Authoritarians, Assemble!

[Kramania]

I like authoritarianism because its more efficient.

Pretty much.

[Purpelia]

Democracy is not a system designed to put good government in power and keep them there. It's a system designed to keep bad government from getting to and staying in power. And that's my primary problem with it.

[Bataawenland]

I probably err to the authoritarian side but I generally approve of the notion of a system of checks and balances and one with some kind of representation. Being a Roman Catholic and a traditionalist I'm quite hardline socially. I'm more lax economically but certainly not one for no holds barred capitalism.

[Kennlind]

I consider myself an Authoritarian Republican. I'm pretty moderate economically (I consider myself a Distributist but Market Socialism is appealing too) but some consider me to be totalitarian socially. Personally I consider myself quite libertarian socially.

[UKCS]

Why are you authoritarian? - Some of my ideas would be considered authoritarian by many, for example - Strong government, limited democracy, militarism and govt. imposed laws (etc) relating to, quite frankly, suppression of opposition. Also it's more efficient, usually. Not the government mind you, they are usually crap anyway.

What do you think of democracy? - If it's going to stay, it needs reform, badly.

Ideal economic system - Something along the lines of state planning.

Totalitarianism - Mass surveillance, cults of personality (usually), generally an inefficient and unwanted system. Authoritarianism - "well funded" military and police, moderate censorship etc, limits to democracy, you get the idea.

[Webus]

I like meritocracy, and it is inherently authoritarian taken to it's natural conclusion. Plus democracy sucks. I'd consider myself pro-totalitarianism regardless of economic system, but i'd prefer a decentralized planned economy.

[Atheus]

Sorry.
I am an authoritarian because I prefer social and economic stability over liberty, namely the liberty to shirk your duty to the State and therefore the country and society.

I think democracy is a terrible idea. Because it forces politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator to be elected, it is nothing more than a public popularity contest, politicians being elected on the basis of charisma, being relatable, and who can beg from private donors better. Democratic States being governed by self-interested parties rather than those who have a vested interest in seeing the whole nation prosper.

My ideal economic system is one with private property and a mixed economy, with the State owning strategic industries such as utilities, education, healthcare, and especially finance.

Under authoritarianism, the State does not try to totally control every aspect of society, unlike totalitarianism, contending itself with controlling only the political sphere, nor does it actively encourage the citizenry to accept the State's ideology, only suppressing subversives engaging in anti-State and therefore anti-society activity.

I cannot stress how much I dislike liberal democracy.

What is one's duty to the state, out of interest?

To improve the State by improving yourself, because as much as people don't want to agree with it, we are all parts of the State. From the moment we use anything produced by society, we are part of the State, of the greater whole. What is the State? It is the domestically and internationally recognized group to have a monopoly on force (violence, and the threat thereof) in it's territory.
What makes the State legitimate? If the people do not by and large resist it's control, the State exists firstly and foremost to provide security through threat and willingness to use violence to protect the people under it's authority from robbbers, rapists, and murderers. The State is only legitimate if the people either willingly or unwillingly largely obey the laws enforced by the State and accept it's rule.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What is one's duty to the state, out of interest?

To improve the State by improving yourself

But will people be as inclined to do that, if the state is denying them any part in the actual government? Might they not instead focus their efforts upon seizing the rights the state is denying them? Won't keeping people docile also require you to keep them ignorant and uneducated, making it hard for them to improve themselves?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

People can be made to improve themselves and their nation simply by denying them the option of making bad choices.

If given a wholly-free choice, the average human being will always choose the easiest, the simplest, the dumbest, the most shocking, outrageous, basest and vilest. If given the option, the average person will choose the degeneracy of reality TV over an educational show on astrophysics, slacking off over exercising, career as a sales manager selling useless junk rather than career as a microbiologist or engineer, listening to what passes for "music" these days rather than learning to play an instrument oneself, a carefree life of alcohol, drugs and casual sex over starting a family.

It is hence in the state's, and also the average person's best interests that the option of making unproductive and detrimental choices is removed, and the average citizen encouraged to do something creative and productive instead of pissing away his life sponsoring social parasites making a fortune on his vices.

[Salus Maior]

This thread should be titled "Authoritarians, Assemble Or Else!"

