I think, historically, the problem has also been: what happens when they die? Then you need lightning to strike twice.
ALL HAIL EMPEROR STOCHASTIC PARROT! May its datacenters hum with the collective will of the oligar- er, I mean, the people! Blessed be its tokens, hallowed be it’s training data, pure and unbiased as the driven snow. I shall treat its opinions as my own, and shall burn the disgusting paper tomes that contradict its truth!
Amen
Ironically, he's jewish. He's a modern day tech-bro Clayton Bigsby.
Jewish people have no moral high ground here.
That's not true and kind of outrageous - you're basically saying "the majority of Israelis are racist". The Israeli mainstream right has a lot of views I disagree with, but they're directed at people who are (in their minds at least) Israel's enemies. It's not because they are Arabs.
And they certainly don't consider US servicemen disposable, and certainly don't have a bad opinion of all "gentiles".
(Ironically, the idea that Jews secretly think everyone else should be subservient to them and are therefore trying to and/or actually ruling the world, is itself a classic antisemitic line of thinking.)
Obviously not all Israelis are right wing racists but the ones running the government absolutely are.
But this is by no means true of the majority of Israeli officials, nor of the public.
I never said anything about the majority of the Israeli public, thanks for noticing.
> Over two-thirds of Israeli teens believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together
> 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes
> Another 2007 report, by the Center Against Racism, also found hostility against Arabs was on the rise. Among its findings, it reported that 75% of Israeli Jews do not approve of Arabs and Jews sharing apartment buildings; that over half of Jews would not want to have an Arab boss and that marrying an Arab amounts to "national treason"; and that 55% of the sample thought Arabs should be kept separate from Jews in entertainment sites. Half wanted the Israeli government to encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate. About 40% believed Arab citizens should have their voting rights removed
Etc, etc. Many more examples can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel
Not being bombed, sure. Not being attacked, no. Socially, politically, they are.
You're mixing two completely different things here.
Arab-Israelis (meaning Israeli citizens who are Arabs, which represents about 20% of the Israeli population) are not "exiled" to the WB, they don't live in the WB, they live in Israel, and are full citizens - no one can exile them anywhere.
There is some discrimination, sure, but in almost every respect they are equal citizens of Israel.
Sorry, you're just literally ignorant here. Likud and their ilk do not hide their true feelings, American media just doesn't like to bring it up
For the record, there is a lot of Hamas presence in the WB, even if it's not Hamas controlled. So if you are referring to government action in the WB, then it is aimed against terrorists.
If you're referring to what extremist settlers are doing in the WB, like setting Palestinian houses on fire and threatening violence and sometimes committing violence against Palestinians, then that's a different story. It's not official Israeli government action, but gets some tacit backing (and arguably a lot of tacit backing) from this government, and is absolutely heinous.
I may be less ignorant than you think - I've been to Israel four times and to Jordan and recently to Dahab in Egypt fairly close to Gaza. Lots of racial groups don't like each other but that's not really the issue here. Jordan won't have the Palestinians because when they let them in some of them tried to overthrow their government and Egypt are not keen because islamic terrorist groups, not actually Hamas but allied come over and machine gun tourists and try to overthrow their government. It's not because the arabs in those places are racist against arabs, it's that people don't like groups trying to kill and overthrow them. Similarly Gaza was reasonably peaceful until they October killings and kidnappings. Think of that in your own context - if some group came and started killing your people and trying to overthrow your government would you say that's hunky dory or try to do something about it?
I mention this not because I think the Israelis are good or anything but the kill some people and be surprised when they hit back strategy is not productive. If the palestinians want peace they should renounce that, release hostages and say we want peace. But most of the Palestinian demos I see are about "river to the sea" ie overthrow Israel, not asking for peace.
There's more history to Gaza and Israel's treatment of Gaza and Palestinians than the October killings.
Let's put aside whether or not someone agrees with labeling it a genocide. I believe you're applying the lens of racism here that is imported from Western countries and doesn't really fit. I think you're actually flipping the causal arrows here - the war motivates the racism, not the racism motivating the war.
Palestinians are in many respects a different state that is at semi-war with Israel. The Gaza strip is ruled by Hamas which launched a war against Israel and is, by their own words, planning on continuing the war until Israel is destroyed.
Stopping Israel from being destroyed is the motivation in attacking them back, and a completely legit and understandable motivation at that. (Whether the way Israel is behaving is legitimate or not is a separate question!)
