Boredalt wrote:
(you think it is unfathomable that a state like California could secede if/when there's a catastrophic collapse?
That won't happen because there isn't a reason for it to happen. Neither CA or any other state or region is a partisan interest in this mess.
Talking about CA seceding from the US is like talking about Prussia seceding from Germany. It's not gonna happen, because it's a question that history has already answered.
Boredalt wrote:
I honestly think it would have to be emperor or dictator big. Absolute power big. Aestu has offered his idea of a starting point...
It would be awesome if some charismatic, intelligent, no nonsense leader would emerge...
Boredalt wrote:
Inb4: Look how poorly many dictatorships have turned out. There are also examples aplenty of successful monarchs, emperors and dictators. There are also plenty powerful empires and countries that crumbled/disappeared under systems of government that failed.
Dictatorships usually come to power because representative systems of government are unable to reach a consensus on how to solve problems. Most dictatorships do more good than harm - in the short run. And, at the very least, they tend to strengthen the power of the state, clear the field of weak authorities and allow strong authority and strong national identity to emerge.
It is a fallacy that absolute power corrupts absolutely. As Kim Stanley Robinson observed, the problem is not that people are corrupted by power, but that people corrupt power.
Dictatorships are effective at solving problems in the short run for the reasons I described, because they can ignore feedback and forcibly implement necessary solutions, and because those who have the power to establish order in chaotic situations typically also possess the wisdom to do what must be done, but it is that lack of sensitivity to feedback, the wisdom of the people, that inevitably destroys them in the long run. That, and that the rule-by-fiat nature of dictatorship inherently precludes lawful succession and causes all dictatorships to inevitably disintegrate into petty infighting and rule by the most cruel and depraved amongst the decadent elite.
Disgression here in support of my point: I actually happen to know exactly what would have happened if Hitler won WWII (which was actually possible if the Germans hadn't wasted resources on V-2 rockets and instead put all their resources into Me-262 production and used them for air superiority instead of terror bombing).
The day after the war ended, Hitler would have been killed not by a clique of disgruntled Prussian generals, but by his own followers, fed up with his erratic behavior and desirous to claim his power for themselves. They would have then carved up the Nazi empire into their own little fiefdoms, and in order to hold onto power, would have made promises and concessions to the subject peoples, whose cooperation would have been necessary for them to fight their rivals. 50 years later, the subject peoples would have become more powerful than their Nazi overlords, degenerated by idle rule and political cynicism, and the pre-war situation - a bunch of constantly bickering little independent European nation-states - would have re-emerged...in short, the same thing that happened when other great leaders like Alexander or Mohammed or Barbarossa died.
My point is, the premise of the Nazi philosophy - and the same flawed viewpoint held by American right-wingers - is that violent ultranationalism and bigotry can suspend human nature - that if people buy into the national superiority nonsense, they would unite behind a single supreme leader and human self-interest will cease to wreak its bothersome influence. In reality, this does not work because bigotry inevitably becomes a vehicle for cynical self-interest. Hence military welfare.
Other, equally beguiled individuals, usually left-wing liberal types, or free-market neocons, believe that nationalism itself is flawed or obsolete - opposing things like loyalty oaths, executing flag burners, or having students salute the flag daily. They are also naive and wrong.
The correct approach is nationalism based not on bigotry and absolute rule by an individual or clique, but intellectualism, tolerance, political and economic enfranchisement, and channeling the negative aspects of human nature into positive avenues.
Napoleon had the right idea. He often said, "I do not want my heirs to inherit this power for they would only abuse it." His vision was to gradually divest power onto an all-European legislative body, and leave his heirs in the role of constitutional monarchs. Had he not been defeated in the field, it's likely that events would have played out as they ultimately did 200 years later, with the establishment of the EU.
I often think that perhaps it would be best to establish a constitution by which the form of government would switch between dictatorship and democracy every 50 years. Unfortunately, given human nature, I doubt such an arrangement would prove very stable.
Therefore, I believe that the best alternative is a democratic, nationalist, green, socialist republic combining local democracy and free-market economics with autocratic elements in academia and the military, relying on a socialist economic core, vigilant environmental protection, very high spending on public works and education, and neo-nationalist culture to keep things stable.
The state will be stable only if the people learn to unconditionally love and serve their country, and the kind of bigoted and hypocritical jimboistic cynicism we see today can be avoided only through a stable and just society. That is the purpose of socialist economics, environmental vigilance and high spending on public works and education - to ensure that nature is always there to provide, that people have a strong sense of community, and to provide an abundance of liberal ideas and information to prevent bigotry and intellectual decadence.
The importance of high spending on education is that to live in peace with the rest of the world, we must learn all about it, and accept the international community as peers - to have a strong sense of nationalism that is not offended by other countries' nationalism. Essentially, suburban picket fences as a geopolitical model.
However, I am not a pacifist. I don't believe in peace as a way of life. I believe that war "is an evolutionary necessity of the first importance" (Bismarck) and that "it removes all that is ignoble" (Patton).
I believe that without wars, people will sink into decadence and degeneration, but I also agree with people like Tacitus, Thucydidies and Sullust who claimed that war is inherently morally degenerative. It's no coincidence that long wars produce the brilliant but self-defeating way of life in the 1950s. I believe that a lot of the problems we see today are the result of the developed world going too long without another world war.
This is why I agree with JFK that it is very important to fully fund the space program, to provide a sense of higher purpose and an outlet for the nation's energy. Basically world of Star Trek. In my thinking, space exploration is essentially a surrogate for international war.
I believe that the Founding Fathers had much wisdom, but the flaw in their vision was that they failed to appreciate the supremacy of social values as a driving force in politics, and what is important is not establishing a seemingly perfect political system, but the means of ensuring that values are plausible and passed down intact from generation to generation. I believe that America came undone because the seeds of injustice implanted into this society from the beginning - the theft of the country from the Native Americans, enslavement of the blacks, and greed and ignorance as a way of life - germinated and set root. I believe the only way forward is to correct these injustices - to establish a stewardship with the land, integrate the blacks into society, and reject greed and ignorance as a way of life.
Essentially, my views boil down to a basic belief that social stability is more important than anything else - and it can be ensured only through populism.
Anyway, my perception of the future is, one of two things will happen: either a mass movement will finally break the two-party system and move the country forward, or the corporate state will consolidate their hold on power and the result will be corporate feudalism and a dark age that will endure for a few centuries until there is some existential crisis to society - like the Black Death - probably a mass outbreak of influenza, total failure of the biosphere, or collision with a celestial object.
My own personal agenda is to acquire some small wealth and do what Hitler did, offer bunks and board to desperate young white men and use them to build my own base of power. I have an important gift Hitler did not: I am entrepreneurial by nature and therefore need not rely on handouts from the benefactor I will never find. That is why I am interested in becoming a CPA in private practice...
Anyway, that's a long-winded voyage deep inside the brain of Aestu.