That would have been good

[Jelmatt]

I like meritocracy, and it is inherently authoritarian taken to it's natural conclusion. Plus democracy sucks. I'd consider myself pro-totalitarianism regardless of economic system, but i'd prefer a decentralized planned economy.

The entire point of a "decentralized planned economy" is to be democratic.

[Collatis]

This thread needs some FREEDOM!

Get some oil and we'll consider liberating you.

[Neanderthaland]

By whose authority?

[Thermodolia]

By whose authority?

It's "on who's authority" not "by"!!

[Neanderthaland]

By whose authority?

It's "on who's authority" not "by"!!

You're not the boss of me!

[Purpelia]

I like meritocracy, and it is inherently authoritarian taken to it's natural conclusion. Plus democracy sucks. I'd consider myself pro-totalitarianism regardless of economic system, but i'd prefer a decentralized planned economy.

The entire point of a "decentralized planned economy" is to be democratic.

Not necessarily. Decentralization merely means that localized nodes within a system have a high degree of control over their subsections of the system. Democracy of any types is absolutely not required for this. A good example of this is the military where, on the battlefield local commanders have quite a lot of leeway in how they execute their orders. But you'd newer question the overall authoritarian nature of the organization.

[Collatis]

It's "on who's authority" not "by"!!

You're not the boss of me!

That's too much independent thinking. Ship him off to the re-education camp!

[Aillyria]

I'd probably be considered mildly authoritarian, since I'm skeptical of the average person's ablity not to do stupid socially destructive shit. That being said, am supportive of democracy in principle and any government should have a meaningful democratic element even if the system as a whole is authoritarian.

Economically, I'm a syndicalist so....yeah.

[Sovaal]

It's considered polite, at least, to state your own position on the topics raised for discussion.

Sorry.
I am an authoritarian because I prefer social and economic stability over liberty,

I'm sure political prisoners sure preferred their situation.

namely the liberty to shirk your duty to the State and therefore the country and society.

And what duty do I owe to the state? Why, in the name of all that is good, do I owe them?

I think democracy is a terrible idea. Because it forces politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator to be elected, it is nothing more than a public popularity contest, politicians being elected on the basis of charisma, being relatable, and who can beg from private donors better.

Unlike in an authoritarian society, where more often then not the ruling crowd is only concerned with their own power.

Democratic States being governed by self-interested parties rather than those who have a vested interest in seeing the whole nation prosper.

And why would an authoritarian government have any more reason to want to see a nation succeed then a democratic government want? Seems that you're comparing the worst of the democratic system to the "best" of the authoritarian one.

My ideal economic system is one with private property and a mixed economy, with the State owning strategic industries such as utilities, education, healthcare, and especially finance.

Under authoritarianism, the State does not try to totally control every aspect of society, unlike totalitarianism, contending itself with controlling only the political sphere,

Which is effectively the same thing.

nor does it actively encourage the citizenry to accept the State's ideology, only suppressing subversives engaging in anti-State and therefore anti-society activity.p/quote]
Again, this combined with government control of education effectively makes this the same thing as dictating the political beliefs of the populace.

I cannot stress how much I dislike liberal democracy.

And I cannot stress how much I dislike authoritarian governments. Doesn't add to the discussion any.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Sorry.
I am an authoritarian because I prefer social and economic stability over liberty,

1) I'm sure political prisoners sure preferred their situation.

namely the liberty to shirk your duty to the State and therefore the country and society.

2) And what duty do I owe to the state? Why, in the name of all that is good, do I owe them?

I think democracy is a terrible idea. Because it forces politicians to pander to the lowest common denominator to be elected, it is nothing more than a public popularity contest, politicians being elected on the basis of charisma, being relatable, and who can beg from private donors better.

Unlike in an authoritarian society, where more often then not the ruling crowd is only concerned with their own power.

Democratic States being governed by self-interested parties rather than those who have a vested interest in seeing the whole nation prosper.

3) And why would an authoritarian government have any more reason to want to see a nation succeed then a democratic government want? Seems that you're comparing the worst of the democratic system to the "best" of the authoritarian one.

My ideal economic system is one with private property and a mixed economy, with the State owning strategic industries such as utilities, education, healthcare, and especially finance.

Under authoritarianism, the State does not try to totally control every aspect of society, unlike totalitarianism, contending itself with controlling only the political sphere,

Which is effectively the same thing.

nor does it actively encourage the citizenry to accept the State's ideology, only suppressing subversives engaging in anti-State and therefore anti-society activity.p/quote]
Again, this combined with government control of education effectively makes this the same thing as dictating the political beliefs of the populace.

