I often am ostracized for my "radical" views. I agree, they ARE radical, but I think they're just.
I am a libertarian. That is fine, no one has a problem with it. I am in college, many students are also libertarians. However, I have two major views that are completely "out there" for most and will probably get me ostracized here as well:
1. We need to draft a new U.S. Constitution. It is too vague, interpretations (especially of the 2nd Amendment) are often inaccurate, and it's just too outdated. Judges often try to interpret what the ORIGINAL meaning of the Constitution is. However, that simply cannot work. Hell, we all know that the First Amendment was really only applicable to white males who owned land. Our founding fathers were racist bigots and they are not role models, as they often broke many laws (see: just about everything Lincoln did). Instead of making amendments and leaving interpretation of the Constitution to corrupt judges who are bought by CEOs and banksters, we need to write a new one from scratch, as obviously the current one is not working. Would things like free speech, guns rights, property rights, etc. still remain? Obviously. I'd consider it more of a "revision from scratch" than anything. However, there is one major part I'd like to eliminate, which brings me to my second point.
2. I do not believe in either republics or democracies. Both rely on having an intelligent, well-informed population with competent rulers, but the reality is, rulers are corrupt and people are stupid. They simply cannot be trusted to elect competent politicians as they themselves are not competent. So what am I suggesting? Well...a libertarian dictatorship. No, I am not joking. A dictatorship is the least susceptible to corruption, stuff gets done easier and quicker, it is the most stable form of government, and you can plan long-term goals.
But, but, but, what about human rights? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We'd have a mass-murderer in office. The country would be in chaos. It'd be a resurrection of Hitler!
No. Dictatorships are not bad, bad people are bad. A benevolent dictator could do amazing things with this country.
But, but, but, what is we get a malevolent dictator?
What would change? Instead of having ~650 corrupt politicians, it'd be just one. If a malevolent dictator arose, he'd be doused almost instantaneously. A benevolent dictatorship is stable. In this day and age, a malevolent one is not. I like to think that most military members and police officers genuinely care about people. They would not commit mass murders. They would not take away rights. They would not do anything that would violate their moral code.
And having one man in power doesn't mean you have to expunge your political views. You could still be a libertarian dictator.
In the system we have now, even if someone like Ron Paul got elected, he wouldn't be able to do anything because of Congress. In a dictatorship, you could cut the middle-man and actually get stuff done.
Democracy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Communism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. A well-thought-out benevolent dictatorship would.
Am I crazy? It makes perfect sense to me. I can envision a benevolent dictator doing great thing for this country. Just because you're a dictator doesn't mean you can't be a libertarian.
I am a libertarian. That is fine, no one has a problem with it. I am in college, many students are also libertarians. However, I have two major views that are completely "out there" for most and will probably get me ostracized here as well:
1. We need to draft a new U.S. Constitution. It is too vague, interpretations (especially of the 2nd Amendment) are often inaccurate, and it's just too outdated. Judges often try to interpret what the ORIGINAL meaning of the Constitution is. However, that simply cannot work. Hell, we all know that the First Amendment was really only applicable to white males who owned land. Our founding fathers were racist bigots and they are not role models, as they often broke many laws (see: just about everything Lincoln did). Instead of making amendments and leaving interpretation of the Constitution to corrupt judges who are bought by CEOs and banksters, we need to write a new one from scratch, as obviously the current one is not working. Would things like free speech, guns rights, property rights, etc. still remain? Obviously. I'd consider it more of a "revision from scratch" than anything. However, there is one major part I'd like to eliminate, which brings me to my second point.
2. I do not believe in either republics or democracies. Both rely on having an intelligent, well-informed population with competent rulers, but the reality is, rulers are corrupt and people are stupid. They simply cannot be trusted to elect competent politicians as they themselves are not competent. So what am I suggesting? Well...a libertarian dictatorship. No, I am not joking. A dictatorship is the least susceptible to corruption, stuff gets done easier and quicker, it is the most stable form of government, and you can plan long-term goals.
But, but, but, what about human rights? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We'd have a mass-murderer in office. The country would be in chaos. It'd be a resurrection of Hitler!
No. Dictatorships are not bad, bad people are bad. A benevolent dictator could do amazing things with this country.
But, but, but, what is we get a malevolent dictator?
What would change? Instead of having ~650 corrupt politicians, it'd be just one. If a malevolent dictator arose, he'd be doused almost instantaneously. A benevolent dictatorship is stable. In this day and age, a malevolent one is not. I like to think that most military members and police officers genuinely care about people. They would not commit mass murders. They would not take away rights. They would not do anything that would violate their moral code.
And having one man in power doesn't mean you have to expunge your political views. You could still be a libertarian dictator.
In the system we have now, even if someone like Ron Paul got elected, he wouldn't be able to do anything because of Congress. In a dictatorship, you could cut the middle-man and actually get stuff done.
Democracy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Communism doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work. A well-thought-out benevolent dictatorship would.
Am I crazy? It makes perfect sense to me. I can envision a benevolent dictator doing great thing for this country. Just because you're a dictator doesn't mean you can't be a libertarian.
Last edited:
