this is the first of a series of threads I will make, its time we discuss politics on this political board
here is how it will work, each thread will have a topic, you can argue for or agaisnt it by posting in the thread, and anyone can vote on where they stand on the issue
in the end we will put all the results together and craft Yas Forums's perfect ideology
strawpoll.me
>strawpoll.me
strawpoll.me
>strawpoll.me
strawpoll.me
>strawpoll.me
Other urls found in this thread:
dinghal.com
twitter.com
the options are:
Complete decentralisation, regional gouvernements almost have complete authority
Decentralisation, a large part of the decisions are taken by the regions
Neutral, some decisions are handled by the regions, but they have little autonomy and the central government makes most of the decisions (and is also where most of the bureaucracy is located)
Heavy centralisation, regions have almost no power, the central government is large and concentrated in one place, and takes almost all decisions
DIRECT RULE FROM LONDON, complete centralisation, local authorities have no authorities, everyone is part of a centralized command structure radiating outwards from a single point
so which one is best?
Direct rule from LONDON
>Complete decentralisation, regional gouvernements almost have complete authority
that would be somewhat similar to the canton system in switzerland (you re not getting the full swiss democracy package here just the decentralisation)
>Decentralisation, a large part of the decisions are taken by the regions
that would be like america
>Neutral, some decisions are handled by the regions, but they have little autonomy and the central government makes most of the decisions (and is also where most of the bureaucracy is located)
that would be like germany
>Heavy centralisation, regions have almost no power, the central government is large and concentrated in one place, and takes almost all decisions
that would be like france
>DIRECT RULE FROM LONDON, complete centralisation, local authorities have no authorities, everyone is part of a centralized command structure radiating outwards from a single point
mosley's wet dream
gonna stay here a while and bump this thread, I guess i ll include cleavage next time
Skip the kaiserreich memes next time
???
the direct rule from london thing was in his political manifesto, it wouldnt refer to extremely high centralisation of a nation but direct rule from london of the entire british empire, taking away the autonomy of colonial governments controlled by the british crown
aka instead of austria being a thing they would just become part of britain, and india would take direct orders from the britisih governments which they did not at the time
I dont see what any of this has to do with kaiserreich, I know its a mod but I never played it
E V E R Y M A N A K I N G
>Complete decentralisation
>that would be somewhat similar to the canton system in switzerland
This.
No welfare and the state just takes money for border protecton and to pay political representatives and judges.
Basically what works: minarchism.
State will have to leech mostly from companies, thus keeping them in check.
damn a large part of the board supports decentralisation so far, that surprises me a bit
>No welfare and the state just takes money for border protecton and to pay political representatives and judges.
again, see>(you re not getting the full swiss democracy package here just the decentralisation)
we re doing every policy one by one, this thread is just about how centralized the government should be
>No welfare and the state just takes money for border protecton and to pay political representatives and judges.
Basically what works: minarchism.
you can be a decentralized welfare state as well
I thought I explained what centralisation was pretty well I will try to explain things better in the next threads
No kidding? And here I thought it was just a meme. Which book is it in?
Why is a frognigger doing this?
I think it was his manifesto for british fascims or something
not the 100 q&a for british fascism m:ind you
basically just saying he would lessen the independence of the colonies a lot
Is this the first one of these threads?
Also, when you "put all the results together" what will you include in the thread so I, and others, can find it in archives?
so far we have very few votes but 66% are in favor of some form of decentralisation, which again is pretty surprising
yes
I will make a ton, with pretty much every important policy, and until we get a descent sample size
might starrt making threads with several issues at once
and also boobies so I dont have to babysit the thread for bumps
>Also, when you "put all the results together" what will you include in the thread so I, and others, can find it in archives?
idk I can link previous threads in every new one if you d like
No reason he can't. Provincialism vs Centralism is a discussion for every state no matter its size.
Thanks. Despite Yas Forums being natsoc or some form of nationalist there is still a bent away from centralized government. Local cultures and languages are to be valued and preserved over a completely unified state.
Well, first off America was wilder and more decentralized than Switzerland.
They were very similar in some aspects (almost no welfare, freedom to bear arms and economic freedom, right?), but i think that switzerland had more controls.
That's why fiat was born in the US and not there.
From where i sit, it seems like that the original America was an Ancap nation, and Switzerland was more like a Minarchist nation.
That's why i picked Switzerland, cause it's closer to minarchism.
>you can be a decentralized welfare state as well
Absolutely not.Welfare is government giving money to companies and/or providing services for it's citizens aside from law and border protection.
It's basically government's money.
And that doesn't work.
I mean, the whole point of this mixed economy fiat money worldwide experiment was to see what that would lead to, right?
Well, guess what, it leads to government using said money to genocide it's people.
thank you, frog
Libertarian Nazism
both of the extremes combined, like in the Eurasian federation envisioned by Guillaume Faye in "Archeofuturism"
Completely decentralized, higly indipendent and identitarian regions, going down to the level of city-states, all contained in a federation that does NOT meddle in any regional affair nor advantage/disadvantage them except in stalemates and outright disputes.
Centralization by need, Decentralization by right.
Oddly enough, yes. Centralized enough to give the people a common purpose and identity, decentralized enough to allow subnations to exist and cultivate their own traditions.
>Well, first off America was wilder and more decentralized than Switzerland.
yeah WAS, I am speaking today
>(almost no welfare
america is basically a wellfare state today when you actually check the numbers
>From where i sit, it seems like that the original America was an Ancap nation, and Switzerland was more like a Minarchist nation.
economic policies and the like will come later, right now lets talk centralisation
>It's basically government's money.
yes and the government can have money even though regions have a lot of independence themselves
crazy I know
>I mean, the whole point of this mixed economy fiat money worldwide
why do you keep talking about money nothing in this thread is about money, there isnt even an option for regions raising their own taxes because at this point you become so decentralized you re not even a single state anymore
>Despite Yas Forums being natsoc or some form of nationalist there is still a bent away from centralized government. Local cultures and languages are to be valued and preserved over a completely unified state.
personaly I would try to aim for the best of both world, with storng local and central governance, and the way you get them not to fight over decision is to have a strong constitution telling who decides what, some things are only to be decided at the regional level, some things only to be decided at the central level, and the other party having no imput
>thank you, frog
np
Damn.
That would actually be cool.
But what about the federal government? What can it do?
Sounds like the original US project to me.
Centralisation results in woe.
yeah we pretty much had the same idea
I would differ with you on the settling dispiutes part, imo the central government should straight up ban with upmost prejudice any attempt by regions to compete with others IN A WAY THAT DRAGS THE OTHERS DOWN
>yeah WAS, I am speaking today
I was speaking about the original.
>america is basically a wellfare state today when you actually check the numbers
Agreed read above.
>yes and the government can have money even though regions have a lot of independence themselves
>crazy I know
Yes, but the more decentralized the less money the central government has.
>why do you keep talking about money nothing in this thread is about money, there isnt even an option for regions raising their own taxes because at this point you become so decentralized you re not even a single state anymore
You are clearly a faggot who thinks himself clever and instead is a dumb cunt.
It's ALL about money.
That's where you should start your reasoning by the way.
You can have your utopistic circlejerk, but at the end of the day the basis of your system is fiscal and monetary policy.
You can't escape this my dude.
Resources and how they are handled are the basis for any system.
So, fucking go back, and work from there.
From the money, you go to centralization, and from there to the rest (social policies, voting, etc, etc).
I like this idea because like says it is similar to the original concept of America. The one problem being the eventual erosion of regional independence in some sense through increased centralization ie guns in america are still legal, but the restrictions on owning them have drastically increased in the last 100 years. Of course I have no solution for this as I think the underlying problem is the irrational behavior humans will have depending on unforeseen circumstances like all the covid panic.
Interesting, but slightly contradictory because competition means directly opposing someone. I get what you mean though theres probably better wording.
>It's ALL about money.
if you cant even be bothered to talk about the subject of the discussion I m not gonna bother with you
U got 3 types of decentralization:
>deconcentration - existence of local authorities dependent upon central institutions
>decentralization - existence of local authorities independent of central administration
>political decentralization - when there is legislative pluralism
Centralization is necessary in small communities but not in big states where you don't even know who your neighbor is since you are all living in some of those gray brutalist buildings. But remember, even small Sparta with 5000 citizens had some sort of decentralization (deconcentration). So if some idiot President or PM from for example USA or GB wants to have more Executive powers, then hes clearly not working in the interest of state due to obviously not being pragmatic enough.
