The right must attack the sanctity of democracy and break its holiness in the eyes of normiecons

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AcceleratedWallops 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

The logical leaps in this....oof.

The most obvious one: you praise Chinese autocracy while also denouncing Mao. So yes, while the "benevolent king" archetype is the "easiest" form of government, the problem lies in what happens when your king is no longer benevolent--"lunacy" as you called it. And from history we know that this happens eventually to a society with certainty.

The whole point of Western democracy is to reduce the concentration of power to prevent that lunacy.

two corporate puppets every four years.

And here you point out our current problem. Despite our elaborate system of checks and balances, government power in the US is currently very concentrated. Your proposed solution is to concentrate it even further? Ridiculous.

While many of your complaints are valid, your conclusion is way off the mark.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Procedural checks and balances are ineffective and many eventually become near-impossible to implement. They also become useless once social dynamics change, sure the Democrats "adhere" to the Constitution but they are not Originalists (not that I would care, I don't care much for the Constitution). It is better to have a more practical system of checks and balances, such as an ideologically-loyal military or allowing the people to be armed.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How would you maintain ideology in the military? That's just the same problem but with guns and camo.

Don't forget that the Supreme Court is supposed to be "ideologically loyal" (via lifetime appointments) and is now heavily politicized, as well as the Senate (originally supposed to be "the best of the best" appointed by States), now corrupt corporatists. (Seriously some of the comments about the Senate in the Federalist Papers are just funny to read nowadays.)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How would you maintain ideology in the military? That's just the same problem but with guns and camo.

In the Middle East and Latin America, it is usually done by just not having civilian control of the military and making sure all the high-ranks and all the officer training schools are packed with ideological loyalists so you have a "deep state"/"state within a state" (originally meaning of the term was for right-wing military staffs during the Cold War). Of course, it is a very risky strategy and requires civilian control in the first place then relinquishing it.

Also, ye I've read parts of the Federalist Papers and it's kinda amusing what the different state of the things they proposed it now!