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.

hm...well, for example, i think the reason norway's model has worked is because of its tripartism, where there are contracts b/w government officials, union representatives, and business owners that aim to establish wages that are tolerable for all involved parties. a lot of people think norway's been doing well because of it's social democratic model, but i attribute it to tripartile contractualism

marxists label this as "unironic class collaboration"

but it works to tame the so called "wage slavery"

I think one of the bigger problems of democracy and the system you are suggesting is that when there are "bad actors" in the ecosystem of market economy or whatever else, the government is essentially powerless to stop them. Whether its an anti-social message, an anti-government message or so on. As long as they dont advocate violence they are within the "laws" and thus able to act with impunity.

Also, personally i think that the myth of democracy itself is damaging to a society. In reality, people do not have control over outcomes politically in a democracy, and yet we are all fed the lie that we need to do our "civic duty" to go vote. Have you ever once cast the deciding vote? Have you ever once swayed a politician with power on an issue? All the time we spend thinking and deliberating over who to vote for and what policies to go with and so on and so forth, the collective energy expended and in my opinion truly wasted is a travesty unto itself.

i think it matters in the aggregate though, even though it seems ineffectual on the individual level. and i'm willing to make the sacrifice of having a majority population of idiots vote for garbage government officials

in the name of muh democracy

😉

I honestly wouldnt mind a society set up where there is a justice system for the market economy, and rules and laws very similar to how it is in america, but that at the top there is a class of elites who are not voted in and not truly beholden to the public except the pitchfork public, and remove the lie of democracy i just described. I think it would once and for all unleash the collective energy of america to focus on real problems in their life. Real problems that overlap their circle of influence. Honestly i think thats important for everyone on a small scale, but just look at how much time america spends on their circle of concern, especially when it lies outside of their ability to influence it

america has become somewhat of a corporatocracy at this point, in my view

a bit, but more so just dysfunctional

yea i'd agree

because of the election cycle, politicians cannot do long term planning

they can never make tough decisions that are unpopular

the "occams razor" of politics is: Is this popular? Will it get me elected?

How many important decisions overlap with such thinking?

that's a fair point. i wouldn't be against a wider election interval i guess, just to give officials more time to carry out their policies

but i don't think authoritarianism would solve it

give it to them for life, and then give it to their first son