NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, we'll debate here the virtues and vices of each. Now do NOT confuse these two terms with Liberal and Conservative (there's a world of difference)!!!!!

Anybody want to kick the debate off?

People should be smart enough to question their government and not just have blind faith in it. Otherwise we may end up with Hitlerian governments. Citizens must be an active part of the process. Even if a government is on the 'right' course, questioning it will deepen the understanding of why it is 'right.'

Paradoxically, I think even asking this question is a show of libertarianism. It is asking people to question their government and discuss it in a relatively uncensored forum.

Libertarian vs Authoritarian attitudes naturaly exist in shades of grey.

Having an absolute attitude towards one or the other is clearly ridculous.
The do as you want vs the do as we say of course both have flaws.

Authoritarian: do as we say; Corruption- how many people at the top actualy follow their own mantra when they have enough power to avoid the unpleasantries of it (of course in an Orwell style state, the state becomes more powerful then any individual but do you really want to live in that kind of a system)

Libertarian: Again my criticism comes back to power, the idea behind this is that you are free to do as you want as long as you don't impose on other peoples freedoms, but if we look at a libertarian capitalist state like the U.S (or indeed th U.K) then you can see that people with more power/money are more capable of maintaining their freedoms at the expense of the less powerfull.

Of course if you want a counter argument: The less powerfull are still free and are free to become more powerfull and start pushing their own agenda, but of course despite such ideals as the American dream the cards are a little bit stacked against some people.

hey this is a nice little page I just found
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz-score/quiz.php

Libertarian vs Authoritarian attitudes naturaly exist in shades of grey.

Having an absolute attitude towards one or the other is clearly ridculous.
The do as you want vs the do as we say of course both have flaws.

Authoritarian: do as we say; Corruption- how many people at the top actualy follow their own mantra when they have enough power to avoid the unpleasantries of it (of course in an Orwell style state, the state becomes more powerful then any individual but do you really want to live in that kind of a system)

Libertarian: Again my criticism comes back to power, the idea behind this is that you are free to do as you want as long as you don't impose on other peoples freedoms, but if we look at a libertarian capitalist state like the U.S (or indeed th U.K) then you can see that people with more power/money are more capable of maintaining their freedoms at the expense of the less powerfull.

Of course if you want a counter argument: The less powerfull are still free and are free to become more powerfull and start pushing their own agenda, but of course despite such ideals as the American dream the cards are a little bit stacked against some people.

I generally agree with this. Keep in mind, though, that libertarian government does not mean anarchy. Economic issues tend to be along the lines of liberal vs. conservative, so leave capitalism out of this.

The only benefit of authoritarianism is not being responisible for your choices. When the government makes all your choices for you, you do good out of fear of government punishment rather than genuine moral concern.

hey this is a nice little page I just found
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz-score/quiz.php

I think a better one is http://www.politicalcompass.org/.

I took both those tests, and I ended up Libertarian in both. And Letila, I thought I'd never see you being the devil's advocate.

And in response, I don't understand why somebody would not advocate personal responsiblity. . . which is an inherently libertarian thing

I took both those tests, and I ended up Libertarian in both. And Letila, I thought I'd never see you being the devil's advocate.

And in response, I don't understand why somebody would not advocate personal responsiblity. . . which is an inherently libertarian thing

I think a lot of people think that when the government is giving people more liberties, it isn't protecting them as much anymore, which I don't think is true. But the main reason I side with libertarianism is that authoritarianism tries to put a point onto life. The government tells you what kind of lifestyle you will live by what how "average" american lives. I think this is a terrible thing to do. It's incredibly wrong to put a specific point onto life, because the idea of it is so open. Because of this people forget that they can do whatever they want. (money providing I guess)

Authoritarian government is more effecient, and can pass laws quickly. Authoritarian governments have been benificial to their countries ecnomies, and are superior to their anarchistic-libertarian counter-parts.

... but if we look at a libertarian capitalist state like the U.S ...
HAH! Ah HAH. Hah hah, and, Hah! You jest, surely! The US is a Fundamentalist Christian Country nowadays. AKA, Jesusland. The US is far from anything Libertarian.

Hear that? Do you? That's Mike Badnarik laughing.

Libertarian values and whatnot- http://badnarik.org/

I personally favour neither, or either, of the two said systems. Each one can function succesfully, as can anything else, yet, as like anything else, the chances are quite slim. If either one of them could pull it off though, without the whole "War, Famine and Pestilince" thing, I would smile.

HAH! Ah HAH. Hah hah, and, Hah! You jest, surely! The US is a Fundamentalist Christian Country nowadays. AKA, Jesusland. The US is far from anything Libertarian.


Nonsense. What state do you live in?

Authoritarian government is more effecient, and can pass laws quickly. Authoritarian governments have been benificial to their countries ecnomies, and are superior to their anarchistic-libertarian counter-parts.

Example? USSR? Cuba? Afganistan? Iraq?

And in response, I don't understand why somebody would not advocate personal responsiblity. . . which is an inherently libertarian thing

They don't like being responsible for their actions.

Nonsense. What state do you live in?
The US isn't libertarian. It restricts drug freedom and some other freedoms. The government is huge, and is mixed up in corporate welfare. Not libertarian at all.

The US isn't libertarian. It restricts drug freedom and some other freedoms. The government is huge, and is mixed up in corporate welfare. Not libertarian at all.
The US is incredibly authoritarian.

Even the liberals are authoritarian. They just differ on economic policy.

The US isn't libertarian. It restricts drug freedom and some other freedoms. The government is huge, and is mixed up in corporate welfare. Not libertarian at all.

I didn't say it was.

The US is incredibly authoritarian.

Even the liberals are authoritarian. They just differ on economic policy.

Bah, "incredibly" authoritarian? Riiight....

Bah, "incredibly" authoritarian? Riiight....
See: gay marriage (and until recently, gay sodomy itself)
See: abortion
See: drugs
See: prostitution
See: obscenity laws in general
See: GUNS
See: gambling
See: smoking bans

See: gay marriage (and until recently, gay sodomy itself)
See: abortion
See: drugs
See: prostitution
See: obscenity laws in general
See: GUNS
See: gambling
See: smoking bans

Gay marriage: Gay people can get married, it's just not recognized by the state. I don't think the state should recognize any marriage.
Abortion: what? Last I checked they were legal.
Drugs: Won't argue there
Prostitution: Ditto
Obscenity: Have you seen Lemmiwinks?
Guns: Um...*stroking shotgun*
Gambling: Off track betting a short drive away. Las Vegas anyone?
Smoking bans: Not in my state

It is not libertarian, but it not "completely" authoritarian. That would be Iran. Surely you aren't comparing the two.

The US isn't libertarian. It restricts drug freedom and some other freedoms. The government is huge, and is mixed up in corporate welfare. Not libertarian at all.

Very true. The US does pass laws restricing our freedoms, but they are for things like drugs, guns, ect. I believe it's called "legislating morality", and Congress does it because they don't think we can make smart decisions for ourselves. The Founding Fathers thought we could think for ourselves because religion was a major part of life in those times. Unfortunately, now expressing your religion openly can be warped into "forcing your religion onto someone else", and now is almost taboo. With no religious morals (and almost every religion has them), people don't have the same moral compass to guide them, and the government steps in place of the religion. At least, this is my veiw on why we aren't the libertarian paradise we think ourselves (and are described by others) to be.

The US is incredibly authoritarian.

Even the liberals are authoritarian. They just differ on economic policy.

Right on! I'm tired of my favorite anime series being butchered.

Right on! I'm tired of my favorite anime series being butchered.

No...no anime allowed!

But seriously, what is so appealing about it? I really don't get it.

The Force Majeure, see my stance on "Lazy." Try looking into things before making rash statements like that, please? The US isn't Libertarian, plain and simple. It's a Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist Corporation. Your references to Chodolo's post were blinded with ignorance on all of those issues, which are unfortuneatly the key issues of the day due to the US being said Corporation. If there's anything, that in any way, restricts your right to do something- Period- Then it is not Libertarian. Once again, actually look into things. For heavens sake, I live in Noo Yawk, the only state by far that might be considered maybe in an alternate univese Libertarian. But it is in no way shape or form governened by the Libertarian Policies. Visit my link to Badnarik to actually learn what some of those policies are, that way you can say you actually know what a Libertarian is.

Anime is actually a perfect example of many things for this thread methinks.

Censorship!

The US isn't Libertarian, plain and simple.

He didn't say it was. He only said that it's not completely authoritarian either.

Reffering to the-

"Nonsense, what state do you live in," Post.

I think the US has been relatively CENTRIST when it comes to authoritarian vs. libertarian. Here is a decent example of this:

Authoritarian: There are laws against traffic violations, and the government fines people who violate these laws.
Libertarian: The government does not use monitors in your car to give automatic tickets to people who go over the speed limit.

Reffering to the-

"Nonsense, what state do you live in," Post.

Which was itself a response to your badly mistaken claim that the United States is a fundamentalist Christian country.

The US is a Fundamentalist Christian etc etc etc, or at least is becoming one. That was an accurate claim if anything. Tell me, where do the morals and ethics most recent laws being based on come from? I don't remember anything in the Constitution or Bill of rights outlawing Gay Marriage, or Abortion. 'Twas the Bible, silly. The line between Religion and State is being crossed.

Very true. The US does pass laws restricing our freedoms, but they are for things like drugs, guns, ect. I believe it's called "legislating morality", and Congress does it because they don't think we can make smart decisions for ourselves. The Founding Fathers thought we could think for ourselves because religion was a major part of life in those times. Unfortunately, now expressing your religion openly can be warped into "forcing your religion onto someone else", and now is almost taboo. With no religious morals (and almost every religion has them), people don't have the same moral compass to guide them, and the government steps in place of the religion. At least, this is my veiw on why we aren't the libertarian paradise we think ourselves (and are described by others) to be.

Actually, the Founding Fathers were a mixed bag of religious and non-religious people. They were, by and large, all subscribers to the Enlightenment. This is why there was a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE embedded in the Constitution. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will realize that most of the FF didn't care about religion one way or another, as long as no one was forcing anyone else to believe something. As to "legislating morality", making gun/drug/speeding laws to protect people is not it. Morality is a set of rules that a society agrees to obey so that they can all get along. Gun/drug/speeding/etc. laws are not "moral legislation" because they are put in place to protect the "life, liberty, and ability to pursue happiness" that was such an Enlightenment ideal. In essence, your rights end where mine begin. If you speed, you are endangering my right to life, since at dangerous speeds, you are much more likely to kill me if I'm on the road with you. Thus, you shouldn't speed. The government is protecting my right to life because I agree with the social contract inherent in being a citizen of the country that government rules.

The concept of "legislating morality" comes about when you take a specific religious/moral system and try to enshrine it in the legal system. For example, it would be legislating morality if everyone were required to "pray to Mecca" five times a day. It would also be trying to legislate morality if we ban specific sex acts between two consenting adults.

Why are these "legislating morality" when speeding laws aren't? Because if I don't pray to Mecca or do have oral sex with another person, it does not in any way impinge on the rights of other people in my community to pray to Mecca or have sex/not have sex. These are private matters.

So why do people try to make laws about it anyway? Because a 2000 year old book says it's inherently wrong. And as long as EVERYONE who lives under that legal system agrees with the 2000 year old book, then everything is, usually and for a time at least, okay. However, when you take a society like the US, that is a real mish-mash of differing cultures, these things tend to cause tension.

The Founding Fathers took a good look around, and realized that the US would ALWAYS be a mish-mash of differing cultures and turned to Enlightenment ideals to frame a system that was independent of any specific religion. And thus, if it is independent of any specific religion, then it can NOT in good conscience enshrine the ideals of any religion, ever. That's why the three concepts of "life, libery and the pursuit of happiness" were inserted into our founding documents. These are, for the most part, universal desires of the human race. Anything that decreases your ability to have any of these is a violation of the Founding Fathers' intent.

That's why I, personally, think the gay marriage issue is so important. We are severely limiting a significant portion (some studies say up to 10% or more) of our population's right to pursue happiness.

And that makes the current US administration one of the most Authoritarian in recent history.

The line between Religion and State is being crossed.

Heck, it's being eradicated.

He didn't say it was. He only said that it's not completely authoritarian either.

Thank you. What he said.

Heck, it's being eradicated.

Oh really? Because I'm pretty sure I can walk down the street dressed in any garb and spouting off any beliefs I want to without incident. Does that sound like religious oppression?

You can NOT walk down the street wearing any garb you like. There are "public indecency" laws. You also can not "spout any belief you like" either. There are slander laws. You can, however, talk about your religious beliefs in a public forum. Neither of those things is religious oppression, though. Try to talk about a rationalist non-religious, aka atheistic/agnostic belief system, though, and see how many people cross the street to get away from you....or try to beat the hell out of you, depending on where you live.

Religious oppression is taking money away from state agencies and putting it in the hands of churches to run public betterment programs that non-Christians use (Am I allowed to have this if I'm non-Christian?). Religious oppression is putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse where non-Christians must go to for legal recourse (Am I equal under the law if I'm not Christian?). Religious oppression is saying in a national forum that you are running a "faith-based" presidency (Who's faith? Yours? Mine? An Islamic extremist's?) when you are supposed to do what's best for EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN IN YOUR COUNTRY! How can an atheist/agnostic/Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu/Taoist/Shintoist/Wiccan/et al trust GWB and his "faith-based presidency" to do what's in THEIR best interests?

You can NOT walk down the street wearing any garb you like. There are "public indecency" laws. You also can not "spout any belief you like" either. There are slander laws. You can, however, talk about your religious beliefs in a public forum. Neither of those things is religious oppression, though. Try to talk about a rationalist non-religious, aka atheistic/agnostic belief system, though, and see how many people cross the street to get away from you....or try to beat the hell out of you, depending on where you live.


Depends on where you live. If I spout off my belief system, that is not slander. Who am I slandering? I can't wear any garb I like? Ok, so I can't go without at least a speedo, but as you stated, that has nothing to do with religious oppression. In my town, no one would do anything to me.

