Why i support authoritarianism and territorial expansionism

[Admin]

Sometimes i have doubts regarding my support for total authoritarianism but then it doesn't take long for me to get reminding about why it necessary. The status quo isn't working and it's also not showing any signs of real improvements.

Within the status quo at best you can fight for some temporary marginal improvements only to see the next administration just destroy all the progress you worked hard to achieve (assuming you even had any progress to begin with).

In a democracy everything boils down to what people vote for and this extend even to things like medical decisions. Regulators will have to please politicians who in turn has to please donors (and other powerful private actors or even worse competing states) and ignorant potential voters.

I still remember when sars-cov-2 was a big thing and i noticed how politicians would make decisions based on what voters wanted and how actual evidence got ignored and denied by politicians and fake experts appointed by them.

Remember how they first told you "masks don't work" and then told you to use cloth masks (useless). Did anyone via the government tell you you needed at least N95/FFP2 for meaningful protection? (FFP3/N99 for proper protection)

https://vintologi.com/threads/about-covid-19-lockdowns.821/#post-5599

Now that whole thing seems to have been memoryholed but i still remember all their failures (wasn't just donald trump screwing up here) and awful policies.
My government did accidentally do a much better than typical by not really trying and instead going for herd immunity but still not particularly great.

 

[Admin]

What we need for proper governance
You need to be able to make decisions that are quick. decisive (final, not having to wait years for courts) and reliable.
Instead of trying to get "checks and balances" by having multiple government branches a far better approach is to have unified governance and have a system internally in place to make it reliable.

The solution is very simple. There is no need to make things any more complicated than this:
You give all power to 5 to 999 people.

They vote among themselves to make decision and if there is a draw you look at the highest ranked senator/A-citizen/whatever who voted (such as A09) and that's basically all you really need.

https://vintologi.com/threads/elite-rule.24/

you can of course have structures below that for lower-level decisions but that will ultimately be controlled by the A-citizens so and will be changed if needed for better governance.

So as long as a majority of the A-citizens are good so will the governance be.

There are other forms of governance that can work temporarily but those systems of governance (such as giving all the power to a single person) will not achieve the required stability for long-term governance.

Imagine waking up tomorrow and not having millions of ignorant people be able to control all aspects of your live via their vote. Wouldn't that be something to strive towards? having leaders that actually look out for the country as a whole instead of focusing on winning the next election.

Having leaders willing to implement necessary changes even if they aren't popular.

 

[Admin]

Why i support territorial expansionism
We shouldn't limit our political ambitions to a few countries where we can have some political successes. We should aim to conquer the entire planet and create a system of governance that ensures that people are able to live high quality lives no matter where they are born.

I want a system of governance that ensures that i have a good chance of living a good if my consciousness were to have a continuation on earth somewhere in the future or even better a continuation on another planet we have established ourselves on.

If we fail to expand our borders it's just a question of time before we are the ones being conquered instead. We need to expand to be able to survive as a society and this will continue until there is only a single government left.

https://vintologi.com/threads/societal-survival-of-the-fittest.979/

Creating a good society for people to live in only to have it be conquered and utterly destroyed 50 years later really doesn't seem that great to me. It's the whole planet or nothing, no in between.

One potential good thing from having states brutally crush other states is that it will weed out a lot of incompetent government increasing the chance that the sole remaining government is going to be a good one.

 

[Admin]

Laws generally shouldn't change based on arbitrary borders
Right and wrong really shouldn't change because you walked 100m to cross into some other state. We also shouldn't base legislation on the current cultural dogna in a specific area. Laws in general should be universal.

I want to be able to freely travel without having to worry about the government in the area i traveled to being bad.

Also imagine how much simpler everything would not having to exchange between different currencies. The same government currency would work everywhere. No private actor getting rich from obscene transaction fees. Paypal would be a distant memory and nobody would miss it.

 

[Kubeliya]

I agree with a lot of these points, but I think an advantage of democracy is bridging the Ought-Is gap (objective analysis can tell you what *is*, but not what you *should* do about it).

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on a system where the state's high-level goals are decided democratically, but the elite have final say over all aspects of implementation. For instance; the people decide that disease is the top priority for them, decide that tuberculosis is the next disease that needs eradication, and then have no say on how the elite go about eradicating it.

 

[Admin]

I think an advantage of democracy is bridging the Ought-Is gap (objective analysis can tell you what *is*, but not what you *should* do about it).

