seer comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Capla 17 November 2014 10:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (616)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 30 March 2015 09:37:13AM *  1 point [-]

The issue is, I don't see NRx providing a clear difference between monarchy and modern demotic dictatorship, and clear ways of preventing the first from sliding into the second.

For starters a monarch doesn't have to spend most of his effort manufacturing democratic support, thus he can actually focus his effort into governing the country.

That doesn't explain the difference between a monarch and a dictator, as requested. Once a dictator has suspended elections, they don't need democratic support either.

Under a demotic dictatorship, all people are required to participate in politics and form their own political opinions, and those opinions had better mach the dictator's/today's cathedral consensus.

That means that means that they have less time, not that the dictator does. The dictator doesn't need to manufacture assent, they rather need to quash dissent...as would a monarch, as many did. NRxs just assume that Monarchy will work effortlessly, because that's their desired conclusion.

Comment author: seer 31 March 2015 04:56:14AM 7 points [-]

That doesn't explain the difference between a monarch and a dictator, as requested.

The question was specifically about demotic dictatorships. As for dictators in general, that depends on how the dictator legitimizes his rule.

The dictator doesn't need to manufacture assent, they rather need to quash dissent...as would a monarch, as many did.

Monarchs had a lot less dissent to quash. For example, the dress code at Versailles required all men to carry swords. Compare that with a modern president, good luck getting close to him with so much as a pocket knife.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 31 March 2015 09:02:28AM *  1 point [-]

The question was specifically about demotic dictatorships.

No kind of dictator has to generate democratic support. Demotic dictators are supposed to justify themselves by generating ideological support, but that doesn't actually distinguish them from real world monarchies, because of all the ideology about God Put Me on the Throne,

Monarchs had a lot less dissent to quash. For example, the dress code at Versailles required all men to carry swords.

OTOH, the Star Chamber.

Comment author: seer 01 April 2015 02:28:39AM 7 points [-]

Demotic dictators are supposed to justify themselves by generating ideological support, but that doesn't actually distinguish them from real world monarchies, because of all the ideology about God Put Me on the Throne,

"The People Support Me" is a lot easier to falsify then "God Put Me on the Throne", thus you need correspondingly more oppression to keep anyone from falsifying it.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 01 April 2015 09:39:03AM *  0 points [-]

Or you can manufacture consent, in both cases. Monarchies have not been free of oppressive violence, any more they they have been fire of memmetic engineering.