Message from @Jay1532
Discord ID: 483881425754521611
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
Fuck Gentile <:SquidDab:459545666725609493>
@Da_Fish no u
?setrole @Deleted User Polls
rip
?help
yeah
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?