/pol/ - Politics


Remember to follow the rules

Max message length: 4096


Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)

Open file (42.77 KB 500x352 51IUtFn4LqL.jpg)
Anonymous 07/12/2018 (Thu) 20:35:28 No. 3
I consider myself a practicalist. If you're looking for a clear-headed, practical solution to a political issue I probably have something for you. I know a good bit about political science and history and I'll answer any question you have seriously.
What's the stablest form of government? I read an article claiming it was democracy because of freedom of speech, but I don't understand how that creates stability or how freedom of speech is exclusive to democracy
Stability isn't really a function of the system of government, but rather how resilient and effective that government, society, and culture is is to addressing its own problems, be they from inside or outside its borders. No type of government has a monopoly on competence.

Societies with democratic mechanisms are a double-edged sword in this way. On one hand, being able to remove shitty governments without bloodshed is nice and elections give it a sense of popular legitimacy- the loser may be bummed but they can't exactly argue so much if they lose a fair election (hypothetically, if someone were to win the popular vote but still lose the election by other means, that might make a country less stable). On the other hand, these systems are subject to legislative paralysis as divides over certain issues grow. If, again hypothetically, paralysis becomes the most politically advantageous thing to do if you want to win elections, that could become an even bigger problem.

In many ways the founding fathers of the US knew about some of these pitfalls and tried to correct for them in ways we don't like to admit now. They created a form of government that would permanently install an educated, landowning elite to run the country, but elections to give them incentive to look after the popular will.

Of course, totalitarian governments can also be stable, but for them a lot of the calculus changes. Instead of pacifying the discontent populations with elections to lend legitimacy, it becomes all about pacifying them through information control (something increasingly difficult to do now). The more discontent population becomes, the more difficult it is to stay stable. China is able to stay stable partially because it has thousands of history of centralized government and planning, and the current crop of communists are education technocratic types, not mob populists looking to pick very old grudges back open.

Then there is simply the societal and cultural factors. If one chunk of the country hates another chunk from the very beginning, then it doesn't matter what kind of government you have, you're fucked. The culture is either going to have to change to a point where they no longer hate each other, or you're never going to get real stability. This is why places like the middle east and parts of Africa remain perpetually unstable, when their country lines were drawn to include many disparate groups who felt no real kinship toward each other. Federalism (like with American states) can help offset some of this, depending on how deep the hatred runs.
Democracy is a lie. In fact democracy causes a fracture in a group of people. This obviously continues until tension begins to rise due to the relative non existent change. After that both groups begin to get more relentless and begin to fear everyone is the enemy. This then leeds to the final stage which is civil unrest and then that escalates into a civil war. Really its who wins the civil war that will decide for the future. It's basically divide and conquer which is masked as equality.

As for the most stable form of government I would argue monarchy. Since every people are all under 1 monarch. Then their is more of a reason to focus on the enemies of your kingdom rather than bickering among yourselves. Obviously this is only a good thing if the monarch has the right intentions.
Democracy doesn't cause the fracture, the fracture is always there. People disagree, they bicker, they become discontent. Democracy delivers an avenue to work out these differences bloodlessly. Sometimes you really need to change leadership as well, and being able to do that without a bloodbath does help. Totalitarians of many stripes have tried to unify disparate people through appeals to nationalism or bolshevism, and some like China have been moderately successful at it, but all it will take is one real fuckhead to mess it up. So the Communist Party in China has more or less devoted itself to making sure that doesn't happen.

There was no doubt that monarchy for a long time was the most stable form of government, but there's also a reason there's barely any around anymore. It used to be that peasant populations were spread out among agrarian communities, but with industrialization, they started to become more and more concentrated in cities, which made peasant organizing and revolution much easier. All governments, no matter what they are, need legitimacy, and monarchs can no longer claim to have the sole authority to rule anymore (which was based in divine right before). And when one does fuck up there's no easy way to replace them. You end up just having to constrain their power until the monarch ends up like the Queen, a largely powerless figurehead.
Yeah, single leaders are optimal, but monarchs definitely aren't the best form of that by far. Leaving guaranteed political inheritance to children of dynasties is pretty much just hoping by chance that they happen to be good leaders, which though often can be the case due to education and training since birth, it is by far no guarantee. It also creates a divide between an elite ruling class and the greater population, which makes that population feel like they have zero agency as to national direction, which can inspire revolt or draw people to ideologies like Marxism when stressed.

