Political Crossfire Forums

[imperatorxi]

It may be strange but I characterize myself as a libertarian authoritarian. I believe in a powerful state but still very minimalist. What I mean is that the range of the central authority is limited, but in the spheres it does control it should be absolute. There a lot of implications associated with this, and I want to make sure it is understood that this is theoretical. This is a Utopia, just a totalist utopia. You'd need a benevolent and powerful ruler who was an immortal, since great states fall in the wake of great men.

Still do you think it is plausible to have a libertarian state that is in effect Imperial?

Oh and the only person I trust to rule is myself, and I'm sure many people feel this way don't worry about saying it is true there is nothing wrong with that kind of thought.

[NobleOne]

imperatorxi wrote: I believe in a powerful state but still very minimalist.
May I ask why you believe in a minimalist state, (as opposed to no state)?

Quote: Oh and the only person I trust to rule is myself, and I'm sure many people feel this way don't worry about saying it is true there is nothing wrong with that kind of thought.
I'm sorry to say there is plenty wrong with that kind of thought unless one is an anarchist, which you are not.

[imperatorxi]

Well something are necessary and can only be done by central authority. An empire must protect its borders and do its best to maintain the integrity of society. Also the minimalist state should be run like a company with each department proving its worth, and those like research can even try to make money. This is all theoretical and I still need to hash out the details, which I'm doing as a pet project. Its just a "book", quotes because it'll just be on my computer, but it'll be like 400 pages. But I see the need for a state, especially to provide education since I am a firm believe in having individuals ascend to something greater than what humans currently are, and I call this *gasp* ascension. Sorry I'm really not high I just amuse myself this late at night.

Also there is nothing wrong with trusting only yourself to rule in an absolutism. I trust others to rule in the US democratic system because of checks and balances, but I have issues with inefficiency. As I stated it is a Utopia meaning it can't come into being... yet. I would need to be an immortal as well. Since I believe I am capable... and yet I'd need to live forever.

To illustrate my point better lets take a contemporary issue. The wire tapping. I agree with this in principle to maintain national security, but I just don't trust the state enough to allow it, because politician's like George Bush have their own agenda, like pushing their own moral values. And if they "suspect" something you're like screwed because bureaucracy s*cks. I also need to create a better form of enforcement than the bureaucracy.

Back to the point of those kind of thoughts being wrong. There is nothing wrong with saying things like that. I have the utmost confidence in my own ability to rule. If that sounds arrogant than okay I am. So what? Judge me all you want but the fact is I am really not afraid to just speak my mind and modernist ideals of complete equality kind of sicken me. Judge and condemn me all you will but I am a meritocrat.

To clarify my personal opinon. Because my version of a totalist utopian state (I like that word but people would be more familiar with Autocratic. I don't even think Totalist is accepted as a word... but i don't care) can never be there is no place and no system that i'd rather live in than the current US system despite its shortcomings, though i have a certain respect for the Parliamentary system for its efficiency (though I always want a powerful court since I respect the courts above all else especially the US supreme court).

[NobleOne]

imperatorxi wrote: But I see the need for a state, especially to provide education...
You think education can not be provided by the free-market?

You wrote about wire tapping:
Quote: ...but I just don't trust the state enough to allow it, because politician's like George Bush have their own agenda, like pushing their own moral values...
Yet you trust the state to run education without pushing its own moral values! :lol:

[thefranzkafkafront]

imperatorxi wrote: It may be strange but I characterize myself as a libertarian authoritarian. I believe in a powerful state but still very minimalist. What I mean is that the range of the central authority is limited, but in the spheres it does control it should be absolute. There a lot of implications associated with this, and I want to make sure it is understood that this is theoretical. This is a Utopia, just a totalist utopia. You'd need a benevolent and powerful ruler who was an immortal, since great states fall in the wake of great men.

Still do you think it is plausible to have a libertarian state that is in effect Imperial?

Oh and the only person I trust to rule is myself, and I'm sure many people feel this way don't worry about saying it is true there is nothing wrong with that kind of thought.

I understand the theory behind your point, indeed i have see many good arguments for a libertarian monarchy.

A lot of the people here will be saying things such as OIMGAXOXLOLOLOL !!!111!!! YOU ARE TEH FASCIST.
These are the people who make the classic mistake that democracy=liberty.


Sadly in reality autocracy is imcompatable with liberty, as without accountibility tyranny eventually sets in.

I would encorage you to re-examine your views in light of the reality of human nature and the social construct of even a minarchist state.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Really, there's no correlation between liberalism and democracy. While any autocratic system is prone to denying civil and economic rights for the benefit of the rulers, any democratic system is likewise prone to denying those rights for the perceived (or real) benefit of the electorate.

That's why any political ideology based on an "ideal state" is unfeasible; any means of implementing that ideal state is going to be subject to the whims of whoever is in charge-- whether it's the ruler, the Party, or the people themselves.

[imperatorxi]

As fun as practicality is I seek at this juncture to redefine the perfect society. The idea of a utopia sickens me because people assume it needs to be a sissy version of society like communalism. I believe that the perfect society has an immortal monarch, and I'm just asking for theoretical perspectives.

I don't trust our state to provide education if it was centralized in government, at least current public education is more of a local thing. And education could be provided by a free market but I'm not comfortable with "could be" and have a bunch of uneducated morons running around.

Anyway have a laugh at your own expense I was talking about two different states. I don't trust our state to show me anything which is why I take my education into my own hands. The utopian autocracy under my control is more than trustworthy... for me. HA!


Tyranny isn't always bad and hated. Pisistratos of ancient Greece was liked. He was a tyrant since power was concentrated in one person. It is benevolence that is necessary. Oh and immortality. Since his sons were terrible rulers.

[Halitosis Crunch]

Pehaps an authoritarian minarchist might be an adequate term for what you're trying to illustrate. I think your ideas are fundamentally opposed to libertarianism though.

[HomoUniversalis]

There is a fundamental opposition between those who believe in liberty, and those who do not.
Those on the side of liberty believe in the capability in man to take care of himself. The other side feels that he himself is most capable of determining what is best for himself, and the rest. Most interesting is the concept that every single, even the most moronic of human beings, thinks himself to be capable of deciding what is best for the rest.

Most beautiful it is, when we let go of such powers, and let others decide for themselves what to do, so we too enjoy our own autonomy. It is the closest we get to everyone ruling everyone.

This immortal monarch does not exist, and is thus not useful in an argument, I think.

Mr U

[imperatorxi]

Not opposed to left libertarianism... well except the authoritarian part hence the topic.

Does one need to cut the word utopia and theoretical into the skin before it is understood that this is conceptual not practical. I want to change the utopian paradigm of sissiness. Therefore an immortal monarch can exist. You know why? Because it is at least as possible as a perfect society. So drop it you're focusing on the wrong point. Now lets talk utopian societies. Usually they are all equal and democratic and my authoritarian version is usually seen as a dystopia. I think it could be an enlightened, if non-existent, society. Now are there any points actually on topic?

Edit: I just read what i wrote and i know it is SOOO unclear. Lets frame it like this. What would this kind of state look like? Lets talk Institutions and powers of the Imperator. And the plasibility of a minimalist, in social issues, but powerful, in military, imperium.

[Robin Hood]

Whilst there is no such thing as libertarian authouritarianism anymore than there is a colour: white-black; I understand what you mean. You simply want the state to be completely effective in what it sets out to do, and if it's doing good (like stopping murders) then very few will complain.

[Korimyr the Rat]

imperatorxi wrote: As fun as practicality is I seek at this juncture to redefine the perfect society.

I think the problem with your proposition lies in the fact that, in order for anything to be perfect, it must also be static. Perfection does not allow anything to be better, nor equally as good-- and thus any change from a state of perfection is to make it imperfect.

Societies are incapable of stasis. You touch on it briefly, when you mentioned the need for an immortal monarch-- but then his ministers must also be immortal, and the citizens... and then nothing must ever change.

I think you can see a society like this; simply spend some time in your local cemetery.

imperatorxi wrote: The idea of a utopia sickens me because people assume it needs to be a sissy version of society like communalism.

That is the problem with utopians-- all of their visions of perfection involve peace, luxury, and soft living. This, of course, is the recipe for decadence.

Even those utopians who realize the need for strong leaders pay no attention to the means by which those strong leaders are created; this is why so many powerful dynasties fail in their second generation.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I think the problem with your proposition lies in the fact that, in order for anything to be perfect, it must also be static. Perfection does not allow anything to be better, nor equally as good-- and thus any change from a state of perfection is to make it imperfect.

A society will always change, and will never be perfect nor is there any defintion attainable of societal perfection. A society is a group of people, and they define their own perfection.

A government or state system, can however, be perfect. It can recognise the above and act accordingly.

Quote: Societies are incapable of stasis. You touch on it briefly, when you mentioned the need for an immortal monarch-- but then his ministers must also be immortal, and the citizens... and then nothing must ever change.

Onbe doesn't need something impossible like an immortal monarch, when a book (which is basically immortal) will do the same trick.

Quote: That is the problem with utopians-- all of their visions of perfection involve peace, luxury, and soft living. This, of course, is the recipe for decadence.

Decadence can only truly come when you don't have to earn peace, luxury and soft living for yourself.

