The only form of social organization is a dictatorship without freedom of choice.

[Moroccancel]

The more I think about this, the more I realize that efficiency is always going to lie in the lack of freedom of all the elements of a system. Call it a car, an airplane, a piece of software code or even society itself. And here, we start with the duality "freedom-dictatorship."

Libertarian currents from the most Keynesian capitalism to anarcho-capitalism have always understood that the only way in which a system can be efficient is through the free choice of subjects in a supply and demand market where only through this, together with the inherent competition for maximizing profits, can societies develop to their full potential. And yet, there is no behavior more dictatorial, inefficient, and even abusive than that of large corporations that set market prices and reduce supply for the sake of maximization their profit.

On the other hand, we have ideologies that seek to centralize people's destinies through planned economies and control every aspect of people's lives, Examples include National Socialism and Soviet Socialism, which in essence, never ceased to be state capitalisms but with clear differences in the social agents and the ultimate purpose of their administrations.

AWith this understanding, we can only conclude that control over all social variables is what can create maximum efficiency at a social level, but with one nuance: Leaders cannot be free either, and it is also required, without fail, that the entire planet or a large part of it is governed by a social system similar to that of a beehive and where either there is sufficient power to bend the will of the opposition, or there is a government without opposition, but the following problems always arise:

1. You can't trust a leader or the elite that orbits him.
2. There cannot be a society where foids are treated as human beings.
3. Racial freemixing cannot occur under any circumstances, as racial, ideological and cultural uniformity must exist for maximum efficiency to occur within a nation or group of supranational alliances of a race or ethnicity.
4. Every man and foid should be matched with their looksmatch. In the event that the population has a surplus of men or women, the fetuses of the surplus sex must be aborted to ensure population balance.
5. A method must be created in which leaders cannot be altered by their wishes, perhaps artificial intelligence would be the most efficient, as long as it is programmed to achieve maximum efficiency, and this, undoubtedly, could only lead to people being executed because they would weigh down the system (invalids, people with chronic illnesses, very old people).

Is this a utopia? Yes. Is it the most efficient way for the full development of societies? Yes.

 

[Sloth Vs Koala]

Society will always need some sorta structure to get its values from. This is why autocracies tend to have better societies than democratic ones

 

[Anarcho Nihilist]

The more I think about this, the more I realize that efficiency is always going to lie in the lack of freedom of all the elements of a system. Call it a car, an airplane, a piece of software code or even society itself. And here, we start with the duality "freedom-dictatorship."

Libertarian currents from the most Keynesian capitalism to anarcho-capitalism have always understood that the only way in which a system can be efficient is through the free choice of subjects in a supply and demand market where only through this, together with the inherent competition for maximizing profits, can societies develop to their full potential. And yet, there is no behavior more dictatorial, inefficient, and even abusive than that of large corporations that set market prices and reduce supply for the sake of maximization their profit.

On the other hand, we have ideologies that seek to centralize people's destinies through planned economies and control every aspect of people's lives, Examples include National Socialism and Soviet Socialism, which in essence, never ceased to be state capitalisms but with clear differences in the social agents and the ultimate purpose of their administrations.

AWith this understanding, we can only conclude that control over all social variables is what can create maximum efficiency at a social level, but with one nuance: Leaders cannot be free either, and it is also required, without fail, that the entire planet or a large part of it is governed by a social system similar to that of a beehive and where either there is sufficient power to bend the will of the opposition, or there is a government without opposition, but the following problems always arise:

1. You can't trust a leader or the elite that orbits him.
2. There cannot be a society where foids are treated as human beings.
3. Racial freemixing cannot occur under any circumstances, as racial, ideological and cultural uniformity must exist for maximum efficiency to occur within a nation or group of supranational alliances of a race or ethnicity.
4. Every man and foid should be matched with their looksmatch. In the event that the population has a surplus of men or women, the fetuses of the surplus sex must be aborted to ensure population balance.
5. A method must be created in which leaders cannot be altered by their wishes, perhaps artificial intelligence would be the most efficient, as long as it is programmed to achieve maximum efficiency, and this, undoubtedly, could only lead to people being executed because they would weigh down the system (invalids, people with chronic illnesses, very old people).

Is this a utopia? Yes. Is it the most efficient way for the full development of societies? Yes.

Yes, look at South and North Korea. The north, with all its absurd totalitarianism, has a better chance of survival due to the fact that its demographics have about 1.8 children per woman, and in the south there are less than 0.7 children per woman.

 

[Jokerpilled]

Libertarian currents from the most Keynesian capitalism to anarcho-capitalism have always understood that the only way in which a system can be efficient is through the free choice of subjects in a supply and demand market where only through this, together with the inherent competition for maximizing profits, can societies develop to their full potential. And yet, there is no behavior more dictatorial, inefficient, and even abusive than that of large corporations that set market prices and reduce supply for the sake of maximization their profit.

Amen! Corporations don't even want free trade, they want monopolies, since monopolies maximize profits for an individual firm. So all this rhetoric around "freedom of trade and economic association" libertarians buy into betray their low IQ and inability to grasp the situation at hand. The US bourgeoisie does not want "free trade"; they want the dominance of the petrodollar globally.

