Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bell" data-source="post: 43265" data-attributes="member: 354">I like the adversarial system. I&#039;m not engaged enough on this topic to provide a meaningful answer though. I don&#039;t have a great deal of power in steering preferences, just as a matter of course. However I&#039;d like to think that I reserve the power to dictate the choices that people make, so that even those which &quot;aren&#039;t up for compromise&quot; are up for grabs. I like having that left to the political process rather than a reserved injunctive norm. I&#039;d probably start by maximizing the powers of an incel underclass while giving vanguards more power.On certain matters though I think concurrent powers are better (such as in budgetary regulation), especially if they lean toward executive fiat, so judicial capture and the presence of the state in all public bodies would be necessary to limit the rule of factions.The recent bill passed washed out the presence of internal factions in the conservative bloc. It&#039;s all Trumpism now. I like that. Or I think that funds that go toward border security and ICE are a good thing, actually. I don&#039;t believe in independent agencies or non-acquiescence doctrines. I also don&#039;t believe in a Thayerian Congress. All of this can be instrumentalized toward a greater social good. That to me is flushing out people I don&#039;t like.I don&#039;t really have a name for what I believe in, it&#039;s all a bit too muddled in my brain. I&#039;d probably set up something similar to Israel (right-wing sovereign ethnostate, outsource legacy populations to more powerful countries in order to work NGOs). Or Singapore, penal reform and all. There&#039;s a lot more I would do but I&#039;m not nearly enough of a sperg to care about the logistics, it just sounds nice in my head.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bell, post: 43265, member: 354"] I like the adversarial system. I'm not engaged enough on this topic to provide a meaningful answer though. I don't have a great deal of power in steering preferences, just as a matter of course. However I'd like to think that I reserve the power to dictate the choices that people make, so that even those which "aren't up for compromise" are up for grabs. I like having that left to the political process rather than a reserved injunctive norm. I'd probably start by maximizing the powers of an incel underclass while giving vanguards more power. On certain matters though I think concurrent powers are better (such as in budgetary regulation), especially if they lean toward executive fiat, so judicial capture and the presence of the state in all public bodies would be necessary to limit the rule of factions. The recent bill passed washed out the presence of internal factions in the conservative bloc. It's all Trumpism now. I like that. Or I think that funds that go toward border security and ICE are a good thing, actually. I don't believe in independent agencies or non-acquiescence doctrines. I also don't believe in a Thayerian Congress. All of this can be instrumentalized toward a greater social good. That to me is flushing out people I don't like. I don't really have a name for what I believe in, it's all a bit too muddled in my brain. I'd probably set up something similar to Israel (right-wing sovereign ethnostate, outsource legacy populations to more powerful countries in order to work NGOs). Or Singapore, penal reform and all. There's a lot more I would do but I'm not nearly enough of a sperg to care about the logistics, it just sounds nice in my head. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread