- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,466
Are You Authoritarian?
- Thread starter Brian4Liberty
- Start date
Ronin Truth
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 22,510
No.
Buffalo Bayou
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 10
I swing between being partial to totalitarian dictatorship and being an anarcho-capitalist.
Usually when I'm dealing with idiots I'm the former, then when I stop to think about things I'm the latter.
Usually when I'm dealing with idiots I'm the former, then when I stop to think about things I'm the latter.
ChristianAnarchist
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 4,641
My guess is that about 95% of "the people" are authoritarian. I'm basing this on my own observations, not anything "scientific". Most of these people don't even know they are "authoritarian". They just think they are trying to make things "safe". Most of these people would not force anyone to do things they don't want to THEMSELVES, instead they want to make others do the forcing for them (goonerment). They use "the vote" as their weapon. They "vote" for goons in blue to come at you when you do something THEY (the voters) think is dangerous or immoral (indeed, those acts MAY be dangerous or immoral but that's a different topic). So they use the excuse "for the greater good" they send the goons to beat you, lock you up or kill you.
DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
I think there are two sides to this:
#1 - Those who want total control over others
#2 - Those would benefit from an Authoritarian policy
Those who want control obviously benefit because there are practically no limits to the violence that can be conducted against anyone, which benefits those with that control. Violence can occur in many different forms, not just shooting, throwing punches or war, but by taxation, denial of the ability to peacefully interact with someone else, denial of self authority, poverty (yes, it is a form of violence because poverty typically results from application of theft, think Robber Barons), denial of Rights such as Free Speech and Gun Ownership, etc. All of these benefit those in power because they take more for themselves under the notion of "taking care of" any group of focused individuals.
Those who would benefit from someone else having Authoritarian power would be those who benefit from the Welfare / Warfare state. They are the ones who get what is taken from others. They operate on the notion that taxing the rich because the rich have stolen their future, thus, someone else should force the rich to give them food stamps or other forms of welfare, they are the ones that think they would genuinely benefit, despite the one thing they are truly denied is the ability to have a much better life than one that would be provided by being held down by the very system that they support.
---
This is a question that I think Im expected to answer. Am I Authoritarian? Taking a step back, I do not believe I support either side of what I mentioned above. I also think that some Govt is a necessary force. This results from the naivety that giving total freedom would result in total self responsibility, and it flat out will not. In fact, that is exactly how the Authoritarians got into power to begin with, and our system was exploited, manipulated, changed and abused to take advantage of the people. The restrictions that Govt is expected to place are to preserve our freedoms and support the independent growth of the individual.
Although I do think that Drunk Driving laws are an unfortuante necessary evil, it is just as evil to allow those who would drive very drunk (unreasonably drunk) to do so without proper consequence. I also think that Govt is necessary to prevent the abuse of the common man by the Banks and Corporations who pretty much claim ownership in various forms of individuals. Denying Banks from Usury or enforcing other laws that have been done away with which benefit both Savings and Investment Banks protects the people from the theft of the value of their currency by those Banks. For Corporations, the individual is now pretty much the property of those who have Insurance. The individual must be free to choose to follow a healthy lifestyle, or suffer the consequences of whatever lifestyle they choose, but can not be forced to pay a Corporation (which does not have Rights, only the People do) for demanded obedience. Thou shall not smoke or do anything that costs the Corporation money. That is also promoting Authoritarianism by way of enslavement via obedience to anyone who claims to know how to run your life. This is the path to being expected to pay out of pocket for driverless vehicles and total surveillance where every action we take is done with the permission of the Authority of that particular action. CPS does not get to seize your children if you have opposing political views. Blue Cross & Blue Shield / Anthem does not get to dictate what you eat or when you wake up.
I think I do have some Authoritarian tendancies, but those tendancies I do my best to keep in check and balance with maintaining the proper level of Govt. Drunk Driving is technically a victimless crime, which I can not stand, but we do not live in a world of fully self responsible people. There is just too much at stake to allow drunk driving as too many would do so, which would cost the lives of too many. It is a difficult question to answer and I try really hard to not buy into the propoganda machine. My conclusion is based on the high level of irresponsibility of people in my own life. Too damn many idiots that say things like "I drive better stoned / drunk" that causes me to draw my conclusion. I dont have a good answer on Drunk Driving, but we've definitely ended up with a system which abuses and destroys individuals in response to the application of Drunk Driving laws. There needs to be a balance between Rights and Consequences, as someone will benefit from the issuance of any applications
The solution that Authoritarians offer to any given problem will always be far worse than the problem itself.
#1 - Those who want total control over others
#2 - Those would benefit from an Authoritarian policy
Those who want control obviously benefit because there are practically no limits to the violence that can be conducted against anyone, which benefits those with that control. Violence can occur in many different forms, not just shooting, throwing punches or war, but by taxation, denial of the ability to peacefully interact with someone else, denial of self authority, poverty (yes, it is a form of violence because poverty typically results from application of theft, think Robber Barons), denial of Rights such as Free Speech and Gun Ownership, etc. All of these benefit those in power because they take more for themselves under the notion of "taking care of" any group of focused individuals.
Those who would benefit from someone else having Authoritarian power would be those who benefit from the Welfare / Warfare state. They are the ones who get what is taken from others. They operate on the notion that taxing the rich because the rich have stolen their future, thus, someone else should force the rich to give them food stamps or other forms of welfare, they are the ones that think they would genuinely benefit, despite the one thing they are truly denied is the ability to have a much better life than one that would be provided by being held down by the very system that they support.
---
This is a question that I think Im expected to answer. Am I Authoritarian? Taking a step back, I do not believe I support either side of what I mentioned above. I also think that some Govt is a necessary force. This results from the naivety that giving total freedom would result in total self responsibility, and it flat out will not. In fact, that is exactly how the Authoritarians got into power to begin with, and our system was exploited, manipulated, changed and abused to take advantage of the people. The restrictions that Govt is expected to place are to preserve our freedoms and support the independent growth of the individual.
Although I do think that Drunk Driving laws are an unfortuante necessary evil, it is just as evil to allow those who would drive very drunk (unreasonably drunk) to do so without proper consequence. I also think that Govt is necessary to prevent the abuse of the common man by the Banks and Corporations who pretty much claim ownership in various forms of individuals. Denying Banks from Usury or enforcing other laws that have been done away with which benefit both Savings and Investment Banks protects the people from the theft of the value of their currency by those Banks. For Corporations, the individual is now pretty much the property of those who have Insurance. The individual must be free to choose to follow a healthy lifestyle, or suffer the consequences of whatever lifestyle they choose, but can not be forced to pay a Corporation (which does not have Rights, only the People do) for demanded obedience. Thou shall not smoke or do anything that costs the Corporation money. That is also promoting Authoritarianism by way of enslavement via obedience to anyone who claims to know how to run your life. This is the path to being expected to pay out of pocket for driverless vehicles and total surveillance where every action we take is done with the permission of the Authority of that particular action. CPS does not get to seize your children if you have opposing political views. Blue Cross & Blue Shield / Anthem does not get to dictate what you eat or when you wake up.
I think I do have some Authoritarian tendancies, but those tendancies I do my best to keep in check and balance with maintaining the proper level of Govt. Drunk Driving is technically a victimless crime, which I can not stand, but we do not live in a world of fully self responsible people. There is just too much at stake to allow drunk driving as too many would do so, which would cost the lives of too many. It is a difficult question to answer and I try really hard to not buy into the propoganda machine. My conclusion is based on the high level of irresponsibility of people in my own life. Too damn many idiots that say things like "I drive better stoned / drunk" that causes me to draw my conclusion. I dont have a good answer on Drunk Driving, but we've definitely ended up with a system which abuses and destroys individuals in response to the application of Drunk Driving laws. There needs to be a balance between Rights and Consequences, as someone will benefit from the issuance of any applications
The solution that Authoritarians offer to any given problem will always be far worse than the problem itself.
Last edited:
Foreigner
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 423
Good post, @DamianTV!
There is an inherent contradiction that we can't escape... Let me try to put it this way:
Most, if not all pre-colonization native american tribes had way less crime, less murders, than in our society, and they had no government... Now you might think; "Really? No government? They had chiefs, councils and waged war..." The truth is that the chief had in his position no real power, no force. He was a wise man that they listened to, he held no coercive power, nor had he the warriors under his command. He collected no taxes. If the young men of the tribe wanted to go to war, he could not stop them, all he could do was to urge caution. In a similar manner, he could not initiate war, he had no resources - unless he could persuade the majority opinion of the tribe in his favor. (as any person could do)
But yet, the indian tribes had no technical developments over thousands of years - because they had no private property - everything was shared. If the hunt was good, everybody ate well. If the hunt was scarce, everybody went to bed hungry. No private property, except clothes could exist, because there was nothing significant of value that could be stored for significant amounts of time. Now if say they had started growing large tracts of lands with agriculture, (many crops can be dried and stored for years) the most efficient way to administer that would be to have private property, in a sort of confederacy of independent farmers. But crops often fail as well, leading to hunger and starvation in primitive societies. Would not the ones that had starving children band together and raid/kill the few farmers who's crops were successful that year? - Yes, since they are desperate. Thus it seems that crime will increase as one moves from the most primitive methods of production to an more advanced one, leading to the destruction of private property, and eventually one will go back to primitive communism, since the incentive to work very hard to produce large surpluses will not be there if it is all taken away in bad times. That is, unless you install a government, some kind of court that has a monopoly on power that uses it to protect private property. Crime will still exist, but not be significant enough to make society fall apart. Thus technology and society can advance to produce larger and larger surpluses.
