Authoritarians, Assemble!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yes, quoting a man who famously fought against the forces of tyranny is absolutely a reasonable thing for an authoritarian to do. Especially when he probably didn't even say that.

Anyway, what will limit the monarchy?

A constitution that protects the peoples rights, like the right to bear arms and to abdicate the current ruler in favor of another. So that if the ruler oversteps his bounds he can be removed. Swell as some minor local government systems and elected advisors to the king/king/kaiser/tsar/queen/Tsarina

In the end, a comstitution and democracy are linked. One cannot truly effectively exist without the other.

[Shikihara]

(if, you consider Pinochet or Franco as fascist too, as some political scientists do,

There is no political scientist that I'm aware of who considers Pinochet a Fascist. There is some debate about Franco, but the majority seem to hold that he was not a Fascist, but a semi-Fascist Catholic authoritarian who created a semi-mobilized state that would've potentially turned Fascist had the Axis achieved victory in the Second World War (as the tide of war went back and forth, Franco shifted his position to be more friendly to the side that seemed would win). Pinochet lacks most of the characteristics of even quasi-Fascists such as Salazar's Portugal, Metaxas' Greece, or the Blueshirts of Ireland. There was no corporatism/national syndicalism, ultra-nationalism, or totalitarianism.

[Samnoreg]

[Pasong Tirad]

(if, you consider Pinochet or Franco as fascist too, as some political scientists do,

There is no political scientist that I'm aware of who considers Pinochet a Fascist. There is some debate about Franco, but the majority seem to hold that he was not a Fascist, but a semi-Fascist Catholic authoritarian who created a semi-mobilized state that would've potentially turned Fascist had the Axis achieved victory in the Second World War (as the tide of war went back and forth, Franco shifted his position to be more friendly to the side that seemed would win). Pinochet lacks most of the characteristics of even quasi-Fascists such as Salazar's Portugal, Metaxas' Greece, or the Blueshirts of Ireland. There was no corporatism/national syndicalism, ultra-nationalism, or totalitarianism.

Never heard anybody consider Pinochet - or frankly, most (if not all) of the Latin American dictators of the 19th and 20th century - fascist. Oppressive authoritarians, benevolent autocrats (very debatable), and military dictatorships, yes. Fascist? Nah.

All fascists are authoritarian, but not all authoritarians are fascists. Duterte's Philippines, the Kim family's North Korea, the House of Saud's Saudi Arabia, and the CPC's Mainland China are all authoritarian regimes, but all are very different and only at least two of those can be argued to be fascist regimes.

[Seleucas]

I am not an authoritarian, but I do consider some philosophical aspects of authoritarianism to be interesting.

The liberal viewpoint is that the state is the result of free and equal individuals consenting to an independent arbiter out of self-interest. This theory has no merit. The state is a hierarchy, coercive paternal power writ large, and despite belief to the contrary democracy is also subject to the iron law of oligarchy. As an illustration, the American Founding Fathers said in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and create government to secure rights, but their Revolution was a group of colonial elites seizing power through force, using far more repressive means than the British had ever used on them.

Where I differ with authoritarians is whether this hierarchy is of any use; to me, the state's purpose is to enable policymakers to rent-seek at the expense of those under its control. But that goes as much for an authoritarian government as it does for a liberal democracy, whatever the difference in degree. I do not believe that my vote in the liberal democratic system is of any consequence, and I would not mind living under some 'authoritarian' governments like the ones in place in Dubai or Singapore; if I can live in relative peace, I do not care how leadership is selected.

I am distinguishing, of course, between authoritarianism on one hand and totalitarianism on the other. Totalitarianism undermines subsidiary institutions like the family, religion, private property, etc. for the benefit of the leadership, while authoritarianism does not make much of an intrusion on these spheres.

[True Alimeria]

Yeah what's up