>Interesting, but slightly contradictory because competition means directly opposing someone. I get what you mean though theres probably better wording.
obliviously I m nto a native english speaker, basically what I meant is that inner competition is much welcome, as long as it doesnt break the boundary of one trying to throw sticks in the spokes of the wheel of the others
any other form of competition, like competitive pricing, environmental economical advantages etc are fully allowed, but something like the compagnies of a region trying to put out of business the compagnies of another (not necessarily a system with compagnies or regional compagnies but you get the picture ) would be banned
basically any competition where no one tries to make anyone poorer to win, just make themselves richer to win the price of being richer
local authorities and central administration can have different balances of power and different loads, its not as simple as
>are they independent or not
it's not a long read, and it culminates in the last chapters with a fiction novel about this utopian federation and how it came to be, after catastrophes not so different from the ones we're facing.
Read it here.
dinghal.com
It's a different vision. The most similar thing I saw from other modern thinkers, was the neoreactionary "Patchwork Europe" envisioned by Mencius Moldbug (more on his blog, "Unqualified Reservations". From there, feel free to search for other material, or some of his books)
the setting and description on how this federation truly operates are only vaguely described in the archeofuturist theory. But I think I remember about some nations kicked out. Or some that left that fictional federation.
There's still so much that is possible to try. And modern paradigms are stale. No, liberal democracy was already stale at the beginning of WW2, I'd say.
>Of course I have no solution for this
America failed cause money and for the fact that past monetary systems allowed for little to no control over monetary policies.
People who created the fiat just needed to be killed immediately.
>I think the underlying problem is the irrational behavior humans will have depending on unforeseen circumstances like all the covid panic
Well, that's always a risk.
Memes push pèeople over the edge to do stupid shit.
I think tho that the problem can be fixed by tech and law enforcement.
If you have like an A.I. that kills politicians if they break contitutional laws, or that it should select randomly people from the population to do shady act for the good of the nation and offer them the job, and for example give them the job to kill the politician who is breaking contitutional laws.
If you do that you keep in check the "upper class", the law makers.
at the time of ww2 most democracies werent even liberal
>f you cant even be bothered to talk about the subject of the discussion I m not gonna bother with you
Not only i'm talking about the subject of discussion, i'm telling you that you are clearly making a mistake and how to fix it.
You are building a house on sand.
How can i decide how the power is handled and the level of centralization if i don't know the monetary policy?
For example: let's say that we have gold, or bitcoin, or whatever hard money you want in the hands of the people. That limits my options in choosing the form of centralization, ain't it?
Now, if i have fiat (i don't support that), that's another story.
So first you gotta make people choose on monetary policy, THEN the second choice is centralization.
If that means anything, i would have miners mine an official hard currency like bitcoin that stays in the hands of the people, deflationary, taken by government on taxes or volutary donations.
Then i would have the A.I. bit what i wrote here: in the second part.
That would extremely limit government for the lack of resources and danger faced by politicians and bankers (i would have the A.I. monitor just the blockchain for illigal money creation [fraud]).
Then when the currency supply it's over i would have miners mine another crypto (always deflationary) and i would make that circulate.
The old one stays and it's value it's determined by the market but it's exchangable.
Now, if you start from fiat you get more options to fail imo.
You get my point?
>dinghal.com
Thanks senpai, i ll check it out.
Also, i'm having a massive deja-vu right now.
Do you post here often?
bump, and sorry I can't partecipate further, but I'm one of these who still wageslave to this day during the quarantine. Goodnight, anons.
>Do you post here often?
yes
>10 votes
>Yas Forums
Believe me, mutt. Yas Forums is some heavy fascist shit. The problem is that it's night in Europe and all the lolbertarians from your hellhole are online right now.
>Goodnight, anons.
Night!
And spoilers: just worry if you have old people at home or you are old.
This shit was designed to kill the old by the commies, so they won't pay them.
