Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 21:03:35


Post by: Easy E


Here is a hyperbolic story about how Brexit is a sign that Liberal Democratic values are beginning to fail with regular citizens in the "West".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/britons_radical_rejection_of_the_status_quo_should_terrify_all_liberal_democracies.html

However, this little factoid struck me as deeply concerning....


Across most countries in North America and Western Europe, voters have grown deeply dissatisfied with the political class. For a rapidly growing number, this dissatisfaction with particular leaders has started to transform into an actual rejection of democratic institutions. Across North America and Western Europe, the number of citizens who say that it is important to live in a democracy is shrinking. At the same time, the number of citizens who are open to making their countries more authoritarian is rising.

This trend is especially striking in the United States. Two decades ago, 1 in 16 Americans believed that Army rule would be a good way to run the country. Today, it is 1 in 6. The picture is even bleaker among the young and affluent: Support for military rule in this group has increased nearly sixfold, from 6 percent to 35 percent.


Well, is it truly the beginning of the end for Liberal Democracy as its own citizens begin to turn away from it as an effective form of government?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 21:13:40


Post by: BrotherGecko


Part of me wants to say that none of the western nations have ever actually been a democracy and have never been intended to be one either and that people are just finally wanting the oligarchs to drop the dog and pony show.

The other part will just say yes, my own studying has lead me to believe whether you are left or right on the political scale it would seem some form of authoritarianism is being desired. That being said, it isn't necessarily an overt call for the end of democracy but a gradual collection of regressive (pogressive) decisions/ideals that encroach upon democratic process.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 21:19:12


Post by: LordofHats


I think people conflating any disagreement between themselves and state policy with authoritarianism is on the rise.

The author seems very eager to do exactly what I describe in the above sentence; to equate anyone whose stances are opposed to his/her own with supporting authoritarianism. The article itself actually flies in the face of the authors own supposed notion; that the UK's democratic choice to leave a political entity that is not democratic is somehow undermining faith in democratic institutions? Or is the author suggesting that decision was born from a lack of faith in democracy? I don't know, but it sure as hell doesn't make sense either way. And of course, we gotta hand it to the author who references their own research, which reeks of BS on its face as (1 in 6, really? Most fake numbers at least try to be believable. And published on Polyarchy* no less. Someone really is swing for the bottom of the barrel!). I also challenge this author to provide a convincing argument that right wing politics in the US were ever anything but populist. The entire movement of modern conservatism was born from populist reactionism to the "Great Society."

There's definitely no denying that modern western democracies are experiencing a serious wave of disillusion with notions like "by the people for the people," but this writer seems to go in an utterly bizarre direction equating that with a lack of faith in democracy as a principal.

This is the kind of "quality" writing I expect to come from the Slate


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 21:31:44


Post by: Paradigm


I think a lot of it is perhaps just disillusionment with the 'democratic system' rather than a preference for authoritarianism. The mentioned 'importance' of living in a democracy lessens the more it becomes apparent that the real power lies with the moneymen and the political elite that kowtow to them, or in some notable cases are one and the same. What does the idea of democracy or any other form of government matter when you're still being consistently screwed by multi-billionaires? To the people who consistently find themselves with less and less while a handful at the top get more and more, and whatever way they vote won't change that, why bother voting? (that's a hypothetical, personally I urge anyone who is eligible to go and vote where possible even if it's just to register that they abstain)

People are waking up to that, and shifting away from the centrist politics that yield this status quo. You see it on the Right with the rise of Trump and Farage, you see it on the Left in Corbyn and Sanders. I don't think democracy is failing or being rejected, I do think there is a realisation that its role affect on people's lives is increasingly minimal. It's not 'important to live in a democracy' when what you can do within that system means very little and very rarely changes anything.

Today's Referendum results demonstrate both that democracy is still fully functional (72% turnout), but also that a result that challenges the status quo will certainly upset the apple cart; it illustrates how heavily the financial sector relies on nothing changing, and how much of a fuss the financial and political elite will kick up when the 'democratic system' doesn't give them the result that best suits them. That's pretty telling, I think. That a fine example of democracy in action, of the people choosing and making a decision, is being described as a disaster and a tragedy just because it's not what the establishment wants, is rather sickening.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 21:33:20


Post by: Talizvar


What is truly scary is the increase of people willing to give up what little input/control they have on their political system.

A military leader would not be terribly interested on what I have to say.
A priminister might that tiny bit because I have a vote and can say many nasty things to other voters if he is not nice...

Are there really that many people who want a friendly dictator to handle it all for them?

Has anyone contacted their local representative?
Ever had any face time?
I have, they respond well to anyone who appears to care enough to "do what it takes".
What is REALLY funny is when both of you think: "How can I get this guy to work for me?".

Try some of that before you write it all off as hopeless.

I have all the power in the world to act on anything that I am sufficiently motivated to make my new "hobby".

One person can change countries, we have plenty of proof of that: just people, not gods.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 22:20:40


Post by: Asherian Command


Well currently what is popular is regressive left, and the far conservative.

Authortianism is apart of that.

WE have sex negative people who recently defaced a feminist symbol of woman sexual empowerment with "Stop using woman's bodies." - Signed Feminists.

It is authortative and wanting the other side to confide to your own beliefs and to follow your way of thinking.

IT is actually pretty interesting people are treating equality similar to how someone would worship a god or essence of belief.

Its pretty interesting, but again it is people forgeting and being sucked into a one sided narrative through scare tactics and people being tricked and only shown some of the results of a factoid or history.

Mainly the biggest paradox I think of is the: Simpson’s Paradox.

Which means : "Simpson's paradox, or the Yule–Simpson effect, is a paradox in probability and statistics, in which a trend that appears in different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined. It is sometimes given the impersonal title reversal paradox or amalgamation paradox."

It happens when you focus on certain parts of a factoid a forget the numbers behind them....

In a study from 1973 UOC, Berkley was sued for have bias against women, because it in it in its graduate programs : Men were favored to women by 44% to 35%.




With that information on hand a Authortatative person or politically minded would say "Change the school." While only looking at that factoid instead of the ENTIRE research document. People have been sued for it.

Now at first it seems sexist... But then some departments had higher acceptance rates for women, but there was less woman who came into the program because less of them wanted to go to the school, it wasn't sexism it was actually distrubition called the SImpsons paradox.....

From this if we break up the numbers it is actually not sexist, infact the lawsuit was dropped after the numbers came out. Because it was found they weren't it was just less women came into the programs. And people added it up and as percentages are they don't accurately show off what actually happened:




Authortarianism is popular because that is just a theme it happens once in a while. In my generation is more common people want stuff for themselves and not for the good of the community, they live in fear of the outside because of a regressiveness. They are becoming more and more along the lines of Ayn Rand's Ethical Egoist (interested in the self, not the community).

Nothing wholly wrong with it. Just happens in a generation or so.

I am speaking generally, not specifically so have fun with that.


What is truly scary is the increase of people willing to give up what little input/control they have on their political system.


I think it is because people just don't care, they just see something and don't particularly want to deal with it. They want more restrictions because they feel it should belong to the politician,



Are there really that many people who want a friendly dictator to handle it all for them?
Of course not we aren't waiting for our dear leader, because Dictatorships rarely work
Has anyone contacted their local representative?
Yep, I have contacted them before, especially about net neutrality
Ever had any face time?
Yep, with my local government quite often, the board meetings are boring but it is nice to know what is going on, and not live in ignorance.
What is REALLY funny is when both of you think: "How can I get this guy to work for me?".
You can also slip them a twenty if you really feel brave.


You see it on the Right with the rise of Drumpf and Farage, you see it on the Left in Corbyn and Sanders. I don't think democracy is failing or being rejected, I do think there is a realisation that its role affect on people's lives is increasingly minimal. It's not 'important to live in a democracy' when what you can do within that system means very little and very rarely changes anything.


While true we are seeing people like that, but it is mostly because people forget how far money can get you. If I had billions of dollars I have alot more power than a middle class person who makes 100k a year.

I do think we see it with individuals blaming some farflung idealism to the wind instead of focusing on the reality of the situation.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 23:31:21


Post by: Manchu


It's not Leave voters I have seen question democracy today. There is quite a spin to the coverage here and I think the referendum gave us a little peak into reality. Just going by British media, including BBC coverage, over the last few months, I would never have thought this result possible. I saw the issues reduced to short term economic scare mongering and ad hominem charges of racism. All of that has only been reemphasized today by crestfallen Remain supporters, a thin swipe at the legitimacy of their opponents' franchise. It seems to me that powerful elites in both the UK and the US are sharply and suddenly not having their way and the journalists are ready to somehow paint this as a sign that the people resisting them, the people who are rightfully skeptical of the fragile and ineffective and self serving structures those elites have built and maintained over the last five or six decades, are somehow adverse to democracy.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 23:33:31


Post by: Asterios


I'm still trying to figure out where they got the 1 in 6 would want a military rule here in the US? seriously, maybe one in 6000 maybe, if even that many.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/24 23:47:26


Post by: NinthMusketeer


You know, if the voters are so upset with the politicians they elected maybe they should consider electing better ones. But it's easier to just run with whatever political bias one has rather than, you know, actually researching the people one is voting for.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 00:13:45


Post by: Iron_Captain


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You know, if the voters are so upset with the politicians they elected maybe they should consider electing better ones. But it's easier to just run with whatever political bias one has rather than, you know, actually researching the people one is voting for.

The problem with modern Western democracies however is that sometimes there is no better candidate to be elected. It is like having to vote between Clinton and Trump. From what I gather (don't know much about US politics so forgive if I'm wrong) about them, they both suck.

I don't think we are seeing a rise of authoritarianism, if anything we are seeing more democracy. More and more people are fed up with the postmodern neoliberal elites and the existing order of things and make this known. If anything, it is the beginning of the end for neoliberalism (which is about time), not the end for democracy.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 00:36:55


Post by: Crazy_Carnifex


 Iron_Captain wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You know, if the voters are so upset with the politicians they elected maybe they should consider electing better ones. But it's easier to just run with whatever political bias one has rather than, you know, actually researching the people one is voting for.

The problem with modern Western democracies however is that sometimes there is no better candidate to be elected. It is like having to vote between Clinton and Trump. From what I gather (don't know much about US politics so forgive if I'm wrong) about them, they both suck.

I don't think we are seeing a rise of authoritarianism, if anything we are seeing more democracy. More and more people are fed up with the postmodern neoliberal elites and the existing order of things and make this known. If anything, it is the beginning of the end for neoliberalism (which is about time), not the end for democracy.


Politicians are like middle management. The only people who choose it as a career path are either power-hungry, or lack any useful skills other than "Good with People".


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 00:38:08


Post by: Peregrine


 Asherian Command wrote:
WE have sex negative people who recently defaced a feminist symbol of woman sexual empowerment with "Stop using woman's bodies." - Signed Feminists.


Thank you for quite nicely proving LordofHats' point about people claiming that any policy disagreement is "authoritarianism". Vandalism for a political purpose is not inherently authoritarianism. In fact, statements like this are generally a request for people to voluntarily change their behavior

It is authortative and wanting the other side to confide to your own beliefs and to follow your way of thinking.


That is not at all what authoritarianism means. If you're going to participate in a discussion on a political concept it's important to first understand what the thing you're discussing actually means. Please do this.

With that information on hand a Authortatative person or politically minded would say "Change the school."


Again, this is NOT what authoritarianism means! A state-operated university changing its admissions policies is not an example of the state taking away your freedom. It may or may not be a good policy decision to make (and may or may not be made for good reasons) but the level of state power is the same either way. And private universities are still free to have whatever admissions policies they want, including limiting their services to men/women only.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 00:52:54


Post by: Tactical_Spam


Is it too early to make a guess that history may repeat itself?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 01:19:31


Post by: Frozocrone


Probably not going to happen, since the future generations voted had a super majority to remain (close to 75% for Remain in ages 18-25).

Not to call out Leave voters as xenophobic, but there is a greater sense of multiculturalism found within Remain voters.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 01:21:03


Post by: NinthMusketeer


 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You know, if the voters are so upset with the politicians they elected maybe they should consider electing better ones. But it's easier to just run with whatever political bias one has rather than, you know, actually researching the people one is voting for.

The problem with modern Western democracies however is that sometimes there is no better candidate to be elected. It is like having to vote between Clinton and Trump. From what I gather (don't know much about US politics so forgive if I'm wrong) about them, they both suck.

I don't think we are seeing a rise of authoritarianism, if anything we are seeing more democracy. More and more people are fed up with the postmodern neoliberal elites and the existing order of things and make this known. If anything, it is the beginning of the end for neoliberalism (which is about time), not the end for democracy.


Politicians are like middle management. The only people who choose it as a career path are either power-hungry, or lack any useful skills other than "Good with People".
See that isn't completely true though. More moderate, reasonable candidates do run but they rarely ever get any momentum. And we don't know how many stay away because they know it won't go anywhere. Granted the state we're at couldn't be fixed in a single election cycle, or even several, but if voters consistently chose candidates who stuck to their principles, made promises they could actually keep, and generally conducted themselves in a well-reasoned manner then the situation would steadily improve as those types took over the political scene. Instead voters choose to continually elect and re-elect the same type of people (or abstain from voting at all and let others do the forementioned) and then gripe about how terrible the political body is. People want things to change but god forbid they actually have to change their behavior to make it happen.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 01:27:23


Post by: Asherian Command


 Peregrine wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:
WE have sex negative people who recently defaced a feminist symbol of woman sexual empowerment with "Stop using woman's bodies." - Signed Feminists.


Thank you for quite nicely proving LordofHats' point about people claiming that any policy disagreement is "authoritarianism". Vandalism for a political purpose is not inherently authoritarianism. In fact, statements like this are generally a request for people to voluntarily change their behavior

It is authortative and wanting the other side to confide to your own beliefs and to follow your way of thinking.


That is not at all what authoritarianism means. If you're going to participate in a discussion on a political concept it's important to first understand what the thing you're discussing actually means. Please do this.

With that information on hand a Authortatative person or politically minded would say "Change the school."


Again, this is NOT what authoritarianism means! A state-operated university changing its admissions policies is not an example of the state taking away your freedom. It may or may not be a good policy decision to make (and may or may not be made for good reasons) but the level of state power is the same either way. And private universities are still free to have whatever admissions policies they want, including limiting their services to men/women only.


Talking about in general not just as a political thing. If you want to talk down about the opinion I expressed then please do in a PM.

I am mainly talking where people are being authoritative person meaning as a commanding person, not talking about policies of people though we do have people who believe in that Social Marxists or Socialists or communists often believe in authoritarianism.

I do think it is a trend though.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 01:44:54


Post by: LordofHats


Democracy and authoritarianism have at least one thing in common; that the individual will is subject to the will of standing political authority (whether it be a direct vote, elected officials writing laws, or a dictator). So yeah. If there is a vote to "stop using women's bodies" and it passes, it is presumed that you will abide by the vote as a member of the democratic polity even if you voted against the measure. That's how democracy works. Win or lose, you're still subject to the decision. Of course, most modern democracies have some form of civil rights, though they all vary in how sacred/enforced those rights are (can actually be seen as a degree of authoritarian infusion into democratic processes, which of course makes the OP article even more hilariously poorly thought out).


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 01:47:39


Post by: Peregrine


 Asherian Command wrote:
Talking about in general not just as a political thing.


Then you clearly don't know what "authoritarianism" means. Talking about "authoritarianism" in any context other than politics simply does not make any sense because it's a political concept about increasing state power. Attempting to apply it to a case of individual citizens disagreeing with other individual citizens does not work at all.

If you want to talk down about the opinion I expressed then please do in a PM.


Or I could do it in public. If you don't like public disagreement then don't post your opinions in public.

I am mainly talking where people are being authoritative person meaning as a commanding person, not talking about policies of people though we do have people who believe in that Social Marxists or Socialists or communists often believe in authoritarianism.


But you can't make a bait and switch like that. In a discussion of authoritarianism as a political concept you can't just quietly substitute some definition about "being commanding" or whatever. Speaking very loudly and confidently about a subject is not in any way comparable to the state imposing strict laws about what you can and can't do.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 02:02:24


Post by: Manchu


I think that point is lost on many, LoH. The Guardian is currently running a propaganda vid showing young Remain supporters, including some who are too young to vote, bemoaning the Referendum not only as a matter of the result but almost in principal - for example, complaining about eldsters voting. My feeling is, these children and many of their parents have no commitment to democracy itself. If there is a threat of authoritarianism, it is not looming over the horizon. Rather, it has been looming over us for years already. This time, they have not come in paramilitary uniforms - they have smart, modern suits. The idiom of the generalissimo is dead. The icon of authority today is the expert. No little red books now - today they wave "studies" around, or at least op/ed "journalism."


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 02:19:55


Post by: Asherian Command


Does not make any sense because it's a political concept about increasing state power.


*looks up definition*

1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents> 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>


Synonyms
bossy, authoritative, autocratic (also autocratical), despotic, dictatorial, domineering, imperious, masterful, overbearing, peremptory, tyrannical (also tyrannic), tyrannous


Yes that is one of its definitions I was using the other widely known definition that is often placed upon people quite often. You can use it in many scenarios, infact you have an authortative opinion. Where it is quite overposed to mine as you clearly hold your opinion higher than you do mine.

In this circumstance though It is a bit of both, we see certain types of people want to have a bigger government, submissive peoples or people who just don't care often go towards big government, while authortative people sometimes go for it as well. Certain groups that impose social Authoritarianism is common and is an essential part of the Regressive Left.

But you can't make a bait and switch like that. In a discussion of authoritarianism as a political concept you can't just quietly substitute some definition about "being commanding" or whatever. Speaking very loudly and confidently about a subject is not in any way comparable to the state imposing strict laws about what you can and can't do.


Bait and switch?

I didn't bait anyone, I showed factoids that people often use in arguments to try and show "This is why we need regulations"
Or "This is why we need ETC"

People want to impose upon others what they think is better for everyone. Thus they are Authoritative as per definition of the word. Authoritarian in politics is becoming a trend because it is bred through many different ways either through social upbringing or being taught in schools such as I was that Big Government thus a more powerful State (Country) is better for the US, than a smaller government. Infact we had it painted in a black and white scenario most of the time. Often siding with the Authoritative Liberal side than the Conservative side.

I saw someone used percentages and I looked up those percentages. I had to in this case educate people about Simpson's Paradox. Which happens quite often when people use facts or percentages. I then went on to give examples of people who would often go against these types of things they are called authoritative people who are wanting people to follow their own rules.

In certain cases they are people who do support (ironically) governments and a larger state power. Even though they are Authoritative, as they support Authoritarianism, they have lived through it their entire life and consider it normal. While people who haven't are horrified by it.

At times we can assume certain types of things but in terms of authoritarianism which is a byproduct of people imposing upon others and infringining on their rights then yes it is quite related, it is because people from certain political groups are more likely to support. IE marxists, marxist feminists, sex negative feminists, MRA, and many other groups have more of a tendency to be in support of these types of things that we called Authoritarianism.


Though I could be completely wrong mostly, its just me guessing. And trying to figure out why it is such a large phenomenon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
I think that point is lost on many, LoH. The Guardian is currently running a propaganda vid showing young Remain supporters, including some who are too young to vote, bemoaning the Referendum not only as a matter of the result but almost in principal - for example, complaining about eldsters voting. My feeling is, these children and many of their parents have no commitment to democracy itself. If there is a threat of authoritarianism, it is not looming over the horizon. Rather, it has been looming over us for years already. This time, they have not come in paramilitary uniforms - they have smart, modern suits. The idiom of the generalissimo is dead. The icon of authority today is the expert. No little red books now - today they wave "studies" around, or at least op/ed "journalism."


I can concur with that, in schools you see teachers encourage it.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 04:20:58


Post by: Peregrine


 Asherian Command wrote:
Yes that is one of its definitions I was using the other widely known definition that is often placed upon people quite often.


Except "authoritarian" and "authoritarianism" are not the same thing. The former has some more diversity in its application, the latter refers specifically to a political concept. And the OP clearly references "authoritarianism", both in the exact word choice and in the article text.

In this circumstance though It is a bit of both, we see certain types of people want to have a bigger government, submissive peoples or people who just don't care often go towards big government, while authortative people sometimes go for it as well. Certain groups that impose social Authoritarianism is common and is an essential part of the Regressive Left.


Even if this is true neither of your examples had anything to do with authoritarianism. Loudly saying "I DON'T LIKE THIS PLEASE STOP" is not authoritarianism, nor is a state university changing its admissions policies. They may be things you disagree with, and maybe even things that I disagree with, but they aren't examples of the state taking away an excessive amount of freedom.

Bait and switch?


Yes, it's a bait and switch. You came into a thread about a political concept and tried to quietly substitute your own, different, definition for the word and only mentioned the difference once I called you on it.

I didn't bait anyone, I showed factoids that people often use in arguments to try and show "This is why we need regulations"


"Regulations" and "authoritarianism" are not the same thing.

Though I could be completely wrong mostly, its just me guessing.


You are completely wrong, and you're proving the point that was mentioned earlier about "anything I disagree with is authoritarianism". For example, those anti-sex feminists aren't generally advocating laws restricting sex between consenting adults, they're saying "you should change what you're doing" with no power to force anyone to change. MRAs are often complete s, but where their beliefs have anything at all to do with government policy it's at least in theory about increasing freedom. Marxists want to change the government in significant ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean a major loss of freedom. Etc.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:05:45


Post by: DutchWinsAll


 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Is it too early to make a guess that history may repeat itself?


I just finished reading "To Hell and Back: Europe 1914-1949"and it is quite chilling to see similar patterns pan out. Obviously you're not going to see a genocidal juggernaut like the Third Reich in modern day Europe, but where liberal social democratic policies are thought to have failed (or indeed have) right-wingers are continuously gaining ground.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:10:21


Post by: Tactical_Spam


DutchWinsAll wrote:
 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Is it too early to make a guess that history may repeat itself?


I just finished reading "To Hell and Back: Europe 1914-1949"and it is quite chilling to see similar patterns pan out. Obviously you're not going to see a genocidal juggernaut like the Third Reich in modern day Europe, but where liberal social democratic policies are thought to have failed (or indeed have) right-wingers are continuously gaining ground.


There is still a way to go before the Right wing can actually pull off anything significant.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:23:19


Post by: Manchu


You guys talk about "the Right" like anything but centre-left politics is inescapably crypto fascism.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:25:37


Post by: Asherian Command


 Manchu wrote:
You guys talk about "the Right" like anything but centre-left politics is inescapably crypto fascism.

I think I have only talked about the regressive left. I support left politics, but I don't like it when it strains to a political area of idiocy.

Right has its problems. Each side has its problems. Authoritarianism is more common in the left, because they favor big government while Right is horrified by the notion of a big government. Hence why I haven't at all talk about the right.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:29:15


Post by: Tactical_Spam


 Asherian Command wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
You guys talk about "the Right" like anything but centre-left politics is inescapably crypto fascism.

I think I have only talked about the regressive left. I support left politics, but I don't like it when it strains to a political area of idiocy.

Right has its problems. Each side has its problems. Authoritarianism is more common in the left, because they favor big government while Right is horrified by the notion of a big government. Hence why I haven't at all talk about the right.


Yes, but last time I checked, wasn't Hitler a Right winger? Or was he Left because he was technically part of a "socialist" party?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:32:21


Post by: Asherian Command


 Tactical_Spam wrote:
 Asherian Command wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
You guys talk about "the Right" like anything but centre-left politics is inescapably crypto fascism.

I think I have only talked about the regressive left. I support left politics, but I don't like it when it strains to a political area of idiocy.

Right has its problems. Each side has its problems. Authoritarianism is more common in the left, because they favor big government while Right is horrified by the notion of a big government. Hence why I haven't at all talk about the right.


Yes, but last time I checked, wasn't Hitler a Right winger? Or was he Left because he was technically part of a "socialist" party?


Hitler was an Authoritarian Right if I remember correctly.

As he wanted a conservative country but he wanted all the power. So IE Dictatorship. Most commonly I think of big brother, not a Dictatorship that is technically the most common government on the planet next to democracy. So I stand corrected


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:33:36


Post by: Manchu


I think that the authoritarian tendencies we live with today tend to come ftom the left politically but from the right culturally. I know many conservatives who balk at expanded government oversight but at the same time revere the military, the most terrifying of all government institutions.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:38:33


Post by: Asherian Command


 Manchu wrote:
I think that the authoritarian tendencies we live with today tend to come ftom the left politically but from the right culturally. I know many conservatives who balk at expanded government oversight but at the same time revere the military, the most terrifying of all government institutions.


Is that universal to the world or only to the United States?

I completely agree, but maybe its because we have to deal with the everyday Leftist Authoritarian (Harrison Beurgeon being a great example of this at its worst form) beliefs over the right authoritarianism (The Third Reich being an example of this).

National unity sometimes breeds it as we saw in the Third Reich and even with the Roman Empire.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:41:09


Post by: Manchu


I only meant the US.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 05:51:59


Post by: Peregrine


 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Yes, but last time I checked, wasn't Hitler a Right winger? Or was he Left because he was technically part of a "socialist" party?


Right. The "socialist" part was a leftover from before Hitler purged the party of its left-wing elements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
I know many conservatives who balk at expanded government oversight but at the same time revere the military, the most terrifying of all government institutions.


The problem is that a lot of the time when conservatives "balk" at expanded government it's only when that government doesn't agree with conservative ideology. For example, the conservative republicans in the NC state legislature passed that bathroom bill banning local governments from having gender-neutral bathroom laws. It's conservatives that vote to ban lower governments from having increased minimum wage laws. Etc. The idea of "local people know what is best for themselves" that is used to justify small-government positions seems to be rather quickly forgotten whenever it's convenient to have increased state/federal government advance conservative ideology.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 06:12:39


Post by: Manchu


Peregrine - Agreed, I recall when the Republican AG here in VA wanted to require all women attempting to procure an abortion to have a trans-vaginal ultrasound. If that's not government intrusion then I don't know what is.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 07:13:55


Post by: SilverMK2


Governments the world over have cracked down on freedoms over spurious "terrorists want to kill you!" And "think of the children!" claims; people are starting to resent this.

I think there is a lot of protest voting for more extreme parties going on over the last 10 or so years (in the UK and EU). The major parties are no longer seen as representing the people on the street and the processes of government are seen as protecting the few over the many.

While the individual parties they vote for may be extreme, at least they are seen to stand for something. And a vote for them is pretty much the only choice when none of the major parties represent you; and it might just prompt the government to evaluate what it is they are doing and see that people don't like it...


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 08:26:00


Post by: Breotan


I don't want this to be a gun-rights issue so I'm posting it here as an example of authoritarianism. What Hawaii has done is to require a certain segment of society - gun owners - who have committed no crime, be put on an FBI watch list. If these people commit a crime in another state, local police in Hawaii will be notified.

Aside from the obvious issues, such as violating the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, what problem in society does this law address? What defect is corrected? Are there really that many Hawaiians going abroad to ConUS, committing felonies, and returning to Hawaii afterword to polish their revolvers?

Or is this overreach an example of government trying to "do something" instead of doing the right thing?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-becomes-first-u-state-place-gun-owners-210248882.html?ref=gs

My point of view is that this should never be allowed to stand. If there is such a concern about people committing crimes in other states, then the solution is to make a nationwide database of criminals. Remove a person once the dept to society has been paid and all rights restored.

Or is that too much common sense?



Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 08:36:48


Post by: Kilkrazy


It's perfectly obvious that authoritarianism has been on the rise for 10 years or more. You only need to see people like Le Pen (France), Geert Wilders (Holland) and similar people in Austria and Sweden growing in popularity.

As far as the UK goes, the points made in the article about 'sovereignty' and 'immigration' being a kind of shorthand for isolationism and racism do have some truth in them. The sea change in the Brexit campaign came about when they let rip with anti-immigration stories two or three weeks ago. That's when the polls began to move in favour of Leave.

However, it's also important to note that almost half the UK electorate voted to stay in the EU.

The other point that the article makes, which has been made in many other editorials from respected sources including The Economist and the Evening Standard, is that people are suffering economically from globalisation and the 8-year recession. The rewards of the past 30 years of economic liberalisation have disproprortionately gone to the already rich. Meanwhile, social and job security has been cut for the rest of us.

The Evening Standard made the very good point that it's no use telling people that a vote to Leave is a vote to tank the economy if for them the economy has already tanked.

From this viewpoint, the Brexit vote is an emotional protest vote against power elites who have ignored the genuine concerns of the "lower orders'.

Unfortunately history teaches us that economic bad times bring popularism and authoritarianism in their wake.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 08:58:47


Post by: Peregrine


 Breotan wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-becomes-first-u-state-place-gun-owners-210248882.html?ref=gs


Ah yes, thank you for the demonstration of why everything is "THE GREATEST ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT POWER EVER". From the article:

"As you can imagine, the NRA finds this one of the most extreme bills we've ever seen," said Amy Hunter, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association's institute for legislative action.

Yep, you got that right. A law that allows the police to notify other police when someone is arrested is "one of the most extreme bills we've ever seen". Not the various proposals for bans on "assault weapons", not laws heavily restricting concealed handguns, the law that your local police will be informed if you are arrested elsewhere is the most extreme. Of course really all of those other bills are also "the most extreme bill we've ever seen". Just like it can't be a mere disagreement over policy decisions, the other side must be "authoritarian".


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/25 09:58:53


Post by: Whirlwind


 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's perfectly obvious that authoritarianism has been on the rise for 10 years or more. You only need to see people like Le Pen (France), Geert Wilders (Holland) and similar people in Austria and Sweden growing in popularity.

As far as the UK goes, the points made in the article about 'sovereignty' and 'immigration' being a kind of shorthand for isolationism and racism do have some truth in them. The sea change in the Brexit campaign came about when they let rip with anti-immigration stories two or three weeks ago. That's when the polls began to move in favour of Leave.

However, it's also important to note that almost half the UK electorate voted to stay in the EU.

The other point that the article makes, which has been made in many other editorials from respected sources including The Economist and the Evening Standard, is that people are suffering economically from globalisation and the 8-year recession. The rewards of the past 30 years of economic liberalisation have disproprortionately gone to the already rich. Meanwhile, social and job security has been cut for the rest of us.

The Evening Standard made the very good point that it's no use telling people that a vote to Leave is a vote to tank the economy if for them the economy has already tanked.

From this viewpoint, the Brexit vote is an emotional protest vote against power elites who have ignored the genuine concerns of the "lower orders'.

Unfortunately history teaches us that economic bad times bring popularism and authoritarianism in their wake.


I'd agree with this, but note that it was only half of the voting electorate that voted to leave and/or remain. There is still a significant fraction that didn't vote so to an order of magnitude 1/3 want to leave, 1/3 want to remain and third don't care/don't know/weren't engaged/put off by poop slinging

There is a larger and larger proportion of the population that are getting frustrated and annoyed at a political system that is skewed to favour only the large parties (first past the post) and that favours a funding model for these parties that in essence ensures that the rich few will control these parties (and hence ensure their market dominance). At the same time we have had a party that despises publicly funded bodies and has stripped local authorities, charities and other organisations of funding which in the main helped those on lower incomes. This in turn leaves them more isolated, less educated, more open to polarised views and ripe to be exploited by populists of which the leaders of the leave campaign are either wilfully (as it benefits them) ignorant or just plainly ignorant of these issues. Unfortunately for the vast majority that voted leave their lives are likely to get worse as the government will lurch further to the right, become even more reliant on a few rich donors and further reduce funding to state bodies to help the less mobile become better off - this could then set off a new wave of more extreme popularism and we ended up on dark roads we have travelled before.

