Okay here's a secret that you probably won't hear other than in some books that are hard to find.

The youth desire a strong executive. They don't yet understand why it can be a bad thing, because they have little experience with people having power over them that aren't their parents or teachers.

The middle aged desire a strong legislative branch, the most fair branch of government. They have enough life experience to understand why. They are not quite old enough to be set in their ways just yet.

The elderly desire a strong judicial branch. Judges are almost always old, and biased towards the opinions of the elderly, left or right.

There is nothing wrong with a strong executive. It is just completely at odds with those who still control the vast majority of the money and power, and of course, mainstream media: the Boomers. JFK, Great Society, these are marked by a desire for a strong executive. Ironic, of course.

A strong executive can stop them, and the Boomers have never been told 'no' in their entire lives. Really truly, everybody was young in the 1960's. They warped society to their will, just like the people in every baby boom in history. You misinterpret their tantrum as something substantive.

▲

shazbotter 3 days ago | parent [-]

I'm old (50s), I don't want a strong any of those. I especially, however, don't want a strong executive because I don't think decision making should be strongly centralized.

I'm a syndicalist anarchist, who believes communities should be primarily bottoms up driven, democratic, and cooperative. I argue we don't need any of those branches to be strong.

▲

engineeringwoke 3 days ago | parent [-]

It's really fundamentally unimportant what you specifically believe. What is important is what people your age in the aggregate believe. This is an undeniable truth. It's therefore silly to engage in a conversation about you and your beliefs specifically. I recommend trying to understand Plato's ideas first.

▲

shazbotter 3 days ago | parent [-]

> This is an undeniable truth.

Well, I disagree. What evidence do you have to demonstrate that a) this is true and b) it's so unassailable that one could not deny it?

Because it sure reads like, "I have a worldview. I will assert that it is true and talk down to anyone who does not accept my worldview as truth." It's a way to paint your discussion partner as an intellectual lesser, while adroitly dodging critique. You'll have to do better than just asserting something is true because you said so.

	▲	engineeringwoke 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I mean arguing with tankies is just No True Scotsman ad infinitum, so I'm good to stop this here. Best