FreedomPatriot
boosted
@korsier @h4890 @Example @freepatriot
Middle management are usually an insulation layer for management. They are the bureaucracy or at least its apparatus.
I prefer a few leaders who are directly accountable to committees or their equivalent, layers of management.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
Weirdly like Ayn Rand and later Heinlein.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@korsier @h4890 @freepatriot @EvolLove
You guys opened a can of worms.
Nazi ideology, as an emotional/political product, is highly successful. People keep talking about it pro- and con-.
National Socialism as a system... well it has the same problems as Communism, namely a huge state bureaucracy, need to militarize, and therefore need to demonize.
I would not have been a Hitler supporter in 1930s Germany, even if I were a raging anti-Semite, because I do not trust the easy answers people.
Additionally, because I am me, I would have opposed the cruelty. Remigration of Jews from Germany is still a good idea; slave labor and encouraging violence against them is stupid, cruel, and off the path toward achieving the necessary goals.
The NSDAP opposed the aristocracy as you recall.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@h4890 @Example @korsier @freepatriot
Keynesianism formalized the mixed economic system. Free-ish markets are the driver, but the goal is those taxes for socialist welfare state programs!
To my mind, simpler is better, so make few rules but make them clear.
Like, have an aristocracy for leadership (this includes the monarchy, technically) and let culture and free markets do the rest.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
The state of nature is libertarian.
Over time, however, it becomes clear that if a civilization does not act as one, it gets clobbered.
So you get war leaders.
These beat back the enemies, and then become peacetime aristocrats.
The monarchy is represented by the sword not because it conquered its own people, but because it prevented others from doing that.
War is our destiny.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
No, because markets produce those who are good at working with markets.
Part of the point of aristocracy is that they sequester wealth to avoid dominance by markets, like they sequester power to avoid herd rule.
What you will have in a libertarian society over time is one that opts for monarchy to reduce the cost and unreliability of government.
After all... historically... that's how it came about in the first place.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@korsier @h4890 @freepatriot @cjd
"Wokeness" came out of the Black Studies programs which were designed to give minority students a major in which they could succeed.
When this was mainstreamed and expanded to other groups, it resulted in a massive dumbing-down of the curriculum.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@h4890 @cjd @korsier @freepatriot
Agreed. Most higher intelligence people are ready by age 15 to start applying their knowledge.
Those below that do not benefit from more years of education anyway.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
Definitely. I mean publicly-traded stocks. Private ownerships are partnerships or share-based as you note.
Being a sole owner means no committee, and committees are the basic building block of bureaucracy.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
Those are not aristocrats.
Aristocrats are chosen for their behavior, not their ability to manipulate the system.
The people you identify do not start out with power, but generate it, and therefore are good at manipulating it but not at leadership.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
Those are not aristocrats.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@h4890 @korsier @Example @freepatriot
The opportunity society is Darwinistic.
That is, it rewards in proportion to ability, which means some will be rich and incompetents will be doomed.
This disturbs the middle class voter.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
"In reality, you could probably remove 99% of the government tomorrow, and people would do exactly what they did today. "
This is the big point and very true.
However, the government/voters have created a vast dependent population.
This is why the aristocrats kept it simple: first and foremost, reward the good.
Secondarily, remove the egregious, but also importantly, leave everyone else alone.
Aristocracy tolerates more local variation and eccentricity than democracy ever will, even CHAZ/CHOP.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@korsier @h4890 @Example @freepatriot
Equality is not found in nature. Nothing on the Right is egalitarian.
However, we believe in rewarding the good, removing the bad, and leaving everyone else alone.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@h4890 @Example @korsier @freepatriot
Yes. "Equal" becomes the goal instead of "good."
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@h4890 @korsier @Example @freepatriot
Management is a skill, and few have natural inclination to it; no amount of "education" fixes this.
It's why good CEOs are paid really well: they generate that return and more.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
@db @h4890 @korsier @freepatriot
@cjd
This is why culture and leadership are needed.
No sane leader steers a population into diversity or socialized medicine.
But the voters did!
FreedomPatriot
boosted
This seems roughly right. People associate initially based on similar inclinations. These arise from similar genetics.
Over time, they adopt methods that work, and these become habit, which becomes culture and then, a force for natural selection.
However, I think this misses the essence of culture, which is a shared goal and a spirit+aesthetics of how to achieve that.
Culture is more than methodology. It is perhaps then overlapping visions of the good, beautiful, and real.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
This is why you need a large number of lesser aristocrats.
The kings respond to threats to their legacy, all the way down.
The balance of power is what produced the Magna Carta.
Better to keep it informal.
FreedomPatriot
boosted
Coca-Cola is frequently used as an argument against a libertarian state.
That is, if you have markets alone decide things, you get what people want instead of what they need.
There is truth to this.
Counterpoint is that McDonald's has responded to market pressure and their food is about half healthier now.
Bigger point is that the herd is a threat, and markets are not a hinge against this except under dire Darwinistic conditions.