I will conclude that government is definitely a prerequisite for larger society and more advanced forms of production than "subsistence-hunting-communism". At the same time, governments never prevent crime in themselves, they can only deter some people from committing them by promising punishment. (obviously)
If we had a society that produces even larger surpluses than now, so that the poorest people then, will be people we consider well off today - there would be less crime, but it would still exist - look at some of the largest corporations breaking all kinds of laws because some greedy people want it all. (So even if all needed social help for disabled people are provided through familiy and charity, so that there would be no need for government... except for that it's primary function would still be needed - the nessesary evil that is monopoly on force to protect private property.)
//I think parts of what I wrote may have been a bit "rample on", but I hope you understand the gist of what I'm saying.
There is an inherent contradiction that we can't escape... Let me try to put it this way:
Most, if not all pre-colonization native american tribes had way less crime, less murders, than in our society, and they had no government... Now you might think; "Really? No government? They had chiefs, councils and waged war..." The truth is that the chief had in his position no real power, no force. He was a wise man that they listened to, he held no coercive power, nor had he the warriors under his command. He collected no taxes. If the young men of the tribe wanted to go to war, he could not stop them, all he could do was to urge caution. In a similar manner, he could not initiate war, he had no resources - unless he could persuade the majority opinion of the tribe in his favor. (as any person could do)
But yet, the indian tribes had no technical developments over thousands of years - because they had no private property - everything was shared. If the hunt was good, everybody ate well. If the hunt was scarce, everybody went to bed hungry. No private property, except clothes could exist, because there was nothing significant of value that could be stored for significant amounts of time. Now if say they had started growing large tracts of lands with agriculture, (many crops can be dried and stored for years) the most efficient way to administer that would be to have private property, in a sort of confederacy of independent farmers. But crops often fail as well, leading to hunger and starvation in primitive societies. Would not the ones that had starving children band together and raid/kill the few farmers who's crops were successful that year? - Yes, since they are desperate. Thus it seems that crime will increase as one moves from the most primitive methods of production to an more advanced one, leading to the destruction of private property, and eventually one will go back to primitive communism, since the incentive to work very hard to produce large surpluses will not be there if it is all taken away in bad times. That is, unless you install a government, some kind of court that has a monopoly on power that uses it to protect private property. Crime will still exist, but not be significant enough to make society fall apart. Thus technology and society can advance to produce larger and larger surpluses.
I will conclude that government is definitely a prerequisite for larger society and more advanced forms of production than "subsistence-hunting-communism". At the same time, governments never prevent crime in themselves, they can only deter some people from committing them by promising punishment. (obviously)
If we had a society that produces even larger surpluses than now, so that the poorest people then, will be people we consider well off today - there would be less crime, but it would still exist - look at some of the largest corporations breaking all kinds of laws because some greedy people want it all. (So even if all needed social help for disabled people are provided through familiy and charity, so that there would be no need for government... except for that it's primary function would still be needed - the nessesary evil that is monopoly on force to protect private property.)
//I think parts of what I wrote may have been a bit "rample on", but I hope you understand the gist of what I'm saying.
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
ha. Well, yeah.
wstrucke
Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
Spikender
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 4,596
I won't lie, it always pleases me when people fall for my purposeful obtuseness.
But I like that website, used it during High School, so +rep.
ThePaleoLibertarian
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,497
"Authoritarian" isn't a particularly descriptive term, I don't think. Is an absolute monarchy that has a minarchic social order "authoritarian"? If so, what does the label really refer to? If not, why not?
Tywysog Cymru
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 3,167
I wouldn't consider that to be necessarily authoritarian, as long as the monarch respects the rule of law and allows for freedom to speak against the royal family.
Similar threads
