We should already be talking about what it would be like, if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, to live under a developing autocracy. Beyond the publicized plans of those around him to gut the
The only authoritarian regime in which my ideology is 100% the law of the land would be one in which I am the autocrat. And, given the life expectancy of an autocrat, I’m not interested.
But, taking your question as it was intended: still no. Why? Because I might trust the current regime, but there’s no guarantee that I’ll trust the next one. I might trust the current regime right now, but there’s no way to know if they’ll suddenly take a shift in a couple of years and become unpalatable to me (as many Republicans are currently discovering). Even if I trust that Emperor Bernie would make decisions in good faith, I have no idea if Emperor Bernie II would have the same values, or if either of them would hold scrupulously to those values for their entire lives.
Or maybe you meant “what if you could guarantee that it’s always what you want forever?” Still no, because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I’m not all-knowing; I don’t know what decisions I might be all for that could cause someone else’s suffering. If they’re voting on behalf of themselves, if they’re represented, there’s a pushback against the things that I want if they could harm someone else.
But perhaps you meant “what if you could guarantee that the outcome you wanted is always accomplished, even if you don’t know it’s the outcome you wanted?” And then you’re talking about…I dunno, some sort of divine theocracy or something. And we’ve tried that, to pretty awful results.
So you’d rather guarantee that you don’t get what you want and live in constant tribal infighting versus gambling on getting what you want now, and maybe not in the future?
Also while all empires eventually fail, if it’s a well run autocracy hopefully Bernie II and Bernie Jr. Would have been brought up with the ideals of the kingdom, and carry them forwards.
So you’d rather guarantee that you don’t get what you want and live in constant tribal infighting versus gambling on getting what you want now, and maybe not in the future?
False dichotomy. I want a democracy that actually works for its people, where the people who are voting have meaningful choices (more parties) with meaningful ways to make them (RCV/STV, NPVIC), and the people who are in office have no financial incentive to do things that don’t align with the values and desires of their constituents. And also where there’s a social safety net and a financial disincentive to spreading misinformation, but we’re talking about that in another thread already.
Also while all empires eventually fail,
FYI, you toss that off as if it’s not a big deal, but things get super messy right there at the end.
if it’s a well run autocracy
I can’t say with total confidence, but I’m pretty sure that’s an oxymoron.
hopefully Bernie II and Bernie Jr. Would have been brought up with the ideals of the kingdom, and carry them forwards.
Call me crazy, I’m not super into the idea of putting all my chips on “hopefully.”
Not hate, just genuinely curious.
Well, I didn’t think there was any hate motivation until you said that, lol. Now I’m curious.
The only authoritarian regime in which my ideology is 100% the law of the land would be one in which I am the autocrat. And, given the life expectancy of an autocrat, I’m not interested.
But, taking your question as it was intended: still no. Why? Because I might trust the current regime, but there’s no guarantee that I’ll trust the next one. I might trust the current regime right now, but there’s no way to know if they’ll suddenly take a shift in a couple of years and become unpalatable to me (as many Republicans are currently discovering). Even if I trust that Emperor Bernie would make decisions in good faith, I have no idea if Emperor Bernie II would have the same values, or if either of them would hold scrupulously to those values for their entire lives.
Or maybe you meant “what if you could guarantee that it’s always what you want forever?” Still no, because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I’m not all-knowing; I don’t know what decisions I might be all for that could cause someone else’s suffering. If they’re voting on behalf of themselves, if they’re represented, there’s a pushback against the things that I want if they could harm someone else.
But perhaps you meant “what if you could guarantee that the outcome you wanted is always accomplished, even if you don’t know it’s the outcome you wanted?” And then you’re talking about…I dunno, some sort of divine theocracy or something. And we’ve tried that, to pretty awful results.
So, no.
So you’d rather guarantee that you don’t get what you want and live in constant tribal infighting versus gambling on getting what you want now, and maybe not in the future?
Also while all empires eventually fail, if it’s a well run autocracy hopefully Bernie II and Bernie Jr. Would have been brought up with the ideals of the kingdom, and carry them forwards.
Not hate, just genuinely curious.
False dichotomy. I want a democracy that actually works for its people, where the people who are voting have meaningful choices (more parties) with meaningful ways to make them (RCV/STV, NPVIC), and the people who are in office have no financial incentive to do things that don’t align with the values and desires of their constituents. And also where there’s a social safety net and a financial disincentive to spreading misinformation, but we’re talking about that in another thread already.
FYI, you toss that off as if it’s not a big deal, but things get super messy right there at the end.
I can’t say with total confidence, but I’m pretty sure that’s an oxymoron.
Call me crazy, I’m not super into the idea of putting all my chips on “hopefully.”
Well, I didn’t think there was any hate motivation until you said that, lol. Now I’m curious.