianism, rights, and hedonism, do usually go together historically. However, they are logically and metaphysically independent of each other. Rejecting relativism doesn't require rejecting egalitarianism, rights, or hedonism. The obvious way to reject relativism but salvage the other 3 is Bentham style utilitarianism: 1. The only absolute good is happiness. 2. The happiness of each individual is of equal moral value. 3. Everyone has the same right to happiness.

The benevolent dictator is such by virtue of the people. It's incorrect to suggest that this would lead to an inevitable ousting; it may lead to an ousting but only by the former ruling class who would have unpopular support. The nature of the benevolent dictator insulates it from public disillusionment. As such, the masses of people, whom have given their blessing, would react in support of the benevolent dictator to any affront.

The issue of violence, however, can be found in either the onset of the benevolent dictatorship or if the former ruling class reinstigate hostilities by assassinating the benevolent dictator. In this case, the political or military supporters of the benevolent dictator would rise to fill the void in its name. Therefore, it's more correct to suggest that the benevolent dictatorship would lead to civil conflict, but primarily during the onset of it; i.e. the benevolent dictator's rise to power.

There is a problem with that. What people want isn't necessarily what is good for them. If you think that the minimum wage causes unemployment, then you would want to get rid of it. But who opposes the minimum wage besides right-wing economists and people who right for Reason magazine? Or if you are left-wing, then a carbon-tax would be good because it would both raise money and reduce CO2 emissions. But who supports new taxes except for left-wing economists and people who right for Vox? If the masses are like a child, then they will chose the malevolent ruling class over the benevolent dictator as the child chooses the candy store over the dentist's office.

>The one example you cited contradicts your claim that democracy divides people into those wanting to satisfy wants and those wanting to satisfy needs.
You're right, this was poorly conceived. I meant that it's more along the lines in the US that the Democrats feel compelled to solve the problems of others and fulfill basic needs using welfare while the Republicans take a more libertarian approach, which means that successful people will gain things they don't need, but that they want, unless there's significant charity (which there isn't in most states). My personal opinion is to promote both and neither in certain ways.
> I agree with you on the masses being self-interested and hedonistic. I just don't see it as a negative.
Naturally, for you there is no higher purpose than making people happy. That's how almost all supporters of democracy think.
For me there is no higher purpose than to abolish enslavement and minimize suffering.
>However, they are logically and metaphysically independent of each other.
I agree, it's only a small part of a larger image.
>Rejecting relativism doesn't require rejecting egalitarianism, rights, or hedonism
You don't have to, but if you reject relativism you also have no reason to support egalitarianism either.
> The obvious way to reject relativism but salvage the other 3 is Bentham style utilitarianism: 1. The only absolute good is happiness. 2. The happiness of each individual is of equal moral value. 3. Everyone has the same right to happiness.
Yes, and the way to abolish the other 3 is a different form of utilitarianism, minimizing suffering, as some individuals will be more compelled to minimize the suffering of others, and those individuals are superior to those who cause suffering or are apathetic.

A benevolent dictator doesn't simply give to the people what they want. Rather the benevolent dictator is to the people as the shepherd is to the sheep. What is good for the people is a strong leader that defends them from those whom seek to exploit them. This is demonstrated in the growing economic inequality throughout nations and popular support to confront and combat this. Therefore there can be no right-leaning benevolent dictator in the sense that right-leaning means the traditionally conservative ruling class. Such policies that seek to empower the people at the expense of the ruling elite will always put the benevolent dictator at odds with the ruling class and bring the nation into conflict.

I agree with you that abolishing enslavement and minimizing suffering are good ends. I just don't see restricting the franchise to those who served the nation and/or are educated in the social sciences as the solution to that. I am worried that such a class of educated veterans of war and public service will not feel sympathy for the disenfranchised and see them as inferior, because in a sense they are inferior. If the enfranchised see the disenfranchised as inferior, then they won't see anything wrong with enriching themselves at the expense of the disenfranchised. So, the system you proposed would, I think, degenerate into plutocracy because those who do not have the vote will have no defense against those who do have the vote stealing from them.

