There is a balance to be had. The reason disorderly conduct, loitering and making excessive noise are illegal in nearly all places is because total personal freedom just means being an asshole. Your freedom to bang a drum at 3am ends when it keeps all of your neighbors awake. And it should. Classical liberalism undermines society by allowing the asshole with a drum to be an asshole.
More "Government" is seldom an effective solution to problems but more often is just the tyranny of the loudest plurality. In a society with homogeny or philia it would not be necessary for gov to attempt to regulate such behavior because the self determined individuals would self regulate due to their similar value systems. You have been indoctrinated by soicalist-boublethink into believing that individuals cannot solve issues and find resolution on their own but need "community/gov" to do it for them. This is a foolish and dangerous belief system you have developed that inevitably leads to petty tyranny and ignores the reality that order and community are constituted by the individuals and their respective freedoms.(Think, Bill of Rights) Liberty of an individual does not undermine societies order; Liberty determines what level of ethicacy a society structure will possess.
In other words, the more rules or regulations on assholes a community needs the further that government/community is from legitimacy. Research the founding fathers writings on positive and negative rights if you would like to explore these ideas and more fully develop your understanding of these basic and universal truths.
You're trapped in the libertarian mindset that more government is seldom and effective solution. It often is. The NS Government was the only way to remove jews from German media, finance and other positions of power. The solution to some asshole selling heroin to children is government. The solution to BLM/antifa blocking the freeway is government. But it's a nationalist government, one that weighs everything in terms of what is best for the people who belong here. Not what's best for 3rd world migrants, not what's best for whiny jews.
The key is a philosophy that understands everything is a compromise between on idea or another. Regulation vs free trade, order vs personal freedom, free speech vs subversive propaganda, what's best for minority groups vs what's best for the majority. The exact sweet spot for all of these things varies wildly by time, place, industry and other circumstances. The amount of freedom we give Pagans or the Amish is wildly different then concessions we should be giving to jews and muslims for example.
Ideologies that always push for more of one thing or another, even if it is something that sounds good on paper like freedom, are doomed to fail. They are open to subversion. All governments fall to corruption and tyranny to some extent or another. Maintaining leaders whose primary concern, both in word and action, is nationalism is the only limited ability we have to push back against the creep of corruption. No other governmental form or ideology offers any meaningful defense.
I should have asked if you were a nationalist-socialist at the onset and we could have avoided this, but I wasn't sure. All the same, thanks for the dialogue.
I recognize the value and validity in much of the nationalist-socialist position but in the end we have ideological differences and will have to disagree. Natural and universal laws of scarcity means that any successful system will need to promote and benefit from competition. I feel that self determinationism and individualism in the pursuit of private property drives healthy competition and evolutionary progress that with philia breeds nationalism as an essential biproduct. Certainly a role for gov as anti-trust/anti-monopolistic/etc controls need to be in place but those should be structured as "Positive Laws" (protecting individual liberty) and not "Negative Laws" (restricting individual liberty) whenever possible. Its my observation that such a system has equal if not superior merit across human experiments in governance and we can just leave it at that.
EDIT: I could also go on about the fundamental flaw of any socialist system is the inevitable bureaucratic bloat, centralization, and institutional memory always lead to a massive unwieldy system that falls to despotic tyranny... but that's another discussion.
(post is archived)