Quote: Even those utopians who realize the need for strong leaders pay no attention to the means by which those strong leaders are created; this is why so many powerful dynasties fail in their second generation.

Since when have strong leaders done much good except for countering other strong leaders? I'd much prefer the John Cowperthwaite type who does no leading and lets people be.

[anselfir]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: imperatorxi wrote: As fun as practicality is I seek at this juncture to redefine the perfect society.

I think the problem with your proposition lies in the fact that, in order for anything to be perfect, it must also be static. Perfection does not allow anything to be better, nor equally as good-- and thus any change from a state of perfection is to make it imperfect.

Societies are incapable of stasis. You touch on it briefly, when you mentioned the need for an immortal monarch-- but then his ministers must also be immortal, and the citizens... and then nothing must ever change.

I think you can see a society like this; simply spend some time in your local cemetery. :roll: a static image of the perfect society can be thought out and every effort directed at achieving this state or every action is measured against this optimum. The optimum defines the value system anyways.
of course you also confuse static physical movement with static ethics, which is a very grave error.

Quote: imperatorxi wrote: The idea of a utopia sickens me because people assume it needs to be a sissy version of society like communalism.

That is the problem with utopians-- all of their visions of perfection involve peace, luxury, and soft living. This, of course, is the recipe for decadence.

Even those utopians who realize the need for strong leaders pay no attention to the means by which those strong leaders are created; this is why so many powerful dynasties fail in their second generation. You are defining the term "strong" in what way? Hitler was a strong leader, he was energetic and able to sway massive forces. But was he "strong" in your sense of the word?

[anselfir]

imperatorxi wrote: It may be strange but I characterize myself as a libertarian authoritarian. I believe in a powerful state but still very minimalist. What I mean is that the range of the central authority is limited, but in the spheres it does control it should be absolute. There a lot of implications associated with this, and I want to make sure it is understood that this is theoretical. This is a Utopia, just a totalist utopia. You'd need a benevolent and powerful ruler who was an immortal, since great states fall in the wake of great men.

Still do you think it is plausible to have a libertarian state that is in effect Imperial?

Oh and the only person I trust to rule is myself, and I'm sure many people feel this way don't worry about saying it is true there is nothing wrong with that kind of thought. All libertarians are authoritarians, we just believe in differnet authorities. There exist no anarchist really.

[Korimyr the Rat]

oneofthem wrote: of course you also confuse static physical movement with static ethics, which is a very grave error.

Ethics are a product of cultural attitudes and beliefs; they're matters of opinion. Ethical stasis is impossible.

oneofthem wrote: You are defining the term "strong" in what way? Hitler was a strong leader, he was energetic and able to sway massive forces. But was he "strong" in your sense of the word?

For most of his reign, yes. Towards the end of the war, he was crippled by his own paranoias and increasingly incapable of controlling himself.

This is not to be misinterpreted as praise; while he was a very strong leader, he also led his people in a direction I would consider intolerable.

[Kindred]

Reason wrote: Whilst there is no such thing as libertarian authouritarianism anymore than there is a colour: white-black; I understand what you mean. You simply want the state to be completely effective in what it sets out to do, and if it's doing good (like stopping murders) then very few will complain.

It's called grey.


And all constitutional libertarianism is authoritarian in a way, in that it allows the masses to be ruled by a contract which creates tyranny on a temporal scale. Libertarians often appeal to ‘natural law’ in order to justify one specific set of societal rules and regulations over another, but in reality they are simply constructs which represent particular interests within society i.e. the interests of the powerful.

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: And all constitutional libertarianism is authoritarian in a way, in that it allows the masses to be ruled by a contract which creates tyranny on a temporal scale.

Verily. But the construction of City-States supports the deviation in citystates between such contracts. It would be technically possible to create a completely anarchist city state, if that would be the will of those who gathered there.

That said, you are right of course. Still, the victory of the rights of the strong over the weak/meak ARE natural.

Mr U

[Robin Hood]

Quote: It's called grey.

Centrism is the grey of politics, and it's make the term 'libertarian authouritarian' which is equivalent to 'black-white' defunct, replacing them with 'centrism' and 'grey'.

[RueTheDay]

A.D wrote: Libertarians often appeal to ‘natural law’ in order to justify one specific set of societal rules and regulations over another, but in reality they are simply constructs which represent particular interests within society i.e. the interests of the powerful.

Bingo.

However, in fairness, the contractarian strand of libertarianism avoids most of the logical contradictions, inconsistencies, and gaps of the more common natural rights based libertarianism. Unfortunately for them, while contractarianism is on far more solid logical ground, it's results are determined by the assumptions and objectives plugged into it and thus does not necessarily lead to libertarianism.