There isn't really a distinction between "ought" and "is" like that.

https://vintologi.com/threads/defeating-the-hume-guilliotine.664/

That's a clear case of mainstream philosophy being utter nonsense. One of many such examples which is why you can completely ignore it and not really miss out at all.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on a system where the state's high-level goals are decided democratically, but the elite have final say over all aspects of implementation. For instance; the people decide that disease is the top priority for them, decide that tuberculosis is the next disease that needs eradication, and then have no say on how the elite go about eradicating it.

You cannot really trust the masses with long-term visions like that.

And you also do need to consider the implementation aspect when it comes to various goals.

 

[Kubeliya]

There isn't really a distinction between "ought" and "is" like that.

https://vintologi.com/threads/defeating-the-hume-guilliotine.664/

That's a clear case of mainstream philosophy being utter nonsense. One of many such examples which is why you can completely ignore it and not really miss out at all.

I see. I suppose taking a purely evolutionary view is coherent, but not one that applies to every possible decision. I'll leave aside my defense of philosophy in general, since that's not what we're talking about.

You cannot really trust the masses with long-term visions like that.

And you also do need to consider the implementation aspect when it comes to various goals.

Let me use a better example. Let's say that, through biomedical advances, we had extended the human lifespan by a significant amount; but, due to some as-yet-unsolved flaw, the quality of life at the new old age dropped off significantly.

How would one decide whether it was worth spending resources on this procedure without some kind input on how much utility people would be able to get out of their lives under those condition? Even from a survival of the fittest perspective, there are going to be choices in which the differences between options are subjective or pure preference.

Now, let it be known that I don't advocate for voting as a pure aggregate of preferences where majority wins. That's not what I mean by democracy, because voting is actually undemocratic as a simple mathematical fact. I'm only considering a process where the reasoned deliberations of private citizens may provide the elite with additional information about the dynamics of an issue and how it affects people's lives. Even on the level of a plebescite that didn't commit to any particular action, but just asked something like "how much money/time would you want the government to spend on this issue?" (Perhaps quantified and expressed as "per unit of progress towards goal" somehow, to prevent scope insensitivity)

 

[Admin]

Now, let it be known that I don't advocate for voting as a pure aggregate of preferences where majority wins. That's not what I mean by democracy, because voting is actually undemocratic as a simple mathematical fact. I'm only considering a process where the reasoned deliberations of private citizens may provide the elite with additional information about the dynamics of an issue and how it affects people's lives.

One way to do that is to select say 15 random citizens as representatives each months.

But in any case i do believe that the highest authority should rest with the A-citizens and that the ruling elite shouldn't feel obligated to base their decision on what most people want (regardless of it's goals or how to get there).

 

[Admin]

Authoritarianism is necessary to combat societal cancer
If you do not have a strong central authority you will end up with other actors gaining for society bad influence instead.

Cults growing and ruining millions of lives.
feminism spreading like cancer (because it is).
corporations pushing for legislation that benefit them at the expense of society as a whole.
harmful medical practices continuing for decades.

You might think you at least have rights but you will find them eroded and there will be more and more exceptions where you don't have them anymore. A textbook example of circumventing individual rights is weaponization of psychiatry and this is often supported by the general public against people they view as having problematic beliefs.

Often people are ignorant about how bad the situation is until the cancer starts affecting them personally. Maybe you had sex with a female 3 years ago and suddenly you find yourself prosecuted for "rape by deception" because you didn't disclose having been unemployed for a year 10 years ago.

Maybe your child gets taken from you and put in an institution over something that didn't even happened but was made up and when you try to go to court you find the whole system rigged against you and your child and even if you somehow win the damage will still be permanent.

And a big difference is that under democracy the rules changes with public opinion. What was fine 5 years ago can now get you into trouble and even if it's not technically illegal social ostracization may still follow.

Even the most basic rights you think you have will be at the mercy of the voting masses who generally don't know you even exist probably but still have a lot of opinions about what you should and shouldn't do.

 

[Admin]

Democracy is a perversion and an inversion of what's right and natural
Having the stupid and ignorant masses boss people around is indefensible. It should be us being in control over the dumb masses and they being at the bottom as they deserve.

I am fed up by people far dumber than me having a say over how i live my live and how society in general is structured.

Me getting one out of 8 million votes just for Sweden is downright insulting. Give me my A-citizenship now.

 

[experiencingconsciousness]

I want a system of governance that ensures that i have a good chance of living a good if my consciousness were to have a continuation on earth somewhere in the future or even better a continuation on another planet we have established ourselves on.

This is why we need to make this earth a better place.