/lit/ - Literature

I believe this too. I want to know too.

>>17083087
No book will, but understanding that the state is comprised of individuals who could have malicious motivations ought to be enough if you’re halfway intelligent.

>>17083087
Bugman politics.

>>17083087
Industrial Society and Its Future by Theodore J Kaczynski.

>>17083087
Why?

>>17083095
That is why the system must be so designed as to be out of the control of its relative participants. State government should be divided in such a fashion that the impact of one individual in and of itself would be (1) negligible if seen from above and (2) easily replaceable. Furthermore measures should be taken to prevent individuals from allying with each other.

I'd say the principal influences one should examine in arriving at such a system of government would be Plato's Republic, the works of Lenin and Stalin, current Iranian and Chinese political literature as well as (paradoxically) Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World.

>>17083087
You should know, considering a 'sincere belief' is informed by the type of knowledge one derives from books. If you have this belief without extensive study, it's not so much an opinion as a... tranny gook retard opening and closing his mouth to the rythym of the ideological arm up his ass.

So here's a suggestion: don't have 'sincere belief' until after you've looked into something.

>>17083150
>he doesn't intuit deeply felt truths
ngmi

>>17083105
state good

https://voca.ro/124V223vZl38

>>17083135
>That is why the system must be so designed as to be out of the control of its relative participants. State government should be divided in such a fashion that the impact of one individual in and of itself would be (1) negligible if seen from above and (2) easily replaceable. Furthermore measures should be taken to prevent individuals from allying with each other.

Burned out sophomore prose. I'm not sure whether to be compassionate, and feel sorry for anyone who imagines this to reflect in some small part 'intellectual discourse'; or, rather, just to enjoy the sheer fatuousness of such awkward prose and contradictory, uninformed sentiment.

>>17083087
Have you not heard of the food pyramid? I hate to break this to you but it already is controlled by the state, everything from what food is produced and where to what you put on your mouth. It is simply controlled with more subtle means that you apparently cannot detect and this is the case in other arenas as well. It might surprise you to learn that your government doesn’t want you to be healthy.

>>17083087
Was the entirety of 20th century not lesson enough for you?
People involved in politics and working for the government are by nature incompetent and dimwitted. The free market and consoomers are not great decision-makers either, but the state has been proven times and times again to be pants-on-head retarded

>>17083103
Would this be for or against OP's view?
I read The Technological Society and I was told your suggestion is way more simpler but a fun read

>>17083087
Basically if what you were saying was framed as a question, one may ask; should the state use force as a first resort, or a last resort, in the ordering of foreign and domestic policy?

No doubt some of Mao's works would confirm your view, whereas the Tao Te Ching, and the Art of War by Sun Tsu would be good books on why you're wrong. In fact every sane theorist of statehood has rejected your view as simplistic; so there are plenty of western books, like Machiavelli's Prince to consider.
>Sun Tsu, says that in war, there are certain commands from the ruler that must never be obeyed
>Sun Tsu also says that the best generalship brings no repute to generals, since victory is gained without fighting
>Machiavelli says that the only thing necessary to win the allegiance of the common man is not to oppress him, and the only thing necessary to win the allegiance of the nobles or the merchants is to defend their wealth.
>And Lao Tse says that the ruler who guarantees peace and harmony rules without trying to.

>>17083087
Never experienced state run healthcare. NGMI

>>17083181
It's not about the prose but the content, you stupid tranny. If I wanted to write good prose I'd do so in my native language and not on /lit/.

Therefore: Please go and dilate.

>>17083195
Against

>>17083200
>should the state use force as a first resort, or a last resort, in the ordering of foreign and domestic policy?
Dude, the state is by definition that which holds the monopoly on force, I think the answer is pretty clear.

>Black Mirror

>>17083135
I think this could only work in a global government. The necessity of classified information and covert operations for national security presents an intractable conflict for oversight. What you're suggesting would require a kind of universal panopticon in which every citizen can inspect everything every other citizen does, including in government functions.

>>17083181
Based. I didn’t reply because I avoid retards where possible.

>>17083169
A masterpiece

>>17083087
I think you misdirect your need for a dominatrix to a strong state.

>>17083239
Good point and I agree insofar as digital surveillance should be so all encompassing as to eliminate any form of private existence. And yes, this should include going to the toilet.

>>17083087
The Wealth of Nations
The Road to Serfdom
Skin in the Game

>>17083087
Yeah but only in if I were at the head of that state
otherwise, id be the biggest opponent of such a proposal

>>17083195
Strongly against vis-a-vis the Power Process Argument Kaczynski makes.