It is unfortunate that our politicians fail to recognise the mistakes of the past and keep on repeating them. Maybe the market shock of the last few days will open their eyes but given it appears as the UK government is about to swing further towards the populist movement I am not overly confident. With increasing pressures over resources, global warming instigating migrations I am worried about where all this is going.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/26 01:44:30


Post by: LordofHats


 Manchu wrote:
My feeling is, these children and many of their parents have no commitment to democracy itself.


I'd expand that by saying that it feels a lot like being the democratic equivalent of a spoiled child. They assume that because they want it, it must be given to them and that any scenario in which it is not is either government overreach/a conspiracy/<insert victim complex here>. I think that everyone involved likes the notion of democracy, but they are too immature/are willingly ignoring democratic reality. Democracy is not a form of government where everyone gets what they want. it's a form of government where everyone has a vote. There's a big difference. I think we see this exact behavior in the US all the time. I think ti certainly leads to many embracing notions of authoritarianism like "we need an amendment banning flag burning" or "we need a law banning hate speech entirely"*. It's convenient to think that when you're frustrated with not getting exactly what you want. But people indulging such notions does not per se mean they want authoritarian government.

*This is not a crticism of countries that have laws against hate speech. I think that when you sit back, democracy is not a system of government that produces equality on its own. It's a system prone to tyranny of the majority. That's why many modern democracies have stop gaps in place to protect from such things. A degree of authoritarianism can actually enhance the stability and equality of a democratic system (another case of the OP article being poorly thought out imo).


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/26 17:43:17


Post by: NuggzTheNinja


 Frozocrone wrote:
Probably not going to happen, since the future generations voted had a super majority to remain (close to 75% for Remain in ages 18-25).

Not to call out Leave voters as xenophobic, but there is a greater sense of multiculturalism found within Remain voters.


We might expect that, as they gain the wisdom and experience with the world that comes with age, their opinions are likely to change.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/26 20:26:24


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
 Frozocrone wrote:
Probably not going to happen, since the future generations voted had a super majority to remain (close to 75% for Remain in ages 18-25).

Not to call out Leave voters as xenophobic, but there is a greater sense of multiculturalism found within Remain voters.


We might expect that, as they gain the wisdom and experience with the world that comes with age, their opinions are likely to change.


Alternatively, their experiences in a more multi-cultural world have given them the wisdom to see the benefits, while older people lack the life experiences and opportunities to understand, having grown up and lived their lives in a much more isolated world.

I mean think about it. Someone who is 60 now spent almost two thirds of their life with Eastern Europe locked away behind the Berlin Wall. That kind of experience has not made them any wiser about Eastern Europe and its peoples, it has made them more ignorant.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/26 20:33:43


Post by: Whirlwind


 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
 Frozocrone wrote:
Probably not going to happen, since the future generations voted had a super majority to remain (close to 75% for Remain in ages 18-25).

Not to call out Leave voters as xenophobic, but there is a greater sense of multiculturalism found within Remain voters.


We might expect that, as they gain the wisdom and experience with the world that comes with age, their opinions are likely to change.


Yes I can imagine they will change. Probably from frustrated, concerned and unhappy to right royally peeved in 20 years when they realise all the opportunities they missed out on.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 03:08:26


Post by: sebster


There's really four factors at play. The first is that we are currently in the long shadow of a global financial collapse. Employment has recovered in some but not parts of the developed world, but wages are pretty much flat everywhere. People will accept flat wages for a few years, but stretch that out to 8 years as we have, and people start thinking 'holy crap will this be what wages will be like forever?!'

This is compounded by the second issue - most income growth in the past 30 years going to the highest income earners, which meant wages growth at the middle and lower end was already pretty crappy. When the long term pattern of very modest wages growth suddenly become zero, and not just for a little while but almost stretching to a decade now... well it isn't hard to see how that produces economic and therefore political tension.

On top of this there's the geographical nature. While the overall economic picture is fairly average, in many locations it's absolutely terrible. There are manufacturing and agricultural hubs that have been losing jobs every year for decades. There's an overall economic pressure, but in some specific locations that pressure is absolutely crushing.

The last element is terrorism. Islamic terror has had an impact on people way in excess of the actual deaths caused. Ultimately people aren't driven by national and international stats... they're driven by what's on the news. What's on the news shows developed countries that can't keep people safe, even though the existential threat to any individual person is absolutely tiny.

With all those pressures, it isn't that hard to understand how people might instinctively opt for something that gives them a feeling of control or power. Joining an energised political movement promising big changes now kind of logically follows. Typically those groups offer direct and hardline solutions that sound great to anyone who is under stress and doesn't really understand the complexity of the issues involved. Rejecting trade with other countries sounds great to someone who's struggling for manufacturing work, no matter how stupid that actually is. Similarly stupid but equally appealing is any of the issues that target Islam as a whole, visa bans, burqua bans... all those things ultimately appeal because they make people feel like they're putting control over a group of people that they are currently afraid of.

I'm not sure this means those radical groups are necessarily authoritarian, although I can see how more authoritarian groups might flourish in those circumstances, and in many cases more radical groups can appear more authoritarian to anyone who isn't a part of them.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 04:38:07


Post by: MrMoustaffa


 Easy E wrote:
Here is a hyperbolic story about how Brexit is a sign that Liberal Democratic values are beginning to fail with regular citizens in the "West".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/britons_radical_rejection_of_the_status_quo_should_terrify_all_liberal_democracies.html

However, this little factoid struck me as deeply concerning....


Across most countries in North America and Western Europe, voters have grown deeply dissatisfied with the political class. For a rapidly growing number, this dissatisfaction with particular leaders has started to transform into an actual rejection of democratic institutions. Across North America and Western Europe, the number of citizens who say that it is important to live in a democracy is shrinking. At the same time, the number of citizens who are open to making their countries more authoritarian is rising.

This trend is especially striking in the United States. Two decades ago, 1 in 16 Americans believed that Army rule would be a good way to run the country. Today, it is 1 in 6. The picture is even bleaker among the young and affluent: Support for military rule in this group has increased nearly sixfold, from 6 percent to 35 percent.


Well, is it truly the beginning of the end for Liberal Democracy as its own citizens begin to turn away from it as an effective form of government?

Yes and no?

I think its a very clear sign to just how badly division amongst people has gotten. Even remotely considering a compromise these days is met with more and more resistance on both sides, and this causes an absolute breakdown in a democracy.

This division of course leads to radicalism on both sides, from the racist, anti-immigrant, and bigoted leanings of the hard right, to the overly politically correct, borderline authoratian leanings of the left when it comes to rights of others. This leaves those in the middle with more conservative leanings (in the sense of riding the fence in between the two parties as opposed to hardliners, not conservative as in Republican party) out in the cold. This is the product of a huge amount of things, but it seems the main source is modern "news" outlets, social networks, and the anonimity and connectiveness of the internet allowing people to find an echochamber condusive to their beliefs.

It does make me worried for the future of democratic nations. You'd have to be a brainless monkey to not see how easily people can be manipulated these days with a proper event to leverage in your favor and the money to put your plan in motion. The fact that Clinton and Trump are our best odds of nominations is proof enough of that.

And I cant even pretend to be better than the radicals of either side, because ultimately the blame rides with people like me. The "average guys" worrying about the day to day trappings of life and assuming "theres no way trump would get nominated, he's a moron" or "Clinton's a crook, you'd be a madman to think she's president material." Because if we had been voting in the primaries and all that we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, the nutjobs went out to vote because theyre far more passionate and now we're here. We could of course write in a third party or something, but people have been so thoroughly doctrinated that voting anything aside from the main 2 is throwing away our vote, so it'll never happen.

So... Yes and no. In order for a democracy to succeed you need a population smart enough and mature enough to use it. Because otherwise it's junior playing with daddy's gun, except the consequences are even more disastrous. I would argue this isnt specifically a failing of democracy, education, political integrity, or even faith in government, but a snowballing effect building off all these and more. All it takes for one pillar to weaken and the rest will crumble as well. The worst part is it'll never improve until something truly horrible happens, because unless the whole country suffers a horrible event, not enough people will be motivated to change.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 04:57:26


Post by: Peregrine


 MrMoustaffa wrote:
We could of course write in a third party or something, but people have been so thoroughly doctrinated that voting anything aside from the main 2 is throwing away our vote, so it'll never happen.


It isn't indoctrination, it's a consequence of how the US election system works. It pretty inevitably encourages a system where there are two major parties and any minor parties that attempt to emerge are absorbed by the major parties. And it's certainly the case in 2016, even if theoretically the US system could have more than two parties. No third-party candidate has any hope of winning, so either you vote for the least-bad candidate from one of the two major parties or you vote for the worst candidate (including by staying home on election day or voting for a third-party candidate). If you want to change this situation then you need to change the structure US elections and implement a system like other countries have, where you rank your choices and can safely vote third-party while still supporting the least-terrible major party candidate if/when the third-party candidate fails to win.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 06:21:24


Post by: sebster


 MrMoustaffa wrote:
This is the product of a huge amount of things, but it seems the main source is modern "news" outlets, social networks, and the anonimity and connectiveness of the internet allowing people to find an echochamber condusive to their beliefs.


People like blaming 24 hour news and the internet, but the whole of the developed world has those things but we haven't seen anything like the rise in partisan politics that we've seen in the US.

What we've seen in the US is really more the result of things that are unique to the US. The first is your political system - it is very hard for a single party to push through legislation, this means a political party can take up hard line positions and remain politically relevant. That is compounded by the crappy gerrymandering of state and federal reps districts - push to the far right or far left to secure your position in the primary, and then win the general by default. The result is a large number of reps who need to continually prove their hardline ideological bona fides.

Add to that the platform Pat Buchanan got the Republican party to commit to, in which they decided to insist that everything was terrible all the time and it was all the fault of government. That led to a very aggressive stance taken up by the Republican party from the 90s onwards. Democrats have just in the last couple of election cycles started to respond to the same, but even now they've got a long way to go to catch up (although perhaps worryingly the Democrats seem far more belligerent at the grassroots level, which suggests they may end up even more extreme).

Because if we had been voting in the primaries and all that we wouldn't be in this mess. Instead, the nutjobs went out to vote because theyre far more passionate and now we're here.


That's a very strange argument, given throughout the Democratic primary all the enthusiasm was with Sanders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Peregrine wrote:
It isn't indoctrination, it's a consequence of how the US election system works. It pretty inevitably encourages a system where there are two major parties and any minor parties that attempt to emerge are absorbed by the major parties. And it's certainly the case in 2016, even if theoretically the US system could have more than two parties. No third-party candidate has any hope of winning, so either you vote for the least-bad candidate from one of the two major parties or you vote for the worst candidate (including by staying home on election day or voting for a third-party candidate). If you want to change this situation then you need to change the structure US elections and implement a system like other countries have, where you rank your choices and can safely vote third-party while still supporting the least-terrible major party candidate if/when the third-party candidate fails to win.


