you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

A higher form of life needs less restraint, not more.

Change my view.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I like the Japanese model.

On an individual level, they are the smartest and most creative people out there. But as a society, they recognize they must still work together to serve the greater common good. Before WW2, this was known as praising their Sun God Emperor.

With individualism, you have too many geniuses running around but nobody to set them straight.. This is how we ended up with USA, where every Billionaire Company is treated like a Feudal Kingdom.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I call no man master. The Nip's first error is worshipping a fallen being.

And no man I worship will protect me in the wilderness from his kind.

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I call no man master.

It is a shame this degenerate mentality has become associated with the "Right". It is a virtue to be against bad authority, but there is no virtue in being against authority in and of itself. You will always have a "master," if it is not big government, then it will be big business or some other source of power.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know that "master" is a good word for any governing force or entity with power. It indicates subservience in an unhealthy way, one that can't be questioned with critical thought. Big businesses aren't elected, but have seized power through corruption. Most western governments rely on election methods, corrupt methods or not, to place people into seats of decision making. These are people that are also upheld to the same laws that they helped to create, along with any laws before and after their installation. They're elected guardians, not really masters. At least that's how I see it.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Anarchists might say that, but they mean more by it. Rejecting man as the ultimate authority does not mean to reject legitimate authority or hierarchies in general.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And no man I worship will protect me in the wilderness from his kind.

But in a high trust society he would?

One person alone doesn't need to protect you. That's what the police force and army are for. And the Emperor is seen as the head of all of that.

And in the past, Japanesee leaders tended to be warriors or have battle experience. So they're not afraid to fight when it was needed.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

How "high-trust" are these hypothetical neighbors if they trust me so little to defend myself or shape my own property without "setting me straight"?

Central control replaces higher purposes with some ruler's purpose, with the assumption he can account for all possibilities. When the machines come which actually can do that, my argument will not change.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see it as reciprocal.

The police & army still trust you enough to leave you alone. They're not invading your privacy or following you to work. However, they still need to exist because what if you are planning a crime or suddenly "snap" one day and take your vengeance out on other people?

It also prevents society from breaking down into complete anarchy because everyone thinks laws are now unjust or that they deserve to be king.

Central control replaces higher purposes with some ruler's purpose, with the assumption he can account for all possibilities.

The ruler's purpose would need to benefit everyone in order to prevent an uprising. And any smart King would have advisors or lower ranking members to oversee activities that the King/Queen can't always account for. That's also true of any Republican society.

There are elected Presidents, but we also have Army Generals, Departments of Education, Healthcare, Chief of Police etc.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

because what if you are planning a crime or suddenly "snap" one day and take your vengeance out on other people?

Baking that assumption into society suggests there are deeper problems, but let's ignore that. Why can't the king's subjects defend themselves against sudden-onset brain damage, just like they do invaders?

Benign monarchy has its positives (like having somebody specific to blame, instead of the mutual mistrust that develops in a dissatisfied democracy), but not all historical kings could or would use mercenaries for defense. Those that did sometimes regretted it.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We get it, you read Atlas Shrugged and you think you're a libertarian hero. It's cringe as fuck dude. Grow up.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are you accusing me of being a jewish athiest? I am no combination of those things.