>I just don't see restricting the franchise to those who served the nation and/or are educated in the social sciences as the solution to that.
I don't either.
>I am worried that such a class of educated veterans of war and public service will not feel sympathy for the disenfranchised and see them as inferior, because in a sense they are inferior.
I do not support class divisions or the feeling that any labor within a nation is superior to any other labor. The only division that is necessary is between necessary and unnecessary labor.
>If the enfranchised see the disenfranchised as inferior, then they won't see anything wrong with enriching themselves at the expense of the disenfranchised
I agree.
>So, the system you proposed would, I think, degenerate into plutocracy because those who do not have the vote will have no defense against those who do have the vote stealing from them.
Nobody would have t

Nobody would have the vote; power would be entrusted to the individual who most embodied the ideal person. I do not see how that would become a plutocracy.

My point is that a benevolent leader who gives people what is good for them rather than what they want would have a harder time getting and maintaining popular support than a malevolent ruling class who gives people what they want rather than what is good for them. "Therefore there can be no right-leaning benevolent dictator in the sense that right-leaning means the traditionally conservative ruling class." I didn't mean to imply that there could be. "What is good for the people is a strong leader that defends them from those whom seek to exploit them. This is demonstrated in the growing economic inequality throughout nations and popular support to confront and combat this." when you make this statement, aren't you basically saying that what the people want and what is good for them are the same? If so, then why have a dictator at all? Why not democracy if the people will support what is in their best interests on their own?

Doesn't this brand of utilitarianism conflict with your ideals on the state and the rights of its citizens? As much as the ideal of altruism is praised, we are not inherently altruistic as a species (no biological organism could be, I believe), and some are simply incapable of it. How does a meritocratic system where an individual has no birthrights, and must become a citizen through civic duty, not devolve into either
A) a 1984 level dystopia where altruism has to constantly be purity checked in order to ensure the alleviation of suffering of other citizens and of proles, or
B) a dystopia where the citizens oppress the proles and create suffering because (to the citizen) they are not the 'people' that society was built to alleviate suffering from, or
C) revert back to a liberal society where the people have birthrights because the citizens could not be trusted to uphold their ideals with distorting them a la A and B.

Well fuck me. So since I didn't refresh before sending my previous post, do you mean that the power would be distributed among the population of altruists within the nation or that among the altruists of a nation, a selection of pure ones would be selected to have power?

Sorry. I thought that I was talking to T9Ewtq/c.
"power would be entrusted to the individual who most embodied the ideal person." I see the appeal in that. However, you are assuming that the ruler will be the same person after they receive power as they were before they receive power. That is not the case. A dictator is powerless without subordinates who will carry out their will. So, even the best dictator is going to be disproportionately influenced by their immediate subordinates. So, those subordinates will use that influence to enrich themselves and become the de facto ruling class. CGP Grey breaks it down concisely. youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&t=1s. The Logic of Political Survival gives a more in depth treatment of what I am talking about. mitpress.mit.edu/books/logic-political-survival

Monarchy via Philosopher King

>Doesn't this brand of utilitarianism conflict with your ideals on the state
How so?
>the rights of its citizens?
What rights? I believe in the duty for all citizens not to oppress others, not in the right not to be oppressed, as rights descend from the powerful and can be tossed aside at any time.
>As much as the ideal of altruism is praised, we are not inherently altruistic as a species (no biological organism could be, I believe), and some are simply incapable of it
Promote it through natural selection then.
>How does a meritocratic system where an individual has no birthrights, and must become a citizen through civic duty
I'm wondering where you got this exact characterization
>A) a 1984 level dystopia where altruism has to constantly be purity checked in order to ensure the alleviation of suffering of other citizens and of proles, or
I think the government should trust its citizens to be heroic, and those citizens which are clearly not heroic should be prevented from breeding, nothing else.
>B) a dystopia where the citizens oppress the proles and create suffering because (to the citizen) they are not the 'people' that society was built to alleviate suffering from, or
Why is there a distinction between "citizens" and "proles" in terms of suffering? Both deserve moral consideration, and every citizen has a duty not to harm them.
>C) revert back to a liberal society where the people have birthrights because the citizens could not be trusted to uphold their ideals with distorting them a la A and B.
The goal would be to prove the superiority of the system by living it, similar to how nearly everyone in Germany considered National Socialist rule to be superior to Weimar.
>power would be distributed
A good question, and I think if there's no strong individual personality that has a direction he wants the society to go in then it COULD be spread out, though I lean more towards an individual with an ideal vision for society.

