hh on Nostr: The state, like all human organizations, especially criminal ones, naturally tend to ...

The state, like all human organizations, especially criminal ones, naturally tend to want to accumulate more power, so they do whatever it takes. But that's not excuse for citizens to acquiesce to it and reinforce it.

Even though for the most part reform is impossible, formally democratic regimes still have some loopholes that allow the occasional rise of outsiders that people *could vote for*, and still they don't. Milei in Argentina is an example of the first, and the exception that puts the rule to the test.

And very soon, next year, we will have the real test in Argentina when they hold their election to the Parliament. Milei only has 15% of the seats in the Congress and 10% in the Senate now and he won't be able to continue his work unless that gets solved.

Western populations will systematically refuse to vote for anyone who comes out with a platform to reduce "public services", even if that means reducing the tax burden too.

Thus, the parties aspiring to colonize the State apparatus will simply never have such a platform, reinforcing its own original tendency to seek further power.

I am for the total abolition of the State, but if we're to continue to have one in the short and medium term, other than continuing to fight for a drastic reduction of its size, I think it would be worth revisiting some of the principles that most pro-freedom people take for immutable "self-evident truths" for "good government", like the 4-year cycle.

4 years is an extremely short period of time in which it's impossible to even get a major construction project done. Agendas cannot be designed, implemented, and reviewed for real results in 4 years. This naturally creates bad incentives and makes politicians factually unaccountable and irresponsible.

In many formal democracies, notably the US, this is made even worse with a staggered legislative election cycle every two years which keep the politicians and the population in a perpetual state of campaign. The main job of all those people is to ensure to get elected again, not to do anything for their constituents.

If that wasn't controversial enough, I've always been against term limitations too.

I totally get the rationale behind it, I just do not see any practical example that a politician that can only be 8 years in a specific position becomes less corrupted than one who can be there for 20 years. Most politics-related corruption happens at the bureaucrat, unelected level, not in high office.

quoting
nevent1q…w0c7

No, the state spends enormous amounts on gaslighting the people