Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for them self. Freedom is always freedom from something. One can even be free from liberty. Authoritarianism always seeks to free people from liberty. Libertarianism is at the political center. From libertarianism-center, the political spectrum extends left through liberalism toward the authoritarian-left, currently epitomized by the variants of Marxism, and toward the authoritarian-right currently epitomized by the variants of islam. The authoritarian-left elevates homosexuals. The authoritarian-right throws homosexuals off of buildings. The authoritarian-left grants women preferential "minority" status. The authoritarian-right subjugates women. Yet the authoritarian-left and the authoritarian-right have more in common with each other than they have in common with the libertarian-center. Authoritarians are authoritarians first. All authoritarians, be they to the political left or right, equate individuals having authority over themselves with chaos and them having responsibility for themselves with oppression. Authoritarians are intolerant of others having more then themselves; they are universally envious. No authoritarian considers having their very best intentions for others imposed upon them by force of law to be a usurpation of other people's best intentions for themselves. Authoritarians consider having their best intentions imposed upon others by force of law to be the only reasonable alternative to chaos or having responsibility for the themselves imposed upon them by force of law. By definition, authoritarians cannot feel fulfilled as individuals unless they're telling other individuals what to do. Libertarians want to take over the world and then leave you alone.
I agree with this. Both the left and right want to use government to enforce their political views, agendas on all the rest of us. Their political ideology, philosophy and agenda can be the complete opposite. But using the power of government to force them on everyone else, that they do have in common.
Excellent post. Liberal progressives want folks to believe they are for individual rights but are relly using that and the promise of free stuff to gain power. That is how authoritarians gain power. Once they have power they do not give it up so easily.
Ideologues thrive on demeaning other ideologues. Meanwhile, pragmatists embrace what demonstrably works best without kowtowing to dogma. The empirical data provided by the wold's most successful nations provides the practical paradigm.
Historically, authoritarians do not take power; they are given it. Authoritarians are given power by those who seek to be free from authority over and responsibility for themselves. Liberty is not a universal goal. Historically, most people have sought freedom from liberty. Take for example our current crop of "SJW"s. When you listen to them item by item, issue by issue, they want nothing more or less than freedom from individuals having authority over and responsibility for themselves.
That would be participatory democracy, practicing regulated capitalism and administering inclusive programs to insure a reasonable quality of life. No alternative, comparably successful examples exist - beyond airy-fairy ideological confections.
Is that "reasonable quality of life" subject to constant change as others strive to improve their quality of life? Are those who are provided a "reasonable quality of life" entitled to an ever increasing quality of life as others strive to improve their quality of life? Is this "reasonable quality of life" you write about relative to what other people have or is it simply what everyone needs?
I see much of what the authoritarian left and right seek founded upon a desire to be protected from other people, as if the need to be careful and prepared were an infringement of their rights. Why they think anyone who would take on that fundamental responsibility for them could ever be trusted to do so honestly and competently is beyond me.
Aspirational goals are determined by the People in each advanced democratic nation, and inevitably vary, of course. Uniform, theoretical rigid standards are the currency of ideologues, not pragmatists.
Having the implications of "empirical data" imposed upon people by force of law is no less authoritarian or well meaning than marxism or islam. In my opinion, such authoritarianism should be reserved to the parents of small children.
In participatory democracies - such as all the wold's most advanced nations - whatever self-governance is decided upon is self-posed. The empirical data that confirms them as being the most advanced merely affirms that pragmatic approach.
If you would care to offer your alternative to all the advanced, participatory democracies that have pragmatically settled upon regulated capitalism with a responsible welfare component as their approach to self-governance, you can list them if you are dealing in reality.
To the sheep, that's very pragmatic. After all, in what other land is it any other way? The sheep is always eaten by the wolves, but at least he's comfortable in knowing that he is being eaten by the best wolves.
No, decent people feel people who happen to be homosexuals should be treated fairly, the same as everyone else...equal. And not treated like second class citizens or criminals or get thrown off buildings. That doesn't sound authoritarian to me...sounds like liberty and justice for all.
Your comical. The extreme left liberal I could see doing that. Know what I can see the extreme libertarian right doing? Resetting us back to the wild west times, and having us overthrown by another government. And once the extreme rights policies fail and we get conquered by an authoritarian..I'm sure that force would never give their power up.
You can snivel when folks don't adhere to your ideological dogma but, rather, go with what works best. Your problem is that you cannot cite even one example of your airy-fairy notion actually working like all the real advanced democracies.
What a naively parochial thesis. I'm sure it's most comforting, but I would suggest that you study the first verse of the Tao and then reflect a bit on your platitudes.
Tao (The Way) that can be spoken of is not the Constant Tao’ The name that can be named is not a Constant Name. Nameless, is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The named is the Mother of all things. Thus, the constant void enables one to observe the true essence. The constant being enables one to see the outward manifestations. These two come paired from the same origin. But when the essence is manifested, It has a different name. This same origin is called “The Profound Mystery.” As profound the mystery as It can be, It is the Gate to the essence of all life.
When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised. If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy. The Master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!" or If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao. Stop trying to control. Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself. The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be. The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be. Therefore the Master says: I let go of the law, and people become honest. I let go of economics, and people become prosperous. I let go of religion, and people become serene. I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.