Maybe, we have preferential voting in our system, so you are never 'wasting' your vote by selecting a minor party or independent first. And yet, our last election just produced the most minor party and independent wins in our history, and there's a whopping 5 of them out of 150. All the other seats went to one of the two major parties.

Having proportional representation is the bigger issue. Any system with electorates will tend towards two parties, while awarding representation based on the overall share of the vote will produce a diverse range of parties.

But it is a big mistake to think that being able to get your own favourite minor party in to parliament/congress will somehow produce satisfaction with politics. If you and a bunch of people get 5/100 seats for your special cause, they've still got basically no power. The only way they'll be able to leverage that power is by making deals with larger parties, which is a kind of dirty politics that ultimately no-one gets much satisfaction out of.

Basically, politics is always frustrating. It's dealing with the political opinions of other people, and most people's political ideas are horrible, so how could any system make it anything other than annoying?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 07:09:08


Post by: Peregrine


 sebster wrote:
Maybe, we have preferential voting in our system, so you are never 'wasting' your vote by selecting a minor party or independent first. And yet, our last election just produced the most minor party and independent wins in our history, and there's a whopping 5 of them out of 150. All the other seats went to one of the two major parties.


Well, I certainly wasn't arguing that having a preferential voting system inevitably produces more parties, just that it's necessary to have more than two parties. It doesn't negate all of the advantages that an established major party has, but it at least makes it possible to have that chance of winning as a minor party. And, while Australia is mostly limited to two major parties, other countries with preferential voting have more successful minor parties.

Having proportional representation is the bigger issue. Any system with electorates will tend towards two parties, while awarding representation based on the overall share of the vote will produce a diverse range of parties.


You're right. Proportional voting does also help, though it forces you to have more than one seat per district (and obviously does nothing for things like presidential elections in the US where there's only one winner). Unfortunately making it possible in the US would require major changes to how our legislative districts are drawn, while preferential voting is a very straightforward thing to implement.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 07:48:52


Post by: sebster


 Peregrine wrote:
Well, I certainly wasn't arguing that having a preferential voting system inevitably produces more parties, just that it's necessary to have more than two parties.


It isn't necessary, the Lib Dems do quite well in the UK, and that's a first past the post electorate system. There's more going on than just the formal electorate system, basically.

But it certainly is a step towards better viability for small party support. And on top of that preferential voting does a much better job of capturing what people actually think about the candidates, it is at its core a more democratic process.

It doesn't negate all of the advantages that an established major party has, but it at least makes it possible to have that chance of winning as a minor party. And, while Australia is mostly limited to two major parties, other countries with preferential voting have more successful minor parties.


I don't think there's actually another country that use preferential voting, at least not for federal elections. I might be wrong, though.

You're right. Proportional voting does also help, though it forces you to have more than one seat per district (and obviously does nothing for things like presidential elections in the US where there's only one winner). Unfortunately making it possible in the US would require major changes to how our legislative districts are drawn, while preferential voting is a very straightforward thing to implement.


Very true.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 14:11:39


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 sebster wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Well, I certainly wasn't arguing that having a preferential voting system inevitably produces more parties, just that it's necessary to have more than two parties.


It isn't necessary, the Lib Dems do quite well in the UK, and that's a first past the post electorate system. There's more going on than just the formal electorate system, basically.


Errrrm, about that

They did get totally destroyed in the last election to the point where the SNP, who can only be voted for in Scotland, overtook them as the third largest party in parliament.

Now locally I'm sure they still do reasonably well (as in they actually get elected in more than single figures) but nationally the Lib Dems were basically wiped off the map.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 14:17:42


Post by: Kilkrazy


They got 8% of the votes. The Conservatives got 36%.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 14:29:26


Post by: Frazzled


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You know, if the voters are so upset with the politicians they elected maybe they should consider electing better ones. But it's easier to just run with whatever political bias one has rather than, you know, actually researching the people one is voting for.


Yea whatever. Its a two party system of tweedle dee and tweedle dum.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 14:34:49


Post by: djones520


 Easy E wrote:
Here is a hyperbolic story about how Brexit is a sign that Liberal Democratic values are beginning to fail with regular citizens in the "West".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/britons_radical_rejection_of_the_status_quo_should_terrify_all_liberal_democracies.html

However, this little factoid struck me as deeply concerning....


Across most countries in North America and Western Europe, voters have grown deeply dissatisfied with the political class. For a rapidly growing number, this dissatisfaction with particular leaders has started to transform into an actual rejection of democratic institutions. Across North America and Western Europe, the number of citizens who say that it is important to live in a democracy is shrinking. At the same time, the number of citizens who are open to making their countries more authoritarian is rising.

This trend is especially striking in the United States. Two decades ago, 1 in 16 Americans believed that Army rule would be a good way to run the country. Today, it is 1 in 6. The picture is even bleaker among the young and affluent: Support for military rule in this group has increased nearly sixfold, from 6 percent to 35 percent.


Well, is it truly the beginning of the end for Liberal Democracy as its own citizens begin to turn away from it as an effective form of government?


Where did he get those numbers from, because that is just total BS.

And honestly, I don't see how the people rising up and saying "We don't want this un-elected assembly controlling so much of our economy anymore" a rejection of democracy. Whether or not the move was the smartest economically isn't really the point in these regards. 71% of the nation used a democratic process to determine this. Yeah, that's a rejection of democracy alright...

Granted, this is a Slate publication, so color me completely and utterly unsurprised that it's totally out to lunch.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 14:38:01


Post by: Kilkrazy


The EU isn't an unelected assembly and doesn't control so much of the UK's economy.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/27 15:45:01


Post by: Talizvar


Well, I guess we can look at a few figures to see what is impacting "the people".

Balance of payments in the EU:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/guip/mapAction.do;jsessionid=7OaSawXUpQRYjz0_Tusk19b7TL5vS8k3l_zsOKxwjDTUlJE_uA3m!1388471887?mapMode=dynamic&indicator=teibp050_1#teibp050_1
I can see why people would be a bit upset: Uk is in the -42638.1 to -426.6 Million EUR in quarterly payments.
UK is good money for the EU and UK may not like being the one paying.

Uk's GDP is down compared to the same quarter last year:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/guip/mapAction.do?mapMode=dynamic&indicator=teina011_2#teina011_2

Some notes on how "savings" are found that exceed the "expense" the UK puts into the union:
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mycountry/UK/index_en.cfm#cinfo
"The UK government estimates that the single market brings in between GBP 31 billion and GBP 92 billion a year into the UK economy – or between 5 and 15 times the UK net contribution to the EU budget, which, once the UK’s rebate is taken into account, amounted to about GBP 7.258 billion - EUR 8.641 billion in 2013."

Oddly, the facts do not quite line-up but it is like Quebec wanting to separate from Canada: there are measurable benefits to remain in the organization but in the name of "greater self determination" they are willing to take the hit.

The entire reason for an organization like the EU was to create a more fair and open market but then leaders can play on fears of "losing control" and "meddling".

These "Authoritarians" like to position themselves as a means to cut the "red tape" and "reclaim national identity" when really if furthers their goals of gaining more power and not being answerable to anyone. They seem confident, secure in their omnipotence, but they typically know even less than others because they question little.
http://qz.com/643497/we-are-witnessing-the-rise-of-global-authoritarianism-on-a-chilling-scale/

In these rough economic times, people are looking for a safe-haven.
It is easy to fall for the rhetoric of someone who seems to have all the answers but is never able to say what overall plan is.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 03:55:12


Post by: sebster


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Errrrm, about that

They did get totally destroyed in the last election to the point where the SNP, who can only be voted for in Scotland, overtook them as the third largest party in parliament.

Now locally I'm sure they still do reasonably well (as in they actually get elected in more than single figures) but nationally the Lib Dems were basically wiped off the map.


Sure, but their electoral losses come directly from political failings in taking up the minority role in a conservative government. And in the election in which they shrivelled up, another party produced a strong number of seats as a third party.

My point is that by a straight reading of how political systems work, that really should happen in a country with a first part the post electorate system. And yet it does, which shows that culture and the actual parties involved matter as much as the system.

All this hints that possibly the reason minor parties don't really have that much presence in US politics is less to do with the system, and more to do with the minor parties themselves. Maybe the libertarian and green parties in the US don't get much of the vote because people actually just don't care for their party platform.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 13:22:56


Post by: Easy E


 sebster wrote:

All this hints that possibly the reason minor parties don't really have that much presence in US politics is less to do with the system, and more to do with the minor parties themselves. Maybe the libertarian and green parties in the US don't get much of the vote because people actually just don't care for their party platform.


That is certainly true of the Constitution Party!


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 16:25:06


Post by: Iron_Captain


 sebster wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Errrrm, about that

They did get totally destroyed in the last election to the point where the SNP, who can only be voted for in Scotland, overtook them as the third largest party in parliament.

Now locally I'm sure they still do reasonably well (as in they actually get elected in more than single figures) but nationally the Lib Dems were basically wiped off the map.


All this hints that possibly the reason minor parties don't really have that much presence in US politics is less to do with the system, and more to do with the minor parties themselves. Maybe the libertarian and green parties in the US don't get much of the vote because people actually just don't care for their party platform.

How dare you suggest the Communist Party USA doesn't enjoy the widespread support of the proletariat?

In all seriousness though, isn't it super ironic that the US is one of the last countries in the world to still have a fully functional traditional Marxist-Leninist party? Did the US not get the memo that communism is dead?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 17:33:58


Post by: Manchu


Still think the term authoritarian needs to be considered more critically here. Since this is Dakka, let me use analogies to game IPs.

We are accustomed to thinking about authoritarianism in the style of 40k, where the state demands obedience on a unilateral, vividly ideological basis. The Imperium is the obvious example: the alleged destiny of humanity to rule the galaxy requires that all humans totally submit to the authority of the human state (which is inextricably the human nation, "the people"/das Volk). This is, more or less, Nazism. Although not (explicitly) racist, the Tau work on the same principle: the Greater Good similarly requires any conceivable sacrifice, of which unflinching, zealous devotion is simply the most fundamental. Although they look and feel very different, the Imperium and the Tau are in this sense cut from the same authoritarian cloth.

Authoritarianism is not, however, limited to an archly ideological/coercive approach. In Rick Priestley's new game Beyond the Gates of Antares (which I understand is influenced by Ian M. Banks's Culture novels), the most powerful societies are managed by networks of advanced AIs called IMTels. The IMTel constantly mines the population for data to inform its calculations of the best possible social outcomes. As opposed to the style of authoritarianism discussed above, obedience to the IMTel does not require any active ideological commitment much less fervor. There is no great struggle narrative. The IMTel is not revered like the cult of the Emperor/der Führer or some sacred concept like the Greater Good/the Master Race, etc. Rather, the people of IMTel societies totally and largely unconsciously buy into the concept that the IMTel's calculations are indeed perfect, or at least nearly so ("best possible" - something like how Churchill deemed democracy the worst kind of government, besides all the others), and therefore buy into the authority of the IMTel.

Even IRL I think many people would struggle to see a problem with the second style, while almost everyone would immediately recognize how sinister the first style is. Apart from the near constant fearful/derogatory cultural reference to Nazism in Western societies, this is probably because the second style (a) doesn't require anything active from the individual and (b) the individual can read whatever they want into the notion of "best possible" outcomes. It's also self-reinforcing: the more you accept that the IMTel is right, or in IRL, the experts, bureaucrats, etc. are right, the more you also accept that the IMTel will manage society in a way that is best for you - and vice versa.

No doubt, the article to hand is running up the red flag as to the first style. But to the extent that is on the rise, I think it is because we are already firmly entrenched in the second style. When you read what neo-Nationalists, especially young people, have to say - and yes it is pretty crudely articulated a lot of the time - you start to see that they are using the language of mid-twentieth-century fascism but what they really object to is the IRL equivalent of IMTel.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 17:55:07


Post by: Monkey Tamer


I'm just doing armchair sociology but part of the problem appears to be the inherent selfishness of American culture. In other countries I've been in the community seems to stick together more, and a village truly does raise a child. I moved into my house in December and only one of my neighbors has welcomed me. We also have a high divorce rate here that seems to stem from self centered thinking. I have nothing concrete, it's just what I've seen.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 18:06:11


Post by: LordofHats


I don't know about the later, but the US does feature far more geographic mobility than most western countries, especially from one generation to the next. Less and less are the Americans who have lived in the same place one generation to the next.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 18:38:09


Post by: Manchu


... on point ...

The Reaction to Brexit Is the Reason Brexit Happened

by Matt Taibbi
In 1934, at the dawn of the Stalinist Terror, the great Russian writer Isaac Babel offered a daring quip at the International Writers Conference in Moscow:

"Everything is given to us by the party and the government. Only one right is taken away: the right to write badly."

A onetime Soviet loyalist who was eventually shot as an enemy of the state, Babel was likely trying to say something profound: that the freedom to make mistakes is itself an essential component of freedom.

As a rule, people resent being saved from themselves. And if you think depriving people of their right to make mistakes makes sense, you probably never had respect for their right to make decisions at all.

This is all relevant in the wake of the Brexit referendum, in which British citizens narrowly voted to exit the European Union.

Because the vote was viewed as having been driven by the same racist passions that are fueling the campaign of Donald Trump, a wide swath of commentators suggested that democracy erred, and the vote should perhaps be canceled, for the Britons' own good.

Social media was filled with such calls. "Is it just me, or does #Brexit seem like a moment when the government should overrule a popular referendum?" wrote one typical commenter.

On op-ed pages, there was a lot of the same. Harvard economics professor and chess grandmaster Kenneth Rogoff wrote a piece for the Boston Globe called "Britain's democratic failure" in which he argued:

"This isn't democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of enormous consequence… has been made without any appropriate checks and balances."

Rogoff then went on to do something that's become popular in pundit circles these days: He pointed to the lessons of antiquity. Going back thousands of years, he said, Very Smart People have warned us about the dangers of allowing the rabble to make decisions.

"Since ancient times," he wrote, "philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions."

Presumably playing the role of one of the "informed parties" in this exercise, Rogoff went on:

"By some accounts... Athens had implemented the purest historical example of democracy," he wrote. "Ultimately, though, after some catastrophic war decisions, Athenians saw a need to give more power to independent bodies."

This is exactly the argument that British blogging supernova Andrew Sullivan unleashed a few months ago in his 8,000-word diatribe against Donald Trump, "Democracies end when they are too democratic."

Like Rogoff, Sullivan argued that over-democratic societies drift into passionate excesses, and need that vanguard of Very Smart People to make sure they don't get themselves into trouble.

"Elites matter in a democracy," Sullivan argued, because they are the "critical ingredient to save democracy from itself."

I would argue that voters are the critical ingredient to save elites from themselves, but Sullivan sees it the other way, and has Plato on his side. Though some of his analysis seems based on a misread of ancient history (see here for an amusing exploration of the topic), he's right about Plato, the source of a lot of these "the ancients warned us about democracy" memes. He just left out the part where Plato, at least when it came to politics, was kind of a jerk.

The great philosopher despised democracy, believing it to be a system that blurred necessary social distinctions, prompting children, slaves and even animals to forget their places. He believed it a system that leads to over-permissiveness, wherein the people "drink too deeply of the strong wine of freedom."

Too much license, Plato wrote (and Sullivan echoed), leads to a spoiled populace that will turn to a strongman for revenge if anyone gets in the way of the party. These "men of naught" will inevitably denounce as oligarchs any wise group of rulers who try to set basic/sensible rules for society.

You have to be a snob of the first order, completely high on your own gas, to try to apply these arguments to present-day politics, imagining yourself as an analog to Plato's philosopher-kings.

And you have to have a cast-iron head to not grasp that saying stuff like this out loud is part of what inspires populations to movements like Brexit or the Trump campaign in the first place.

Were I British, I'd probably have voted to Remain. But it's not hard to understand being pissed off at being subject to unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. Nor is it hard to imagine the post-Brexit backlash confirming every suspicion you might have about the people who run the EU.

Imagine having pundits and professors suggest you should have your voting rights curtailed because you voted Leave. Now imagine these same people are calling voters like you "children," and castigating you for being insufficiently appreciative of, say, the joys of submitting to a European Supreme Court that claims primacy over the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

The overall message in every case is the same: Let us handle things.

But whatever, let's assume that the Brexit voters, like Trump voters, are wrong, ignorant, dangerous and unjustified.

Even stipulating to that, the reaction to both Brexit and Trump reveals a problem potentially more serious than either Brexit or the Trump campaign. It's become perilously fashionable all over the Western world to reach for non-democratic solutions whenever society drifts in a direction people don't like. Here in America the problem is snowballing on both the right and the left.

Whether it's Andrew Sullivan calling for Republican insiders to rig the nomination process to derail Trump's candidacy, or Democratic Party lifers like Peter Orszag arguing that Republican intransigence in Congress means we should turn more power over to "depoliticized commissions," the instinct to act by diktat surfaces quite a lot these days.

"Too much democracy" used to be an argument we reserved for foreign peoples who tried to do things like vote to demand control over their own oil supplies.

I first heard the term in Russia in the mid-Nineties. As a young reporter based in Moscow in the years after communism fell, I spent years listening to American advisors and their cronies in the Kremlin gush over the new democratic experiment.

Then, in 1995, polls came out showing communist Gennady Zyguanov leading in the upcoming presidential race against Boris Yeltsin. In an instant, all of those onetime democratic evangelists began saying Russia was "not ready" for democracy.

Now it's not just carpetbagging visitors to the Third World pushing this line of thought. Just as frequently, the argument is aimed at "low-information" voters at home.

Maybe the slide started with 9/11, after which huge pluralities of people were suddenly OK with summary executions, torture, warrantless surveillance and the blithe disposal of concepts like habeas corpus.

A decade and a half later, we're gripped by a broader mania for banning and censoring things that would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

It seems equally to have taken over campus speech controversies (expanding the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment is suddenly a popular idea) and the immigration debate (where Trump swept to the nomination riding a bluntly unconstitutional call for a religious test for immigrants).

Democracy appears to have become so denuded and corrupted in America that a generation of people has grown up without any faith in its principles.

What's particularly concerning about the reaction both to Brexit and to the rise of Trump is the way these episodes are framed as requiring exceptions to the usual democratic rule. They're called threats so monstrous that we must abrogate the democratic process to combat them.

Forget Plato, Athens, Sparta and Rome. More recent history tells us that the descent into despotism always starts in this exact same way. There is always an emergency that requires a temporary suspension of democracy.

After 9/11 we had the "ticking time bomb" metaphor to justify torture. NYU professor and self-described "prolific thought leader" Ian Bremmer just called Brexit the "most significant political risk the world has experienced since the Cuban Missile Crisis," likening it to a literal end-of-humanity scenario. Sullivan justified his call for undemocratic electoral maneuvers on the grounds that the election of Trump would be an "extinction-level event."

I don't buy it. My admittedly primitive understanding of democracy is that we're supposed to move toward it, not away from it, in a moment of crisis.

It doesn't mean much to be against torture until the moment when you're most tempted to resort to it, or to have faith in voting until the result of a particular vote really bothers you. If you think there's ever such a thing as "too much democracy," you probably never believed in it in the first place. And even low-Information voters can sense it.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-reaction-to-brexit-is-the-reason-brexit-happened-20160627


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/29 22:06:41


Post by: Easy E


 Manchu wrote:
Still think the term authoritarian needs to be considered more critically here. Since this is Dakka, let me use analogies to game IPs.

We are accustomed to thinking about authoritarianism in the style of 40k, where the state demands obedience on a unilateral, vividly ideological basis. The Imperium is the obvious example: the alleged destiny of humanity to rule the galaxy requires that all humans totally submit to the authority of the human state (which is inextricably the human nation, "the people"/das Volk). This is, more or less, Nazism. Although not (explicitly) racist, the Tau work on the same principle: the Greater Good similarly requires any conceivable sacrifice, of which unflinching, zealous devotion is simply the most fundamental. Although they look and feel very different, the Imperium and the Tau are in this sense cut from the same authoritarian cloth.

Authoritarianism is not, however, limited to an archly ideological/coercive approach. In Rick Priestley's new game Beyond the Gates of Antares (which I understand is influenced by Ian M. Banks's Culture novels), the most powerful societies are managed by networks of advanced AIs called IMTels. The IMTel constantly mines the population for data to inform its calculations of the best possible social outcomes. As opposed to the style of authoritarianism discussed above, obedience to the IMTel does not require any active ideological commitment much less fervor. There is no great struggle narrative. The IMTel is not revered like the cult of the Emperor/der Führer or some sacred concept like the Greater Good/the Master Race, etc. Rather, the people of IMTel societies totally and largely unconsciously buy into the concept that the IMTel's calculations are indeed perfect, or at least nearly so ("best possible" - something like how Churchill deemed democracy the worst kind of government, besides all the others), and therefore buy into the authority of the IMTel.

Even IRL I think many people would struggle to see a problem with the second style, while almost everyone would immediately recognize how sinister the first style is. Apart from the near constant fearful/derogatory cultural reference to Nazism in Western societies, this is probably because the second style (a) doesn't require anything active from the individual and (b) the individual can read whatever they want into the notion of "best possible" outcomes. It's also self-reinforcing: the more you accept that the IMTel is right, or in IRL, the experts, bureaucrats, etc. are right, the more you also accept that the IMTel will manage society in a way that is best for you - and vice versa.

No doubt, the article to hand is running up the red flag as to the first style. But to the extent that is on the rise, I think it is because we are already firmly entrenched in the second style. When you read what neo-Nationalists, especially young people, have to say - and yes it is pretty crudely articulated a lot of the time - you start to see that they are using the language of mid-twentieth-century fascism but what they really object to is the IRL equivalent of IMTel.


Interesting take Manchu. To use similar game IP, where does the concept of the Mega-Corp fit in with this idea? I see it falling on the IMTel side of things?

In essence, does the corporationization of the workforce feed into a natural IMTeL like response to decision making? Does this play a factor in the rise of Authoritarian thinking?



Edit: I heard the old greek Prime Minister talking about why the referendum on the Greek Bail-outs. I think it is here:

https://www.ted.com/talks/george_papandreou_imagine_a_european_democracy_without_borders

It mirrors some of that Matt Taibbi article.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/30 02:21:01


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
... on point ...

The Reaction to Brexit Is the Reason Brexit Happened


To me that reads more as an appeal to a technocracy than an appeal to authoritarianism, which your previous post rather cleverly distinguished.

And yeah, I disagree with Brexit and believe it will cause long term economic harm to England, but that's what the people decided, and so that's what they should get. Democracy is more important than making sure every decision is 'correct', and that's before we even consider the possibility that the elites aren't always correct.

Oh, and that Andrew Sullivan essay is worth reading, just as an example that shows if a person is fairly smart and creative, then they can convince themselves of just about anything. Sullivan decided from the get go that Trump's nomination could not possibly have any roots in anything conservative elites did, so instead he invented this grand story in which sometimes this unruly mob just does something completely out of the blue. He writes endlessly on that, and if you read between the lines you can actually start to see his sub-conscious determination to the never ever think about how just possibly the race baiting and conspiracy mongering that the Republican party flirted with in might just have possibly produced a base that was happy to nominate a guy who just loved race baiting and engaging in conspiracy nonsense.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/06/30 15:48:04


Post by: Manchu


 sebster wrote:
To me that reads more as an appeal to a technocracy than an appeal to authoritarianism, which your previous post rather cleverly distinguished.
To me, what you seem to mean by "technocracy" is just a more efficient approach to achieving the basic authoritarian vision of society. Mass movement authoritarianism, like from the 1930s, requires a huge amount of energy input from its participants. Passive acceptance of the regime is not enough. The state/party requires active, willful self-transformation. But the post-WW2 style makes no such demands - let the IMTel take care of everything because it knows best, after all.
 Easy E wrote:
To use similar game IP, where does the concept of the Mega-Corp fit in with this idea? I see it falling on the IMTel side of things?
Yeah I think you are correct. Historically, we're talking about an approach to power that grew out of the "military-industrial complex."
 Easy E wrote:
In essence, does the corporationization of the workforce feed into a natural IMTeL like response to decision making? Does this play a factor in the rise of Authoritarian thinking?
Yes absolutely - even at the most fundamental levels, such as how we perceive time. The visual embodiment of the year is a set of blank nesting rectangles that are entirely fungible with one another (i.e., a standard calendar), for example, rather than some image emphasizing the unique, irrepeatable character of each moment.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 03:02:13


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
To me, what you seem to mean by "technocracy" is just a more efficient approach to achieving the basic authoritarian vision of society. Mass movement authoritarianism, like from the 1930s, requires a huge amount of energy input from its participants. Passive acceptance of the regime is not enough. The state/party requires active, willful self-transformation. But the post-WW2 style makes no such demands - let the IMTel take care of everything because it knows best, after all.


Technocracy doesn't necessarily mean authoritarian. It can, and there's always a danger of it, but they aren't tied at the hip. Here's the thing, unless you believe in direct democracy down to the level of having a vote to determine if a street should be upgraded with a roundabout or a traffic light, then you have to allow some level of decision making from the bureaucracy. And its fairly intuitive and obvious that you are likely to get better decision making from people who are trained and experienced specialists in an area, than by asking the general public what they'd prefer.

So the question becomes one of extent, how much is democracy important in and of itself, compared to the cheaper and simpler (and often more correct) process of allowing experts to decide?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 04:00:14


Post by: Manchu


But I never claimed that they are the same?

The IMTel metaphor was meant to convey that there is also an authoritarianism of passive deference to experts - and it is not hypothetical, like the spectre of fascism. Your last post, for example, is fairly steeped in it.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 05:43:39


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
But I never claimed that they are the same?

The IMTel metaphor was meant to convey that there is also an authoritarianism of passive deference to experts - and it is not hypothetical, like the spectre of fascism. Your last post, for example, is fairly steeped in it.


And my point is that it isn't a binary state. We don't choose between;

1) Absolute direct democracy in all things up to and including whether we should install a roundabout or a traffic light.
2) Passively accepting the decisions of experts in all things.

We take a middle ground between those two things. If the Dept of Infrastructure builds a new road plan and says that given expected traffic a roundabout will be fine, you just roll with it. But if the State Dept says that we need to go to war with some other country, well then you challenge that if you think it's wrong.

Obviously if we cede too much power then IMTel metaphor starts to become a reality. But there's little to no evidence of that. Major decisions are still decided at the ballot box.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 06:06:31


Post by: Manchu


Again, you're arguing against a point no one made.

What I laid out is more or less the social manifestation of the appeal to authority. This is a self-evidently authoritarian impulse - and yet I think many are quite blind to it because the word for them is really just a matter of sentiment: a painstakingly cultivated distaste for anything that looks or sounds like Nazism. And that's exactly why such a movement actually materializing in any meaningful way is so implausible. But the power and prestige of the expert is by contrast already firmly in place. It's not a matter of some immenent erosion of popular participation and skepticism of democracy; we are already in the midst of those phenomena.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 06:06:59


Post by: Peregrine


Also, I think there's a key difference between actual authoritarianism and the "trust the experts" society. The defining element of authoritarianism is that the government takes away your freedom. You want to do something, but the state uses its overwhelming power to tell you that you can't. That's very different from a situation where most people acknowledge that the experts know best and voluntarily give up control so they don't have to deal with the problem themselves. There's no longer the same element of coercion involved, even if the end result is still a powerful government.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 06:17:41


Post by: Manchu


Peregrine, I considered that distinction but ultimately found it empty because the experience of being acculturated is non-voluntary. Returning to our sci fi examples, the people of IMTel societies see no rational objection to their way of life - the only reason someone would not voluntarily submit is because they are either themselves irrational or else immoral. In either case the deviant must be taken in hand. The people of the IMTel societies never chose to see things this way; they were "taken in hand" too, since birth.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 06:26:02


Post by: Peregrine


 Manchu wrote:
Peregrine, I considered that distinction but ultimately found it empty because the experience of being acculturated is non-voluntary. Returning to our sci fi examples, the people of IMTel societies see no rational objection to their way of life - the only reason someone would not voluntarily submit is because they are either themselves irrational or else immoral. In either case the deviant must be taken in hand. The people of the IMTel societies never chose to see things this way; they were "taken in hand" too, since birth.


But then that same argument applies to every society, regardless of how it is structured. You didn't choose where to be born or how "normal" would be defined for your life, so even a "free" society would be "authoritarian" since you didn't voluntarily decide to live by that concept.

Now, your statement of "the deviant must be taken in hand" hints that IMTel might in fact be an authoritarian society. But if so it's because of suppressing dissent by force and removing choices that people want to make, not the fact that the government makes a lot of the decisions for society.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 06:39:52


Post by: Manchu


It's not true of every society, historicaly. Mass media technology - and Iam talking about techniques (such as advertising) as much as any machine - have made social engineering into an omnipresent fact, whereas only a century ago such things were largely the dreams of eccentrics. To give just one example: We chewed over the Chinese loyalty rating, designed to turn everyone into a secret police agent of the state, and for a few of us it prompted a realization that our own credit score system is none too innocuous ... but that point was lost on many. Such systems, even if we are hardly aware of them excersice massive leverage over us in a novel way - it is not the equivalent of merely being from a certain time and place, just the same as every person who has ever existed.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 07:13:24


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
What I laid out is more or less the social manifestation of the appeal to authority. This is a self-evidently authoritarian impulse


Except, you know, there is actually value in the expert. Trusting an economist on the impacts of a trade deal is as inherently as authoritarian as trusting a doctor on what your MRI is showing.

There is, potentially, a point at which too much power might be ceded to experts. One possible example would be the calls for the Brexit referendum to be ignored because experts said it was a mistake... but of course that's a hypothetical because it didn't happen - Brexit is going ahead as people decided. But of course that's a hypothetical example, as you'll notice nothing came of that and it was never a real thing, basically a handful of commentators trying to make sense of a major and unexpected change.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 10:20:43


Post by: =Angel=


 sebster wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
What I laid out is more or less the social manifestation of the appeal to authority. This is a self-evidently authoritarian impulse


Except, you know, there is actually value in the expert. Trusting an economist on the impacts of a trade deal is as inherently as authoritarian as trusting a doctor on what your MRI is showing.



There absolutely is value in experts. Experts should be listened to and their observations taken into consideration when making decisions. Experts have been shown to be compromised in the past however, through bias, corruption or even just error.
Currently, our experts are funded by groups who may not have our interests at heart. There was resistance in the scientific community to Brexit because of concerns regarding funding. That's their livelihood and they are entitled to that concern but it's important to recognize that self interest before declaring 'our smartest people want to stay!'

The Irish have a rebel song (and why wouldn't we) which goes as follows:

We're on the one road, sharing the one load, we're on the road to God-knows-where,
We're on the one road, maybe the wrong road, but we're together now- who cares?


The idea that self determination and democracy are far more important than certainty and stability or being 'right' is the whole principle behind Brexit and other movements which reject efforts to control people through outside influence or a core of elites.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 11:56:45


Post by: LordofHats


I think we've lost sight of the original discussion.

While it's an interesting exercise to think about the role of experts/cult of the expert in society, not every appeal to authority is equivalent to authoritarianism in politics/political system. You Credit rating might have huge sway on your ability to get a loan, but it's not the byproduct of an authoritarian process. It's just a byproduct of a whole bunch of economic risk assessment processes. It's not really what the OP article was talking about, and I don't think it's something most people would call authoritarian in a political sense. This is a whole other topic.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 13:21:04


Post by: Easy E


Well, it could be argued that Authoritarian systems and societal pressures (such as credit score) outside of government are eroding people's awareness of authoritarian structures and therefore ability to resist them in the political sphere.

