Authoritarians, Assemble!

[Trotskylvania]

t. no one in the history outside of anarchist strawmen.

"It fails to distinguish between ends and means. In conventional thinking, there's no real distinction made between someone who uses violence for liberatory ends, and someone for whom violent repression is an end in itself."
tl;dr the problem isn't political violence in general, but the normative definition of such currently taken.
Er, is that the correct interpretation, trot?

Yes.

Take, for example, the emancipation of slaves during the American Civil War. This was an immensely violent enterprise; in itself it meant the complete destruction of the existing socio-economic system. Slave-owners were mortgaged to the hilt on their slaves. Both they and their creditors were bankrupted. The freeing of slaves amounted to the massive dispossession of billions of dollars (1860 dollars, no less) of wealth.

The actual practice of emancipation required more than just legal pronouncements, but the waging of total war, the ruination of the entire Southern economy, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands on both sides.

But the end result was the abolition of slavery in America, giving millions the basic rights of citizenship.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

t. no one in the history outside of anarchist strawmen.

I'm sure is very comforting to the victims that boot stepping on them has been sanctioned by a constitution.

You haven't proven him wrong, you just spewed pathos at him. If they're not doing anything wrong than boot stepping (nice totally unbiased an non-nebulous phrease there) them has been PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[Old Tyrannia]

Would it violate forum rules to call you guys dictatorial scum?

Yes.

Omakhandia: *** Warned for flamebaiting. ***

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Would it violate forum rules to call you guys dictatorial scum?

Same.

[Old Tyrannia]

Would it violate forum rules to call you guys dictatorial scum?

Same.

You're not exactly great at observational learning, are you?

The Xenopolis Confederation: *** Warned for flamebaiting. ***

[True Alimeria]

Anonymocratic Totalitarianism iz da best ^^

[MERIZoC]

What if the ruler says everyone must be trans

Then said ruler would objectively be a failure and shouldn't be listened to. You should obey your rulers, but not if they instruct societal suicide.

hm, seems like it'd be good if there were some kind of way for the population to keep figures of power in check

[Risottia]

I like authoritarianism because its more efficient.

Doesn't look like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy were more efficient than, dunno, Britain, America, or Yugoslavia (partisan armies are quite the opposite of authoritarianism).
Doesn't look like North Korea is more efficient than, dunno, Taiwan.

Do you have any foundation for your claim?

[Pilarcraft]

Then said ruler would objectively be a failure and shouldn't be listened to. You should obey your rulers, but not if they instruct societal suicide.

hm, seems like it'd be good if there were some kind of way for the population to keep figures of power in check

*stage whisper* it's a trap

In all seriousness, I don't see why there are so many people favoring authoritarianism. it's basis can easily be summarized in "humans can't govern themselves. so I, another human, should do it for them."

[Hammer Britannia]

Anarcho-Authoritarianism is the best Authoritarianism

[The Blaatschapen]

I used to be in favour of authoritarianism.

Then I quit being a mod.

[United States of Red Dawn]

Not an Authoritarian, indeed the precise opposite.

However... I must admit. Having now lived under an authoritarian regime... Eh, I don't have a lot of problems with it. As long as the Authority remains chiefly concerned securing their own authority rather than meddling with it's people, I don't really mind. I honestly feel freer in China most days than I did in Canada.

Liberal democracies tend to become oppressive in their own right people who gain power in democracies almost always want to change things regulate things, affect others lives. I don't care for that. It interferes with my life usually for the negative. In authoritarian states however, the people who take power are usually just interested in their own power and prestige, which is usually for the best. They don't care about the little people and because of that usually the little people get to thrive, and when it comes to them really needing help the authoritarian is usually there because they need to make appearances and justify their power.

Yes! Some of us need to be shielded from social engineering and totalitarians on the Left. Trump is a sort of authoritarian, but can't begin to match their willingness to dictate to, some, others. In liberal democracies there is always somebody who is on the outside because they don't follow the correct line of thinking.

[United Muscovite Nations]

hm, seems like it'd be good if there were some kind of way for the population to keep figures of power in check

*stage whisper* it's a trap

In all seriousness, I don't see why there are so many people favoring authoritarianism. it's basis can easily be summarized in "humans can't govern themselves. so I, another human, should do it for them."

I think we should be ruled by elites who are experts in fields like economics, sciences, and ethics.

[Pilarcraft]

*stage whisper* it's a trap

In all seriousness, I don't see why there are so many people favoring authoritarianism. it's basis can easily be summarized in "humans can't govern themselves. so I, another human, should do it for them."

I think we should be ruled by elites who are experts in fields like economics, sciences, and ethics.

that's Meritocracy, right?
not necessarily Authoritarian. statements like "I believe Strong should rule and protect the weak" or "People don't know what's best for them, a good leader does" are what I'm protesting against. because, unlike Meritocracy (and not crazy meritocracy where Strength is seen as a merit or sth), those statements have no basis apart from personal feelings.

[United States of Red Dawn]

*stage whisper* it's a trap

In all seriousness, I don't see why there are so many people favoring authoritarianism. it's basis can easily be summarized in "humans can't govern themselves. so I, another human, should do it for them."

I think we should be ruled by elites who are experts in fields like economics, sciences, and ethics.

