NationStates Jolt Archive

I have decided to start this thread is dedication to authoritarians off all stripes on NSG and our noble philosophy. Us authoritarians fundamentally are opposed to individual freedom, civil liberties and all forms of encouraging selfish mindsets. We hold the patriotic(collective) interest above the particular interest, and believe selfish ideologies such as libertarianism are socially corrosive and regenerative to the community. Whether far-left or far-right, authoritarians believe in a self-perpetuating collective will as an embodiment of a people. Authoritarianism includes includes militarism, which looks to the military as a perfect example of discipline and selfless service to the collective. Authoritarianism therefore opposes pluralism and multi-party liberal democracy because it promotes difference of opinion and conflict, instead of harmony and interdependence. Authoritarianism instead promotes one-party states as the true embodiment of democracy because they represent civic pride and a progressive mindset within a one-track guiding ideology.

In before mention of Hitler, Stalin, et al.

authoritarians believe in a self-perpetuating collective will as an embodiment of a people.

What does this even mean?

What does this even mean?

It's something Mussolini spoke about his collectivist theories, it's the idea that when a nation (people) have one ideology, culture etc they become a collective entity that thinks all the same and is uniform. Here's where I got it from:

'Grouped according to their several interests, individuals form classes; they form trade-unions when organized according to their several economic activities; but first and foremost they form the State, which is no mere matter of numbers, the suns of the individuals forming the majority. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number; but it is the purest form of democracy if the nation be considered as it should be from the point of view of quality rather than quantity, as an idea, the mightiest because the most ethical, the most coherent, the truest, expressing itself in a people as the conscience and will of the few, if not, indeed, of one, and ending to express itself in the conscience and the will of the mass, of the whole group ethnically molded by natural and historical conditions into a nation, advancing, as one conscience and one will, along the self same line of development and spiritual formation (18). Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality'

I'd like to point out that if I were an authoritarian, I would arrange a meet and greet for all the other local authoritarians and then have them all shot. To an authoritarian, other authoritarians are competition that I simply won't have.

I guess it's a good thing for you all that I'm not an authoritarian because I bet none of you thought of that. ;)

I just thought this was needed given the libertarian slime infesting these forums.

I'd like to point out that if I were an authoritarian, I would arrange a meet and greet for all the other local authoritarians and then have them all shot. To an authoritarian, other authoritarians are competition that I simply won't have.

I guess it's a good thing for you all that I'm not an authoritarian because I bet none of you thought of that. ;)Do it anyway.

I just thought this was needed given the libertarian slime infesting these forums.

What is so great about authoritarians? Whether on the right or left, authoritarians have committed the worst atrocities this world has ever seen.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc are all among the worst characters of the 20th century. What do they all have in common? They were all authoritarians.

Even when we look elsewhere, governments are the most inefficient entities to control an economy. They erode civil rights and enslave their people in an authoritarian setting.

The government schools serve as indoctrination centers, dissidents are sent to places like the gulag to disappear.

I can go on forever, but I doubt logic will pierce the dogma you follow.

What is so great about authoritarians? Whether on the right or left, authoritarians have committed the worst atrocities this world has ever seen.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc are all among the worst characters of the 20th century. What do they all have in common? They were all authoritarians.

Even when we look elsewhere, governments are the most inefficient entities to control an economy. They erode civil rights and enslave their people in an authoritarian setting.

The government schools serve as indoctrination centers, dissidents are sent to places like the gulag to disappear.

I can go on forever, but I doubt logic will pierce the dogma you follow.

No you're quite right, and I assume to someone like you of a liberal disposition, these past attempts at true civilization (authoritarianism) seemed violent or repugnant to you're ingrained liberal mindset. But to an authoritarian the acts of Stalin, Pol Pot etc were necessary to establish this new unifying ideological order. Morality is relative, and to the authoritarian all measures are open for use.

In before mention of Hitler, Stalin, et al.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc

Ph34r my powahs of prediction!

It's something Mussolini spoke about his collectivist theories, it's the idea that when a nation (people) have one ideology, culture etc they become a collective entity that thinks all the same and is uniform. Here's where I got it from:

from a guy who end up at the end of a rope from a pole, yur ok next

No you're quite right, and I assume to someone like you of a liberal disposition, these past attempts at true civilization (authoritarianism) seemed violent or repugnant to you're ingrained liberal mindset. But to an authoritarian the acts of Stalin, Pol Pot etc were necessary to establish this new unifying ideological order. Morality is relative, and to the authoritarian all measures are open for use.

Do you realize how sick and disgusting you sound when you defend mass murder?

Stop and think about what you're actually defending.

Do you realize how sick and disgusting you sound when you defend mass murder?

Stop and think about what you're actually defending.
It's all about philosophic position and moral relativity my friend. You on one hand have been drummed with the idea since you were born that every individual life is sacred, of individual rights and liberties and to this day you are a product of that. But an authoritarian like me the individual is meaningless and has no value when outside the collective, to the authoritarian the natural purpose of man is to serve selflessly to his fellow men, someone who's nature is to quarrel and compete rather than obey is out of nature itself, and no longer human.

I have decided to start this thread is dedication to authoritarians off all stripes on NSG and our noble philosophy. Us authoritarians fundamentally are opposed to individual freedom, civil liberties and all forms of encouraging selfish mindsets. We hold the patriotic(collective) interest above the particular interest, and believe selfish ideologies such as libertarianism are socially corrosive and regenerative to the community.I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you mean "degenerative" here.
Whether far-left or far-right, authoritarians believe in a self-perpetuating collective will as an embodiment of a people. Authoritarianism includes includes militarism, which looks to the military as a perfect example of discipline and selfless service to the collective. Authoritarianism therefore opposes pluralism and multi-party liberal democracy because it promotes difference of opinion and conflict, instead of harmony and interdependence. In all fairness, neither really promotes conflict. Authoritarianism and pluralism have different means of dealing with it.
Authoritarianism instead promotes one-party states as the true embodiment of democracy because they represent civic pride and a progressive mindset within a one-track guiding ideology.One of the great benefits of a one party state is that things can get done faster without having to take other opinions into account. The drawbacks are that the resulting unchecked power breeds corruption and the lack of open dialogue with minority/majority opinions breeds dissent and potential conflict. Living in an authoritarian state is cool only for those in the ruling class/ethnic group/golf club.
To paraphrase Churchill: Democracy sucks, but it's the best we've got.

It's all about philosophic position and moral relativity my friend. You on one hand have been drummed with the idea since you were born that every individual life is sacred, of individual rights and liberties and to this day you are a product of that.I've gotten the idea that the world is round and that I'm being kept from being tossed off by it's rotation by means of gravity drummed into me too.

It's in the human nature to follow one's interests. It is selfish and self centered, and that's why authoritarianism will always fail.

It's in the human nature to follow one's interests. It is selfish and self centered, and that's why authoritarianism will always fail.

Human nature is infinitely malleable under specific environments.

It's all about philosophic position and moral relativity my friend. You on one hand have been drummed with the idea since you were born that every individual life is sacred, of individual rights and liberties and to this day you are a product of that. But an authoritarian like me the individual is meaningless and has no value when outside the collective, to the authoritarian the natural purpose of man is to serve selflessly to his fellow men, someone who's nature is to quarrel and compete rather than obey is out of nature itself, and no longer human.
I agree that selfless existence is a good idea, yes, but by virtue of their humanity authoritarians are necessarily not servants but would-be masters. They exist to subjugate those who do not yield to their particular position, and no authoritarian has anything other than his own idealism in mind when he considers what the "collective" actually is. People have their own ideas that they want to accomplish, and authoritarianism denies this despite being the most obvious example of it.

The individual is vital because without them there is no collective. The collective is vital because without it there is only chaos. There is no choice in the matter; both need to be in order for society to flourish. To act in the interests of the collective is neither libertarian nor authoritarian, but is rather the simultaneous resolution and encouragement of the tension between the two with neither being allowed to seize power for themselves.

Human nature is infinitely malleable under specific environments.I take it you can actually name an authoritarian government that didn't succumb to corruption, favoritism, and abuse of privileges?

You might want to check your vocabulary there, if you want it to make sense.
Huzzah! Beat you to it! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201607&postcount=14) =D

We...believe selfish ideologies such as libertarianism are socially corrosive and regenerative to the community.

You might want to check your vocabulary there, if you want it to make sense.

Huzzah! Beat you to it! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201607&postcount=14) =D

Not only that, but the time warp makes it look like you predicted my post.

Human nature is infinitely malleable under specific environments.

Psychologists would tell you that that is a lie.

Where's the Absolutist Party at when you need them?

Also, stopping greed to service your own is still greed.

EA/AP, you need to go and add Psych 101 to the list of classes you need to take. You have no idea how the human mind works.

We can only be shaped to the way you describe if we were in a North Korean type environment. Answer this one for me, do you wish for us to be like North Korea? They are afterall the nation that appears to be closest to your "utopia."

*throws a spanner in EA/AP's authoritarian works*

I'm sorry, but you really need to open your eyes and look at what your are advocating. Authoritarianism will never bring anything but dictatorship and the ruin of the very masses you profess to speak for.

*throws a spanner in EA/AP's authoritarian works*

I'm sorry, but you really need to open your eyes and look at what your are advocating. Authoritarianism will never bring anything but dictatorship and the ruin of the very masses you profess to speak for.

*dynamites the works for good measure*

I agree with Trot here.

I just thought this was needed given the libertarian slime infesting these forums.

Never been called slime before... kewl.

The problem with authoritarianism, and this has been touched upon, is that it assumes the those in power are somehow superior in knowledge, judgement and intellect to those ruled. This is why it doesn't work. In any given collection of people of significant size the odds of the most qualified individual being the leader are quite slim.

This problem is somewhat mitigated in Republics but it's still far from perfect which is why most constitutionally defined governments include checks and balances and stop gap measures to limit the power of said government.

And why do we want to limit government power? Because, as has also been stated, government is inherently inefficient and tends toward corruption. It's a necessary evil, but the smaller the better.

... government is inherently inefficient...
This may not be the time or place to disagree with you, but governments are not "inherently" inefficient. The central management of resources is potentially much more efficient than local since it can in theory facilitate the most efficient use of finite supplies by looking at the broad picture and redistributing resources from where they are in excess to where they are in shortage. It might not be pretty from a "private property" perspective, but you can't deny its efficiency in principle (however much the inability of the US government to actually do it may render it apparently useless in practice).

Morality is relative, and to the authoritarian all measures are open for use.
This is something that's easily debatable. I'd say there are definite moral absolutes. Sure, to the authoritarian all measures may be open for use, but the authoritarian is also capable (and arguably more susceptible to) of being morally incorrect.
It's all about philosophic position and moral relativity my friend. You on one hand have been drummed with the idea since you were born that every individual life is sacred, of individual rights and liberties and to this day you are a product of that. But an authoritarian like me the individual is meaningless and has no value when outside the collective, to the authoritarian the natural purpose of man is to serve selflessly to his fellow men, someone who's nature is to quarrel and compete rather than obey is out of nature itself, and no longer human.
You could easily argue that by fostering and valuing the individual you are progressing and validating the collective.
The drawbacks are that the resulting unchecked power breeds corruption and the lack of open dialogue with minority/majority opinions breeds dissent and potential conflict.

Not to mention that without at least friendly competition, societies tend to stagnate. It seems to me that, historically, the greatest breakthroughs in science (social and physical) has arisen from conflict of some sort, be it friendly or be it deadly. Without the ability to criticize and be criticized, society degenerates into a sickly static cesspool. And stagnancy tends to lead to failure/destruction.

It's in the human nature to follow one's interests. It is selfish and self centered, and that's why authoritarianism will always fail.

small problem. god-king style authoritarianism is like the second or third longest lasting and widely practiced type of human social organization. so in so far as we aren't merely saying that everything fails eventually, then certain forms of authoritarianism clearly have stronger track records than somewhat anti-authoritarian liberal democracy does, in terms of staying power.

Psychologists would tell you that that is a lie.

Only a Humanist would, maybe a Freudian. Althought a Freudian would be more interested in the unconcious mind than people actually making their own decisions. A Behaviourist would say that the environment defines human personality. It's called conditioning.

Where's the Absolutist Party at when you need them?

Also, stopping greed to service your own is still greed.

(For reference, the Absolutist Party. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530128&highlight=absolutist+party))

Authoritarianism is merely a manifestation of the animal nature of man. Authoritarianism can only survive in an environment of hatred of one's betters, hatred of one's own shortcomings, a climate of eternal fear and crisis that causes one to hand over their freedoms, and a worship of 'the people' that is merely the descendant of man's mystical obedience to taboos for fear of angering the spirits. It is a religion of the worst kind.

I have decided to start this thread is dedication to authoritarians off all stripes on NSG and our noble philosophy. Us authoritarians fundamentally are opposed to individual freedom, civil liberties and all forms of encouraging selfish mindsets. We hold the patriotic(collective) interest above the particular interest, and believe selfish ideologies such as libertarianism are socially corrosive and regenerative to the community. Whether far-left or far-right, authoritarians believe in a self-perpetuating collective will as an embodiment of a people. Authoritarianism includes includes militarism, which looks to the military as a perfect example of discipline and selfless service to the collective. Authoritarianism therefore opposes pluralism and multi-party liberal democracy because it promotes difference of opinion and conflict, instead of harmony and interdependence. Authoritarianism instead promotes one-party states as the true embodiment of democracy because they represent civic pride and a progressive mindset within a one-track guiding ideology.

[Evil Fascist Mode]He's right of course...Authoritarianism is--wait...[/evil fascist mode]


Authoritarianism includes includes militarism,
I KNEW IT! HE'S A ROBOT!

*dynamites the works for good measure*

I agree with Trot here.

lol

There's always an anarch0-syndicalist response to a Leninist problem.

http://infoshop.org/amp/donate06/logo_bunny2.jpg

Human nature is infinitely malleable under specific environments.Humans can be malleable, but not infinitely so.

What does this even mean?

It means you have to think what you're told to think or you'll get the shit kicked out of you.

It means you have to think what you're told to think or you'll get the shit kicked out of you.

That's the essence of fascism: eat shit and die!

Is this a parody of the Libertarian thread, or does he really believe that the Holocaust/Stalin's Purges/Gulags/Pol Pot's genocide etc. were all justified? Normally I'd guess parody but given the author...

EA/AP, you need to go and add Psych 101 to the list of classes you need to take. You have no idea how the human mind works.

We can only be shaped to the way you describe if we were in a North Korean type environment. Answer this one for me, do you wish for us to be like North Korea? They are afterall the nation that appears to be closest to your "utopia."

Psychology 101? Hell, I think it might be an idea to go back to the basics and take Reality 101.

I sincerely hope that this thread was a poor attempt at parody but I have my doubts.

This may not be the time or place to disagree with you, but governments are not "inherently" inefficient. The central management of resources is potentially much more efficient than local since it can in theory facilitate the most efficient use of finite supplies by looking at the broad picture and redistributing resources from where they are in excess to where they are in shortage. It might not be pretty from a "private property" perspective, but you can't deny its efficiency in principle (however much the inability of the US government to actually do it may render it apparently useless in practice).

Your point is well taken, but I think it applies better to large organizations other than government (such as a corporation or a church). Private-run organizations that are not efficient fail and die.

Governments that are inefficient only get stronger because they can compensate for their inefficiency by increasing taxes or protecting itself through legislation.

North Korea truly is a bastion of freedom, democracy and progress that we should all strive to model ourselves after, along with other paragons such as Libya, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe. That is, if we're not starving from food shortages, unable to see due to power cuts and nutrient deficiencies, or exhausted from worshiping our leaders endlessly day and night.

Authoritarianism's track record is great...tens of millions killed, hundreds more imprisoned, impoverished and oppressed, and entire states turned in to bastions of ignorance and violence. Funny thing is, a discussion like this wouldn't even exist in a totalitarian regime; aside from the fact that the internet would be censored or nonexistent to begin with, nobody could afford a computer and electricity would be too spotty to keep it operating.

But, hey, if you want to live in a fantasy world (I don't think there's a single "authoritarian" who would want to live in a dictatorship unless they were, of course, a dictator or someone in a position of power), go ahead. I'll stay here and go with what works.

I sincerely hope that this thread was a poor attempt at parody but I have my doubts.

No, this is the guy who defended Soviet-style central planning as superior to capitalism. Unless his entire personality is an elaborate parody, it's serious.

small problem. god-king style authoritarianism is like the second or third longest lasting and widely practiced type of human social organization. so in so far as we aren't merely saying that everything fails eventually, then certain forms of authoritarianism clearly have stronger track records than somewhat anti-authoritarian liberal democracy does, in terms of staying power.

Well, I'm going to use an explanation that I hate, because I think that blaming it on something like this is usually a cop out, but religion is mainly to blame. The reason people didn't rise up against the government then was because they felt that it would all be solved in the afterlife, and that the earth was meant to be a chaotic mess aimed at testing humanity. Of course there are probably other reasons as well.

(I don't think there's a single "authoritarian" who would want to live in a dictatorship unless they were, of course, a dictator or someone in a position of power)

This is exactly the reason behind the revolutions of the world. As Bertrand de Jouvenel noted, there was no successful revolution against Henry VIII, Louis XIV or Peter the Great, because there is an admiration for brutality and envy of one's betters in the masses (the destruction of these betters also favors the State because it eliminates its competitors and strengthens its authority.) Rather, there are revolutions against Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas II because they are weak rulers and the revolutionaries wish to take the reins of power directly instead of leaving them in the hands of those who are too powerless to help their cause.

Let's all point at EA and laugh. That's what should be done to authoritarians that aren't in power. Should they BE in power, they should be shot, preferably after torture.

North Korea truly is a bastion of freedom, democracy and progress that we should all strive to model ourselves after, along with other paragons such as Libya, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe.

of course, the authoritarians deny that we should strive for freedom, democracy, and progress.

(I don't think there's a single "authoritarian" who would want to live in a dictatorship unless they were, of course, a dictator or someone in a position of power)

i think history shows you wrong

But to an authoritarian the acts of Stalin, Pol Pot etc were necessary to establish this new unifying ideological order.
No, they weren't.

I'm an authoritarian, and I completely don't support either of those people, especially not Pol Pot, who killed a staggering 30% of his own population, some on the grounds that they wore glasses.

I don't think anyone could support either of those people, really. They're both complete nutters.

It means you have to think what you're told to think or you'll get the shit kicked out of you.

But that's not what the "collective will" actually implies... if it means we consider what people in general ("collective") want ("will"), we'll have to make rather large allowances for individual freedom. Who wants to be a mindless, brainwashed, conformist slave... always? People are different; they want the right to live their lives as they see fit.

Authoritarianism generally seems to imply something more like the will of an individual, or of the few, forcibly imposed upon everyone else... not the collective will of all.

I'm an authoritarian...

Really? In what sense?

Really? In what sense?
Well in terms of "if there was someone capable at the top, I'd probably not be too fussed, seeing as the general public don't really elect the presidents and prime ministers of the world, seeing as their party does that, so meh to it all to be honest".

I don't really mind living in a democracy, though, and a rubbish dictator is always a bit sad.

Let's all point at EA and laugh. That's what should be done to authoritarians that aren't in power. Should they BE in power, they should be shot, preferably after torture.

...then hung in the square, shot repeatedly, burn their bodies and throw them into a river.

Well in terms of "if there was someone capable at the top, I'd probably not be too fussed, seeing as the general public don't really elect the presidents and prime ministers of the world, seeing as their party does that, so meh to it all to be honest".


But do you think that there will ever be someone capable? and, what are your thoughts on civil liberties and censorship etc...? I'm not sure that supporting a one party state, with a ruler who rules by decree, can be called authoritarian on its own.

But do you think that there will ever be someone capable?
Not really sure on the matter. The main problem is that most dictators reckon that they're extremely charismatic and intelligent polymaths, and they usually consider themselves to be an authority on military matters, too. Which is usually mostly completely wrong.

Still, just as likely to get someone decent taking power and keeping it as you are someone decent being elected, not that one really gets the choice of who is the electable head of whichever party.
and, what are your thoughts on civil liberties
Basically that people can do that which they like in their everyday lives, just as long as nobody else is going to get hurt - no guns, no illegal drugs. Both of those cause a whole load of damage, although I sure as hell don't want to get bogged down into a debate on those two issues in this topic.
and censorship etc...?
If it's not true and worth knowing, no real reason to print it, and sensationalist papers would be shut down (no to the Daily Mail, Mirror, Express etc.)
I'm not sure that supporting a one party state, with a ruler who rules by decree, can be called authoritarian on its own.
Pretty sure it is imho, but you might care to enlighten me on your view on the matter.


*edits*

All that being said, as I pointed out previously, I don't really mind our current system, it just seems like a bit of a waste of time to have to jump through the PR hoops is all.

Ah ok, thanks for the answers, just two more questions (first time I've ever talked to a authoritarian who's not an idiot ;)):

Just to be clear, are you for banning of papers that just print false articles often, or also papers that print pointless articles that are not worth knowing?

Do you not think there is a danger of having a dictator able to rule by decree, without any limits on his power?

Ah ok, thanks for the answers, just two more questions (first time I've ever talked to a authoritarian who's not an idiot ;)) :

Just to be clear, are you for banning of papers that just print false articles often, or also papers that print pointless articles that are not worth knowing?
Bit of an overlap, but really it's more about false articles (exceptions being made for if the articles were satire, rather than just being poorly researched dross) than pointless stories, although the real focus would be on alarmism rather than than anything else - obviously, there is overlap in that respect.

Might be a bit hard to enforce, mind, which is something that, again, seems to be ignored time and time again by dictators around the world.
Do you not think there is a danger of having a dictator able to rule by decree, without any limits on his power?
Not really, seeing as if they get out of hand, then they get the same treatment as Ceauşescu in Romania. Taken out and shot, for all to see.

That's something that you won't get with a democractic government, largely because it has a thin veneer of legitimacy at all times, something that a dictatorship generally doesn't doesn't.

Authoritarianism is really about producing results, and when that stops happening, then you get something new, be that another, different dictator coming to power, or elections.

Not really, seeing as if they get out of hand, then they get the same treatment as Ceauşescu in Romania. Taken out and shot, for all to see.


I think what tends to happen more is a violent and bloody revolution, without first enduring this dictators oppression for a long while. I don't think this is a good safeguard, as revolutions often lead to worse governments.

I think what tends to happen more is a violent and bloody revolution
Sometimes that occurs, sometimes is doesn't. You get as many Velvet Revolutions as October Revolutions, in this day and age.
without first enduring this dictators oppression for a long while.
A fair point, but people are just as happy to stick with a democratic system that's getting them nowhere fast. The last 30 years of democracy in Britain have gotten us nowhere fast, let's be honest.
I don't think this is a good safeguard, as revolutions often lead to worse governments.
In the case of kicking out mad dictators, it's pretty safe to say that anything would be better, and most revolutionaries in dictatorial states are the educated middle classes, the kind of people who are usually in favour of a more moderate form of government, see what happened all over Eastern Europe in 1989.

I agree with Yootopia. Pol Pot, Hitler et al were psychopaths, but that doesn't mean that to have an authoritarian government you have to have a psychopath at the helm (that can happen in a democracy too, and indeed psychopathic mass murders do often start off gaining power though popular vote

As was mentioned earlier in this thread too, there is a longer track record of authoritarian systems than democratic ones, so to point only to modern failed examples run by head cases.

I think one thing that should be clear (at least it is for me) is that what matters is not so much democracy as making things work well for the nation. No system is perfect, but Singapore, Dubai, Bhutan are some examples.

I think some of the biggest problems faced by a modern authoritarian government is that so much hypocrisy is often involved. Democracy is the fad of the day and everyone's got to have it, and the claiming of being democratic (fake elections, or claiming "people power" etc) allows people who would otherwise openly be seen a bad leaders and either waited out or manoeuvred out can hide behind this veneer.

Personally I do not care for that. I want my nation to be good at what it does and to be a better place to live, not by the number of elections we have, but by things that actually impact on day to day life.

and sensationalist papers would be shut down

One reason why absolute freedom of speech is a bad idea... The Mail...

"Evil Muslim-Commie-Terrorists Ate My Baby!!!!" :rolleyes:

I have decided to start this thread is dedication to authoritarians off all stripes on NSG and our noble philosophy. Us authoritarians fundamentally are opposed to individual freedom, civil liberties and all forms of encouraging selfish mindsets. We hold the patriotic(collective) interest above the particular interest, and believe selfish ideologies such as libertarianism are socially corrosive and regenerative to the community. Whether far-left or far-right, authoritarians believe in a self-perpetuating collective will as an embodiment of a people. Authoritarianism includes includes militarism, which looks to the military as a perfect example of discipline and selfless service to the collective. Authoritarianism therefore opposes pluralism and multi-party liberal democracy because it promotes difference of opinion and conflict, instead of harmony and interdependence. Authoritarianism instead promotes one-party states as the true embodiment of democracy because they represent civic pride and a progressive mindset within a one-track guiding ideology.

This passage smacks of being carefully composed and "smartened-up" with long words ... to the point where you couldn't even read it yourself.

I have decided to start this thread is dedication to authoritarians off all stripes on NSG and our noble philosophy. Us authoritarians fundamentally are opposed to individual freedom, civil liberties and all forms of encouraging selfish mindsets. We hold the patriotic(collective) interest above the particular interest, and believe selfish ideologies such as libertarianism are socially corrosive and regenerative to the community. Whether far-left or far-right, authoritarians believe in a self-perpetuating collective will as an embodiment of a people. Authoritarianism includes includes militarism, which looks to the military as a perfect example of discipline and selfless service to the collective. Authoritarianism therefore opposes pluralism and multi-party liberal democracy because it promotes difference of opinion and conflict, instead of harmony and interdependence. Authoritarianism instead promotes one-party states as the true embodiment of democracy because they represent civic pride and a progressive mindset within a one-track guiding ideology.

Drivel.

Can you even explain what you are saying?

No, they weren't.

I'm an authoritarian, and I completely don't support either of those people, especially not Pol Pot, who killed a staggering 30% of his own population, some on the grounds that they wore glasses.

I don't think anyone could support either of those people, really. They're both complete nutters.

Like Noam Chomsky? (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf)

Like Noam Chomsky? (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf)
Chomsky's a prick, I'm pretty sure that everyone who's not dogmatically anti-US can tell that. He knows his stuff about English. Not so hot on realistic portrayals of History.

That said - had the US not backed up Pol Pot in the UN, his régime would have sunk like a bloody stone.

Chomsky's a prick, I'm pretty sure that everyone who's not dogmatically anti-US can tell that. He knows his stuff about English. Not so hot on realistic portrayals of History.

That said - had the US not backed up Pol Pot in the UN, his régime would have sunk like a bloody stone.

We only backed him up after his regime fell, and even then only because he was fighting against a pro-Soviet Vietnamese-installed government (although to be fair, we aided people from across the political spectrum who were fighting against that government), and we weren't the only ones who did so; doesn't make it right, but still.

We only backed him up after his regime fell, and even then only because he was fighting against a pro-Soviet Vietnamese-installed government (although to be fair, we aided people from across the political spectrum who were fighting against that government), and we weren't the only ones who did so; doesn't make it right, but still.
No, you backed him up because the US was extremely pissed with the Vietnamese and he was ethnically cleansing them from Cambodia, in addition to generally fighting the war against Vietnam.

Your source, by the way, fights bullshit with bullshit, especially on the 'soviet backed nutters' bit, for example - Idi Amin : supported by Great Britain and the US primarily, to prevent communists from getting power, and Saddam Hussein :

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/rumsfeld-hussein.jpg

'nuff said.


Still, yes, baddie dictators = baddies, and Chomsky remains a tit.

No, you backed him up because the US was extremely pissed with the Vietnamese and he was ethnically cleansing them from Cambodia, in addition to generally fighting the war against Vietnam.

That, too. And again, we never supported him while he was in power. We supported his predecessor, Lon Nol.

Your source, by the way, fights bullshit with bullshit, especially on the 'soviet backed nutters' bit, for example - Idi Amin : supported by Great Britain and the US primarily, to prevent communists from getting power, and Saddam Hussein : http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/rumsfeld-hussein.jpg

'nuff said.

Um...you do know that Idi Amin was supported by the Soviets, right? His military was equipped by Soviet weapons. His secret police was trained by East Germany. His regime was very close to Gaddafi's Libya, which was a Soviet ally. Although Amin, of course, was an opportunist tit who would parrot the line of whoever supported him. He initially appealed to the UK and Israel for military aid (to invade Tanzania), but they turned him down, so he turned to the East. And, in order to win moolah from the Saudis and Libyans, he began parroting all their anti-Semitic tripe, and was richly rewarded. Amin had no ideology or agenda other than to stay in power, and would accept help from anyone who would give it, and sing after them like a parrot (then again, that's how most Cold War African dictators were).

As for Saddam, the vast majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990) of his stuff came from the Eastern Bloc; U.S. aid was peanuts in comparison.

Still, yes, baddie dictators = baddies, and Chomsky remains a tit.

Concurred.

I would also like to add that during the Cold War, the U.S. would regularly support communist countries and movements if they were anti-Soviet: the PRC (post-1971), Somalia (post-1977), Romania under Ceauşescu, the Khmer Rouge (after they were overthrown), etc. Our policy was not so much "anticommunist" as it was "anti-Soviet."

I have decided to start this thread is dedication to authoritarians off all stripes on NSG and our noble philosophy. Us authoritarians fundamentally are opposed to individual freedom, civil liberties and all forms of encouraging selfish mindsets. We hold the patriotic(collective) interest above the particular interest, and believe selfish ideologies such as libertarianism are socially corrosive and regenerative to the community. Whether far-left or far-right, authoritarians believe in a self-perpetuating collective will as an embodiment of a people. Authoritarianism includes includes militarism, which looks to the military as a perfect example of discipline and selfless service to the collective. Authoritarianism therefore opposes pluralism and multi-party liberal democracy because it promotes difference of opinion and conflict, instead of harmony and interdependence. Authoritarianism instead promotes one-party states as the true embodiment of democracy because they represent civic pride and a progressive mindset within a one-track guiding ideology.

Is this sarcasm? I can't tell from you.

It's so much fun when people base an entire thread on a word they don't really understand. :)

Authoritarians, as the OP is attempting to describe them, and authoritarian leaders are NOT necessarily the same thing. So while it is correct to describe leaders like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc., as authoritarian leaders, it is not necessarily correct to label them as authoritarian.

When we describe a totalitarian or monarchical government as "authoritarian," we are describing, specifically, total concentration of power into the hands of a single person. However, 50 years of sociological and psychological studies indicate that such a person is extremely unlikely to have the kind of obsessive concern for social structure that authoritarian people generally have. Such leaders, instead, have a charismatic and narcissistic personality of total self-centeredness that does not really care at all about "society," in the end.

The term "authoritarian" when describing people (as opposed to a style of governing) is a term of psychology. It describes a kind of personality that is generally fearful, views the world as dangerous and actively hostile (often in a vague way, meaning there is no clear idea of where the danger comes from or where it doesn't), and only feels safe when ensconced in the middle of an extremely rigid and clearly defined social order in which everyone knows their place and sticks to it at all times, and which is controlled by a single point of authority -- usually a charismatic leader -- who can never, ever be questioned, no matter what. Or else, whatever the authoritarian is afraid of will come to pass.

Authoritarians are, in a sense, worshippers of authority, but they are not authorities themselves, because their fearfulness generally stops them taking the necessary risks of taking charge for themselves. Authoritarians are the followers of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Obviously, there is a symbiotic dependence between them and the charismatic narcissists who become their leaders, but they are two different critters. By the way, it is an interesting quirk of authoritarians that they will only accept leaders that they deem "appropriate" or "legitimate." Not just any old charismatic narcissist will do. But when they do accept a leader, and for as long as they consider him "legitimate," they will not waiver from him, even to the point of their own destruction.

After WW2, several studies were begun about how fascism happened. These studies are ongoing to this day. It is their 50 years of accumulated data so far that give us this definition of "authoritarian." They also tell us that authoritarians are born, not made, and that at all times roughly 25% of the human population will be authoritarian personalities. When societies face extreme stresses, more people will tend to buy into the authoritarian world view, but this is always temporary. As the stresses ease or people get used to them, they start to abandon the authoritarian measures they had previously approved. However, there will always be that approximate 25% that never waiver from that position. Interesting, isn't it, that Bush's approvals have been stuck between 25% & 30% for so long? Apparently, that really is his base.

Another quirk of authoritarians is that they are very, very, very seldom communists or other kinds of leftists. They are overwhelming politically right wing and always have been. This is because the lefist philosophies' emphasis on equality -- even the false equality of Stalin's USSR -- is anathema to the authoritarian mindset. They simply do not believe that people are equal. Period. And they believe that to treat people as if they are equal would undermine the rigid (hierarchical) social order which is the only thing that keeps us (or at least, them) safe from extinction.

So all that stuff about authoritarians merging themselves into the collective will is bunk, because words like that are an authoritarian's worst nightmare.

Also, since "authoritarian" is a personality type, not a political ideology, it is impossible to pursuade people to that way of thinking for more than a short time, when they are under certain kinds of severe stress, as I said above.

If you want to understand authoritarianism, I highly recommend John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience:
http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0670037745

Also, here are three of Dean's columns for FindLaw on the same subject:
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html
http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070921.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070925.html

And here is a page about the work of Dr. Bob Altemeyer, Manitoba University, who is the current head of the above-mentioned 50-year research project. It has links to pdfs of at least one of his papers on the subject:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Note: The actual results of the studies have never been published for non-expert consumption, because, according to Altemeyer, the findings are too easily misinterpreted, and he doesn't want non-experts testing themselves and deciding that they are scary nazi-zombies, especially if they really aren't. John Dean's book is practically the only access for the layperson to this research.

I just thought this was needed given the libertarian slime infesting these forums.

So, does this mean you started this thread only to annoy "libertarian slime"?

Do you have any interest in Authoritarianism after all?

Do you, after what you see to read in this thread, still call yourself "an authoritarian"?

Human nature is infinitely malleable under specific environments.

This is your last post to the thread. You get slaughtered even on this feeble remnant of your original position.

I honestly think you are just picking a fight with anyone who'll give it to you, and don't even care if you look completely stupid. Libertarians are a minority on NSG, they aren't the Liberal Bogeyman you seem think they are.

Nor is Authoritarianism the contraposition to Liberalism or Libertarianism.

In other words, you either don't know what you're talking about, or you are trolling.

And a style tip: the Thesaurus is not a magic wand to make your words longer and more meaningful. The longer and more obscure word usually has a more narrow meaning, and you should use the dictionary as well to make sure it means what you want to say.

__________________________________

Here are some posts which might support your position. You could say perhaps "I agree" or "I disagree", some small sign that you have taken the time to read your own thread.

(They are not in the order they were posted, but rather I tried to put the more easily-worded ones to the top.)

No, they weren't.

I'm an authoritarian, and I completely don't support either of those people, especially not Pol Pot, who killed a staggering 30% of his own population, some on the grounds that they wore glasses.

I don't think anyone could support either of those people, really. They're both complete nutters.

*...* Without at least friendly competition, societies tend to stagnate. It seems to me that, historically, the greatest breakthroughs in science (social and physical) has arisen from conflict of some sort, be it friendly or be it deadly. Without the ability to criticize and be criticized, society degenerates into a sickly static cesspool. And stagnancy tends to lead to failure/destruction.

*...*

Authoritarianism is really about producing results, and when that stops happening, then you get something new, be that another, different dictator coming to power, or elections.

small problem. god-king style authoritarianism is like the second or third longest lasting and widely practiced type of human social organization. so in so far as we aren't merely saying that everything fails eventually, then certain forms of authoritarianism clearly have stronger track records than somewhat anti-authoritarian liberal democracy does, in terms of staying power.

I agree with Yootopia. Pol Pot, Hitler et al were psychopaths, but that doesn't mean that to have an authoritarian government you have to have a psychopath at the helm (that can happen in a democracy too, and indeed psychopathic mass murders do often start off gaining power though popular vote

As was mentioned earlier in this thread too, there is a longer track record of authoritarian systems than democratic ones, so to point only to modern failed examples run by head cases.

I think one thing that should be clear (at least it is for me) is that what matters is not so much democracy as making things work well for the nation. No system is perfect, but Singapore, Dubai, Bhutan are some examples.

I think some of the biggest problems faced by a modern authoritarian government is that so much hypocrisy is often involved. Democracy is the fad of the day and everyone's got to have it, and the claiming of being democratic (fake elections, or claiming "people power" etc) allows people who would otherwise openly be seen a bad leaders and either waited out or manoeuvred out can hide behind this veneer.

Personally I do not care for that. I want my nation to be good at what it does and to be a better place to live, not by the number of elections we have, but by things that actually impact on day to day life.

This is exactly the reason behind the revolutions of the world. As Bertrand de Jouvenel noted, there was no successful revolution against Henry VIII, Louis XIV or Peter the Great, because there is an admiration for brutality and envy of one's betters in the masses (the destruction of these betters also favors the State because it eliminates its competitors and strengthens its authority.) Rather, there are revolutions against Charles I, Louis XVI and Nicholas II because they are weak rulers and the revolutionaries wish to take the reins of power directly instead of leaving them in the hands of those who are too powerless to help their cause.

(For reference, the Absolutist Party. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=530128&highlight=absolutist+party))

Authoritarianism is merely a manifestation of the animal nature of man. Authoritarianism can only survive in an environment of hatred of one's betters, hatred of one's own shortcomings, a climate of eternal fear and crisis that causes one to hand over their freedoms, and a worship of 'the people' that is merely the descendant of man's mystical obedience to taboos for fear of angering the spirits. It is a religion of the worst kind.

Like Noam Chomsky? (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf).
______________________________________

Here is another approach, the "common-sense definition" approach. This poster gives you an easy way out of the ridiculous position you were being backed into early in the thread ... before you gave up.


Authoritarianism generally seems to imply something more like the will of an individual, or of the few, forcibly imposed upon everyone else... not the collective will of all.

I'll add: simply say what you meant when you claimed to be "an authoritarian."
Just say it, simply.
_______________________________________

Last, but certainly not least, is Muravyets very informative mini-essay on what Authoritarianism actually is. It's long, and just above this on the page, so I'll only link to it:

Muravyets defines it for ya. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13205327)

________________________________________

I see from the search function that you don't have all day to post on NSG, and perhaps you are busy during the week.

I'll wait. I want to see some sign that you have treated the many excellent posters who have offered insights into Authoritarianism with at least a read-through.

You got what you asked for in the OP, and if the language is too hard for you, that's your own fault for couching your ignorance in such pretentious terms.

What say you, Eureka Australis?