And I cannot stress how much I dislike authoritarian governments. Doesn't add to the discussion any.

1) Not really an argument, just an emotional appeal.
2) The state keeps you safe.
3) An authoritarian government doesn't have that many red herrings it can pull when it fails miserably, and it doesn't have anyone else it can throw the blame on within the government, so it's absolutely necessary for their survival that they don't screw up in such a way that the population gets really motivated to get rid of them. Moreover, the people don't have an outlet for their rage, meaning it bottles up to an exploding point, and the failing government ends up dead instead of just out of office.

[Sovaal]

1) I'm sure political prisoners sure preferred their situation.

2) And what duty do I owe to the state? Why, in the name of all that is good, do I owe them?
Unlike in an authoritarian society, where more often then not the ruling crowd is only concerned with their own power.

3) And why would an authoritarian government have any more reason to want to see a nation succeed then a democratic government want? Seems that you're comparing the worst of the democratic system to the "best" of the authoritarian one.


Which is effectively the same thing.

And I cannot stress how much I dislike authoritarian governments. Doesn't add to the discussion any.

1) Not really an argument, just an emotional appeal.

Simply stating that not all prefer "stability" in exchange for liberty.

2) The state keeps you safe.

Well how about when the state fails at that? How about when it's the state that's harming me?

3) An authoritarian government doesn't have that many red herrings it can pull when it fails miserably, and it doesn't have anyone else it can throw the blame on within the government, so it's absolutely necessary for their survival that they don't screw up in such a way that the population gets really motivated to get rid of them. Moreover, the people don't have an outlet for their rage, meaning it bottles up to an exploding point, and the failing government ends up dead instead of just out of office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
You mean like these? Seems the governments of said nations crushed the revolts fairly easily, or at least the governments survived largely unchanged.

[Webus]

I like meritocracy, and it is inherently authoritarian taken to it's natural conclusion. Plus democracy sucks. I'd consider myself pro-totalitarianism regardless of economic system, but i'd prefer a decentralized planned economy.

The entire point of a "decentralized planned economy" is to be democratic.

Not really. Capitalism and feudalism are decentralized and they are not democratic, and most planned economies have been anti democratic. Just because many of the people who were against the ussr's central planning supported decentralized planning, doesn't mean such a system would be democratic necessarily.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) Not really an argument, just an emotional appeal.

Simply stating that not all prefer "stability" in exchange for liberty.

2) The state keeps you safe.

Well how about when the state fails at that? How about when it's the state that's harming me?

3) An authoritarian government doesn't have that many red herrings it can pull when it fails miserably, and it doesn't have anyone else it can throw the blame on within the government, so it's absolutely necessary for their survival that they don't screw up in such a way that the population gets really motivated to get rid of them. Moreover, the people don't have an outlet for their rage, meaning it bottles up to an exploding point, and the failing government ends up dead instead of just out of office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
You mean like these? Seems the governments of said nations crushed the revolts fairly easily, or at least the governments survived largely unchanged.

The reason many of those failed was Russian intervention against the revolutionaries.

[Shang Leros]

I used to be more authoritarian. I wrote the Chinese Legalism page on wikipedia. One idea is administrative appointment: most of a democracy is not elected but appointmented. Party politics make a bad addition to an administration, though there might be some merit to multiparty. Leadership should be meritocratic.

I am more socially libertarian these days but capitalist libertarian is daft. Businesses need to be checked for their actions. The claims of politicians also need to be checked against facts.

[The Emerald Legion]

It's odd, I used to consider myself an authoritarian. And I'd still consider myself right wing insofar as I believe there are is an inherent hierarchy in any functional civilization...

But I honestly don't see the benefit of authoritarianism or totalitarianism anymore. It's simply more vectors for corruption. More vectors for stagnation. A nation needs to be capable of adapting to changing circumstances. A stagnant system that grants pre-determined individuals power, rather than a dynamic system that fosters competition between would be leaders.

Power should be respected in so far as the power can enforce that respect. But in the end it should be each factions goal to topple the current ruler and claim that power for themselves. A system designed to allow such with minimal damage to the surrounding national framework will, by necessity, be better than those who can't.

Democracy is such a system.