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.
This is interesting. You should consider a post on this. I can't find a thing to disagree with here, actually.
why would you want to be a sheep with a shepard?
Not saying I want to become a sheep, or advocate anyone to be sheep.
The point is we elect, or give permission to an advocate or someone that is to "lead the pack" so to speak. The problem is instead of leading they tend to follow ... follow the UN, or NWO or the world bank's instructions. I used the word shepherd for lack of a better term, as that is often used as one that loves the flock.
It seems very rare nowadays that the elected people do very much for the population or group they are elected to represent. Like any other system, if the one at the helm is a parasitic asshole, it doesn't matter what your ideology is.
(post is archived)