Which form of government would you prefer?

Authoritarian or Libertarian

strawpoll.me/15230158

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/15230158
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Cheese

Depends who is in charge of the authoritarian government.

this

Yeah basically this the word 'authoritarian' is too vague we have no clue what that authority actually stands for. Bad poll OP.

Depends on if it’s muttland or an ethnostate

I want to live in a monarchy.

As long as the authoritarian state doesn’t exist at the expense of my rights then I’m cool

it depends on the ethnic makeup
if everyone is the same, and a white race, then libertarian will work
if there are blacks or arabs or even jews then an authoritarian has to remove them permanently before liberty can be applied

>Sup Forums creates insane amount of value in the past 15 years
>shitskins are attracted to value like flys are to shit
>shitskins come here but get severely triggered by stuff white people talk about when there is no censorship imposed on them
>for a shitskin this must be the first time they get confronted by unfiltered white opinions
>the cognitive dissonance they experience is SEVERE
>sometimes they can’t sleep for days(I’ve spoken to several pol-shitskins)
>they get addicted to this place because all these things they hear make sense and explain many things in their lives
>they do not admit all of these things but become angry at white and thing that’s it’s just a game to make them feel bad
>they think the world only revolves around them and whites here do the things they do as a way to trigger them
>so they start to playing the game that they assume is being played here

>start posting things explicitly designed to trigger whites
>white purity spiral (causes division in the whites)
>white women hate (causes whites to hate their own kind)
>nigger dick posting (triggered white people’s sexual insecurities)
>attack representatives of white interest politicians&e-celebs

this

it's a classical Sup Forums poll. And it doesn't address you like a child telling you what kind of leader you get it's just a poll about the form of government you prefer.

Authoritarian = fascism, monarchism, etc in these polls.

No, that's the point. You have to choose without knowing.

Both.
AnFasc is the way.

The thing is the word libertarian is far more specific and descriptive than the word authoritarian. You say Libertarian I think Ron Paul. A proper way to frame this question is an anarchist society versus an authoritarian society.

Could be ancom or ancap. The authoritarianism could either be left or right wing.

Is that not an oxymoron?

>strawpoll.me/15230158
Beware. Pic related is what Lolbergtarianism has gotten us.

It is and it isn't. It's about forcibly dismantling government and everyone who desires to start a government. Basically it's the only form of anarchism that has any chance of actually working because it addresses the key flaw anarchism has.

They arent mutually exclusive faggot

It's pretty comfy desu.
But I assume you mean feudalism.

You won't stay in charge forever, not without being one evil sob..

pick one, let's not be faggots, boyo.

>what is facism facilitated libertarianism?

^^^exactly
OP is a faggot

Do you even realpolitik?

Honestly this.
A good authoritarian gov’t is better than a libertarian one, but a bad authoritarian gov’t is worse than a libertarian one

REPUBLIC you godamn retarded faggot

This what a stupid fucking question.

First one, then the other.

Depends on the weather.

Theocracy is the only proper way to govern.

It's the same with govt vs private sector for utilities.
Well run private beats public every time but poorly run private is a fucking horror story compared to poorly run public.

Because that's working so well for the middle East.

Only theocracy in the world is Iran, actually

Well an authoritarian government with a good leader is still worse because the inefficiencies, incentives and immorality of government in general which mean even if you get an angel in power the grunts on the ground and the structure they are using will still have annoying consequences, especially when human nature is factored in.

At least with a limited government they have less areas of life to fuck up because the majority of it is left to the people and the market, which also means failures are not exacerbated by blanket centralization.

You get one bad economic minister and nekk minnit the guys printing money and you've got hyper-inflation, the supreme leader can only facepalm, you make a decree and the low IQ grunts distort its implementation, not much can be done, know what I mean?

Those monopolies suck. I guess what we can say is that a poorly run public utility at least looks less bad because it can subsidize its failure by taking from other areas of the people/economy/government.

>When you pick the weird class

Which is?

>Islam

There's your problem heretic.

But then you only like that government while your ideal leader is alive, and its up in the air after that. Authoritarian governments will always end up being shitholes eventually. But a libertarian government is always the same, it will forever be good.

Based.
> The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

> If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.

> Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

> It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.