Am I crazy?

[erowe1]

Lee Kuan Yew is one example I can think of.

Singapore may well be better governed than the USA. It's also tiny. I tend to think that there are inherent advantages of keeping the highest pinnacle of governance at as local a level as possible, and it might be this principle we see exemplified in Singapore. Transforming the regime in DC to their style of government, and having that regime rule over the entire US from the top down, I suspect, would not be good.

And, while it's more toward the dictatorship end of the democratic spectrum than most countries, I think it's a stretch to call its Prime Minister a dictator.

And, to the extent that the prime minister is dictatorial, it remains to be seen how that system will continue to serve Singapore in decades to come. The benevolent aspect of a benevolent dictator will not necessarily be replicated as the dictator aspect of it is. And at some point, it won't be.

 

[spladle]

Hi Falcon63,

I've only made a brief perusal of this thread after reading your original post, but it doesn't seem like anyone here has recognized yet that you are a budding reactionary. This is especially unfortunate as you don't even seem to realize it yourself.

To answer the question you pose in the thread title: No, you are not crazy. Over the thousands of years that people have engaged in political philosophy, a number of incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable individuals have reached conclusions similar to those you have here, and they have explored these ideas in depth and at great length. Many would argue that Aristotle was a monarchist.

Mencius Moldbug has outlined an ideology called formalism (yes, you are supposed to be clicking the links) that I think you might find quite fetching.

Some nice fellow has organized many of Mr. Moldbug's writings here; I would strongly advise you to scroll down that page a time or two, look for links with titles that sound interesting to you, and read them.

You can watch a video of him speaking here.

Lest you get the idea that the reactionary movement consists of just one man, perhaps it would behoove you to read The Dark Enlightenment, by Nick Land.

Or perhaps it would behoove you to read Federico's blog, Studiolo. Like everything else I'm linking to, this is a bit long, and it may seem overwhelming, but at least a passing familiarity with his analysis of reactionary philosophy is simply indispensable to anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a conversation about politics, in my opinion.

If you follow the first link in the post above, you'll find yourself reading an outsider's perspective of the movement. Scott Alexander is hardly a reactionary, let alone a libertarian. Hell, he wrote The Non-Libertarian FAQ (aka Why I Hate Your Freedom). But he's a smart guy, and he makes quite a few interesting observations.

This post is becoming overloaded with links and rabbit trails, so I'll cut it short now. Hope this helps!

 

[KrokHead]

King David probably was the best example. Maybe Constantine? I don't know the details on that (He also, BTW, ruined Christianity fo awhile...)

I guess King Darius, Augustus Caesar if you're Roman, but the paradigm has changed from about 2,000 years ago.

 

[Slutter McGee]

I was going to vote crazy, but I think I am just going to vote stupid instead.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[gwax23]

Im a Minarchist and I would love to see a new constitution. Dont agree with everything your saying but your definitely not crazy.

 

[spladle]

I was going to vote crazy, but I think I am just going to vote stupid instead.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Please indulge my curiosity. Why do you think he's stupid?

 

[Falcon63]

I was going to vote crazy, but I think I am just going to vote stupid instead.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I loved your in-depth analysis. You really made a thorough, convincing argument that elaborated on many points.

 

[otherone]

Falcon, have you read Animal Farm?

 

[talkingpointes]

Singapore may well be better governed than the USA. It's also tiny. I tend to think that there are inherent advantages of keeping the highest pinnacle of governance at as local a level as possible, and it might be this principle we see exemplified in Singapore. Transforming the regime in DC to their style of government, and having that regime rule over the entire US from the top down, I suspect, would not be good.

And, while it's more toward the dictatorship end of the democratic spectrum than most countries, I think it's a stretch to call its Prime Minister a dictator.

And, to the extent that the prime minister is dictatorial, it remains to be seen how that system will continue to serve Singapore in decades to come. The benevolent aspect of a benevolent dictator will not necessarily be replicated as the dictator aspect of it is. And at some point, it won't be.

Size doesn't matter, having a unified homogenous culture is what matters in that context.

 

[Neil Desmond]

It's already taken effect, and I'm the dictator.

Please verify that you are the dictator.

 

[erowe1]

Please verify that you are the dictator.

Somewhere way back in the forums my Constitution should still be there. It clearly says that I am. I can't find it though. Maybe I'll write another one and have the rest of the world (through me as its official representative) ratify it.

 

[erowe1]

Size doesn't matter

Suuuuuuuuure.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Somewhere way back in the forums my Constitution should still be there. It clearly says that I am. I can't find it though. Maybe I'll write another one and have the rest of the world (through me as its official representative) ratify it.

Ok, if I go up to a random person on the street and say to them "hey, did you know that there's a dictator and do you know that person's name?" Will they be aware of this and be able to answer that question?

If not, can you do something that demonstrates that you are the dictator to prove it to me? It could be anything that would accomplish such a thing; it doesn't matter as long as it's something that would verify it for me and make it possible for me to go up to anyone and use that to show that you are indeed the dictator.

 

[Fermli]

The problem is, who enforces the NAP? People will find other ways to forcibly steal property and all that other good stuff. A minarchy can at least stop some people from doing it if enough people agree that its a bad idea. Anarchy could theoretically do the same thing with sufficient support, I guess, but its really the same dilemma. You need a freedom culture before either will work.

You don't need to violate the NAP in order to enforce the NAP. People can voluntary make agreements with each other to uphold the NAP and violators will be punished accordingly.

I guess that depends on what "Benevolent" means. A benevolent dictator could only tax enough to enforce the NAP and could only pass laws against people who violate the NAP. Granted, you would have the relatively minor violations of the NAP by the dictator himself, but you get this same problem in any minarchist system. Anarchy, by contrast, will still have some violations of NAP even under the best conditions, they just might not call themselves "Government."

But taxation itself is a major violation of the NAP. You can't violate the NAP and then claim to be in favor of the NAP.
Yes, under anarchy there is still aggression by sociopaths, but there is less aggression than under any govt system. Most people can't even see that govt is inherently aggressive. They see it as some voluntary arrangement, will of the people, etc. And others, like you, see govt as a necessary form of aggression. Both views allow for aggression to be legitimized, and this allows sociopaths to commit much more violence than otherwise possible.

This view that we need the govt to violate the NAP, because without it, there would be gangs of thugs out there that would violate us even more.
This logic reminds me of my history class when I was taught that we had to drop atomic bombs on Japan to kill thousands of people because if we didn't, millions of people would have died in a land invasion.
Or another more tame analogy is when republicans say 'well those democrats socialized medicine in the USA so we need to ban drugs because I'm paying for your medical problems with my taxes.' This is an escalation of aggression. You need to reduce aggression, not increase it.