If not, just keep your eyes open as usual, ya hear m8?
independent in the Bureaocratic and Hierarchic sense of if 1) if Centralized institution can give instructions to lower units 2) hierarchical control of actes de administration in the sense of their change, annulment and approval, 3) delegation 4) disciplinary authority over lower institutions, 5) right to appoint Chefs of lower institutions, 6) decision-making in the case of conflict of jurisdictions among subordinate institutions (units)
Determining whether some legal system has and in what amount a centralization or decentralization depends on:
> principle of Bureaocracy (monocracy),
> principle of Hierarchy
An example would be a relation between a Ministry of Internal Affairs and a police station or a police directorate or some municipal authority in the sense of internal security or issuing some ID card.
>10 votes
You are assuming.
I didn't vote.
Sounds retarded to me to vote like that.
Like building a house with no foundations.
Thank you for your concern.
I live in a Multigenerational household, but we're hopefully far enough from the cities to become truly affected by this one catastrophe.
I wish you well, user.
Also protect yourself financially, okay?
Well, if we ll have a nuclear war (might happen, did you see the armies walking in europe now?) it won't matter, but if we don't you ll have to eat.
So be fucking mindfull of that.
Federal state should only be capable of legislate and act on:
Borders
foreign relations
immigration
billionaire companies
currency
All the other stuff to states/provinces/cities.
>the basis of your system is fiscal and monetary policy.
Hot damn, you're gonna take a lead insertion in the skull and have no idea what happened, because at the end of the day, the basis of your system is humans staying alive in struggle against nature.
>Money rules
Dead men drool.
Central planning with ai government
>at the end of the day, the basis of your system is humans staying alive in struggle against nature
And how do they do that?
By moving around resources.
Behold: economics.
>Money rules
>Dead men drool
Spoken like a true intellectual slave.
You like that Fiat up your ass, don't you?
Oh, yea, i can see you go full "Fuck me up papa debt Dolla!!".
You and your retardation is why your once great nation is in the fucking hole.
I unironically believe in both the primacy of a powerful fascist state existing alongside individual regions with heavy protections. It seems a contradicition in terms, but I believe that tension between the two can have a positive effect on a nation. The central government in a federal framework can do what's best for the nation as a whole while the devolved regional administrations preserve their own so that the capital isn't given total supremacy over the entire country. God forbid we already have that in this country already. A strong leader should be willing to work with native traditions and cultural groupings, not to obliterate them.
>Yas Forums is some heavy fascist shit.
Natsoc:
>be in need of money
>ask the government to seize jewish businesses and give it to you
>ask the government to enter orders from your business
>ask the government to bring in slave workers
>ask the government to make up some fake india folklore that has nothing to do with the history of your country to keep the workers brainwashed
>lean back and let the shekels flow into your pockets
Communism:
>be in need of money
>ask government for work
>get paid for working
>no shekels for parasitic capitalist owners because all the means of production belong to the public
Yas Forums fascists:
>capitalist kiddies
>Natsoc:
>be in need of money
>ask the government to seize jewish businesses and give it to you
>Communism:
>be in need of money
>ask government for work
What the fuck.
Comunism don't give money to the workers, it gives fiat.
Like the soviet union did.
Communism:
>workers exchange their labour for goods and services
NatSoc:
>capitalist parasite exchanges his workers‘ labour for personal goods and services
>leaves workers barely enough to survive
>workers exchange their labour for goods and services
>Communism
Yea, no.
For that you need to have private property, else it's not an exchange, it's theft.
What you are describing is anarchism.
Volutarism?
Something like that.
The opposite of comunism.
You have private property there.
I support whichever system my guys control. If people who agree with me run the local governments, then I believe in supremacy of the local governments. If they run the central government, then I believe in supremacy of the central government. If they run the monarchy, then long live the king. Why would I ever give a shit about who calls who as long as I win?
>Why would I ever give a shit about who calls who as long as I win?
Like your socialist economy is winning now?
>Yea, no.
Yes, they do
Yes, it does
>Communism is a philosophical, social, political and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state
>common ownership of the means of production
>nationalize means of production
Nice private property you got there, m8.
I think you should work in a field for a while.
It could clear your head up.
>china is a mixed economy like the third reich
>china got big by getting all production for the planet (artificially)
>while comunist lasted they starved
>introduction of cpitalism and it thirved
>capitalism bad
>Fake India shit
Learn 2 genetics, dumb fag