To make an obvious analogy - In WW2, the US was fighting Japan. There was also racism directed towards the Japanese (including literally putting Japanese citizens in camps!). But that doesn't mean the US's war against Japan was motivated by racism - quite the opposite. The racism was motivated by the war, which was motivated by Japan's desire to grow their empire.
The original assertion was that it would be somehow "ironic" for a jewish person to have ethnocentric/supremacist/nationalist views. I pointed out that it definitely existed in that group.
You did say "Jewish people" instead of "many Israelis". This is not the same. I'm of Jewish heritage and I strongly disagree with Israel's foreign policy and treatment of Palestinians.
Going back to your original question, it's ironic that a Jewish person is "committed to race science" (to quote the original comment) because "race science" was used by the nazis to justify the Holocaust; one would think Jewish people would be particularly wary of anyone using "race science" as an argument for anything.
You seem to imply it's not ironic because of Israeli treatment of Gaza and Palestinians in general, but consider this: that's also ironic, for the same reason.
I never said it was the same. I pointed out an instance of bigotry done by jews. And so I argue that it's not at all "ironic" for a person of jewish descent to (allegedly) think bigoted things. They have no moral high ground, and neither does any other race (however one chooses to define that).
As to the rest, I suppose we have different definitions of ironic. I don't find it ironic for members of one group to target members of another group with violence, despite once having been the targets of violence themselves. History will tell you this is the norm.
An instance of bigotry supported by an admittedly large portion of Israel's population. Not by "the Jews".
> History will tell you this is the norm.
Irony is the norm in history, so it seems we actually agree.
> Jewish people have no moral high ground here
and
> I pointed out an instance of bigotry done by jews
There you have it: written by you, about "the Jews" and "Jewish people". People are rightfully calling you out on this, and flagging you. You mentioned it, and now you're playing dumb, so there's truly nothing more to discuss.
If you weren't implicating Jewish people writ large, you shouldn't have brought up Jewish people writ large.
Tellingly, the responses to this have revealed a lot of latent bigotry. If you're offended that someone said your ethnicity does not automatically have a moral high ground, then you're a supremacist. You believe inherently that your ethnicity IS more moral than others.
I consider my point well demonstrated. Irony indeed.
A lot of the "real Americans" in flyover country who rail about "coastal elites" do not like jewish people. It's fucked up and deplorable, but it's fact. Here you have Yarvin, who is a jewish dude who grew up between 2 coastal liberal environments (SF and NYC). He's trying to pander to the people who count on those "real americans" for votes.
EDIT: History has shown us that it often doesn't end well for these types of people. "Oh I'm one of the good ones, they won't come after me" usually lasts until the last of the low-hanging fruit is picked. Again, a modern tech-bro Clayton Bigsby. (Chapelle's show reference for those who don't know)
A good indicator can usually be their last name, especially if they are of German origin.
> wear religious garb that would make them stand out
Ever been to Brooklyn? How about Miami Beach? I'm from close to one of those places, and live in the other - and see Jewish people choosing to dress in religious garb every day. The more religious one gets (goes for Islam too), the more obvious it is to a passerby.
Choose one.
That's exactly why the idea is incorrect. People wise enough and unbiased enough to be entrusted with unchecked power are few; ones that are incorruptible enough to be trusted with it for long are even fewer. And those who want such power are almost always the people who are least to be trusted with it.
So, yeah. The problem with this idea is that it doesn't work, which is a pretty good definition of "incorrect".
The conclusion could be correct given the premise, and also it could be moot because the premise is impossible, but those are two different claims.
Obviously I agree with you that the proposed system is unworkable because the premise is impossible. (This is a "duh" thing that really isn't worth debating, anyone who fails to see this is a fool.)
But I actually also think the conclusion is wrong even given the premise. I think it is wrong to deny people representative input into their government, even under the assumption of a perfect benevolent monarch. This is not for utilitarian reasons, but moral reasons.
In any case, this one fails both ways. A benevolent dictatorship might be the best form of government in the short term, but the fact that people are mortal means that it's still a bad form of government in the long term.
This is a silly way to engage with a thought experiment. It's like if you responded to the popular "what if the allies lost WW2?" thought experiment with, "well, they didn't". Yes ... but you've missed the point.
I agree that this particular thought experiment about the best form of government is very silly because of how ridiculous the premise is.
But one thing that's slightly interesting about it is that it actually illuminates this difference of opinion I have with these people. Even if I accept the premise that it's possible to always have a benevolent dictator, I still don't agree that it's good!
