3 ms·

Your comment made me chuckle. >People want authoritarian governments >we have different points of view or agendas You say people want one thing, while contrad

Your comment made me chuckle. >People want authoritarian governments >we have different points of view or agendas You say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency. To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]. Humans are adaptable, and we adapt our governance depending on the times. In times of war we might pick a dictator. In times of peace we might pick a democracy. In times of fear we often find ourselves in an autocracy. In times of religious ferverence we chose theocracy. Just as a human seems to be able to thrive on a number of diets, we thrive on a number of ways of group governance. I highly recommend to everyone to read "Pathways to Freedom: Political and Economic Lessons From Democratic Transitions." It's a bit text-booky, but there are some great case studies as to why various new governments have gone various different paths, and why democracy has blossomed in some places but failed in others, as has authoritarianism. In the words of Alexandre Dumas Pere - "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." I my opinion the main reason we're seeing authoritarianism seemingly increase in popularity is because fear in the media has become so profitable. It distorts our perception of reality. We can be in a wealthy, 1st world society with all our basic needs met, however if we're told constantly in a barrage of information everyday that everything is going wrong - regardless of the fact that as the individual or group there could easily be almost nothing objectively going wrong in their life - they'll believe that they're on the brink of destruction and that the only way out is to adapt to an authoritarian government that will "sort everything out". The old phrase "what they don't know won't hurt them" comes to mind. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebell...

NedIsakoff 7y ago
"To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]." - It is natural, people want authoritarianism naturally. They just want the authoritarian rules or person to follow their point of view or agenda. Look at the list and see how many replaced one authoritarian with another authoritarian. Or the resolution was authoritarian. "You say both say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency." -- I never said everyone wanted one thing. My comment was that most people would prefer a more authoritarian government that agreed with their point of view or agenda.
- Aromasin 7y ago
  I don't have time to argue the point much further, but I will pick at semantics because they completely change the tone of the argument when it comes to politics, and is why I replied in the first place. >People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda Those were your words, not- >I never said everyone wanted one thing. The way I read it, you made the implication that everyone - see "People" - don't really want freedom or democracy. Nowhere was "most people" or "some people" or some other semi-quantifiable variable used to convey your meaning. We can argue all day about what percentage of people want one form of governance over another, and don't get me wrong while I don't agree it's "most" I'd say a decent amount do prefer authoritarianism of their own taste over democracy, to say "people" out-right is what changes your argument from a discussion starter to hyperbolic ignorance.
close04 7y ago
While I don’t fully agree with the OP there is a grain of truth there. And I don’t see the contradiction you do: the point is people want a regime that supports their own views, that’s clear. But that’s not enough, the regime must also quash every other competing view so theirs stays unthreatened. Meaning an authoritarian regime. But of course as a supporter one would not see it as such. Many people honestly don’t realize the authoritarian part until their interests no longer align and the regime targets them too.

NedIsakoff 7y ago

"To say it is the natural way of things is, in my eyes, completely ignorant. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen numerous people's revolts throughout the entirety of human history [1]." - It is natural, people want authoritarianism naturally. They just want the authoritarian rules or person to follow their point of view or agenda. Look at the list and see how many replaced one authoritarian with another authoritarian. Or the resolution was authoritarian. "You say both say people want one thing, while contradicting that statement and saying people have different points of views and agendas - so we don't all want one thing? It could well be most or a few or some or a minority want authoritarianism; but the only constant I can see in governments throughout history and modern society is their inconsistency." -- I never said everyone wanted one thing. My comment was that most people would prefer a more authoritarian government that agreed with their point of view or agenda.

Aromasin 7y ago
I don't have time to argue the point much further, but I will pick at semantics because they completely change the tone of the argument when it comes to politics, and is why I replied in the first place. >People do not want freedom and democracy, they want authoritarianism that favor their point of view or agenda Those were your words, not- >I never said everyone wanted one thing. The way I read it, you made the implication that everyone - see "People" - don't really want freedom or democracy. Nowhere was "most people" or "some people" or some other semi-quantifiable variable used to convey your meaning. We can argue all day about what percentage of people want one form of governance over another, and don't get me wrong while I don't agree it's "most" I'd say a decent amount do prefer authoritarianism of their own taste over democracy, to say "people" out-right is what changes your argument from a discussion starter to hyperbolic ignorance.

close04 7y ago

While I don’t fully agree with the OP there is a grain of truth there. And I don’t see the contradiction you do: the point is people want a regime that supports their own views, that’s clear. But that’s not enough, the regime must also quash every other competing view so theirs stays unthreatened. Meaning an authoritarian regime. But of course as a supporter one would not see it as such. Many people honestly don’t realize the authoritarian part until their interests no longer align and the regime targets them too.