4 ms·
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter how many countries practice it. >but if most people want BI then it would be authoritarian to not give it to th
by aminok 10y ago
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism, no matter how many countries practice it.
>but if most people want BI then it would be authoritarian to not give it to them in a democracy.
That's not how authoritarian is defined. The majority have no right to violate the right of the minority. More to the point, I'm arguing that we should try to change the minds of the majority, because the majority held viewpoint is authoritarian.
- chillwaves 10y agoI don't know what authoritarian means in this context. My understanding is the government has a monopoly on violence, and when I disobey laws that other people pass (through the process of democracy), I will be on the receiving end of government violence. What you call authoritarian is to me what folks call democracy. I also don't understand the distinction for private trade, in that without a functioning government to support a marketplace, such trade would not exist.
- aminok 10y agoDemocracy is how we determine what laws to pass. Universal rights are how we determine if a law is just. Just as we have a universal right to not be enslaved, we have a universal right to not have our private property and privacy violated, and an income or sales tax does both. >I also don't understand the distinction for private trade, in that without a functioning government to support a marketplace, such trade would not exist. Private trade refers to trade amongst exclusively private entities, as opposed to trade amongst several entities, one or more of which are public (government). Your speculation that private trade wouldn't exist without services rendered by government, even if it were accurate, would not disqualify trade amongst private parties as private.