I align as a left libertarian in practice, though I would love to see a meritocracy (I am absolutely anti-authoritarian though, because I hate the idea of obeying something because an authority is in charge, rather obeying something because it is proven to be a good idea by experts in the field). For example, I am an information security specialist. I should have more say (in the form of voting representation) as an individual than some idiot who doesn't even know what IoT stands for, much less why it needs to be regulated. Likewise, why should I have the same exact representation as a phytopathologist when it comes to legislation involving agriculture when I can't even name a single species that infects plants?

>>6201
It sounds more like you're defining meritocracy than fascism or dictatorship/authoritarian regime. A dictatorship is simply complete control similar to totalitarianism, but not necessarily based on any particular knowledge. You seem to be advocating a system where the people with the most skills in a particular subject are the ones who call the shots, which is fine with me (so long as it is evidence-based and not entirely credential-based). Though I wouldn't call the examples you gave particularly good... Steve Jobs was great at fooling idiots (though some of the original Apple products were good, just not anything when OSX came into being). He's just another Jim Jones, but with a bigger following and a slightly better legal track record. Bezos... well actually I don't know much about him. He's good at making money for himself and for shareholders, but not necessarily a good person. And Elon Musk is 80% insane. His electric cars are great. His decision to not enforce patents is commendable. The hyperloop and Mars bullshit? His conspiratorial believe that we are all living in the matrix (yes, he thinks that)? Not something I would say makes him particularly educated. He's just really, really good at designing high-capacity batteries.

>>6202
The "textbook definition of fascism" requires one follow the fascist manifesto, which is nothing at all like what he described. In fact, his views are opposing of true fascism, which is not evidence-based. Forcing someone to follow rules, whether they are good or bad, is not fascism. Fascism requires a strong right-leaning government in charge of economics and with heavy focus on military might, combined with state-run or state-controlled media, and the outlawing of any criticism of the government in charge. Every time someone thinks fascism simply means a powerful or controlling government, Orwell rolls over in his grave.

>>6209
Your argument breaks down as soon as you put "self-proclaimed experts" into >>6201's mouth.