<center>
![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmYhp9DxJkJnCFwiqBNhVEkbM26Ey2vFKvxdN63D2AhvGy/image.png)
</center>

If you think your preferred strong man will be better than the status quo, you are engaging in the same magical unicorn thinking that libertarians normally and rightly reject when it comes to the day to day activities of the state. 

"Of course Strongman X would be better than the socialist status quo in Country Y because he will do exactly the things I am imagining he will do that would make him the better choice."

That, my friends, is the exact same form of so many arguments for the state that libertarians rightly reject. Adopting it as an argument for a "second best" solution in other contexts seems... problematic.

I'm not talking about an unfettered popular will, but a constitutionally constrained process. Democracy sucks. It's just better than all of the alternatives. And if we understood it and its relationship to liberalism a bit better, we'd be less tempted to (even in jest) wish for a strong man.