Or, better yet, people who know what they're doing.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think we should be ruled by elites who are experts in fields like economics, sciences, and ethics.

that's Meritocracy, right?
not necessarily Authoritarian. statements like "I believe Strong should rule and protect the weak" or "People don't know what's best for them, a good leader does" are what I'm protesting against. because, unlike Meritocracy (and not crazy meritocracy where Strength is seen as a merit or sth), those statements have no basis apart from personal feelings.

It's authoritarian because I prefer that this group of elites have absolute power and be able to BTFO any resistance to such a regime, and don't think that the masses, as they exist, should have much say in politics. I think the epitome of such a system would be rule by an Emperor, with an advisory body composed of technocrats and clergy.

[Pilarcraft]

that's Meritocracy, right?
not necessarily Authoritarian. statements like "I believe Strong should rule and protect the weak" or "People don't know what's best for them, a good leader does" are what I'm protesting against. because, unlike Meritocracy (and not crazy meritocracy where Strength is seen as a merit or sth), those statements have no basis apart from personal feelings.

It's authoritarian because I prefer that this group of elites have absolute power and be able to BTFO any resistance to such a regime, and don't think that the masses, as they exist, should have much say in politics. I think the epitome of such a system would be rule by an Emperor, with an advisory body composed of technocrats and clergy.

I did say "not necessarily"
Meritocracy isn't always absolute like your political system.

[Medwedian Democratic Federation]

I believe that democracy is unnatural. I think that the ideal socioeconomic structure of society is a neofeudalist and totalitarian one similar to "1984", in which an upper class governs the country and enjoys vast privileges while commanding the masses, who are considered as expendable. Not kidding. I am absolutely serious on this. It would be so much better if we finally outgrew the idea that equality is the ideal to be striven towards. Equality means chaos and anarchy. Only a strict order and a system in which the greater good is valued more than the wishes of the individual allows a society to function properly.

For the start: why the hell should children of workers go to grammar school? Yes, some of them are intelligent, but those who work with their hands should always be in the majority, being commanded by a hereditary elite of those who work with their brains, e.g. the intelligentia. Every person's profession should be decided upon at birth if possible. No more year-long orientation courses in school! Children of workers should be taught to follow orders and to use their strength and the skill in their hands while children of academics should be prepared to become leaders from kindergarden onwards.

[Atheus]

Here's a question: where does authority come from? Some say God, others say violence, I believe it is the latter.

[Ryanasic]

something about neo feudalism and bad education system

here we see a homo sapien transported from the year 1000 AD in its natural habitat

jk please dont punish me mods

[United Muscovite Nations]

Here's a question: where does authority come from? Some say God, others say violence, I believe it is the latter.

Legitimate authority comes from God.

[Hammer Britannia]

Here's a question: where does authority come from? Some say God, others say violence, I believe it is the latter.

It comes from multiple sources, mostly violence though.

[United States of Red Dawn]

Here's a question: where does authority come from? Some say God, others say violence, I believe it is the latter.

First, I think it's the ability to make people listen, and want to believe in you, because you have good answers/solutions to problems + an authoritative bearing and the ability to prove the strength of your convictions; they can inspire confidence. God has nothing to do with it.

Violence only comes from the people who refuse to listen to reason and the will of the people who put the man in power.

[The Merchant Republics]

Not an Authoritarian, indeed the precise opposite.

However... I must admit. Having now lived under an authoritarian regime... Eh, I don't have a lot of problems with it. As long as the Authority remains chiefly concerned securing their own authority rather than meddling with it's people, I don't really mind. I honestly feel freer in China most days than I did in Canada.

Liberal democracies tend to become oppressive in their own right people who gain power in democracies almost always want to change things regulate things, affect others lives. I don't care for that. It interferes with my life usually for the negative. In authoritarian states however, the people who take power are usually just interested in their own power and prestige, which is usually for the best. They don't care about the little people and because of that usually the little people get to thrive, and when it comes to them really needing help the authoritarian is usually there because they need to make appearances and justify their power.

Yes! Some of us need to be shielded from social engineering and totalitarians on the Left. Trump is a sort of authoritarian, but can't begin to match their willingness to dictate to, some, others. In liberal democracies there is always somebody who is on the outside because they don't follow the correct line of thinking.

In Liberal Democracy, most politicians take power to change things. And most people who want to change things are busy-bodies. Most liberal democracies engender leaders who at least nominally "care" about their people and in practice caring about people under you usually means a host of petty tyrannies for "their sake". Autocrats rarely seek power to change things, they seek it for it's own sake and I have to be honest. I prefer the naked reality of it. Also, in my experience living under authoritarian regimes engenders a culture of distrust and disobedience of government, sure some people swallow the party line hook and sinker, but most people work around the rules and hold some degree of cynicism for what they hear.

Give me a benign and indifferent autocrat any day over a nagging nanny with power.

That said, give me a benign and indifferent democracy any day over any kind of autocrat. Political freedom is the freedom I care about least, but it is still one I care about.

[USS Monitor]

Here's a question: where does authority come from? Some say God, others say violence, I believe it is the latter.

It comes from people's willingness to recognize it. If people believe you have authority, then you do.

Using violence or blathering about God will sometimes get people to believe you have authority, but those are not the only two ways.