Better is a non-inherited single leader, who is given the position based purely on merit and competency. With the hope that any man, from any walk of life, could obtain the position should he had the drive and ability. The challenging part of this though of course is developing a system to find such men or women and place them in power, and to also develop guards against them changing the system as to never give up power and turning it into a monarchy. One of the better solutions seems to be a senate made up of distinguished individuals themselves chosen based on merit, who combined with the recommendation of a successor by the previous leader, elects a new one. The people at large are also given the ability to rally a vote of no confidence against the leader, allowing them political agency to remove a bad leader should one occur. This system allows for one leader with absolute power, but also direct responsibility for that power to the people he leads.
The issue with that is who gets to decide what is meritorious and competent. It seems like any such system would just descend into an orgy of corruption and nepotism, especially if there's no function to check for it, like elections. We may have a certain level of that already, but if the people really gave enough of a shit they could put a stop to it with elections.
You bring up some good points. Though you missed one crucial point which I also forgot to mention. Democracy is easily controlled. Democracy can be influenced by people with large portions of money. Also the freedom democracy offers is a misnomer. For example if 70% of the population of my country were workers why would you simply not cater to them. That way you have a very high chance of getting into power. Obviously it's not nearly as simple as this but this allows a seed of corruption to sow which hurts 1 group while benefitting other groups. This is why the left/jews want to import millions upon millions of immigrants because it allows them to control who gets into power because shit skins are retarded.
What do you's think of Tanistry?
The idea of having one person with almost no day-to-day power but appoints all the people who do does interest me. The various gaelic and celtic tribes had a number of interesting ideas about government.

I have toyed around with the idea of a technocratic government where there is only one election every so often, say two years or so, to elect one person, let's call them the Tanist to stay on theme, and then have them appoint officials to head various parts of the government. Unlike the President however, they wouldn't be a commander-in-chief (that would be one of the roles they could appoint), they wouldn't have power to start or stop internal policy, and the power would extend beyond the executive branch. They can hire, fire, and create new departments as they see fit, and in a situation like the US where the states run their own election systems, you can protect the integrity of the vote. It basically gives a new leader broad latitude to enact new changes through his appointees, and 2 years is long enough if you don't have to fucking worry about parliamentary procedure that takes an eternity. But they also can't just make impulsive changes based on uninformed whims. The Tanist would be able to be able to focus on being more a figurehead, rather than having all the day-to-day responsibility of a President or Prime Minister.

How can I get the section 8 housing out of my side of town. It's just one apt complex but they're really shitting up the place.
Agitate for a socialist or national socialist revolution in your town, seize the means of production and introduce some kind of central planning and wealth redistribution. Once poverty is functionally eliminated, you will be able to justify using police to modify criminal and uncivilized behavior.

Or you could call your pussy town council. Or tweet at Trump. Or move. Or shoot them. Or mind your own business. The choices are literally endless.
It is also easily controlled by groups, likely more so than individuals, corporations, unions, political parties, etc.

The people are also easy to control since they can be made to believe they have more control than they actually have or that they are loosing control they never had.

The balancing act of the democratic two party system is somewhat mind boggling.
> Just do whatever man

That was the opposite of a clear-headed, practical solution.
So basically a constitutional monarchy like britain or the netherlands?
Open file (930.99 KB 803x1155 Heydrich-Endlosung.jpg)
What solution to the Jewish question can you offer that is sufficiently final without lacking in practicality?
The last one turned out to be so impractical that it's hard to believe it actually (((happened))).
The social and economic influence of Jews could easily be limited and minimized if white goyim would stop being so fucking shitty and lazy. Stop intoxicating yourself, stop shoveling shitty food into your mouth, stop watching reality TV that glorifies ignorance and degeneracy, stop blaming the government for everything while taking your fraudulent disability checks, quit the superstitious nonsense about sky fairies, stop treating things like education, science, and reason like brain poison that offends Jeebus, and stop pretending like you're sooo much better than the niggers with the same exact fucking problems.

The Jews win because their whole culture is built around self-preservation and advancement of their people. Fascies then declare supremacy and vast conspiracies by using a bunch of self-indulgent, retarded, degenerate, drud-addled, and barely-literate white people as their political army. It's a joke, and it's why you lose.
You're mostly wrong, but you have a point or two in there.
What are we gonna do about these goddamn jews?
lol heiled


Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)

no cookies?