Yarvin and authority

What clearly distinguishes Curtis Yarvin's political philosophy from classical liberalism or libertarianism is his call for a monarchically led government, which may well have authoritarian traits. He apparently justifies this view by arguing that history has shown that states have always had their golden ages when a dictator was in power, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in America in the 1930s.

Personally, I see no advantage to an autocratic monarchy over a representative democracy like the one we have now. In my view, neither is ideal – I advocate for a society without rulers, even if that means anarchy. This clearly shows the contrast between Yarvin's thinking and my own. I can't find any sympathy for him.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)