>My point is that a benevolent leader who gives people what is good for them rather than what they want would have a harder time getting and maintaining popular support than a malevolent ruling class who gives people what they want rather than what is good for them.
By its nature a malevolent ruling class doesn't give the people what they want but exploits them to maintain and grow wealth and power. The ruling class may pander with bread and circuses but only in so much as it pacifies any popular uprising or possibility of such.

>when you make this statement, aren't you basically saying that what the people want and what is good for them are the same? If so, then why have a dictator at all? Why not democracy if the people will support what is in their best interests on their own?
No, they're aren't the same; consider your dentist analogy. Regardless of the people's policies, a benevolent dictator is necessary because it facilitates the shifting of wealth and power from the ruling elite such that the people can no longer be exploited. This shift leads to greater prosperity for many as opposed to only an elite.

Ultimately, a benevolent dictatorship is a system of checks and balances between the benevolent dictator and the people, without room for exploitation by the elite. A democracy cannot achieve this because it lacks the check and balance of the dictator and a dictatorship cannot achieve this because it lacks the check and balance of popular support. A benevolent dictatorship brings the policies and the people into equilibrium.

monarchy

Looking back, I was following yours and Bahamanon's conversation and conflated your posts with someone else's posts, just like Bahamanon did. This would explain my characterizations of your argument. I'm still not sold on what you're saying though, as altruism is a (somewhat) abstract concept. I can't think of a way to test for it that couldn't conceivably be bluffed, short of using as-of-yet uninvented mind reading technology, and I wouldn't want anything like that determining who's allowed to have the power to be honest.

>However, you are assuming that the ruler will be the same person after they receive power as they were before they receive power.
The leader should not personally benefit from receiving power, he should do it out of a love for his people. If he is noble, he will use power properly, that is, to harm the ignoble and to protect the noble. If he is ignoble, he should be disposed from power. The only person fit to be a ruler (in modern day America for sure) is someone who would hold their opinions no matter if they were rich, poor, white, black, young, old, male, female, etc, which is an enlightened left-wing dictatorship.
>A dictator is powerless without subordinates who will carry out their will. So, even the best dictator is going to be disproportionately influenced by their immediate subordinates.
All subordinates should be on the same page as far as ideology, what matters, etc. Pragmatic, strategic, and practical differences are completely acceptable, ideological ones (i.e. Strasser only opposing Jews due to capitalism) cannot be allowed.
The leader should lead the subordinates, not the other way around, otherwise the subordinates should be the leader instead.
>So, those subordinates will use that influence to enrich themselves and become the de facto ruling class.
People should not personally profit from ruling in any other way besides the honor of serving the nation and enough of a paycheck to live a modest lifestyle.
>CGP Grey
I've seen the video, and I disagree with it because people can genuinely want to work with someone for a purpose besides personal gain, because they want to improve their nation, or perhaps the world. CGP Grey is very clearly a materialist and does not understand human psychology very well, I doubt he understands why people would die for Hitler.

"Regardless of the people's policies, a benevolent dictator is necessary because it facilitates the shifting of wealth and power from the ruling elite such that the people can no longer be exploited. This shift leads to greater prosperity for many as opposed to only an elite." Here is where I have to disagree if the people don't support policies that serve their interests rather than the elite's interests, then a benevolent dictator is going to lose popular support to the dishonest elites who peddle bread and circuses. If the people do support the policies that are good for them, then democracy will implement those policies on their own. So you won't need the dictator in the first place. In other words, if the masses are conscious of their own interests, then they don't need a dictator to carry those out. If they are not, then selfish sophistry is the only defense that the parasitic elites need against any would be benevolent dictators.

It's not altruism, but compassion and empathy, which can be understood by some members of the population (not sociopaths).
>I can't think of a way to test for it that couldn't conceivably be bluffed, short of using as-of-yet uninvented mind reading technology, and I wouldn't want anything like that determining who's allowed to have the power to be honest.
Base it on an objective metamoral standard and measure it off that. Say the one we use is "nobility" as in, of noble spirit. Can it be bluffed? Anything's possible, but I find that unrealistic. I just don't see someone giving Hitler-esque speeches about labor conquering capital, having logical arguments about the source of the problems in society, exposing people to ideas that they have never thought about before with emotion and energy and gaining a large following after writing several books on your ideology and then betraying that once they get into power, I can't think of a single person who has done something like that.