With this understanding, we can only conclude that control over all social variables is what can create maximum efficiency at a social level, but with one nuance: Leaders cannot be free either, and it is also required, without fail, that the entire planet or a large part of it is governed by a social system similar to that of a beehive and where either there is sufficient power to bend the will of the opposition, or there is a government without opposition, but the following problems always arise:

1. You can't trust a leader or the elite that orbits him.
2. There cannot be a society where foids are treated as human beings.
3. Racial freemixing cannot occur under any circumstances, as racial, ideological and cultural uniformity must exist for maximum efficiency to occur within a nation or group of supranational alliances of a race or ethnicity.
4. Every man and foid should be matched with their looksmatch. In the event that the population has a surplus of men or women, the fetuses of the surplus sex must be aborted to ensure population balance.
5. A method must be created in which leaders cannot be altered by their wishes, perhaps artificial intelligence would be the most efficient, as long as it is programmed to achieve maximum efficiency, and this, undoubtedly, could only lead to people being executed because they would weigh down the system (invalids, people with chronic illnesses, very old people).

Is this a utopia? Yes. Is it the most efficient way for the full development of societies? Yes.

This is a very Platonic idea as advanced in the Republic. Plato was a eugenicist, like yourself (marriages strictly controlled, abortions utilized, etc.). But you do diagnose something in the first point: a person in power will almost always become corrupted by power and transform into a decadent ruler. The ideal government of nations and peoples is not an easy question to answer; I think a representative republic was the best solution before the rise of all the "mass technologies": radio, television, newspaper, smartphones, etc., since democratic reform is more suited to conditions where the populace is not easily manipulated by rhetoricians and sophists seeking to use governmental power to further advance their own private interests or agendas.

I still think democracy (or a liberal constitutional monarchy) is the best solution as to what type of government should be instituted though, as it ensures every person has a voice. If you support an authoritarian sovereign who acts outside of the law, you run the risk of that person turning against you and the law, since to be sovereign is to definitionally be outside and above the law while declaring that no one is outside it.

Overall, I'm very sympathetic to your views, as I believe in a highly paternalistic state, even if I do believe in democracy. The state has the responsibility for caring for its citizens via universal, free college and healthcare in addition to upkeep of basic services. The state, under liberalism, was designed, in theory, to maximize human flourishing. Compare this to what hapens now, when the legal fiction of corporate personhood is involved, giving corporations protection under the 14th Amendment (in the US of A). The spirit and principles of liberalism are precepts I strongly agree with; however, in America at least, our liberal democracy has been so corroded by multinational corporations and private interests, combined with an aggressive pantomime of sophistry and political theatre giving way to a total collapse of any even remote sense of citizen-empowerment and democratic involvement in the polis.

In conclusion, fuck the current state of America, it's gay and retarded.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

Organized states will always be better at monopolizing violence and directing force towards other states. During interstate competition between different states, the sociocultural group that's more efficient at inflicting violence on the other to outlast or destroy their competitors will always outcompete and absorb the other polity once the competition devolves into open conflict and warfare.
Anarchists will always lose to tankies for this very simple reason. The fact that they can't consolidate force of arms and organize as quickly or efficiently means they will always be at the disadvantage of those who can. In conventionally organized social groups, this is accomplished with a hierarchy or some other form of centralization of power and authority. Since anarchists and libertarians eschew one of these or both, they intentionally handicap themselves in the struggle for resources and survival by being unable to wield instruments of violence as effectively as their competitiors.
And if anarchists do want to fight back and win, they will inevitably have to resort to adopting the same methods that are anathema to their very own ideology and cause, rendering them not anarchists anymore by their own definition since they would be no different than the statists they despise once they organize along the lines of the same systems that they consider exploitative and coercive. That's the conundrum they face when they actually try to apply their theories in practice. Even if some of their abstract ideas do have some merit and hold appeal theoretically, it will always be impracticable to implement pragmatically without compromising their own core principles. The praxis comes with a catch 22.

 

[IngsocSimp]

I think a representative republic was the best solution before the rise of all the "mass technologies": radio, television, newspaper, smartphones, etc., since democratic reform is more suited to conditions where the populace is not easily manipulated by rhetoricians and sophists seeking to use governmental power to further advance their own private interests or agendas.

Ironically it seems to have been the opposite. For instance look at the propaganda used against the south in the American Civil War or against Germany in the World Wars. This is why the US is no longer able to fight a war with Russia and China and any attempt at drafting would fail miserably. Everyone is using the internet and sees the game for what it is. Everyone's been disillusioned to how much of a shithole our country is with how it lets women, minorities, and faggots leach off of contributing members and treat them as inferiors. Social media it seems has helped protect our values.

 

[bluetext]

You just figured this out? Who fixed Germany? A dictator. Who fixed China? A dictator. Who fixed Cambodia? A dictator. Who is fixing the US? Trump.

 

[Emba]

The theme song for this thread:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGINIsLnqU