11 ms·

Define "authoritarian regime"

by a123b456c 5y ago

michaelt 5y ago
Just because there are shades of grey, doesn’t mean we can’t tell black from white.
- eldaisfish 5y ago
  it's an excellent question which your reply doesn't address. There's black and white with grey in between. Whether you report the shades of grey as black or white depends on who you ask and what is offered for comparison. Is india an authoritarian regime? You'll find plenty of evidence going both ways. What about Belarus? Hungary? Venezuela? The grey is precisely why having yes/no binaries like this leads to more confusion.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I am not convinced that we can tell black from white. I also think that there ought to be a certain level of relativism when it comes to judging political systems. Is it democratic that an unelected group of 9 people can unilaterally essentially decide the law of the land in the US?
  - lovecg 5y ago
    How is the US constitutional system remotely relevant in this discussion?
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      Because every political system has elements of "authoritarianism"/decisions being made by unelected officials. For instance, we often criticize Iran as being authoritarian, but compared to many of our allies elsewhere, Iran is actually relatively democratic, even if they have authoritarian "checks" just like we do with the Supreme Court.
      - lovecg 5y ago
        I have a hard time understanding what you mean about Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran Seems like a dictatorship to me.
  - yanderekko 5y ago
    >Is it democratic that an unelected group of 9 people can unilaterally essentially decide the law of the land in the US? Are republican (little r) systems inherently authoritarian in your view? Do you actually fear that SCOTUS is going to start imposing some sort of autocratic control over American government? I'm not. You probably aren't either. There are institutional explanations for this.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      I actually consider myself a staunch (little r) republican. That said, Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy (a seminal republican text) was quite clear that republican mixed government does involve mixing a bit of democracy with a bit of authoritarianism/autocracy. I do think it is "authoritarian", but I don't think it is necessarily bad. My question is merely: why can we extend this sort of support to mixed government in our country, but seemingly consider many of the other forms of mixed government in action as pure authoritarian tyranny?
    - klyrs 5y ago
      I would describe qualified immunity as starkly autocratic, and it was written whole-cloth by the supreme court.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
blacktriangle 5y ago
The CCP
tablespoon 5y ago
> Define "authoritarian regime" A simple rule of thumb definition (that could probably use some refinement) is regimes that are either explicitly anti-democratic or a sham democracy. Russia certainly falls into the latter category, as this very story demonstrates. In most cases, it's not that hard.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > as this very story demonstrates. This story is sufficient to demonstrate that Russia is a "sham democracy"? Does the fact that Twitter/Facebook/et al banned the NYPost in the run-up to the 2020 election as well as preventing people from sending links to NYPost articles in their DMs "demonstrate" anything about the US?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > This story is sufficient to demonstrate that Russia is a "sham democracy"? It's just another example among many. Russia is a sham democracy because the government takes action to prevent opposition politicians from gaining power. > Does the fact that Twitter/Facebook/et al banned the NYPost in the run-up to the 2020 election as well as preventing people from sending links to NYPost articles in their DMs "demonstrate" anything about the US? I sense you think it shows some kind of equivalency, which is not true. Actually, if those organizations had to run the NY Post story, the US would be closer to a sham than it is.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      > Actually, if those organizations had to run the NY Post story, the US would be closer to a sham than it is. Hm, guess I'd like to live in a sham democracy then, as blocking me from sending certain political thoughts in my chat messages is unacceptable to me. I'd rather have this power in the hands of publicly-sanctioned, rules-based agents than arbitrary private actors who can interfere with me at any time for whatever reason they want. Philip Pettit has written quite well on this issue.

Define "authoritarian regime"

michaelt 5y ago

Just because there are shades of grey, doesn’t mean we can’t tell black from white.

eldaisfish 5y ago
it's an excellent question which your reply doesn't address. There's black and white with grey in between. Whether you report the shades of grey as black or white depends on who you ask and what is offered for comparison. Is india an authoritarian regime? You'll find plenty of evidence going both ways. What about Belarus? Hungary? Venezuela? The grey is precisely why having yes/no binaries like this leads to more confusion.
whimsicalism 5y ago
I am not convinced that we can tell black from white. I also think that there ought to be a certain level of relativism when it comes to judging political systems. Is it democratic that an unelected group of 9 people can unilaterally essentially decide the law of the land in the US?
- lovecg 5y ago
  How is the US constitutional system remotely relevant in this discussion?
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    Because every political system has elements of "authoritarianism"/decisions being made by unelected officials. For instance, we often criticize Iran as being authoritarian, but compared to many of our allies elsewhere, Iran is actually relatively democratic, even if they have authoritarian "checks" just like we do with the Supreme Court.
    - lovecg 5y ago
      I have a hard time understanding what you mean about Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran Seems like a dictatorship to me.
- yanderekko 5y ago
  >Is it democratic that an unelected group of 9 people can unilaterally essentially decide the law of the land in the US? Are republican (little r) systems inherently authoritarian in your view? Do you actually fear that SCOTUS is going to start imposing some sort of autocratic control over American government? I'm not. You probably aren't either. There are institutional explanations for this.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    I actually consider myself a staunch (little r) republican. That said, Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy (a seminal republican text) was quite clear that republican mixed government does involve mixing a bit of democracy with a bit of authoritarianism/autocracy. I do think it is "authoritarian", but I don't think it is necessarily bad. My question is merely: why can we extend this sort of support to mixed government in our country, but seemingly consider many of the other forms of mixed government in action as pure authoritarian tyranny?
  - klyrs 5y ago
    I would describe qualified immunity as starkly autocratic, and it was written whole-cloth by the supreme court.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

blacktriangle 5y ago

The CCP

tablespoon 5y ago

> Define "authoritarian regime" A simple rule of thumb definition (that could probably use some refinement) is regimes that are either explicitly anti-democratic or a sham democracy. Russia certainly falls into the latter category, as this very story demonstrates. In most cases, it's not that hard.

whimsicalism 5y ago
> as this very story demonstrates. This story is sufficient to demonstrate that Russia is a "sham democracy"? Does the fact that Twitter/Facebook/et al banned the NYPost in the run-up to the 2020 election as well as preventing people from sending links to NYPost articles in their DMs "demonstrate" anything about the US?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > This story is sufficient to demonstrate that Russia is a "sham democracy"? It's just another example among many. Russia is a sham democracy because the government takes action to prevent opposition politicians from gaining power. > Does the fact that Twitter/Facebook/et al banned the NYPost in the run-up to the 2020 election as well as preventing people from sending links to NYPost articles in their DMs "demonstrate" anything about the US? I sense you think it shows some kind of equivalency, which is not true. Actually, if those organizations had to run the NY Post story, the US would be closer to a sham than it is.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > Actually, if those organizations had to run the NY Post story, the US would be closer to a sham than it is. Hm, guess I'd like to live in a sham democracy then, as blocking me from sending certain political thoughts in my chat messages is unacceptable to me. I'd rather have this power in the hands of publicly-sanctioned, rules-based agents than arbitrary private actors who can interfere with me at any time for whatever reason they want. Philip Pettit has written quite well on this issue.