It's a very liberal quality to have no faith whatsoever in authority, and it's understandable why you would feel that way growing up in a society that constantly tells you that anyone that leads others is evil, bad, or morally wrong. Pic related is relevant.

Why not have a democratic dictatorship? It'd be like a presidential election except those that run are chosen by the current dictator instead of nominated by a party and the winner has total control once elected. They can then propose certain legislation that the public can vote for or against. Every month the public could be encouraged to vote on a new policy that is proposed by the dictator. Of course the leader could choose to ignore the outcome and sure the potential for corruption is great but if a legitimately just, morally upstanding, competent person were to take power, couldn't they bypass a lot of the bureaucratic bullshit that plagues modern western governments and limits our progress towards fully sustainable societies?

Democracy facilitates emotional rule and the benevolent dictator serves as the balance to this. An outright dictatorship serves the interests of the dictator and will erode any support it may have. The people cannot and do not want to spend their days governing and so a benevolent dictatorship is the will of the people made manifest in a single individual. The awareness of every individual among the people to their own interests is irrelevant and impractical.

Because all it would take to irreversibly screw up the country is 51% of people being morally confused or ignorant.

Yes, on the truely outlier chance that someone on the moral straight and narrow assumed direct control and wasn't corrupted by their newfound power, they could enact good change. Good change that would instantly be undone by the next elected dictator because the morally confused, corrupt, or ignorant are far more likely to vie for power than the morally true.

You must have missed
>Of course the leader could choose to ignore the outcome
and if the dictator himself isn't confused and ignorant then he would hopefully choose to do so.

You keep talking in moral terms. The leader should do this. His subordinates should do that. People should not use power to enrich themselves. That is all true. But was not in question in the first place. The question is not should the people in power be good, the answer is obviously yes. The question is: What system will ensure that the right people get power? An even more important question is, are the right people the many, the few, or one? If it is the one, then who decides who will be the benevolent dictator?

>>Of course the leader could choose to ignore the outcome
At which point you have the justification for civil war on your hands, the leader could unite the people who voted for him into fighting the establishment.
>What system will ensure that the right people get power?
A system which judges people by the right standard.
>An even more important question is, are the right people the many, the few, or one?
The many are almost always ignoble, the few are sometimes, and the one is sometimes.
>If it is the one, then who decides who will be the benevolent dictator?
Whoever leads the revolution

"The awareness of every individual among the people to their own interests is irrelevant and impractical." Not every individual, just most of them. If people do not know their own interests, then how will they know if their leader is really benevolent or not?

>because the morally confused, corrupt, or ignorant are far more likely to vie for power than the morally true
No disagreement here but that's why I suggested that the current dictator be the one that nominates 2(or maybe more if he so chooses) candidates he thinks would be worthy of taking his place. So if the nation were miraculously lucky enough to have a benevolent dictator put in place, he would hopefully nominate other morally upstanding candidates. However there is a possibility of a potential nominee tricking the dictator into thinking he is morally sound and then doing a 180 once elected to power.

>the leader could unite the people who voted for him into fighting the establishment
Isn't the leader himself the establishment? Why would he unite people into fighting him? I've been using dictator and leader interchangeably so I apologize if that lead to any confusion.

"A system which judges people by the right standard." So what is the right standard? "The many are almost always ignoble, the few are sometimes, and the one is sometimes." Think that all three are noble and ignoble at the same rate.
"Whoever leads the revolution." Whoever leads the revolution is going to become the dictator themselves. No one ever led a revolution so they could entrust themselves and their people to someone else.

I mean that the newly elected leader that has been rejected would be justified in causing a civil war because the "will of the people" is on his side.

>The foundation of good politics is not altruism. It is mutual self-interest.
I agree partially in that it is both altruistic and in self interest. It can be argued that military service is a good measure of whether or not a person has the aptitude to understand both as joining the army carries, in essence, both of those attributes.

