On Government

[Caspar]

There have been a lot of political thinkers, social commentators, and philosophers over the ages whether Plato and Aristotle or Locke and Hobbes or Marx and Engels. I generally take after Aristotle's tripartite model for the types of governments, but since I figure people would want more options than that, I tossed in a few more. Yes, communism and anarchism are kinds of utopian ideals - unless they can "perfect" human nature, you won't achieve those sorts of an existence so long as jealousy, greed, the desire to be irresponsible, and vanity remain such heavy motivators for human action. I lump technocracy in with aristocracy since they functionally mean the same thing and degenerate into the same thing under Aristotle's model - that is Oligarchy. Otherwise, I'm uncertain how many people here are familiar with NRx thinkers like Nick Land or Moldbug aka Curtis Yarvin, if you are, your thoughts on them?

Why advocate what you do? If you advocate pure pragmatism, then I ask: what do you think about ideals and the mystique around certain governments and can pure pragmatism produce longevity?

 

[Caspar]

Personally, I'm an advocate of republicanism. I can see merit in the others, but I think that a people who are well-constituted should desire that the functions of state are participated in broadly by the people to whom it is supposed to serve. This is not to say I believe in a universal franchise; I believe government should be comprised of land-owning men who are obliged to provide themselves and their sons as the principle military force of a nation - that is, a citizen army. Often times, republics function better with a mixed-order where certain strategic functions of the state are held by heredity, but I think this depends largely on where the state exists. A mercantile state on the Adriatic probably doesn't need this while a perpetually warring state on the Peloponnese probably does.

 

[handoferis]

Even though I'm a former communist, and deep down would like that to happen, after seeing other communists I know it's completely impossible.

So, republic. In an ideal world though, with voting only for those who can pass an aptitude test. Sick of watching single-digit IQ idiots dictate the path of nations and just doing whatever $mediaEmpire told them to do. Hard to do this kind of aptitude test and be politically neutral, but if I were doing it I'd test people's critical thinking skills rather than their political positions or booksmarts.

 

[llillilll]

I actually like monarch more than democracy.
>You need one good monarch to improve the system while in Republic half the country must agree that he is good.
>People take better care of their stuff, in a monarchy King owns the country, it losing economic strength would damage him/her
>monarch is born into power, power will corrupt him less than someone that becomes the most powerful person one day.

 

[Fractalactals]

I'm a huge fan of Land and to some extent Moldbug, if not for their ideas on how to govern, but for their analysis on how things are/came to be.
Entangled complex systems of autonmic feedback loops based on incentives are the true driver of human behavior.
We can be reductionist and blame "capitalism" for what is essentially the emerging states of competition and attempts at optimization (with a high degree of noise).
We can be reductionist and blame "greed" or "idealism" or "human nature" for the failure of any other alternative or fringe ideologies or political systems.
We can blame "propaganda" and "populism" on people voting against their interests, we can hope that those that are supposed to govern in our stead do honestly and earnestly.

I really like the idea Moldbug has of a nation state being run like a corporation, where the dividends are paid to the citizens (in terms of quality of life, liberty, safety, economic stability, etc) and I think it's a good mental exercise, but seeing how corporations and mid size/smaller companies work I'm dubious at best that it could be realistically implemented.
There is enough evidence that people work on incentives both implicit, explicit and perceived, and don't act as rational actors, both economically or politicaly; even if we could assume everyone is 100% well educated and enlightened, we would still have to deal with a way to settle all the disagreements of a society.

How do you cope with that? Just try to move somewhere that appeal to you in lifestyle and try to have a direct positive impact in your area. I worry about what I can change and not worry so much about what I can't change: I can change the pressure to make infrastructure and amenities in my area better. I can't change what type of "democracy" my country is.
I advocate for what I do in a sense, I suppose? The older I get the less interested I am in theoretical politics, and the more I just want to effect /any/ positive change that is possible with the tools available.
--
Sorry, I tried to re-write this a few times, but I can't unscramble my thoughts any better right now.

 

[Pangolin]

I want the original style of America, without the racism, and without the obvious ingrained corruption. With a fair and just voting mechanism that is resistant to tampering and uses paper records exclusively. Trusting machines to elect your leaders is foolish and has bit America in the ass over and over.