And Hamilay said what I should have said, because regardless the issue, NSG is never black and white, nor any poster in their words.Switch your forum settings from NewJOLT back to NationStates and you'll see the error of those words. Nothing on NationStates is gray (save the post time headlines and reply buttons). *nods sagely*





:p

Switch your forum settings from NewJOLT back to NationStates and you'll see the error of those words. Nothing on NationStates is gray (save the post time headlines and reply buttons). *nods sagely*





:p

lol

Switch your forum settings from NewJOLT back to NationStates and you'll see the error of those words. Nothing on NationStates is gray (save the post time headlines and reply buttons). *nods sagely*


While I like a bit of spamming and jokin' around as much as the next poster, a few pages of this would give Eureka Australis all the excuse he needs to not answer.

I'll ask you kindly not to do that. There was some excellent debate in this thread, and I think EA really should read it, troll or not.

While I like a bit of spamming and jokin' around as much as the next poster, a few pages of this would give Eureka Australis all the excuse he needs to not answer.

I'll ask you kindly not to do that. There was some excellent debate in this thread, and I think EA really should read it, troll or not.A truly excellent debate will not be derailed by the occasional joke. This is NSG afterall. I have my doubts as to whether a little post like that will really keep EA from reading this.

If I was the ruler of a country, I would expect my citizens to embrace equality, freedom and dissent. Those who didn't would be shot.

Those who didn't do so would be embracing dissent. ;)

If I was the ruler of a country, I would expect my citizens to embrace equality, freedom and dissent. Those who didn't would be shot.

They would be pardoned posthumously.

Fair enough...I think. :p

Those who didn't do so would be embracing dissent. ;)

They would be pardoned posthumously.

If I was the ruler of a country, I would expect my citizens to embrace equality, freedom and dissent. Those who didn't would be shot.

You've successfully managed to reinterpret "live free or die" to be a threat...

You've successfully managed to reinterpret "live free or die" to be a threat...

:D

I've gotten the idea that the world is round and that I'm being kept from being tossed off by it's rotation by means of gravity drummed into me too.

^

Lost cause.

Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc are all among the worst characters of the 20th century. What do they all have in common? They were all authoritarians.

you are missing the equally, EQUALLY bad Augusto Pinochet, Suharto, Mobuto, etc.... equally bad. not slightly less worse, certainly not "moderates"

you are missing the equally, EQUALLY bad Augusto Pinochet, Suharto, Mobuto, etc.... equally bad. not slightly less worse, certainly not "moderates"

Um...Pinochet killed a few thousand, not millions. How is he "equally bad?"

Well, Eureka Australis?

It's the next day now.

I'm going to keep coming back and looking for the post of yours that says you took the time to read this thread.

And each day, if you post something like this:

WARNING OTHER POSTERS, LINK TO OTHER THREADEureka Australis on Hugo Chavez vs King of Spain (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13208930)WARNING OTHER POSTERS, LINK TO OTHER THREAD

... I am going to jump at you, call you a hypocrit and other bad words, and link back to this thread.

One of the reasons I'm bullying you (and I am: I'm much smarter than you, I have a better education and many years of life experience to draw on, and I have all day if I choose, to prepare and pursue this case) ... one of the reasons I'm going in so hard on this is your choice of user-name.

The Eureka Stockade was a sad little rebellion, with racist implications but essentially guys who didn't want to pay their tax, fighting cops and losing. Even so, I find it slightly insulting to Australia and her history to see her name and "Eureka" attached to your opinions.

That's an irrational thing, certainly not something I'd go complain to Moderation about. I see a play on words which I should like but don't: "you reek of Australia" ... gee, why wouldn't I find that funny? It's just a thought for when you next choose a user name.

you are missing the equally, EQUALLY bad Augusto Pinochet, Suharto, Mobuto, etc.... equally bad. not slightly less worse, certainly not "moderates"
Uh...Pinochet is not even comparable to Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini...ect:rolleyes:

I do support constitutional dictatorship, which is similar to what you advocate. A dictator with some rules and regulations, but no messy legislature to deal with.

I do support constitutional dictatorship, which is similar to what you advocate. A dictator with some rules and regulations, but no messy legislature to deal with.

But! ... But! ... *splutter*

ATTENTION: Text-book example of what an authoritarian is, for those who are interested. (Ref. my earlier "mini-essay" on authoritarianism.

I do support constitutional dictatorship, which is similar to what you advocate. A dictator with some rules and regulations, but no messy legislature to deal with.
That's because, based on your posts in NSG, you are a real authoritarian -- a worshipper of power who is happy to abase himself before a charismatic leader without question or limits, just so long as he continues to say the things you want to hear, and as long as he enforces a social hierarchy that defines what you are as "the good" and places you solidly in the middle of the social ladder. That way, you will always have a strongman to hide behind, a buffer of superiors above you to protect you from personal responsibility for the results of social/political policy, and a menagerie of "lesser beings" (people below you in the social order) for you to crap on because you're "better" than them, as the privilege granted you by your position in the order. As long as you have that privilege, you can know that the oh-so-vital order is intact, and the "dear leader" of the moment still still loves you. (Btw, in case you're wondering, your "lesser beings" of choice at the moment have been gays.)

In fact, I would say the only point of personal dishonesty in your post above -- the only weak attempt to deflect the authoritarian label -- is that reference to a "constitutional" dictatorship. That is nonsense, of course, because you know perfectly well that a dictator doesn't need a constitution to give him legitimacy because they hold absolute power with no outside limitations whatsoever. Since you desire a dictator, you obviously feel no need for "rules and regulations" because, to accept a dictator, you would have to trust him completely, so what need would he have for rules to follow? Someone who willingly follows a dictator would take all their cues from their leader, not from any set of laws written by someone they had not personally accepted as their leader and who was not there to hand out rewards and punishments for loyalty and conformity to the social order, or vice versa.

However, that pointless equivocation also serves as an example of authoritarian thinking. It goes with the quirk that authoritarians only accept absolute leaders who they personally approve of as "legitimate." Your legitimacy requirement would be lip-service to a constitution, even though, as a dictator, your dream leader would not actually be bound to obey any such thing.

you are missing the equally, EQUALLY bad Augusto Pinochet, Suharto, Mobuto, etc.... equally bad. not slightly less worse, certainly not "moderates"

Pinochet killed around three thousand (hardly comparable), Mobuto was a nepotistic kleptocrat whose singular goal was the direct looting of the Zairian economy and Suharto had a hangup with vengeance and paranoia.

Pinochet killed around three thousand (hardly comparable), Mobuto was a nepotistic kleptocrat whose singular goal was the direct looting of the Zairian economy and Suharto had a hangup with vengeance and paranoia.

I think these guys deserve to be in the second tier of competitors in the Evil Derby Days, because they get points for style, at the very least. I mean, take another one, Robert Mugabe, for instance -- He didn't kill anywhere near as many as Pol Pot - not even a fraction - but he ATE his victims as well. That's gotta count for something.

As for Saddam, the vast majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990) of his stuff came from the Eastern Bloc; U.S. aid was peanuts in comparison.




Actually, I might add, US aid was peanuts in comparison to the aid provided by Brazil, let alone the USSR and PRC.

I think these guys deserve to be in the second tier of competitors in the Evil Derby Days, because they get points for style, at the very least. I mean, take another one, Robert Mugabe, for instance -- He didn't kill anywhere near as many as Pol Pot - not even a fraction - but he ATE his victims as well. That's gotta count for something.

Most definitely, if you can do with style and class, you get bonus points in the baddie department.

I believe that the people are best served through the preservation of individual rights. Look at history - dictatorships almost always turn out badly. Democracy has a far better track record.

You point to Singapore, as an example of a dictatorship that did well? I point to the United States, which went from a backward ex-colony to THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD.

I believe that the people are best served through the preservation of individual rights.
Which ones?

All of them?
Look at history - dictatorships almost always turn out badly.
Erm.

Maybe for a child of 1776, yes, but in all of human history? Not really better or worse than democracy.
Democracy has a far better track record.
Err, it's not really been around in its current form for particularly long, let's be honest.
You point to Singapore, as an example of a dictatorship that did well?
See also Rome, China, Italy from 1924-1936 (bit shite after, too much Hitler love), Napoleonic France, Macedon and The Empahr, as well as Egypt.
I point to the United States, which went from a backward ex-colony to THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD.
So?

China's never been one for much general freedom, and in the last 3000 years, they've basically been at the top for pretty much the whole time. Yes, they're taking a short stint out of being top for a while, but in 50 years, we'll totally be their bitches again.

Of course nobody minds when a boot is down on someone's throat and a gun in their face...

So long as you're the one in the boot and wielding the gun.

You like authoritarianism so much, live for a month in North Korea or Burma. When you come back to your first-world paradise, you'll be a bleeding-heart liberal.

Which ones?

All of them?

Erm.

Maybe for a child of 1776, yes, but in all of human history? Not really better or worse than democracy.

Err, it's not really been around in its current form for particularly long, let's be honest.

See also Rome, China, Italy from 1924-1936 (bit shite after, too much Hitler love), Napoleonic France, Macedon and The Empahr, as well as Egypt.

So?

China's never been one for much general freedom, and in the last 3000 years, they've basically been at the top for pretty much the whole time. Yes, they're taking a short stint out of being top for a while, but in 50 years, we'll totally be their bitches again.
I'm not even going to bother addressing this nonsense point-for-non-point. You claim a list of historical examples, but neglect to mention that every single one of those examples had just as big issues and failures as modern ones and as democratic ones. As for what China did in the past and what it might do in the future, I do not care. Neither China nor ancient Macedon are models for how I wish to live my life.

The bottom line is this: People are either willing to submit to the total authority of a strongman, or they are not. One way or the other, it's how we are born. I am not willing to submit to strongmen, so people can spin their little tales about how much nicer and easier it would be for me in the long run, and it will not matter. I choose to live differently, under my own control, in a society that respects my human and civil liberties, a society which is democratic and egalitarian, which places no person above another, and which is ruled by laws, not men. And I do not care whether you or the OP or anyone else thinks that's not a good way to live. I will not give it up.

You know why? Because -- and this is hitting the bedrock here; this is the one thing that no argument can overcome -- I simply do not believe that anyone is superior to me. There is no one in the world who I consider good enough to rule me. Period. That's how I was born -- not authoritarian.

So, as I've been saying, authoritarians are born, not made. Authoritarians will never accept my way of living, and non-authoritarians will never accept their way of living. And this is why quibbling over whether this system is better or that system is nicer is just so much chin music. It's also why there has never been a period of history in which every human being lived under the same kind of governmental or social system, and why those systems keep changing again and again.

Any authoritarian would have to impose his will on my country over my dead body.

Any authoritarian would have to impose his will on my country over my dead body.

That's the point friend, you know, weeding out the weak.

That's the point friend, you know, weeding out the weak.

George Washington would kick Adolf Hitler's ass.

That's the point friend, you know, weeding out the weak.

Is this your definition of "authoritarian" then ?

Yes, I am on-topic here. Do you still call yourself "an authoritarian" ...?

That's on-topic because your OP called for unity between authoritarians, on the premise that you ARE ONE.

It's not a thing I'd be proud to call myself, particularly after reading Muravyets' points on the psychological type "authoritarian." (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13205327) But there is no shame, none whatsoever, in being honest about oneself.

So, are you an authoritarian ?

'What my rivals don't understand... is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela' - Hugo Chavez

That was actually quite clever. I instantly thought of "I am the State" and it seems others did too.

Trollish, but clever. Trollish, because you do not offer an opinion of your own but rather make an insinuation. You could have used that quote to back an assertion of your own, but of course you would need to be able to show that this quote truly reflected an arrogant egotism in Chavez.

You're a prick, and a stupid one at that :)

Yootopia, please don't risk a ban for such a cheap shot. Even a warning to your name is worth more than Eureka Australis' whole posting career so far.

Random caveat: It's Mobutu, not Mobuto.

I just thought this was needed given the libertarian slime infesting these forums.

I don't think the presence of one kind of slime makes another kind of slime necessary. Having authoritarians just because you have libertarians is like having mold just because you have wet bird shit.

Edit: Oh, and just for the lulz... "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!"

It's all about philosophic position and moral relativity my friend. You on one hand have been drummed with the idea since you were born that every individual life is sacred, of individual rights and liberties and to this day you are a product of that. But an authoritarian like me the individual is meaningless and has no value when outside the collective, to the authoritarian the natural purpose of man is to serve selflessly to his fellow men, someone who's nature is to quarrel and compete rather than obey is out of nature itself, and no longer human.

You are apt in pointing out that the individual in an authoritarian state is a worthless, or even an impeding, bother in the grand vision of the grand architect. Which leads me to pointing out to you, my psychopathic friend, that you - as an individual - are worthless. This cult of the individual which you fail to realize you are caught up in when speaking of moral relativity regarding authoritarian-X or authoritarian-Y is outstanding.

Authoritarians of your stripe like to think of themselves as a grand visionary. As if you, by some divine right (or equally faulty justification), are a prodigy. As if you have excelled in developing a grand vision that us "liberal minded" folks simply can't see. Possibly due to your delusionary views founded on faulty logic.

When you speak of moral relativity, you seem to be taking the theories of moral relativity to an illogical height that only demonstrates further your delusionary thought processes. To you, personally, torture, genocide, and eradication of the rights of man are simply notions to play with. Not to be taken seriously or to be gravely disturbed by them, you seem to place them on a pillar as if these concepts are something holy. Which tells me you are a very angry, and very disturbed little boy. Possibly sheltered too. You've probably been picked on by a bully in your life, maybe two - and disempowered as you are, fantasize about forcing your hand against populations that have done nothing to you.

You fail to understand the logical conclusions of your advocated views. Which would be hilarious if it did not seem like you were serious. You could fumble just as easy as any bug you might squash along the way and be taken out to the streets and shot. And best of all, this could happen when others take your advocations as the letter of the law. which ought to be followed just as closely. Thus, you would become only another casualty - some worthless individual - who impeded societies progress. And heaven forbid you as some weaselly little individual would do that.

Keep on following the cult of the individual when mentally masturbating over your deluded and demented authoritarian viewpoint. Don't mind me, I'm only another bug impeding your grand visions progress.

So who here likes Pinochet!

So who here likes Pinochet!

I enjoy it with some cheese and fresh fruit.

Oh, wait, that's not a wine, is it?

I enjoy it with some cheese and fresh fruit.

Oh, wait, that's not a wine, is it?

You win. hahaha!

I believe that the people are best served through the preservation of individual rights. Look at history - dictatorships almost always turn out badly. Democracy has a far better track record.

In the entirety of human recorded history, that is hardly true. Democracy is for the most part an experiment of the modern era (post 1750). Monarchy is system of government with the longest history. It should also be noted that you statement about individual rights isn't directly related. Non-democratic government may, or may not, preserve individual rights.

For example, because a nation doesn't hold elections, does not automatically mean that the people of that nation don't have right to marry freely, choice to abort, freedom of religion etc. Some may be present, some not.

My personal belief is that some rights are beneficial, some damaging, but that is another subject for another time.


You point to Singapore, as an example of a dictatorship that did well? I point to the United States, which went from a backward ex-colony to THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD.

AND MAKING MY POINT IN CAPITAL LETTERS SHOWS I'M RIGHT. How deliciously, ironically, Ozymandias :rolleyes:

I was not pointing to Singapore as an example of a world dominating power (though for a population of 4 million, the nation punches far in excess of demographic weight) but as a nation that works. Public service, welfare, housing and social cohesion, social security and stability.

In these areas the rulers deliver to the people more effectively than any of the democracies in that region, and doesn't make dissidents into tasty dinner appetisers by the score (or maybe they do, and I never got invited to the right kind of parties, who knows? But I doubt it. I'm sure that would violate all kinds of very Singaporean health and hygiene regulations)

However should you wish to make the point about super-powers, most world powers haven't been democracies, and more democracy doesn't mean more world power.

