gay

no u

Fucking Nigger

Sometimes you need a tyrant to protect democracy

Authoritarian is nessesary, what people are against when they *think* authoritarian is is actually Anarcho-tyranny

i see authoritarianism as a tool

I can justify anything but you don't have accept my justification. i could justify fascism by saying because I felt like it and that would be my justification

to prepare people for a more chill thingy

Auth should only be used in an emergency and only for emergency

Otherwise, no.

"Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay"

I take the same stance as endeavour. No society can survive with *freedom* as its core value. We must enforce some cultural norm/identity.

@campodin China has existed for over a thousand years

If theres a constitution, do we really have free will?

actually longer than that. but w/e

@Deleted User your point?

China isn't free

Freedom is certainly not one of their core values

And they are still around and will always be around

Does freedom even exist ?

Freedom as a core value Dosen't mean absolute freedom of anarchy you dipshits

'freedom' is a term only people with sub hundred iq would ever use

A republican democracy united in a common culture is completely possible

FullAuths are retarded because it isn't sustainable

Authoritarianism is why China is as successful as it is tbh

At the cost of?

by authoritarianism do you mean the ideology?

or the polical compass sector

Freedom is just the ability to pursue your own interest. Societies need a goal which is given by culture.

"Heaven is high and the emperor is far away" China was clannic rather than authoritarian in the modern sense

I think the discussion is about the military being the most powerful sect in the country

some cultures need more authority than others

If there is a society, there is authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is what creates justice and trust.

We need to protect our culture and discourage foreign cultures, especially from certain areas of the world

No it means power being centralized into a single person mainly

@campodin that's completely possible with a democratic society

Democracy always leads to leftism

Authority might also include a council which is like-minded imo

>power being centralized into a single person mainly
that's an autocracy, power can be shared and still be authoritarian

*mainly*

Nig.

Authority in itself isn't bad or more or less natural, look where it got us today, whther or not the present day is good or not is up to debate but I'm personnaly fine with it.

@campodin Democracy is the pathway to Marxism

There are some things even anarchists are against. Authoritarianism is mere realisation that to preserve something consistently, force over what might be little different is required

I want authority to be absolute in not allowing communism and Muslims, and promoting our culture. Other than that the government should be mostly libertarian.

How can one be libertarian but not a cultural libertarian?

Authoritarianism is too vague

What is the line between "authoritarian" and not?

@campodin what is your culture ?

There is none. All states are authoritarian.

I'm technically a mestizo from California, but what I mean by my culture is the American culture which is Christian, English, European culture.

@Skyrim EthnoNationalist

Every "alt right" hispanic has doomguy as their avatar

Lol, I did it as a meme in another channel

And I would consider myself trad

no, authoritarianism restricts freedom and consequently value to life

Oooo edgy "I hate the state"

it's a legitimate position

i don't agree with it but there are some sound arguments against statism

oh

ouch

someone has "stormcloak" in their name

objectively the worst choice

Alright kids, everyone open up your copy of "The Doctrine of Fascism" by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini

*ehem*

"Whenever respect for the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, nations are headed for decay"

Respect for the state is never high

@Deleted User

Fuck Gentile <:SquidDab:459545666725609493>

@Da_Fish no u

?setrole @Deleted User Polls

rip

?help

yeah

individualism is the cancer that afflicts the west

so i would say always authoritarians is required

however, historically the "wrong" people have had the power

excepting monarchy times

Authoritarian Democracy when

never, democracy is whats wrong with it, mate

True

the only way that such a system wouldnt self-implode is if the suffrage is severely limited, and then what definition of modern day democracy does that even fit

what about absolute monarchy municipalitanism

where instead of serfdoms, you give the princes a city and they are mayor

but, yeah, authoritarianism typically wont work anymore since the "wrong" people will usually be in charge

and then everything will go to absolute more shit than today

Authoritarianism is never justified, because certain economic freedoms and civil liberties should always be preserved for individuals, as there comes a point when a government won't be able to make choices that accurately reflect the preferences and future behaviors of the individuals they're ruling over. As a result, this makes centralized planning subject to very inaccurate predictions of outcomes for public policies

whether this fact is realized by those in government or not

Never justified? So, there shouldnt be a final say from anyone? No final authority like judges and so on? So, Ancap?

i'm speaking of authoritarianism; not authority in general

i'm not that opposed to the limited government that minarchists advocate

You can't equally guarentee everyone's sovereignty; some people have incompatible interests, and there is often asymmetrical economic and social power between different types of people as well. No right can be guarenteed outside of the state, so the very notion of rights implies planning from the beginning. Not all lifestyles and interests are conducive to a sustainable social order either, so those interests need to be denied by the state.

i can see the argument for how the notion of rights implies planning, but typically centralized planning and legal rights are regarded as distinct concepts

actually, probably always

yeah, but for the purposes of this question it says any authoritarianism of any kind. So, you have to break it down on the continuum. Basically this is the mirror continuum to liberty. So, whats the "healthy" amount of authority in a society? This would run the gamut from the government being powerless to stop a mass murderer, to having the government decide what you eat for every meal and at what time. Essentially ancap to totalitarian. Where do you cut it off, and why?

I mean anytime you think about rights, you're imagining arbitrary modes of sovereignty in this or that manner, for this or that group

no, this is talking about enforceable final authority, not some imagined world where every law is policed completely

so, for the purpose of the exercise, imagine that of course people can rebel and get away with it, but if the hammer comes down it would come down as hard as you imagine it should

i'd say i'd cut it off where government should recognize certain 'natural rights' by protecting them as 'legal rights'...particularly like the right to self-organize in business, certain basic property-rights, right to life, etc.

So, you are okay with someone owning a business specifically designed to manufacture firearms, imagining its a conglomerate this business too has a media department that agitates for the overthrow of the current government. So, this business is arming antigovernment elements, and agitating for more of them and more intense elements. This is okay for you? Government should not step in?