And usually when governments take away freedom of the press, it isn’t true news, take Pravda for example

We don't have free speech here

You can go to prison for blasphemy

Anyway, some basic free speech is a good thing

Then change it, but taking more rights away, is not the fucking answer to a government, it only ends in badly

And People will start to hate the country

And like the romans it will fall

I don't see how having harsh laws and higher standards of morality in the police force will suppress respectable members of society and make the nation an unpleasant place to live in

...

You have explained to me how you don't like authoritarians in general, but you can't protect national interest or the interests of your countrymen without some level of power and authority in society

Laws work because there is a threat of violence or consiquence behind breaking them. Backed up by the police and government

If the laws have been soften to protect the interests of pedophiles, criminals and other unjust elements of society then shouldn't they be made/efforced to do their job??

This is not suppression, police should be nice to the nice people and nasty to the nasty ones.

@Deleted User Yeah. I don't agree with freedom since it pushes conflict of ideas and gets nothing done. It just slows down progress. Maybe abused their power to get something done, but not in the case of corruption.

@Deleted User This can sometimes be true (see Deng Xiaoping and Lee Kuan Yew) but it has a very real possibility of going rogue and killing all the progress (see Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin).

I'd rather progress slowly but not have all my progress destroyed bc of one idiot

I wouldn't say Stalin and Mao were fascists, it's just that they behaved like fascists. Though you'd be correct in saying that Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were authoritarian dictators.

I don't know Mao's ideas though, I just know he murdered around 20 million people right?

Because I doubt those who are nationalists would be wanting to destroy their nation.

70 million actually

Deadliest tyrant in history

And Mao didn't want to destroy his people. He wanted industrialization but having farmers make metals in their backyard might seem ridiculous today but Mao thought it could work

Holy shit.

@Deleted User they were communists not facists

Yeah. But they behaved like fascists, such as going against freedom of speech and such. Fascists and communists like Stalin and Mao are authoritarian.

So when I mean behave like I mean they were authoritarian.

Yup

@Deleted User communists came first so isn't it facists who emulate them?

Authority doesn't = Communism

Authority = Power more or less

Eh.

<:zoomer:583662070462021633>

@GoldenGail3 I don't think the idea of communism was initially to be authoritarian. I think it was flawed and therefore failed, leading to it being authoritarian and such.

@Deleted User yes you are indeed correct about that.

Actual communism could never work in a society greater than 10k people

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press, have been the main things in American, it’s why fascism could never take America (thank god) because people would go bat shit, and the first thing they’d take is most likely guns, so you can’t defend yourself and or start an uprising to a tyrannical government. Second, they would take speech BECAUSE


The thing Authoritarianism hates is laughter, you can control what people say, but not what they think. The reason Authoritarians hate laughter specifically st the government or state. Is because laughter hosts. Threat, if people consider the state to be something to laugh at, it holds more thought in to thinking of new ideas, and could start an uprising

Communism is the worst of all possible systems.

No that would be fascism, but communism is a very close second

Shalom shiksas

fascism ain't so bad

I believe that neo-Bonapartism is the best way