Policies enacted by the benevolent dictator that benefit the people become self-evident and facilitate popular support. The point is that enough popular support brings the dictator into power, but in order to stay in power the dictator must be benevolent. The dictator needs only enough popular momentum to overcome the initial conflict with the ruling elite.

agreed. i gave recently been reading Antifragile by Nassim Taleb and he talks a great deal about the swiss canton system and city-states in contrast with the catastophe prone nation-state.

they're far more difficult, or even pointless to subvert. they're not at risk totalitarianism. local municipalities can manage corruption much more easily.

i'm sold. white ethnic city-states when?!

democracy where only land owning white males may vote for land owning white male representatives... such as the real american constitution

U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights is all you need. Just get rid of the kike, niggers, spics and you're good.

Constitutional Republic my dude

I'm not sure what is the best, but I'm sure that democracy is the worst.

>So what is the right standard?
My standard is nobility. There are other standards being promoted, such as the idea of a "natural elite" by libertarian monarchists/aristocratic supporters which usually just means the wealthy, successful, talented, honored members of a society and various alt-right leadership qualities which are (in my opinion) generally ill-defined.
>Think that all three are noble and ignoble at the same rate.
If you look at it as "the few" and "the one" are randomly chosen from the population, I agree. When I say "the many" is always ignoble, statistically it will average out, there will not be an extremely noble mob, whereas you will find extremely noble individuals.
>Whoever leads the revolution is going to become the dictator themselves.
Sure, unless they do not want to lead for some reason.
>No one ever led a revolution so they could entrust themselves and their people to someone else.
I'm unsure what you mean by this. I think I'm agreeing with you. What I mean is, whoever leads the revolution will be the dictator.

If the benevolent dictator comes into power with popular support, and can only maintain that support by being benevolent, then what do you need a dictator for? Why would democracy lead to the people's interests being served any less efficiently?

Oh I see. Yeah I guess I didn't consider that and frankly I can't think of anything to counter it at the moment. I'm tired as fuck and need to work early so I'll be leaving now. I enjoyed participating even if only minimally. Thanks for the responses user; they were insightful.

And how do you define nobility?

People can't predetermine good policy. They can overthrow a dictator if he makes bad policy only after the fact.

>What is your ideal form of government?
Highly decentralized federation more akin to a mutual alliance with a shared military than a single state. Pretty much.
>Each state has complete control over its own social policy as well as significant autonomy with regards to economic policies
>Each state can have whatever form of government it wants
>Central government is made up of representatives from each state, they do not need to be elected and can simply be directly appointed by the governor of the state
>Central government's only jobs are the passing of trade deals, foreign alliances, and declarations of war. In order for any bill to be passed it must have at least a 3/4th majority
>In the nation is invaded by a hostile military force war is automatically declared
>Each state can have its own personal military force for internal security or as a potential stopgap measure in the event of an invasion but still is not allowed to declare war independently of the rest of the state
>Taxes for the central government are not directly taxed from individuals but drawn from the treasuries of states based on the population of each state

So using the US states of Texas and California as examples
>If Texas wanted a king, to outlaw homosexuality completely, and to have no form of welfare they are allowed to do that
>If California wanted a mandatory direct democracy with gay marriage and gender transitioning for toddlers legal with a basic income, they are allowed to do that

>Texas might have their hypothetical king send his son and future heir to Washington to represent Texas and has free reign to recall him at any point
>California can directly elect their representative

>If Mexico attempted to invade Texas, Texas could use its personal army to attempt to do what it could until the main US army arrived
>If the US considered invading Iran it would need 3/4ths of the states' representatives (so 38/50 of the votes) to sanction such a war
>If the US wanted a free trade agreement with China they would still need the 3/4ths of the senate to vote for it
>To fund the military Californians aren't taxed and instead California is simply forced to pay 12.1% of the budget since they have 12.1% of the population

>how do you define nobility
Fucking autistic.

dictatorship

That's bullshit, tell that to the North Koreans or any other people currently living under despot leadership.

See for a minimal, general description. If you want a full philosophical examination of the idea I'd suggest you read mundusmillennialis.com
there's a bit more in pic related that is connected.
I'm not sure if you're being ironic or not about this due to my autism, but I find it funny.

But why have a dictator at all?

Monarchy > Military Dictatorship > Junta > Oligarchy > Anarchy >>>>>>> Shitocracy

See:
>"The people cannot and do not want to spend their days governing and so a benevolent dictatorship is the will of the people made manifest in a single individual. The awareness of every individual among the people to their own interests is irrelevant and impractical."