The US is far les democratic than nations such as Canada, Sweden, Germany and Spain, though they are less powerful. Obvious Democracy=Might isn't a logical assumption, especially since all the other countries mentioned are less powerful than China, which for most of the post classical era has been the worlds dominant political, cultural and technological power.

You know why? Because -- and this is hitting the bedrock here; this is the one thing that no argument can overcome -- I simply do not believe that anyone is superior to me. There is no one in the world who I consider good enough to rule me. Period. That's how I was born -- not authoritarian.Well said.
And sigged.

So who here likes Pinochet!

With a nice chianti, over fava beans, perhaps :D

In the off chance that you're too thick to get through this one, this is a reference to (besides SotL) Robert Mugabe and his...unique...dining tendencies referenced earlier in the thread. There are few things I would desire to eat less than human beings, and for almost all of those things the reason has to do with their debilitating or lethal nature, you know, things Anthrax and whatnot

Monarchy is system of government with the longest history.

after radical egalitarianism, anyway

after radical egalitarianism, anyway

Yep.

Bands ftw!

You are apt in pointing out that the individual in an authoritarian state is a worthless, or even an impeding, bother in the grand vision of the grand architect. Which leads me to pointing out to you, my psychopathic friend, that you - as an individual - are worthless. This cult of the individual which you fail to realize you are caught up in when speaking of moral relativity regarding authoritarian-X or authoritarian-Y is outstanding.

Authoritarians of your stripe like to think of themselves as a grand visionary. As if you, by some divine right (or equally faulty justification), are a prodigy. As if you have excelled in developing a grand vision that us "liberal minded" folks simply can't see. Possibly due to your delusionary views founded on faulty logic.

When you speak of moral relativity, you seem to be taking the theories of moral relativity to an illogical height that only demonstrates further your delusionary thought processes. To you, personally, torture, genocide, and eradication of the rights of man are simply notions to play with. Not to be taken seriously or to be gravely disturbed by them, you seem to place them on a pillar as if these concepts are something holy. Which tells me you are a very angry, and very disturbed little boy. Possibly sheltered too. You've probably been picked on by a bully in your life, maybe two - and disempowered as you are, fantasize about forcing your hand against populations that have done nothing to you.

You fail to understand the logical conclusions of your advocated views. Which would be hilarious if it did not seem like you were serious. You could fumble just as easy as any bug you might squash along the way and be taken out to the streets and shot. And best of all, this could happen when others take your advocations as the letter of the law. which ought to be followed just as closely. Thus, you would become only another casualty - some worthless individual - who impeded societies progress. And heaven forbid you as some weaselly little individual would do that.

Keep on following the cult of the individual when mentally masturbating over your deluded and demented authoritarian viewpoint. Don't mind me, I'm only another bug impeding your grand visions progress.

Quoted for absolute truth

Funny that the self-described collectivist authoritarian is nothing but a cult of personality waiting to happen.

after radical egalitarianism, anyway

Oh?

(Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but genuinely ignorant of the subject.)

That's the point friend, you know, weeding out the weak.

The weak, of course, meaning anyone with enough sense not to start worshipping the mystical boogeyman of the 'collective will.'

after radical egalitarianism, anyway

Radical Egalitarianism being a word for what existed before the state, I assume? The equality of outcome, rather than of opportunity.

True, this has existed longer than monarchy, though not in the context of recorded/written history, just in terms of human existence. We spent a lot of time beating each other over the head with bits of fallen tree branch and living in caves before we developed the ability to record our speech, or indeed had speech at all.

When I was thinking of history, I was thinking in terms of history of society from the point we developed a concept of sophisticated society, and large-scale collaborative works (i.e. irrigation, construction, military) began.

Radical Egalitarianism being a word for what existed before the state, I assume? The equality of outcome, rather than of opportunity.

True, this has existed longer than monarchy, though not in the context of recorded/written history, just in terms of human existence. We spent a lot of time beating each other over the head with bits of fallen tree branch and living in caves before we developed the ability to record our speech, or indeed had speech at all.

When I was thinking of history, I was thinking in terms of history of society from the point we developed a concept of sophisticated society, and large-scale collaborative works (i.e. irrigation, construction, military) began.

You sir, have some big misconceptions about prehistory. People did not go around beating each over the head with trees routinely.

You sir, have some big misconceptions about prehistory. People did not go around beating each over the head with trees routinely.

No, it is you who do. Violence is a part of nature. We've likely been violent to each other for as long as we've been around.

Many animals have physical conflicts over the resources of a territory. This includes our closest relatives.

No, it is you who do. Violence is a part of nature. We've likely been violent to each other for as long as we've been around.

Many animals have physical conflicts over the resources of a territory. This includes our closest relatives.

Well yes, but it was not a constant battle with other groups. Contemporary hunter-gatherer groups, such as the !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari are very peaceful, and abhor violence. They think that conflict is the stupid.

Now, there is always some level of violence, but people didn't fight every group they encountered. If they did then that band of people would die out due to lack of a large gene pool.

You sir, have some big misconceptions about prehistory. People did not go around beating each over the head with trees routinely.

This is true. Customary law developed in order to avoid violence, which is very costly for obvious reason; hence the potency of ostracism.

This is true. Customary law developed in order to avoid violence, which is very costly for obvious reason; hence the potency of ostracism.


Thus meaning that violence must have existed...

You know why? Because -- and this is hitting the bedrock here; this is the one thing that no argument can overcome -- I simply do not believe that anyone is superior to me. There is no one in the world who I consider good enough to rule me. Period. That's how I was born -- not authoritarian.

So if I acknowledge the possibility that there are people who are genuinely superior to me, but posit that the list of such people is quite short, and I have no desire to have them rule over me, where does that put me?

So if I acknowledge the possibility that there are people who are genuinely superior to me, but posit that the list of such people is quite short, and I have no desire to have them rule over me, where does that put me?
In the "humble and quite sane" pidgeonhole of politics.

Thus meaning that violence must have existed...

So? Violence has always existed, and always will. I was pointing out that is was not the norm for prehistory.

So if I acknowledge the possibility that there are people who are genuinely superior to me, but posit that the list of such people is quite short, and I have no desire to have them rule over me, where does that put me?

In the "humble and quite sane" pidgeonhole of politics.

Like Yootopia said. :D

In other words, a few steps closer to center than my political pigeonhole, which is reserved for "ungovernable ego-cases." ;)

Thus meaning that violence must have existed...

Yes, violence existed then. And, it still does. I fail to see the relevance of your comment.

Here here. I agree with you perfectly. Couldn't have been put better myself. For the glory of the state, the collective will of the people.

I believe that the song Refuse/Resist by Sepultura covers my view on authortarians and most governments in general.

link to vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHGlGWEKkhI

Well yes, but it was not a constant battle with other groups. Contemporary hunter-gatherer groups, such as the !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari are very peaceful, and abhor violence. They think that conflict is the stupid.

Now, there is always some level of violence, but people didn't fight every group they encountered. If they did then that band of people would die out due to lack of a large gene pool.

And they still don't fight every group that they encounter. Nothing has changed on this front. Most groups (now nations) have peace most of the time, and fight each other when the interests of two groups are in conflict.

Same as most carnivorous/omnivorous animals that live in social groups really. Chimps, Lions, Hyenas, Wolves, Meerkats for example. The only thing that's different is the scale of conflicts, due to larger populations.

I never mentioned the "hitting your neighbour with a piece of wood and then claiming his food" as being a constant state of affairs, merely that it happened as a matter of survival, and that in the time before territorially defined states developed with advanced government, human activity was a lot less diverse that it was later on as we enter into the period of written history.

Given this, I do not see why the methods of government of the pre-historic era are something to be aspired to in modern nations, unless we wish to return to a state of survival rather than a state of civilization.

Note I am not saying that the development of state led to a reduction in violence, rather that it added things in addition to it, such as the aforementioned collaborative projects.

I'm authoritarian. Absolute Monarchist actually. ;)