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?

hm...things like threats are rightly excluded from the 'right to free speech', from my perspective, and this includes threats of revolution and killing those in government

intentional disastorous false alarms too, like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater

Is there any form of non-violent cultural or government subversion that you are uncomfortable with. Any speech whatsoever that doesnt explicitly advocate violence that you think should be revoked or prevented?

i think all forms of speech that don't explicitly advocate violence should be protected

Would you not have a way for the government to intervene in the case that, people with dispraportionate social or economic power use that power, either against the interests of the people, or the government.

i think union-representation and tripartism take care of that

I mean nowadays you have people with antisocial market behavior, using their economic and cultural power, in lieu with those civil liberties you mentioned, against the interests of the people and the government.