The efficiency of democracy rapidly decreases as population increases exponentially.

I do have some faith in authority, as do most people when they leave their fantasies and enter the real world. Governments could not exist if the majority had zero faith, if not in the government as it is then in the possibility of its improvement. But I think that healthy skepticism of authority and power is one of the better gifts of classical liberalism to the world.

I honestly, unironically believe in a lot of the values of the liberal democracy ideal, but I absolutely understand why national socialism came to be, and why the alt-right thinks it is a joke; it has major failings and has been subject to subversion for some time now.

Not necessarily directed at you, but if a state whose peoples embodied Sup Forums-like ideals as the majority existed, would a liberal democracy work for that state (in Sup Forums's mind) as long as nationalism and the preservation of the western culture remained pillars of the democracy, i.e. embedded in its founding principles alongside the general liberal principles of birthrights, etc.?

Sounds like some kind of a feudal confederacy.

None of these systems so far have proven good enough to last. The best by far already tried is classic greek democracy as explained here The ruling method always works best when those involved have the best interests of the civilization in mind. Not necessarily the people though what is best for the civ ends up working for the people.

What I think would work best is a mix of the OPs few and one trees.
The few: A number of Oligarchies split to oversee a branch of civilian government and a Junta for the military matters.
The one: An individual responsible for coordinating the few and make overall decisions while the how remains with the few.

Most likely each and every seat in this system would need a form of election open to the public in some degree to avoid insiders infecting and fucking things up. I feel it prudent to limit voting rights to the educated and those willing to serve the government in varying capacities. Or to go even further, allow citizens to vote based on their field of expertise. Scientists can automatically vote on science related matters and the oligarchy group for sciences. Engineers can vote on construction and city development matters, and so on. But of course major issues need to remain with the ruling system.

A constitutional representative democracy without a bill of rights.

Monarchies have been pretty successful for about two thousand years...

They are as stable as it possibly gets.

>Sounds like some kind of a feudal confederacy.
Its a bit like a more centralized Holy Roman Empire. Monarchism isn't required and it bares little inherent resemblance to feudalism. Also I would like to mention that ideally my states would be more homogenous for example New York might be two or three different states, Texas might be four or more with its major cities (which differ significantly in voting patterns from the rest of the state) being city states with the same freedoms and restrictions as the rest of the state.

>But I think that healthy skepticism of authority and power is one of the better gifts of classical liberalism to the world.
I think it's good to be skeptical, even of your skepticism
>I honestly, unironically believe in a lot of the values of the liberal democracy ideal
I disagree with the liberal democracy ideal because I disagree with accepting a suboptimal solution to a problem. My contention with liberals is that they see the problems with society, but they refuse to come up with better solutions.
>I absolutely understand why national socialism came to be
People have always yearned for the heroic as opposed to the hedonistic, and they will yearn for it again.
>why the alt-right thinks it is a joke
I care nothing about what neo-nazis, white nationalists, and tribalists whose only ideology is "qualities my group has are good, qualities my group lacks are bad" think about any other ideology.
>it has major failings and has been subject to subversion for some time now.
If you're referring to National Socialism, I'd ask what major failings you think it has. I do agree that it has been subverted; few even recognize it as a revolutionary leftist ideology anymore.
>if a state whose peoples embodied Sup Forums-like ideals as the majority existed, would a liberal democracy work for that state (in Sup Forums's mind) as long as nationalism and the preservation of the western culture remained pillars of the democracy, i.e. embedded in its founding principles alongside the general liberal principles of birthrights, etc.?
I disagree with the average Sup Forumsack's opinion on things, I disagree with western culture, I disagree with democracy, etc, and I would not want to live in such a state populated entirely by ignoble individuals like the average Sup Forumsack.

For 2 thousands years monarchies had to enforce their will exclusively using standing soldiers with primitive weapons. Surveillance technology, the bomb and the bullet have made it so that monarchic rule will inevitably fall into tyranny.

I would argue the exact opposite is true.

A monarch has significantly less ability (and incentive) to spy on his people then a democracy.

This. Pretty much this. Though I'd personally have the whole thing overseen by a (limited) monarch as I believe it is important that the populous has a stable, powerful and uniting figure to look up to.

There are major issues with direct democracy now on days user
a) it would be to expensive and inefficient to collect everyone's votes for every new policy, law, changes needed, or decisions overall
b) Most people don't even meet one of the requirements, let alone all of them
c) People could start teaming up to get shit on their favor, i.e. There are more women than men on earth (fact in the US) and if they all voted for some type of shit that only benefits women but fucks men over, since they're majority they would fuck us over (kind of the Socrates situation)
d) Buying votes could become a thing once again, so pure democracy can only exist in a country with high moral value, but even then somebody could take advantage of the flaws
Don't get me wrong democracy seems like an awesome idea, but it is not feasible. I seriously think the best way to do this is with an elite junta/parliament and somebody with the final worth on all matters, the only thing capable of such would be advanced AI (without most feelings) that is smart enough to view things objectively, but can understand empathy enough to give it certain value

With democracy is a popularity contest and we see it's results in only roughly 200+ years.

Something Monarchy related as they seem to last longer, but they need to be centered around a doctrine/belief rather than a single person King who could fuck everything up in one generation.

I am afraid that I have been attacking this problem from the wrong angle. It is possible to be a good person but a bad leader. Whatever you think about Hitler, he completely botched the invasion of Russia and gave National Socialism a bad name by losing the war. William King was a whore-monger. But, he secured Canada's political independence and good reputation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lyon_Mackenzie_King

>democracy
>all

Nice joke.

Only oligarchy has ever existed in reality. The others just veil the oligarchy to a greater or lesser degree.

>he completely botched the invasion of Russia
I'd blame that more on Italian incompetence; he would have invaded sooner had Italy not botched Greece and the Balkans
It doesn't particularly matter to me; whether an ideology wins or loses in terms of armaments has no bearing on whether it is true or false, and whether it will ultimately be victorious or not.

My only issue with a single head of state regardless of them being a monarch or democratically elected is the potential for a powerful head of state to subvert the constitution and the ideas the nation was founded on. A Sulla or Caesar for example able to declare themselves dictator for life with little opposition.

In the event of an emergency a dictatorship of some form can be created, I would suggest the most senior military official being automatically selected for dictatorship (so if the "senate" votes for dictatorial powers the most senior general or admiral becomes dictator instead of spending more time debating who to choose as dictator).

>he completely botched the invasion of Russia
Russia was an unwinnable but necessary war. The USSR would ultimately invade Germany and Hitler had no endgame for the Soviet invasion nor was there really a feasible endgame. Honestly Hitler lost WW2 in 1939, he lacked the industry or surface fleet to decisively win WW2 and if he wanted to end the war with Germany intact he should have sought a universal return to antebellum (except Danzig corridor goes to Germany) treaty after France surrenders. Far from certain that Britain would accept such a treaty, but far more likely than Britain accepting peace than when they have nothing to lose and Germany had already gone out of their way to cripple Britain's greatest ally on the continent.

There is much difference in Sulla and Caesar; Caesar being a prime example of a benevolent dictator and Sulla the opposite.

Shit, didn't even think of the HRE. I'd even been reading up on it recently after playing EU4 since the HRE system was so truly different and intriguing. I don't know if it would work well in the modern day, but in an ideal world where the nations were willing to dissolve into balkanized sub-states along various cultural, political, etc. lines I could see this playing out well in some places.


I don't know about refusing to create solutions, inept at solving problems is more likely but isn't unique to democracy.

People yearn for both heroism and hedonism, I think balance is necessary for a stable society. Even Hitler realised you need some vice.

I meant liberal democracy has flaws and subversion, but this is true of every state and ideology.

Discarding opinions held by alt-right types is how the alt-right rose to begin with, outliers have to be acknowledged at least occasionally or they become vocal and disruptive.

What do you have against western culture? I think your ideas on the state are just, but humans are tribal and imperfect, a state run by your parameters in my mind could not function stably for a long period of time. I don't know that that nature of humans could be bred out, or instructed out to a large enough population to maintain the system in its ideal state. But I'm honestly punching a little above my weight-class in this discussion.

Monarchy, the only real answer.

