4 ms·

The idea the government used to be less authoritarian is fundamentally wrong. Here's a few samples Founding to 1920: women can't vote 1919 to 1933 - adults ca

The idea the government used to be less authoritarian is fundamentally wrong. Here's a few samples Founding to 1920: women can't vote 1919 to 1933 - adults can't decide to drink alcohol 1942 to 1945 - Industry lobby group wins executive action to imprison competitors in concentration camps 1964 - Local law enforcement murder civil rights activists. 2023 - Local law enforcement reminisce about how it's harder to murder journalists, sue journalist who reveals their death threats against his family

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
At minimum it used to be much smaller in scope and reach.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Which enabled a higher level of regional and local tyranny. Edit: The last example I gave up top illustrates the problem. Every iteration of the US government has had local law enforcement. They've always been able to abuse their power, but greater centralized government power has brought about some limited accountability. I agree the national government should be shrinked a bit, but increasing the state and local government is the wrong way to go. Sub-national government should be shrinked an order of magnitude more than the national government.
  - AbrahamParangi 4y ago
    While I don't think local government is more especially tyrannical than centralized government, I agree with you on the remedy in either case.
onetimeusename 4y ago
Some of these are good examples and some are not. women not being able to vote is not an example of authoritarianism in the US. Neither is the 18th amendment. These were democratically selected and the US did not appear to resemble an authoritarian regime at the time. Note that using authority is not the same as being authoritarian. The examples you gave from 1942 onward are though. It should be noted that the FBI was also famously involved in a number of illegal activities[1] See [2] for authoritarianism. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  If a country undemocratically restricts the right to vote then any decisions subsequently voted on aren't democratic. Women didn't vote to not have the right to vote. Just because something is democratically voted on doesn't mean it can't be authoritarian. A majority can democratically vote to repress a minority. Note that the comment I'm replying to is (correctly) calling potential laws the Senate might enact authoritarian.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Athens, the poster child of democracy, didn't have voting tights for women, and was generally pretty misogynistic. (OTOH Sparta, with its clear fascist tendencies, had very advanced women's rights for the time.) Authoritarianism is not when citizens vote for things we currently find unpalatable. It's when elected, and especially unelected rulers oppress the populace, with the populace having little recourse, or ways to protest.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      > Athens, the poster child of democracy Athens is a significant example of an early democratcy. They were still working the bugs out back then. It's authoritarian to enslave people, and it's authoritarian to deny people rights on the basis of sex. They did both. > It's when elected, and especially unelected rulers oppress the populace, with the populace having little recourse, or ways to protest. Yes, but the critical point is it doesn't have to be 51% of the populace. If rules oppress 10% of the populace that can still be authoritarianism. Suppose I agreed with your definition though. That could explain away Japanese internment, but I don't see how it justifies disenfranchising women. They made up close to or even an outright majority of the country. Unless they aren't people, and thus not part of the populace? Surely a minority can't declare everyone else doesn't count and thus claim to be the majority position?
      - nine_k 4y ago
        I agree with your points! My point is that democracy by itself is not sufficient for what we'd now call a civilized society. It also takes certain values to be shared by most of the society. And these have changed significantly since the times of Pericles.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago

At minimum it used to be much smaller in scope and reach.

iudqnolq 4y ago
Which enabled a higher level of regional and local tyranny. Edit: The last example I gave up top illustrates the problem. Every iteration of the US government has had local law enforcement. They've always been able to abuse their power, but greater centralized government power has brought about some limited accountability. I agree the national government should be shrinked a bit, but increasing the state and local government is the wrong way to go. Sub-national government should be shrinked an order of magnitude more than the national government.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  While I don't think local government is more especially tyrannical than centralized government, I agree with you on the remedy in either case.

onetimeusename 4y ago

Some of these are good examples and some are not. women not being able to vote is not an example of authoritarianism in the US. Neither is the 18th amendment. These were democratically selected and the US did not appear to resemble an authoritarian regime at the time. Note that using authority is not the same as being authoritarian. The examples you gave from 1942 onward are though. It should be noted that the FBI was also famously involved in a number of illegal activities[1] See [2] for authoritarianism. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

iudqnolq 4y ago
If a country undemocratically restricts the right to vote then any decisions subsequently voted on aren't democratic. Women didn't vote to not have the right to vote. Just because something is democratically voted on doesn't mean it can't be authoritarian. A majority can democratically vote to repress a minority. Note that the comment I'm replying to is (correctly) calling potential laws the Senate might enact authoritarian.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Athens, the poster child of democracy, didn't have voting tights for women, and was generally pretty misogynistic. (OTOH Sparta, with its clear fascist tendencies, had very advanced women's rights for the time.) Authoritarianism is not when citizens vote for things we currently find unpalatable. It's when elected, and especially unelected rulers oppress the populace, with the populace having little recourse, or ways to protest.
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    > Athens, the poster child of democracy Athens is a significant example of an early democratcy. They were still working the bugs out back then. It's authoritarian to enslave people, and it's authoritarian to deny people rights on the basis of sex. They did both. > It's when elected, and especially unelected rulers oppress the populace, with the populace having little recourse, or ways to protest. Yes, but the critical point is it doesn't have to be 51% of the populace. If rules oppress 10% of the populace that can still be authoritarianism. Suppose I agreed with your definition though. That could explain away Japanese internment, but I don't see how it justifies disenfranchising women. They made up close to or even an outright majority of the country. Unless they aren't people, and thus not part of the populace? Surely a minority can't declare everyone else doesn't count and thus claim to be the majority position?
    - nine_k 4y ago
      I agree with your points! My point is that democracy by itself is not sufficient for what we'd now call a civilized society. It also takes certain values to be shared by most of the society. And these have changed significantly since the times of Pericles.