An often overlooked benefit of authoritarianism (if done right) - Expression and debate of ideas could never be more free and open

[GmanSquad707]

Westeners have this retarded tendency to credit libertarianism, muh free market, and democracy for things that have nothing to do with those because they actually believe we currently live in their libertarian free market fantasy land. Not sure you actually live in a democracy either.

Okay this has been a near constant pet peeve of mine but why does every time I see someone refer to libertarianism on this site,they seem to have almost no idea what they are actually talking about? No westerner credits libertarianism for the success of the United States or any western nation. They credit capitalism itself as one of the major reasons why the US had been so successful. Note a country can be capitalist without being fully deregulated as libertarians want. The United States is not a libertarian free market. In fact, the United States is a mixed economy that is ranked 17 on the economic freedom index with even the United Kingdom and Canada being ahead of us. Libertarianism is a political fringe in the United States with the libertarian party being considered a complete joke even by libertarians themselves. While the US may have a freer market than most other nations, it's not even remotely close to being considered a "free market fantasy land" like you seem to think westerns believe it is. Libertarians do not have any real control over the government or it's foreign and economic policy. The closest thing libertarians have to a figure in the government is Rand Paul and his only one man that has an extremely limited amount of influence that often goes ignored.

If your going to make an assertion like this, at least try to have even a basic understanding of the subject you are referring too.

 

[Penis Drager]

Okay, I'm back and [relatively] sober. You guys have pretty much convinced me that this position is untenable, but fuck it; let's keep rolling. I really hate multi-threaded conversations tbh so I think it's best to switch to a "one topic at a time" approach. So in the interest of a fairly ordered discussion and staying "on topic," let's start with this:

I don't really care about trans people existing but your proposed system wouldnt really provide any safeguards against transgenderism since it's primary concern is money, it might actually encourage it since cosmetic surgery and body modification is a very profitble industry.
Also clamping down on LGBT stuff negates your earlier premise that we'd be more free since you now want to limit people in terms of expression and self-identity.

This is not about "clamping down" on fags, fags and trannies can exist in such a society and that's not a problem. The issue is that democracy, to quote Nick Land, "is not only (or even) a system, but rather a vector, with an unmistakable direction. Democracy and ‘progressive democracy’ are synonymous, and indistinguishable from the expansion of the state." This was in response to libertarians who realized that libertarian laws are incompatible with democracy. But in this context, it is understood that the media/education complex has an incentive towards convincing people of the virtues of the weird and creepy cult of Progressiveism. Enforced trannytization is already looming. And it's because of the PC culture that has been flourishing in our Democratic society. In a neocameralist system, there would be no such incentive (or much less of one, I'll get to the rest of this comment shortly). A state with no voice in governance means taking away the power of "the Cathedral" that is the cult of Progress.
The cosmetic surgery/HRT industry is profitable though. And that's a good point. But the mental issues that arise after transition lead to a less productive member of society. Stockholders with a high time preference is, admittedly, yet another failure mode of this system.