What are your primary metrics for identifying an authoritarian?

You can make the same claim about any group that wins over the losing group.

It's a meaningless statement. Some group will always be the winner in elections, that's the nature of the beast. Sure, it's not a perfect system, but, as the saying goes, all of the other systems are worse.

 

I have to work alone at night in a city where crime is on the rise and the police presence is being reduced. Who do you trust (if not me) to determine whether my job necessitates having a gun?

 

I notice you didn't answer the question. Would you call the majority voting to oppress the rights of a minority authoritarianism?, democracy?, both?, or something else?

 

Question has an assumed premise to which those whom you present the question to will no doubt disagree.

The proper sequence, therefore, is as follows;

1. Reach a meeting of mind with the person(s) you put the question to on the premise.

2. Once achieving #1, then, and only then, can you ask the question.

But, I will add this:

If results are ultimately achieved via fair elections, then everyone cannot claim one is 'oppressed' given, that, by virtue of citizenship, living in the country, you give consent to the system, which is a democratic one. And, what you are claiming is 'oppressive' is no doubt merely legislation you do not like, personally. So, you'll have to give an example.

Where that breaks down if the election is not fair. For example, in many states, in order for a democrat to be a congressperson, he or she must win at least 115% of the vote compared to a republican, due to republicans gerrymandering.

Therefore, if any republican having achieved his or her seat via gerrymandering, gains, unfairly the house, and votes for legislation that is, indeed, oppressive, to a minority, then that is authoritarianism. But, it's not authoritarianism because of the legislation, it's authoritarianism because the legislation was the result of a rigged election, it's the 'rigging' that is authoritarianism, not the vote, per se.

With the Senate, there is systemic rigging, because the Senate favors rural states, whereupon a minority gets better representation than the majority, who live in cities. But, even here, I won't make the authoritarian argument because it's in the constitution, as, we, as citizens, unless we amend that portion, consent to it.

 

I don't consent to be ruled by a simple majority.

What now?

 

Authoritarian.. tells you how to act and demands you acrt that way... totalitarian... tells you how to act, AND how to think, and demands you act and think that way.

 

What a perfectly apt avatar!

 

Taking over your mind is not authoritarianism.

For me, it starts with taxation. The power the government has to control your life is in direct proportion to the amount of money they take. It is ironic to see those cheering for big government and higher taxes take a sudden interest in limiting government power when it comes to Trump.

 

Go about changing the voting system we have. Or live in a cabin deep in the woods off grid.

 

Good of you to admit you don't know what "authoritarian" means.

 

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
^^^
Works for me.

 

Your retained citizenship and living in America constitutes consent. "via consent of the governed" doesn't mean the citizenry can cherry pick.

The only way you can not give consent is to renounce your citizenship and move to another country.

 

Which country doesn't require me to 'consent' to be ruled by others?

 

The people who hire you.

 

Any new citizenship in any western country is 'consent'.

You can always buy your own Island, secede, and declare yourself king and make your own rules.

 

So you want employers to determine who gets a gun and who doesn't?

What problems do you think this is going to solve?

 

What a reasonable alternative to being ruled...

 

Is there any group that DOESN"T advocate for the restriction of at least some weaponry ( explosives, chemical weapons, biological weapons)?

Do we really want Joe Citizen to have access to biological resources that might be available to defense contractors or medical researchers?

 

First off, why do we need defense contractors? What can they do better or cheaper than our military?

As far as research of controlled substances goes, that can and should be done under supervision of the authorities. I don't trust many pharmaceutical companies any more than I would Joe Citizen down the street with a canister of weapons grade B/C agents...

 

I'm thinking more the manufactures of military equipment and weaponry rather than contractors like Blackwater who are supplying men.

But I don't think you would be advocating that there should be NO restrictions on the weaponry that individuals can buy ( explosives, biological, chemical)?
"Hey Bob, cool nuke, where can I get one of those ...".

 

I would love for N-B-C-HE to be addressed in the Constitution with an amendment that restricts them. It would be real easy to do, except, of course, for the folks who be trying to toss things like rifles and weed and abortion into the mix, mucking it all up.

I don't think a private corporation should own or be tasked with controlling nukes. Same with a canister of sarin gas or a vial of weaponized anthrax. I think any such thing is just as deadly in their hands as it is in the hands of Joe Blow down the street. Some of the CEOs of private corporations are the most sociopathic and evil people in the world. AFAIK, the govt does not do a psych eval on the heads of firms that it awards contracts.

 

Great topic.

Very easy litmus test FWIS:

Does the individual in question use the levers of power and the organized violence of the state to defend individual liberty or instead to inject his or her personal beliefs into the body politic for reasons other than the defense of liberty.

If the former, we likely have a libertarian. If the latter, we likely have the antithesis of libertarian: an authoritarian.

 

The Supreme Court has awarded Corporations the same protections as citizens, so you are advocating for the restriction of weaponry, which under
your own definition makes you an authoritarian. Want to revisit your initial claims?

 

Individual Freedom is my metric.

Any individual, group, institution, law, policy, ideology, etc., that is opposed to it is authoritarian.

 

LOL. What a wonderfully predictable and abjectly pedestrian "argument."

That said, most politicians exhibit some authoritarian characteristics. Some more than others, obviously. Just wait until Jan. 20... You ain't seen nothin yet!