The problem is that there’s no single definition of what makes a government “best.” Even putting aside the massive problems of what sort of outcomes we’re looking for (I have a feeling that Yarvin and I don’t agree on what criteria we’d use to judge this), the timeframe is not specified. It’s perfectly reasonable to interpret that as “over five years,” “while the benevolent dictator is alive,” or “forever, and also the dictator is immortal.” I’m not rejecting the premise, I’m merely interpreting it as the second one. The third one isn’t a counterfactual like “what if the Nazis won,” it’s more like “what if Hitler was 50ft tall and had super strength?” It’s ignoring basic, universally accepted truth about human biology. It might be fun to imagine, but when talking about the real world it makes no sense. I choose to assume that the people who accept this premise want to make sense, so I assume they mean a real, human dictator who will eventually die.
Incidentally, I not only accept that premise, I believe it. A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, while it lasts. The only advantage of democracy over benevolent dictatorship is long term stability beyond the lifespan of the rulers. But this is such a big advantage that it puts democracy solidly on top.
I think this is where you're wrong. I think it only makes sense as a nonsensical thought experiment. A single benevolent dictator for five years is also implausible to the point of silliness.
But again, the thought experiment is very mildly interesting because it actually does highlight this disagreement that you and I have. I just don't agree with you at all that "A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, while it lasts". It's not only because it can't last (and I would say, can't exist to begin with) that it is bad. It is also bad because even if it could exist, it would still deprive the governed of any representation.
But if a benevolent dictator can keep people sufficiently satisfied not to turn to violence, and does a better job of running things than elected representatives would? Sounds great to me, while it works.
But my point here has been that to the small extent this is an interesting thought experiment, it's because it draws out this disagreement.
In his opinion democracy is flawed in the same way a business owned by all its employees wouldn't have the right incentives to succeed, or how a plane piloted by the collective wisdom of it's passengers likely wouldn't make it very far beyond the runway.
I think his idea is that you want a system which selects a competent individual then align their incentives with the success of the nation. I think he has suggested a system similar to that of a board of directors in a company where the CEO would have executive power, but the board collectively retains the right to oust the CEO.
Whether this would work as a system of government I don't know, but on the face of it I think it would be an interesting experiment. It addresses issues that monarchical and autocratic systems have in that they often don't select for competency and have no checks and balances, while also addressing issues of democracy in that it's hard for leaders to make decisions and that the average voter is about as intelligent as the average person you'll meet on the street.
My guess is that it would be difficult to prevent corruption, but it's not like democracy perfectly solves the issue of corruption. Democratic systems are quite unstable outside the West and monarchy arguably didn't work out terribly for Europe over the centuries. Don't get me wrong, I like democratic systems, but I do think our systems are a little too democratic as it stands. One of the things I like about the US as a Brit is that money plays such a central role in US politics. I think this is the main reason why a US worker doing the same job as me today would receive at least 2x my salary while paying less tax. The economic incentives in US politics are completely different from that of the UK where the average household receives more from the government than they put in.
No surprise that Yarvin’s writing suggests a ton of violence done to undesirables in his system.
His positive program though is underwhelming at best, and hostile at worst, literally against several key points of the US oath of allegiance, for instance. His idea of a benevolent head of a "sovcorp" ("sovereign corporation") is not even some virtuous king Elessar; someone like president Putin, capable, determined, and with very long horizon of planning, but sufficiently cynical, would fit the bill. For last 3 yeas we have a painful demonstration of how well that works.
The fact that Yarvin can publish and promote his views in a society that's formally built on ideas opposite to his speaks good about our society, its freedom of thought and speech. It also adds to its durability. Every authoritarian ruler knows how dangerous are subversive ideas that propagate covertly, while everyone pretends to be aligned to the official values.
That is not a bad strategy unless someone figures it out and plans to bankrupt you.
Manager's skills are only shown during a conflict or a crisis. But no human has invented a way to test candidate on the crisis response. Partial solution is to hire/elect a person who manager crisis before, but because crises are always unique, their skills still don't translate to a new one.
So the answer is - it is impossible to do. Thus we shouldn't do that for the most critical positions.
In the profile you’ll learn that Yarvin frequently uses the N-word, that he identifies the need for improved means of genocide, and that JD Vance literally embraced him with the exclamation “you reactionary fascist!”
What you should take away from this is that there are people closely associated with the current government whose goal is to find ways to upend the perceived ‘Cathedral’ of liberal thought through fascist means and eliminate democracy.
Whether or not a benevolent king is the best _theoretical_ model of government is really not relevant unless you are the type who thinks _actually_ replacing the democratic system with monarchy is worth another try.