OK then. So that's a yes on reducing independence, but only to reflect the population proportionally in political preferences so these agencies can act in a way aligned with the will of the population, and not to reflect the population proportionally in any other way. Because of course we all know the truly oppressed group in the USA isn't women, or people of colour, or those of different sexual orientation - it's the right!!!11!!!1!! The way to reflect the population proportionally isn't by worrying about underrepresented groups, but by ensuring the right finally gets the political clout it's sorely lacking now, so completely shut out from positions of power as it is.

Hard pass from me, thanks.

I wasn't expecting to see a full throated defense of the spoils system. I don't think you would enjoy the politics of the 19th century as much as you imagine you would. The soft modern version of that system is how you ended up with a surgeon as the head of HUD and a person with no background in education as the Secretary of Education.

But start printing your Boss Tweed T-Shirts, I guess.

Couple it with a vast decrease in what the government should actually do though.

And keep in mind that the worst incompetent is far far far far preferable to a skilled person who doesn't share your values, because the power of the state will always be used against the people who don't share the values of the holder of the power. There is far less win-win in the state and far more win-lose.

In many cases the very best thing the state can do is absolutely nothign at all, that's the normality of life with exceptionally rare circumstances where doing something is better.

DoE should be eliminated. HUD shouldn't exist, it's incredible it actually exists. A puppet that does nothing in HUD is far better than someone who capably uses the resources and manages to ask for more succesfully, because the end game is killing all those garbage entities , and weakening them to the point people consider them a waste is part of the necessary process.

The threshold for having the state interfere in something is approximately "if you dont' societal collapse is guaranteed and no society in history ever managed without it". That's the end game goal.

You go step by step toward that, dismantling the state brick by brick, employee by employee, "istitutional knowledge holder" by institutional knowledge order.

Until you are left with contract enforcement, protection of property rights and safety from third party violence, domestic and international, and that's it.

I couldn't disagree with you more. And, I can't imagine what our country looks like without our government agencies. Our water would be undrinkable and our air unbreatheable. Probably no highway system. Our parks would just be subdivisions.

We formed these agencies to solve problems. Do they go overboard sometimes? Sure, but the good they do far outweighs a little overreach.

This pretty much sums up the difference between the left and right. The left tries to solve problems. The right doesn't give a ****. Burn it all down.

I would suggest Luciom takes it further/to a different place than the mainstream right. It's something he had articulated before, and I had forgotten about it. It can at times be challenging to have a productive discussion about government when one person is a fairly staunch libertarian, or has a lot of those leanings, just because most of us are looking to discuss different platforms and policies that the libertarian doesn't think should even be the role of government at all.

Not that I don't agree that there's some truth these days to your last paragraph.

Unfortunately, we are a really destructive species, and, if not governed in some way, will simply destroy everything it can.

Lucio just see one side of the coin and it’s normal with is authoritarian view about politics, which is normal since he probably admire Mussolini…

What Lucian Don’t see is that there is far right individual as well that “prevent” too much left leaning policies to be implemented as well .

What Luciom look for it’s a full totalitarian regime made of one ingredient -> far right and almost no government at all to counter balance that power .

And then he thinks he love democracy …

We went through this already. He said that both Mussolini and Berlusconi were too collectivist for his taste.

I don't think Luciom wants to live in a fascist regime. It would be more accurate to say that he wants live in a country ruled by an emperor that shares his views about the proper size of government.

Well, that's what he *thinks* he wants. I highly doubt he'd actually want to for long, if he actually got to.

That's what I meant.

If he wants a preview of how his utopia is likely to look in practice, he could always make Haiti his holiday destination this year.

What led you to believe that? He seems super fash to me.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...steele-dossier
Small beer i suppose but they better try to get their money fast.

Why emperor? I want constat low level warfare among the powers. I want the periphery of the Roman empire with 21th century tech. Where 10% taxation going in part to feed roman plebe is considered an absurd tiranny.

Or 1830 Chicago

Ye absolutist pro free speech, for low level taxation (without high taxes you can't have a fascist state, a state without cash can't finance totalitarianism), a constitutional ban on welfare and redistribution, hyper strong property right defense (absolute, even against the collective local will), typical fascism sure.

I want to ban the concept of land use regulation, you do literally everything you want in your land, *how is that fascist*

Sure in Haiti courts are quick to solve contract disputes and if your property rights are threatened, the police fixes that fast

The state role is not "to solve problems". It is to be the arbiter of the game of life and NEVER THE PLAYER. The people play under agreed upon rules (constitution), state does the refereeing.

The state never has any outcome in mind from the game except "that the rules are followed" no matter what the consequences of following the rules are.

You want to change society you do it within the laws (=constitutional limits) and never with the power of the state, IE never with coercion.

If you can't get what you want without using state violence against others then suck it up and accept what you want is wrong.

Keep in mind we are discussing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ROLE here, not ALL government, mainly.

Anything that can be done at the local levels shouldn't be federal at all, ever. Public housing being a very clear example of that.
Then people will vote with their feet to go where the balance is good for their values.

But jfc the federal government overstepped 99% of the times on everything it isn't even supposed to touch at all in the slightest.

The. After you completely remove the federal government from almost everything, we play a real game.

You tax productive people massively to finance your bullshit ideas, other places don't, then we see where those people end up.

The left needs the fed to avoid that sort of competition which would inevitably result in all the best people ending up in libertarian minded areas, not willing to pay for the tax takers much if at all.

According to Wikipedia, Chicago had a population of 200 people in 1833.

In the fullness of time, Luciom's utopia will too.

Exactly

President Trump will be commentating and doing a live play by play on his platform Truth Social during resident Biden's performance tonight!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

I couldn't imagine anything more obnoxious.

PB, I lose track, is Trump the current (legitimate) president?

Why don't you try to see if you can put this theory to the test, and be sure to report your findings back here (if you're able).