The electorate should be comprised of those who work. If you work by drawing a wage from hard work and daily toil you should have the right to vote. Investments, public graft, and welfare are prohibited from voting. Second, mandatory voting. If you don't you get a $1,000 fine for wasting your vote.

The idea that those who have skin in the game are the ones that run the government is amazing. I am always sick of seeing rich fat guys, and skeletors blab on about freedoms when we all know at the slightest sign of trouble they will be on a private jet to some New Zealand based bunker.

Also no income tax. Stay out of my money you government level money-leeches.

 

[Mеченый Яков]

In a more serious tone, i consider myself anti-identitary, i know very well politics is just the game of corrupt richmen, and powerful individuals to have a grip in the throat of the people, left, right, liberalism, conservatism, socialism, centrism, progressivism, nationalism, those are just tools to distract population from serious issues and their own personal happiness, unless you are from west and north europe, politics do not want to make the change, just fill their pockets, so i just don't give a fuck really about any of this.
But in honor to my uncle, and respect for my parents, i will vote socialism in this poll, i won't elaborate further, have a nice day.

 

[Caspar]

i just want lawmakers to be subject to their own laws. it should be illegal to make laws that the lawmakers themselves are immune to. (especially regarding privacy - the idea that lawmakers' privacy is the only privacy that is worth respecting is apalling. another notable example of this shit is the whole supreme court picketing thing).

my other ask of the government is that it be more transparent. the classification system has been abused time and time again. in addition, the barbaric treatment of whistleblowers is mind blowing. snowden says that if the jury was allowed to consider his motivation for leaking op Prism, he would come back and stand trial, but the US is charging him under an espionage act that prevents this. they have individually rejected his request numerous times.

In the one sense, I agree that the whistleblower situation is bad, in another, if I was in power I would also show no clemency to someone trying to hamstring my efforts. I think if anything, these sorts of policies are really just endemic to a society which has grown too big; once society gets to a certain scale, where the distance between the rulers and the ruled is so monumental, you have to employ more and more nefarious means to aggregate information, to process dissidents, and maintain order. Presidents can't remember the names of the people they rule, your governors can't, nor can your mayors; what choice do you have but to treat people like statistics - like cattle? Politics would still be a Machiavellian game on smaller scales, but it'd be a game with human actors and human relations and not this sort of Edward Bernays/Freudian monstrosity.

 

[Outer Heaven]

Caliphate > monarchy > republic > democracy. Other than the religious argument that a caliphate is perfect because god prescribed it, this ranking goes from least obscure to most obscure power structure. Anything more "free" than a monarchy results in the same centralisation of power and oligarchy just with more layers to obfuscate where power actually lies. As people have pointed out here, people like Yarvan, Bernays, Schmitt and others make it clear that power is power regardless of how it is structured and our modern systems are just covering that fact up.

The reason a caliphate is better than a monarchy is that that both the military class and the "priest" class have built in power centres that work in balance, and that the merchant class is kept subservient to both because interest is outlawed. In a caliphate, the caliph is the head of the military, in the same way the US president is chief of staff, but has no legal authority to change god's law. If he does, creating laws that oppose sharia or ruling through secularism, this gives just cause to literally everyone to oppose and replace him since he loses his right to rule. It becomes the religious duty of everyone to clear him out. Typically this is called on by Islamic scholars, putting a check on the caliph. If he rules justly, scholars and the rest of the population must follow him, putting a check on them as well. If a revolution is unjust, the population has the religious obligation to put it down. Since sharia law is interpreted by scholars, a decentralized group because we have no church, there is always a counter balance to the ruler.

All of this is not including that a caliphate spans multiple countries and therefore requires a ton of regional authority, putting local rule in the hands of smaller populations through emirs, sultans and so on. Its similar to the EU, just that all countries have the same overarching criminal code and must follow the ruler when he issues a caliphate wide command. Whats great about this is that if one corner of the Islamic world is threatened, it is the duty of everyone else to fight back. Plus there are no borders within the caliphate so money and people and goods flow freely. The best part is that everyone gets to keep their culture as well. This system existed before and we didn't have the loss of cultural identity because the religion the caliphate is built on emphasises family, community and cultural differences.