Authoritarian Discussion thread

[Nea Byzantia]

What?

They apparently think being intelligent and funny is an insult.

John Oliver is neither funny nor intelligent.

[Grenartia]

Also, FDR's America is most decidedly more on the democratic side than the authoritarian one. And I can't say I know enough about De Gaulle's France to be certain, but I'm reasonably sure it also skewed more democratic than authoritarian.

Authoritarian just means consolidation of power. Muh boi FDR consolidated power like it was his j... it was his job! In his second term, he consolidated over 102 federal agencies, into 12 departments, under direct executive control - vastly increasing state influence in the economy, and all at the president's whim. When the supreme court attempted to shoot down his endeavours, he threatened to add 8 friendly judges in order to get his way. At the start of WW2, he ordered the japanese internment Visa executive order. The man was an authoritarian operating in a democratic system.

Amazing. Your knowledge of facts is technically correct, yet your interpretation of them is incredibly incorrect.

Same for Dugualle, though he was much more secretive and... French, About everything....

Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.

De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.

FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.

De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.

The fact that you're asking that tells me all I need to know. Your personal sense of ethics and morality is for sale.

Mine aren't.

How is what he's saying implying his "ethics and morals are for sale"?

Because he is opening the door to being persuaded by an authoritarian regime to go along with killing minors, something that anyone who is pro-life should be automatically against.

If you claim to be for or against something, particularly for moral and ethical reasons, but simultaneously say you can be persuaded otherwise (which is directly implied by asking for "the circumstances" and "the age of the child"), you have no true convictions on that subject, and your conscience can be bought.

Because he's an "Evil Authoritarian Infidel", obviously.

It was clearly a gotcha to begin with.

I mean, authoritarians in general occupy a moral lowland. There is no moral high ground to speak of in authoritarianism.

[Nakena]

Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.

De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.

FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.

De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.

So the difference would be that their legitimacy is based on some form of popular mandate?

[Grenartia]

Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.

De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.

FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.

De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.

So the difference would be that their legitimacy is based on some form of popular mandate?

A revokeable one, yes.

We see this particularly with De Gaulle, who left office after losing an election.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Teaching morals of communists and fascists is pointless.

So if we're not Liberals like you, we're Communists or Fascists?

Never said that.

[Joohan]

Authoritarian just means consolidation of power. Muh boi FDR consolidated power like it was his j... it was his job! In his second term, he consolidated over 102 federal agencies, into 12 departments, under direct executive control - vastly increasing state influence in the economy, and all at the president's whim. When the supreme court attempted to shoot down his endeavours, he threatened to add 8 friendly judges in order to get his way. At the start of WW2, he ordered the japanese internment Visa executive order. The man was an authoritarian operating in a democratic system.

Amazing. Your knowledge of facts is technically correct, yet your interpretation of them is incredibly incorrect.

Same for Dugualle, though he was much more secretive and... French, About everything....

Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.

De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.

FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.

De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.

So they were authoritarians with popular support. That's all you've described thus far. Men entrusted with sweeping power to made radical changes in each of their own respective societies. Populist authoritarians are rather normal throughout history - Caesar, Napoleon, Sun Yat-Sen all come to mind.

Edit: and De Gualle didn't lose an election - he resigned.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR absolutely did consolidate power. He strengthened the executive, as well as the federal government in general, more than arguably any other President in our history while doing his best to suppress his ideological opponents. If Trump did half the shit FDR did you'd be out in the streets shooting people.

[Grenartia]

Amazing. Your knowledge of facts is technically correct, yet your interpretation of them is incredibly incorrect.



Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.

De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.

FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.

De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.

So they were authoritarians with popular support. That's all you've described thus far. Men entrusted with sweeping power to made radical changes in each of their own respective societies. Populist authoritarians are rather normal throughout history - Caesar, Napoleon, Sun Yat-Sen all come to mind.

Edit: and De Gualle didn't lose an election - he resigned.

De Gaulle resigned the presidency at noon, 28 April 1969,[253] following the rejection of his proposed reform of the Senate and local governments in a nationwide referendum. In an eight-minute televised speech two days before the referendum, De Gaulle warned that if he was "disavowed" by a majority of the voters, he would resign his office immediately. This ultimatum, coupled with increased de Gaulle fatigue among the French, convinced many that this was an opportunity to be rid of the 78-year-old general and the reform package was rejected. Two months later Georges Pompidou was elected as his successor.[254]

You were saying?

Authoritarianism requires ruling with an iron fist, and disregard for the will of the people when they disagree with the state's leadership.

FDR and De Gaulle fail both criteria.

[Nea Byzantia]

So they were authoritarians with popular support. That's all you've described thus far. Men entrusted with sweeping power to made radical changes in each of their own respective societies. Populist authoritarians are rather normal throughout history - Caesar, Napoleon, Sun Yat-Sen all come to mind.

Edit: and De Gualle didn't lose an election - he resigned.

De Gaulle resigned the presidency at noon, 28 April 1969,[253] following the rejection of his proposed reform of the Senate and local governments in a nationwide referendum. In an eight-minute televised speech two days before the referendum, De Gaulle warned that if he was "disavowed" by a majority of the voters, he would resign his office immediately. This ultimatum, coupled with increased de Gaulle fatigue among the French, convinced many that this was an opportunity to be rid of the 78-year-old general and the reform package was rejected. Two months later Georges Pompidou was elected as his successor.[254]

You were saying?

