How exactly is locking down the healthy for the greater good?Fascism is about the empowerment of each individual in a tribal sense. As it says above "in unity their is strength" not do what the government says because we say so. In fact, it will be the fascists that are more likely to stand up to this disempowering nonsense.
Blind adherence to what the government says when it's actually not for the greater empowerment and is actually a communist trait.
The problem with fascism is you have to trust that the person making the choices is making the correct ones. The people in power now believe they are.
not do what the government says because we say so
but that is what fascist leaders expect.
Fascism is not anti-individualism. Communism is, and these are not fascist leaders they are communist leaders.
Fascist leaders vie for the EMPOWERMENT of each person in the tribe.
The problem with fascism is you have to trust that the person making the choices is making the correct ones.
I think this is the major issue for sure. I've gone down a bunch of thought experiment rabbit holes of each of the ideologies and think that this is the underpinning issue with all of them. How does one ensure they have a shepherd of the flock that really cares about the flock? A tough one for sure!
It saddens me that I don't have even a reasonable answer for this question. It seems in a way that our freedom and empowerment is part of a feedback loop that is dependent on the friction and struggle in front of us and how we garner "wins" and "losses" during our development. Currently, what has been happening is that our elected leaders have been coopted to affirm us without empowering us and it's left us as weakened nations because of it.
I've run the no-state thought experiment through to the end, and it ends with monarchy.
How does one ensure they have a shepherd of the flock that really cares about the flock? A tough one for sure!
The OP definition of 'nation' is wrong. The prefix 'nat-' means birth, as in 'natal'. So a nation is united by common birth/descent/blood, all the other commonalities are irrelevant to the definition. A nation is a family.
So the leader problem is naturally solved by the consideration of the nation as a family on a macro scale. In a basic family unit, the father is the natural leader. He cares about those under his charge because they are his children. Likewise a national leader must be bound by blood to those under him. It's a nearly universal biological imperative to protect your own blood.
So ideally a nation forms from a founding family, where the literal founding father is the king, and he chooses his favourite son to be his successor. This is how monarchies form naturally, and this is what would happen in a no-state environment, provided there are no gangs taking over first.
why would you want to be a sheep with a shepard?
(post is archived)