When is authoritarianism appropriate and when is it not?
You must log in or register to comment.
When is justice appropriate?
I don’t understand. What are you saying?
Authoritarianism is fundamentally unjust as a form of government.
Even asking that question is borderline bad faith.
Authoritarianism is preferred when the authority understands the subject better than the populace. Right?
Keep licking that boot and maybe you’ll be last up against the wall.
You evaded my question.
I’m asking why you’re defending authoritarianism and all I see is Sealioning.
You are clearly sealioning about sealioning.
You have the political philosophy of a petulant toddlet
So you’re just asking when is it okay for you to give up being a part of society and giving total control to the fascists?
Because the answer, literally every time, is going to be “never.” You should never give in to authoritarianism. You should actively make it harder for “them” to bring you and anyone else down like this. You should be working harder to uplift your neighbors and communities.
What if it’s an authority that you trust, like a doctor?
Is authoritarianism good then?
that’s neither authority nor authoritarianism. you’re conflating multiple different meanings so you can shift the goalposts on the sly. a doctor can give you advice, and if you’re wise, you’ll heed it out of respect for her hard-earned expertise, but she doesn’t have authority. she isn’t empowered to force you to do anything. even being involuntarily committed is generally something done by courts, not doctors; the doctors are merely required to carry out the courts orders.
Democracy is always good except if what is put to a vote is whether human beings deserve rights or not. Human rights are unappealable, period.
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is never good, and anyone who says otherwise is a bootlicker, a privileged class or an authoritarian leader.
Ok. Just for conversation’s sake, here are 2 exceptions. Respectively :
Democracy is bad when addressing uncommon subjects. Because if you don’t know the subject then you shouldn’t vote on it.
Authoritarianism is good when the authority knows better than the populace.
I partially disagreed in the first and strongly disagreed in the second.
The first can be resolved with education.
The second…
The funny thing is that both points are related in a horrid way:
Let’s say there is a despot who has a doctorate, it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be in quantum physics, which has nothing to do with politics, but it is enough to say that the guy is smart. The despot proposes something based on what you say: that those who are not “properly prepared intellectually” can not vote, this translates into those who do not have a university degree can not vote, as 40% of the population at best. Then this becomes that you have to have a Master’s degree to vote, then a doctorate, then only if you have a doctorate in a specific field, and so on…
On the one hand, we should not limit the exercise of democracy of the population, on the contrary. The population does not know how to read? Teach them, they don’t know arithmetic? Teach them. The vast majority do not have a university degree? Make university access more accessible, in an intelligent transforming way.
On the other hand, don’t give unlimited power to ANYONE. There is no individual being capable of providing a whole society with what it needs, because this individual will act according to his limited vision of the world and this will lead to the misfortune of the groups that escape his worldview. And that is only assuming that the despot really wants to “do what is best for all”, which is not at all the case in reality. The despots from the beginning choose a side (“Us”, the Aryans, etc) and an enemy (“Them”, the Jews, the blacks, the Latinos, the non-Aryan whites, etc), and openly act to harm “them” and only benefit “us”. And this is how genocides and so on happen…
Gotta disagree on the authoritarianisms. Millionaires have consistently been shit at running countries. All of them run the country like a business, where citizens are workers that can’t be fired and very few are able to quit. They also always play the cards to favour their “friends”, dragging the society towards kleptocracy.
A dentist is a pretty good authority. So’s a plumber. There are a hundred more examples we could cite.
Are we saying that running the country is an exceptional case?
A dentist has no authority over you. If you choose not to brush your teeth they can’t force you to, they can’t do dental work unless you willingly seek them put and consent.
A plumber has not authority to enter your home or mess with your plumbing unless you invite them in.
You’re misusing the word “authority” and applying it out of context.
We confer power to the dentist and the plumber because the dentist and the plumber are experts in their fields.
We confer power to our other authorities, political and otherwise, for similar reasons.
That’s how authority works.
What? Take the discussion seriously.
We don’t confer power to them. I am the authority and I consent to the dentist cleaning my teeth but the second I say “no” their ability to operate is taken away.
Try telling “no” to a cop trying to arrest you.
Not serious? Well argue with yourself then.
deleted by creator
Socialism is democratic