"I'd blame that more on Italian incompetence; he would have invaded sooner had Italy not botched Greece and the Balkans." I am not saying that Italy helped. However, the blame mostly rests on Hitler for not giving his invading force winter gear, and more importantly, invading Russia when he didn't need to at all and forcing himself into fighting a war on two fronts.
"It doesn't particularly matter to me; whether an ideology wins or loses in terms of armaments has no bearing on whether it is true or false, and whether it will ultimately be victorious or not." You are not wrong. But, you are missing the point, you can be a bad person, and still be a good leader. For example, Lee Kuan Yew frequently intimidated his enemies into silence by suing them for libel. So, he was a bad person in at least one sense. However, he transformed Singapore from a backwater port into one of the most prosperous cities on the planet. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew

So which type of oligarchy is best?

The one where one Person owns the entire country.
Aka monarchy.

Caesar wasn't really any more benevolent than Sulla, each had understandable reasons for betraying the Republic, which was certainly flawed, but either way both subverted the republic for their own ends which illustrates the threat of powerful individuals.

Well my idea lacks a single head of state like the Holy Roman Empire and states do have less autonomy. I think the early Swiss Republic may be a better analogue but I am less knowledgeable about that subject. I imagine my idea would work best with a country with a broadly similar culture but definite political and social differences. For example the United States or the Anglosphere as a whole. As opposed to say the European Union where their cultures aren't really similar outside of US influenced media.

>I don't know about refusing to create solutions, inept at solving problems is more likely but isn't unique to democracy.
They don't want to seriously improve things or judge anything according to any standard. When solutions are suggested, they generally revert to "that's subjective" or "What makes you so sure you're right," stifling any form of improvement for occurring. Some are self-aware enough of this tendency, not all. Conservatives have their own flaws too, as was mentioned in a previous picture.
>People yearn for both heroism and hedonism, I think balance is necessary for a stable society. Even Hitler realised you need some vice.
Sure, but your ideal should always be heroic, without vice, understanding that people will fall short aiming for it.
>Discarding opinions held by alt-right types is how the alt-right rose to begin with, outliers have to be acknowledged at least occasionally or they become vocal and disruptive.
There is no way to combat identity politics; either you identify with your identity or ideas, and the two are largely irreconcilable (One can make Kantian arguments or utilitarian arguments, but they're not making their decisions on a moral basis, it's a survival/emotional basis which often supercedes rational and moral thought). The real solution is to offer many of the things the alt-right wants, but associates with "the white race" only, which is why I said a left-wing enlightened dictatorship that targets nepotists and tribalists (including Jews) would appeal to many of them who formerly focused on ideas instead of identity politics.
>What do you have against western culture?
Almost everything, as it is rooted in Aristotle, and I am firmly an idealist. Western culture is fundamentally Jupiterian.
>I don't know that that nature of humans could be bred out
It's not something that has to be bred out or not; it's something that one has to hold on to as you go through puberty, promote those who hold onto it better, see

Caesar certainly was and one need only consider that Sulla was an Optimate and Caesar was a Populares. That's to say nothing of all the evidence demonstrating Caesar's support among the people for his popular reforms or the outright disdain from the Senate oligarchy. Caesar did not betray the Republic as by this time the Republic had long since betrayed the Roman people. This began with the assassinations of the Grachii brothers and Sulla's proscriptions and constitutional reforms in favor of the Optimates. Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread with a history lesson nor am I trying to attack you, but I'd encourage you to read further on Caesar if you're interested.

>However, the blame mostly rests on Hitler for not giving his invading force winter gear, and more importantly, invading Russia when he didn't need to at all and forcing himself into fighting a war on two fronts.
If war is inevitable it is best to strike when you have the advantage; Hitler believed he would lose the advantage by waiting (heretical.com/miscella/14days.html). If given a week or two more, they could have reached Moscow. I don't think it speaks to a lack of leadership ability that the military did not succeed, and many of the most brilliant military victories (especially with France) were attributed to Hitler. But again, I don't care about his abilities as a military strategist. I do care about his ideas, and how they can be applied to modern life; what we can learn from their struggles that will help in the next.
>But, you are missing the point, you can be a bad person, and still be a good leader.
You cannot be an ignoble person and be a noble leader, or a noble person and an ignoble leader. I would say that if you are a bad person, you can be skilled at leading, but not that you are leading people in a good direction, for a good purpose.