The only benefit of authoritarianism is not being responisible for your choices. When the government makes all your choices for you, you do good out of fear of government punishment rather than genuine moral concern.

The ends justify the means!

The ends justify the means!
Don't you quote Machiavelli! Ho! :P

Majeure, you're looking at the little picture when you confine your area of insight to only your town. You have to look at the bigger picture.

Don't you quote Machiavelli! Ho! :P

Majeure, you're looking at the little picture when you confine your area of insight to only your town. You have to look at the bigger picture.

But I don't really care about any one else's town/state/country.

What is this thread about again?

Don't you quote Machiavelli! Ho! :P


Another Machi V quote that might be relevent to the discussion of the founding fathers is "He who builds on the people builds on mud"

When I refered to America as being a libertarian state I put capitalism in front of that for a reason; that reason being that in America (the united states of) people are very free to spend there money without (or with little) government intervention.

I will accept earlier criticism in regards to certain drugs but again I'd ask you to look at who tends to be arrested for purchasing said drugs, the powerful or the powerless?

If you'd like an example just look at the system of payment in the U.S you go to the shop you pick up your newspaper glance at the price, then mentaly add tax, then get the correct change and pay.

the important part in the middle you have to correct for tax, it's not included, your very aware of just how much the govenrment is taking, my point being that a lot is being done to allow transparencies in the system when it comes to the government and goods.

And why should capitalism be left out of this exactly?
Well I'd say that capitalism is a very important dimension when dealing with politics in a capitalist state; a liberal conservative dynamic is vastly too one dimensional, i'll illustrate with a brief and easily obtained quote.

"The state "redistributes" the individual's wealth, penalizes him if he buys the products of another country, expropriates his land if it finds a "better" use for it, and finally conscripts him into its armed forces even though it may cost him his life. Naturally, all such actions are done in the name of the "national" or "public" interest."
http://www.libertarian.ca/english/enhay.htm

Now I sense that i'm labouring my point and have managed to get a bit preachy(something which seems to be a bit of a common fault on this thread (damn at it again)) so enjoy the resurfacing of my argument (mwahahah)

and just to point out the point of this thread wasn't to discuss whether the U.S was liberal or not it was to evaluate the pros and cons of each system

Depends on where you live. If I spout off my belief system, that is not slander. Who am I slandering? I can't wear any garb I like? Ok, so I can't go without at least a speedo, but as you stated, that has nothing to do with religious oppression. In my town, no one would do anything to me.

I notice how you quite conveniently ignore the rest of my post, you know, the part that's relevant to the issue at large, aka authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. I must say that any system that enshrines a particular religion's morals will have to become more authoritarian over time, or else relax the morals of the religious system. Most religions (and I emphasize most) claim to have the TRUTH. This inevitably leads to the suppression of any idea that conflicts with said religious truth.

A case here in the US would be the Evolution issue. A mountain of scientific data has been heaped up to justify this idea, and we still have ignorant people around the country that resist it, mainly because they don't understand enough science to realize that evolution IS good science. Instead, they seek to teach "creation science" in the classroom, which isn't science at all, all because the Bible told them it's accurate. Thus, scientific truth is suppressed in favor of religious "truth". A suppressed scientific community is a sure sign of authoritarianism.

(Now, to tie this back to the thread's topic!) This makes authoritarianism the weaker position from a scientific/technological view, and in my HUMBLE opinion :rolleyes: that makes it weaker overall. Without a strong scientific/technological community, a nation will eventually fall behind the curve on the "world progess chart".

Is science not just as authoritarian when it comes to the truth?

besides creationism and darwinism both have major holes in the theory

Is science not just as authoritarian when it comes to the truth?

besides creationism and darwinism both have major holes in the theory

Science is anti-authoritarian. The whole scientific process is open to debate from beginning to current. Note that I don't say "end" because there is no such thing as an "end" in science. Long-held theories get re-evaluated in the light of new data all the time.

As to the "holes" in the creationist and evolutionist theories, the difference is that evolutionists freely admit that their theory is not perfect (which is why it has been revised several times). Evolution, like all scientific theories, will be open to debate and revision as our understanding of the world increases. Science is a process, not a destination. Creationists, however, claim to have the TRUTH. It is incontrovertible, undeniable, and above all, absolutely, completely and without a doubt, correct. Never mind the fact that their "evidence" is non-existant, and that their process is unscientific.

It always makes me want to both laugh and cry when I hear the term "creation science". Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of science realizes that creationism CAN'T be a science, because one of it's fundamental principles (i.e. that God created the world) is untestable, now or ever.

Is science not just as authoritarian when it comes to the truth?

no.

freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. if that is granted, all else follows.

besides creationism and darwinism both have major holes in the theory
It's funny how we continue to put creationism and evolution on same scale, as if they are both somehow equally reasonable scientific theories. :p