For example, he could have probed, “If the only way to get open borders was to put power into the hands of a Sheikh Zayed, should we do so?” To which I would have candidly replied, “Probably.”
------------
In the other thread people scoffed when I said that you advocated dictatorship, but I noted that you've advocated for it several times …
For example, he could have probed, “If the only way to get open borders was to put power into the hands of a Sheikh Zayed, should we do so?” To which I would have candidly replied, “Probably.”
------------
In the other thread people scoffed when I said that you advocated dictatorship, but I noted that you've advocated for it several times before. Here we are again.
So basically it all comes down to this. You are willing to risk the downsides of dictatorship, in fact dictatorship of a very small group over a very large group they have nothing in common with and under massive inequality, and inherently unstable affair, in order to implement Open Borders.
You know the downsides of dictatorship. For every UAE there are plenty of Maos and the like. Even dictatorships that go well at first often degenerate or collapse later.
I have no clue what your implementation plan is to bring about a UAE style dictatorship in America. How do you plan to get the necessary constitutional amendments passed? What political constituency do you plan to call upon to bring about and maintain these changes?
Are there any differences between the dictatorship in context of the UAE and dictatorship as would have to be practice by large western democracies? Is it inherently easier to run a dictatorship being a city state sitting on a pile of oil in the desert and not needing to unlock any of the productive potential of its citizens because it can just buy such things from abroad?
The conflict in Sudan is between two military dictators who jointly ruled a brutal military junta before splitting over how to divide the spoils. If you think it's "considerably more clear-cut than the situation in Israel" you lost your mind.
Small quibble, but you are thinking of the son, Mohammed bin Zayed. Sheikh Zayed was the founding president, and he died in 2004.
The problem is an important one, though, and the fundamental issue with even a benevolent monarchy. You may get an incredible visionary like Sheikh Zayed. But then what?
Understanding that Mr. Caplan has argued the USA should have stayed a colony of the British King, it reasons that Mr. Caplan is agreeable to living under benevolent dictatorship. And wouldn't we all! What Mr. Caplan does not explain is how does one arrange to be guided by a benevolent dictator, and what does one do when one's dictator is a tyrant?
For example, he could have probed, “If the only way to get open borders was to put power into the hands of a Sheikh Zayed, should we do so?” To which I would have candidly replied, “Probably.”
------------
In the other thread people scoffed when I said that you advocated dictatorship, but I noted that you've advocated for it several times before. Here we are again.
So basically it all comes down to this. You are willing to risk the downsides of dictatorship, in fact dictatorship of a very small group over a very large group they have nothing in common with and under massive inequality, and inherently unstable affair, in order to implement Open Borders.
You know the downsides of dictatorship. For every UAE there are plenty of Maos and the like. Even dictatorships that go well at first often degenerate or collapse later.
I have no clue what your implementation plan is to bring about a UAE style dictatorship in America. How do you plan to get the necessary constitutional amendments passed? What political constituency do you plan to call upon to bring about and maintain these changes?
Are there any differences between the dictatorship in context of the UAE and dictatorship as would have to be practice by large western democracies? Is it inherently easier to run a dictatorship being a city state sitting on a pile of oil in the desert and not needing to unlock any of the productive potential of its citizens because it can just buy such things from abroad?
The obvious reason to not empower Sheikh Zayed is because he is sponsoring a genocide in Sudan
https://time.com/7017127/sudan-darfur-crisis/
I can think of a very large democracy that is sponsoring a genocide (by a smaller one). In fact, I live in the large one.
From what I've read about the situation in Sudan, it seems considerably more clear-cut, and considerably more severe, than the situation in Israel.
The conflict in Sudan is between two military dictators who jointly ruled a brutal military junta before splitting over how to divide the spoils. If you think it's "considerably more clear-cut than the situation in Israel" you lost your mind.
I was referring to the genocide aspect.
10k-15k deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masalit_genocide
>100k deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
Small quibble, but you are thinking of the son, Mohammed bin Zayed. Sheikh Zayed was the founding president, and he died in 2004.
The problem is an important one, though, and the fundamental issue with even a benevolent monarchy. You may get an incredible visionary like Sheikh Zayed. But then what?
Understanding that Mr. Caplan has argued the USA should have stayed a colony of the British King, it reasons that Mr. Caplan is agreeable to living under benevolent dictatorship. And wouldn't we all! What Mr. Caplan does not explain is how does one arrange to be guided by a benevolent dictator, and what does one do when one's dictator is a tyrant?