Normally I'd just tell you that I don't subscribe to moral and philosophical relativism, but for the sake of this discussion, I will oblige in explaining further.

First off, what is the definition of valid and correct? What is the metric that makes a certain belief more "valid" than some other belief? Well, over the millennia, we humans have arrived to certain definitions of what's good and what's bad in the context of preserving life, civilization, society and liberty. In that sense, things that harm those concepts can be defined as bad and those that further those goals are good. History has shown, time and again, that empowering one person with a lot of executive power inevitably leads to tyranny, oppression, genocide, slavery and other completely horrible things that we seem to have been able to get rid of (more or less).

So when someone rejects thousands of years of historical evidence as to what happens with such regimes and where they eventually lead, and proposes instating one again, I can only call it either asinine (if the author is well-intentioned) or evil (if they simply want power over others).

In more practical terms, liberty, self-determination and self-ownership are sacrosanct to a lot of people. In order to take those things away, you will need a lot of people, guns and body bags.