Authoritarianism requires ruling with an iron fist, and disregard for the will of the people when they disagree with the state's leadership.

Wrong. Authoritarianism/Autocracy simply denotes the centralization of power (usually ultimately into the hands of a single person); it can be voluntarily, used, abused, properly stewarded, or resigned at the discretion of the Ruler. De Gaulle simply chose to gracefully step aside. He could just as easily have not.

[Nea Byzantia]

Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR absolutely did consolidate power. He strengthened the executive, as well as the federal government in general, more than arguably any other President in our history while doing his best to suppress his ideological opponents. If Trump did half the shit FDR did you'd be out in the streets shooting people.

Thank God these people don't know how to shoot...

[Nea Byzantia]

Amazing. Your knowledge of facts is technically correct, yet your interpretation of them is incredibly incorrect.



Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR was elected to fix what Hoover refused to, and alleviate the worst of the Great Depression.

De Gaulle was elected to rebuild France in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history.

FDR was trusted enough to be elected because he had very concrete plans, and represented a paradigm shift from the do-nothingism of Hoover.

De Gaulle was trusted enough to be elected because he led France in its fight against the Nazis.

So they were authoritarians with popular support. That's all you've described thus far. Men entrusted with sweeping power to made radical changes in each of their own respective societies. Populist authoritarians are rather normal throughout history.

They're the rule, throughout history; at least for the first generation of that Dynasty or Regime. Given enough time, they become more elitist and alienated from the population they rule over.

[Hadzanye]

Would you consider one an authoritarian for believing that radical political groups need forceful suppression?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Would you consider one an authoritarian for believing that radical political groups need forceful suppression?

Yes.

[Nea Byzantia]

Would you consider one an authoritarian for believing that radical political groups need forceful suppression?

Sure. Of course one man's "radical political group"/"terrorist group" is another man's "freedom fighter".

[Hanafuridake]

Here's a thing. They were both entrusted by the people that put them in power to fix and repair systems that had broken down. That isn't "consolidating power", that's doing the job they were elected to do.

FDR absolutely did consolidate power. He strengthened the executive, as well as the federal government in general, more than arguably any other President in our history while doing his best to suppress his ideological opponents. If Trump did half the shit FDR did you'd be out in the streets shooting people.

Exactly. There's absolutely no way Trump is an authoritarian and FDR is not.

[The Liberated Territories]

All I'm saying is that your rights end where mine begin.

No they don't.

Here's a conundrum for you Libertarian people: Suppose a disgusting pervert pays a child for sexual favours, and the child "consents", if you're right5, I don't have the right to put a stop to it. Neither do the authorities. Because apparently, just because its consensual, makes it ok.

This example is over-the-top, but it proves my point.

This question is sticky, mostly due to its nature, but also because I don't think it has been adequately addressed. Within a libertarian context, the child has all the rights of any other individual in the sense that they have a right against abuse, aggression, etc... what they do not have until the age of majority is the right to create or enter contracts and give consent...this includes sexual consent.

Of course, in the industry of employing the child for prostitution, the child never really consents, they are usually kidnapped or coerced by other means.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

All I'm saying is that your rights end where mine begin.

No they don't.

Here's a conundrum for you Libertarian people: Suppose a disgusting pervert pays a child for sexual favours, and the child "consents", if you're right5, I don't have the right to put a stop to it. Neither do the authorities. Because apparently, just because its consensual, makes it ok.

This example is over-the-top, but it proves my point.

Children cannot consent.

[Kowani]

No they don't.

Here's a conundrum for you Libertarian people: Suppose a disgusting pervert pays a child for sexual favours, and the child "consents", if you're right5, I don't have the right to put a stop to it. Neither do the authorities. Because apparently, just because its consensual, makes it ok.

This example is over-the-top, but it proves my point.

This question is sticky, mostly due to its nature, but also because I don't think it has been adequately addressed. Within a libertarian context, the child has all the rights of any other individual in the sense that they have a right against abuse, aggression, etc... what they do not have until the age of majority is the right to create or enter contracts and give consent...this includes sexual consent.

Of course, in the industry of employing the child for prostitution, the child never really consents, they are usually kidnapped or coerced by other means.

What is the age of majority? Changes depending on where you are.

[Bear Stearns]

I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.

[Joohan]

I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.

You commie

[Raider Clans]

I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.

That's impossible in modern America.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.

So you're saying you support a government that agrees with you?

Scandalous.

[Nea Byzantia]

I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.

You commie

You Kremlin Bot

[Grahnol]

Would you consider one an authoritarian for believing that radical political groups need forceful suppression?

That's very much an authoritarian leaning idea so without knowing what else they believe in, I would think that they are authoritarian. As much as I hate radical groups, I do think that they should at least be able to debate with others as long as they don't resort to violence.

I find myself increasingly supporting the idea of a government that executes an agenda I agree with.

That sounds like an incredibly selfish view. And I do get that you want a government to follow your ideals, we all prefer a government closer to our ideal government, but the fact that you want a government to execute an agenda the revolves around your own specifically just passes off as selfish to me.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Congolese are nostalgic for Zaire

Of course when you overthrow a stable government which was beginning to achieve massive economic growth and end up with an anarchic warzone, people will be nostalgic. Comrade Mobutu was a leader, much like Paul Kagame today, who used force to end division within his country and focus on the future, except Mobutu was overthrown by Kagame himself, in alliance with Uganda, ironically