Authoritarians, Assemble!

[Atheus]

Hello, authoritarians of NS! I would like to discuss and know the different types of authoritarians here on nationstates, why are you authoritarians? What do you think of democracy? What's your ideal economic system? What differentiates authoritrianism vs totalitarianism? How do you define authoritarianism?

[Farnhamia]

Hello, authoritarians of NS! I would like to discuss and know the different types of authoritarians here on nationstates, why are you authoritarians? What do you think of democracy? What's your ideal economic system? What differentiates authoritrianism vs totalitarianism? How do you define authoritarianism?

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

[The Empire of Pretantia]

America is here to LIBERATE this thread.

[Atheus]

Hello, authoritarians of NS! I would like to discuss and know the different types of authoritarians here on nationstates, why are you authoritarians? What do you think of democracy? What's your ideal economic system? What differentiates authoritrianism vs totalitarianism? How do you define authoritarianism?

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, 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.

[Len Hyet]

America is here to LIBERATE this thread.

FREEDOM INTENSIFIES

[Pasong Tirad]

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

[BonziNation]

I like authoritarianism because its more efficient.

[Sounstian]

Hello, authoritarians of NS! I would like to discuss and know the different types of authoritarians here on nationstates, why are you authoritarians? What do you think of democracy? What's your ideal economic system? What differentiates authoritrianism vs totalitarianism? How do you define authoritarianism?

Authoritarianism is definentely necessary for a society to function (I'm advocating to a more authoritarian and more arbitrary approach to leading a country - without strong checks and balances, not for totalitarianism). Otherwise it will simply become a playground for the plutocratic oligarchy without any regard for welfare of the society, like the world we live in. Authority and hierarchy is just something in line with human nature. However, representativeness of a government is necessary and normal - whether in some form of actual voting or in form of indirect consensus, which is not only something society can't function without (if the government becomes unrepresentative it is replaced in a coup/revolution), but also proven in practice to provide better results.
"Democracy" is an emotion-fuel word without actual content used for media manipulation and legitimization of this semi-totalitarian huxleyan plutocracy in the good old obscurantist way. It means cool fantasyworld system we cover your eyes with while enslaving and robbing you.
I'm no fan of absolute rule, but if the jacobites called i'd answer instantly because tehy were completely right with opposing sham modernism.
Ideal economic system - totally controlled economy, but by subsidiary local governments instead of the state.

[Trotskylvania]

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, 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.

Attempting to resolve contradictions with violence is not order. It's another form of chaos.

Such attempts to impose "harmonious" order on society are in practice nothing more than violent class dictatorship, murderously subsuming other interests to the interests of the ruling class.

[Trotskylvania]

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

"The beatings will continue until morale improves"

[United States of Red Dawn]

I believe in some aspects of authoritarianism because it can be used to protect unpopular opinions, the weak from the powerful, and the best aspects of a democracy from a slow creep into totalitarianism. Ironically, I think that it sometimes takes an authoritarian form of democracy to save democracy from itself. An authoritarian leader can actually give more of the power back to the people because he can counter the power of the ruling political class who always believe they know better than the common citizenry.

[The Noble Atlantic States]

I'm not so much an authoritarian myself, but I can see the appeal. Modern day Western society gives the preference to democracy, but it suffers from the same problem as communism, only less strongly: it's viable to corruption. In recent decades democracy produced leaders such as Donald Trump, George W. Bush and Theresa May. Not all of them are equally bad, but we can all agree that they've all been the subject of certain verbal abuse. For a system that was adapted to free nations of the misery of having been forced to be led by whatever the royal family produced, it still produces a fair number of unwanted leaders. Democracy is also very simmilar to communism, in the sense that the idea behind it is too good to be true. Power to the people, sounds good, but difficult in practice. The great danger of being a democracy is, if there are enough stupid people, the leader will be an idiot as well. This is why some authoritarianism is required.

[Iyanden]

My nation is authoritarian in the sense that I am the dictator and Emperor, dominatus and the general, admiral and grand marshal as well as shogun and have absolute power(although public forums are available for complaints and suggestions in each town)because I believe that a good leader needs to be in charge to protect my citizens from globalism, modern liberalism, post modern degeneracy, cultural and normal Marxism and so on so I need to be in charge. As longs as your not against our people or a leftist the government wont bother you. The economy is free market although corporations work with the government and in return for help and subsidies they fund programs that are normally government run saving the state money and they have to look after their employees while anyone that doesn't work gets no welfare and the middle class receive support for starting business or projects. Anti state activities are considered as anti society and against the entire Empire and our people

[Lancaster of Wessex]

My nation is authoritarian in the sense that I am the dictator and Emperor, dominatus and the general, admiral and grand marshal as well as shogun and have absolute power(although public forums are available for complaints and suggestions in each town)because I believe that a good leader needs to be in charge to protect my citizens from globalism, liberalism, post modern degeneracy, cultural and normal Marxism and so on so I need to be in charge. As longs as your not against our people or a leftist the government wont bother you. The economy is free market although corporations work with the government and in return for help and subsidies they fund programs that are normally government run saving the state money and they have to look after their employees while anyone that doesn't work gets no welfare and the middle class receive support for starting business or projects. Anti state activities are considered as anti society and against the entire Empire and our people

This is an out-of-character thread, not in-character. Real life applies.

[Pasong Tirad]

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.

Yeah it must suck when politicians try to support the most oppressed and marginalized sectors of society. Damn them for thinking those people are worth the trouble!

[Iyanden]

My nation is authoritarian in the sense that I am the dictator and Emperor, dominatus and the general, admiral and grand marshal as well as shogun and have absolute power(although public forums are available for complaints and suggestions in each town)because I believe that a good leader needs to be in charge to protect my citizens from globalism, liberalism, post modern degeneracy, cultural and normal Marxism and so on so I need to be in charge. As longs as your not against our people or a leftist the government wont bother you. The economy is free market although corporations work with the government and in return for help and subsidies they fund programs that are normally government run saving the state money and they have to look after their employees while anyone that doesn't work gets no welfare and the middle class receive support for starting business or projects. Anti state activities are considered as anti society and against the entire Empire and our people

This is an out-of-character thread, not in-character. Real life applies.

I see although I guess that still describes the answer to the question

[Iyanden]

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.

Yeah it must suck when politicians try to support the most oppressed and marginalized sectors of society. Damn them for thinking those people are worth the trouble!

Well most politicians don't appeal to the marginalised. Most of them like the Clintons, David Cameron and ect only appeal to the corrupt donors.

[Martian Communities]

I don't really like the idea of authoritarianism here on Earth, but it is probably the best governmental system in a generational spacecraft (If we ever construct and launch any).

On such a ship, total obedience and control would be absolutely essential to the continued survival of the spacecraft and the mission, which is to reach another star system. Democracy and republicanism would be risky to implement on it, because deviations from the requirements of running the ship could be fatal. If the population was small enough, the government on the ship would even dictate which people you can have children with and how many, because the mission could fail if the population's genetic diversity was not diverse enough. Capitalism would not even be feasible, since the limited resources in such a small environment would not be able to sustain any kind of economic growth.

I read a short story called "Mayflower II" from a book called Resplendent (Written by Stephen Baxter) that communicates this very well, so I'll show some quotes from a character named Andres:

(Transient = Passenger, crew member, etc.)

"And we must manage. We must achieve total social control - control every aspect of our crew's lives - and we must govern their children's lives just as tightly, as far as we can see ahead. Society has to be as rigid as the bulkheads which contain it. Oh, we can give the crew freedom within limits! But we need to enforce social arrangements in which conflict is reduced to negligible, appropriate skill levels kept up - and most importantly, a duty of maintenance of the Ship is hammered in from birth...[We] must ensure perfect continuity and complete control."

"Rusel, a transient's only purpose is to live, reproduce, and die in an orderly fashion, thus preserving their genes to the far future. There is no room on this Ship for democracy, no space for love! A transient is just a conduit for their genes. They have no rights, any more than a bit of pipe that carries water from source to sink."

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm here, what's the meeting about.

I'm a sort of blanket authoritarian in that I approve of authoritarianism in general, though I prefer religious authoritarianism over the other forms. All government and statehood is based upon force and violence, authoritarian countries just don't hide it. Subjects should be ruled by the government, not the other way around. There must always be rulers to rule, and subjects to obey the rulers.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yeah it must suck when politicians try to support the most oppressed and marginalized sectors of society. Damn them for thinking those people are worth the trouble!

Well most politicians don't appeal to the marginalised. Most of them like the Clintons, David Cameron and ect only appeal to the corrupt donors.

That's not entirely true, but I guess to be fair to you, it's not entirely false either. I know my fair share of populists paying lip service to the lowest members of society just to pander votes instead of actually caring about their well-being - but then I've also seen my equally fair share of competent civil servants who do care about the poorest and the most marginalized, who go the extra mile to tend to the needs of their neighbors and help their quality of life. But that chance of having an incompetent politician or authoritarian win an election is part of democracy and I wouldn't want to replace it. The powers of the state must come from the people, and it is the consent of the governed that keeps the government in power. Absolute power absolutely corrupts, after all.

[Rusozak]

I wouldn't really call myself pure authoritarian, though I've always leaned towards authoritarian democracy. It basically stems from a cynical world view and my belief that people can't all be trusted to do the right thing on their own, which is constantly being reinforced by events in the news.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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, 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?

[Union of Despotistan]

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, 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.

I support almost everything you say. I too dislike current forms of democracy since it's only a popularity contest among the uneducated pleb who has little to no knowledge of how things works.

Liberal Democracy is a cancer and need to be stopped. I think it does way more wrong than good.
Controlling Education, Healthcare and Finance is a pivotal point to avoid external globalist elements to take possession of the propaganda and education aspect and swing the pleb against you.

[Pasong Tirad]

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.

I support almost everything you say. I too dislike current forms of democracy since it's only a popularity contest among the uneducated pleb who has little to no knowledge of how things works.

Liberal Democracy is a cancer and need to be stopped. I think it does way more wrong than good.
Controlling Education, Healthcare and Finance is a pivotal point to avoid external globalist elements to take possession of the propaganda and education aspect and swing the pleb against you.

Swing the pleb against you? What, like a club?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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.

I support almost everything you say. I too dislike current forms of democracy since it's only a popularity contest among the uneducated pleb who has little to no knowledge of how things works.

Liberal Democracy is a cancer and need to be stopped. I think it does way more wrong than good.
Controlling Education, Healthcare and Finance is a pivotal point to avoid external globalist elements to take possession of the propaganda and education aspect and swing the pleb against you.

"Them globalists are after our bodily fluids!"