Regarding the OP. I did say it was Hyperbolic.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 14:39:15


Post by: Rosebuddy


 LordofHats wrote:
You Credit rating might have huge sway on your ability to get a loan, but it's not the byproduct of an authoritarian process. It's just a byproduct of a whole bunch of economic risk assessment processes.


Risk assessment processes designed by the powerful and wealthy which systematically class the weak and the disenfranchised as undesirable and thus give them low credit scores. It's widely accepted because it's just the way things are. Of course a privately operated bank has the right to ensure that its loans are not only repaid but profited from. Nobody thinks about how this isn't the inevitable function of natural laws but rather the end result of a long line of decisions made by the powerful and motivated by their self-interest.

This is the neoliberal consensus, the so-called end of history, to which its proponents will boldly state that there are no alternatives.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 16:22:28


Post by: Manchu


Rosebuddy wrote:
This is the neoliberal consensus, the so-called end of history, to which its proponents will boldly state that there are no alternatives.
Exactly so. IMTel is the sci-fi analog to this concept. To be clear, we're not talking about asking a doctor to check you out when you feel sick. We're talking about semi-spontaneous mass shaming of anti-vaxxers. (Please note, I am not against vaccinations - the fact that I feel compelled to spell that out to avoid criticism is actually an example of what I'm talking about.)


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 16:26:37


Post by: sebster


 =Angel= wrote:
There absolutely is value in experts. Experts should be listened to and their observations taken into consideration when making decisions. Experts have been shown to be compromised in the past however, through bias, corruption or even just error.
Currently, our experts are funded by groups who may not have our interests at heart.


Of course, there's nothing saying that people should just meekly accept the opinions of an expert. Not just because of the possibility of corruption, but more because expertise doesn't mean infallibility, and often groupthink in technical circles can lead to bad theories, and in other cases technical answers can dismiss real human impacts - look at the austerity disaster across Europe, which was both stupid economics and quite heartless.

I feel like I've been characterised as arguing for some kind of pure technocracy, but I'm not. I'm simply saying that respect of expertise is a good thing, and the delegation of lower level decision making to experts is a necessary thing.

There was resistance in the scientific community to Brexit because of concerns regarding funding. That's their livelihood and they are entitled to that concern but it's important to recognize that self interest before declaring 'our smartest people want to stay!'


Just as an aside, we shouldn't confuse 'expert' with 'generally clever kind of person'. A guy could be a world leader in astro-physics, but his opinion should carry just as much weight in national decision making on Brexit as the guy at pub who never buys his round. A person needs to not only be smart, but actually be an expert in the area being discussed.

I liked that rebel song, that was cool. Thanks for posting that. I don't even know how to sing it but I'm humming it in my head.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/01 16:36:03


Post by: Manchu


sebster, I think to some extent we're talking past one another ... I am certainly not arguing that any time we rely on the skills and talents of a certain person in the applicable moment we are therefore also throwing away our freedom


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/02 17:48:47


Post by: =Angel=


 sebster wrote:


I liked that rebel song, that was cool. Thanks for posting that. I don't even know how to sing it but I'm humming it in my head.




It's quite a bouncy, catchy tune. It's also relentlessly optimistic about the future- something that can be seen in both Brexit and the Trump campaign.
Unfortunately removing power from elites and restoring proper representation isn't an easy ride, though I'll take political and social resistance any day over the bloody fighting my fore-bearers endured.



Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/04 03:14:09


Post by: sebster


 Manchu wrote:
sebster, I think to some extent we're talking past one another ... I am certainly not arguing that any time we rely on the skills and talents of a certain person in the applicable moment we are therefore also throwing away our freedom


Yeah, I think it's likely we're talking past each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 =Angel= wrote:


It's quite a bouncy, catchy tune. It's also relentlessly optimistic about the future- something that can be seen in both Brexit and the Trump campaign.
Unfortunately removing power from elites and restoring proper representation isn't an easy ride, though I'll take political and social resistance any day over the bloody fighting my fore-bearers endured.



Cheers, I'll play that when I get home tonight.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/04 03:23:10


Post by: SemperMortis


 Easy E wrote:
Here is a hyperbolic story about how Brexit is a sign that Liberal Democratic values are beginning to fail with regular citizens in the "West".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/britons_radical_rejection_of_the_status_quo_should_terrify_all_liberal_democracies.html

However, this little factoid struck me as deeply concerning....


Across most countries in North America and Western Europe, voters have grown deeply dissatisfied with the political class. For a rapidly growing number, this dissatisfaction with particular leaders has started to transform into an actual rejection of democratic institutions. Across North America and Western Europe, the number of citizens who say that it is important to live in a democracy is shrinking. At the same time, the number of citizens who are open to making their countries more authoritarian is rising.

This trend is especially striking in the United States. Two decades ago, 1 in 16 Americans believed that Army rule would be a good way to run the country. Today, it is 1 in 6. The picture is even bleaker among the young and affluent: Support for military rule in this group has increased nearly sixfold, from 6 percent to 35 percent.


Well, is it truly the beginning of the end for Liberal Democracy as its own citizens begin to turn away from it as an effective form of government?


Two decades ago, we hadn't been at war for 16 years straight. Just a little food for thought. There are more COMBAT veterans in the United States since the Vietnam War. Furthermore our veterans are no longer getting crapped on by the population regularly and the war was viewed for the most part as justified (Don't care about your conspiracy theories, shovem somewhere pretty).

Furthermore, the US is over run with entitled youths who think the government should be omnipresent in every aspect of their lives, except of course for freedom of speech...but only if you agree with their philosophy and view points, otherwise violent suppression is warranted.

It would great if the U.S. moved away from giving away participation medals and went back towards greatness. You win or you lose. You work or you don't eat. simple concepts that have somehow gotten lost.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/04 04:44:52


Post by: Spinner


SemperMortis wrote:

It would great if the U.S. moved away from giving away participation medals and went back towards greatness. You win or you lose. You work or you don't eat. simple concepts that have somehow gotten lost.


Yeah, let 'em starve. Stupid poors. This country was founded on the principal of 'you work or you don't eat', by God, and it's time that became our rallying cry once again! Hear that, little Timmy? Get back in the coal mine or no dinner for you! No free lunches in the good old USA, no sir, turf 'em out of those soup kitchens!

Okay, that might be a little sarcastic, but...dude. C'mon. What exactly are you railing against there?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/04 05:13:34


Post by: LordofHats


That the most prosperous country on earth can afford to not let people starve to death apparently.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/04 07:29:46


Post by: sebster


SemperMortis wrote:
It would great if the U.S. moved away from giving away participation medals and went back towards greatness. You win or you lose. You work or you don't eat. simple concepts that have somehow gotten lost.


You know what beats simple concepts? Simple realities. A simple reality like the fact that before the safety net was introduced the children of impoverished parents fething died. In other cases they survived but went it to adulthood with on-going medical problems and even with measurably reduced intelligence because of the poor diet they had during infancy.

These days a child in poverty still has a tough road ahead of them, but at least they'll probably get sufficient nutrition to avoid most of the severe lifelong issues, and they're very unlikely to actually before the age of 5.

So yeah, childhood poverty sucks and should be lessened as much as possible. I guess that's one of those simple realities that have somehow gotten lost.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/04 10:00:44


Post by: LordofHats


A kid who dies at five is a kid who will never have a chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps, or whatever the silly analogy reducing all success to a binary of financial gain is


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 02:41:54


Post by: SemperMortis


LMAO, I make a comment about working in order to feed yourself and your family and you SJW types rush in with CHILD LABOR IS BAD!!

The mental gymnastics you guys have just pulled off is astounding.

Maybe instead of trying to twist anything that slightly disagrees with you, maybe take a moment to use rational thought and figure out what was said wasn't implying child labor, or that kids need to work in order to live.

Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.

Maybe, just maybe I was referring to our current cultural trend where we give out medals to kids participating in sporting events and not just to the winners or those handful of special awards like MVP. We are actually at a point where if a kids sports team or anyone in a competition is to successful they get kicked out of the league or fined so that the other teams don't have to feel bad about losing.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/24/girls-basketball-team-gets-booted-from-league-for-being-too-good.html
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/story/_/id/12182194/california-girls-high-school-basketball-coach-suspended-two-games-161-2-win
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/29/11-year-old-football-star-told-not-to-score-too-many-touchdowns/comment-page-1/
http://www.allenbwest.com/allen/youre-kidding-right-pop-warner-football-team-fined-scoring-many-points

Trust me the list goes on and on, and it is absurd. When I was growing up my father was told he wasn't allowed to coach anymore unless he was willing to coach the other 3 teams at our hockey rink because the other parents were complaining about their kids losing to much to us. Instead of rewards the truly exceptional, we stunt them in order to make everyone feel special.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 03:09:08


Post by: Peregrine


SemperMortis wrote:
Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.


Now what happens if they decide not to work, no matter how much you want them to? Either you give in and feed them anyway, or you let them and their children starve. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the inevitable consequences of your political positions does not mean that those consequences no longer exist.

Maybe, just maybe I was referring to our current cultural trend where we give out medals to kids participating in sporting events and not just to the winners or those handful of special awards like MVP. We are actually at a point where if a kids sports team or anyone in a competition is to successful they get kicked out of the league or fined so that the other teams don't have to feel bad about losing.


Ah yes, the classic complaining about "participation trophies". You do realize that these are games for small children, right? The point of the game is to have fun and get some exercise, not some kind of high-stakes contest to prove who the strongest survivors are. And three of your four examples involved cases of teams blatantly running up the score, long after the outcome of the game had been decided. Even in professional sports teams will often pull their starters out and keep the clock running once the score is a blowout with no realistic hope of the other team coming back. Continuing to play all-out competitively when your team is up by 150+ points is a sign of poor sportsmanship.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 03:33:35


Post by: Spinner


SemperMortis wrote:

Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.


Then say that. What you said really doesn't have any means to distinguish itself from "get that job at the mill so you can earn your keep, Billy". I mean, that's a great way to distinguish winners and losers, right? See who has to work so Mom and/or Dad and/or Toddler Tim can eat? And you can forget about participation trophies. You either get to eat or you don't - or, wait, could a participation trophy be a crappy fast food diet because the family can't afford/access better?

The mental gymnastics needed to separate "you win or you lose, you work or you don't eat" from somebody starving are pretty astounding.

Question - are there any actual numbers for healthy adults who can work for a family-supporting wage but choose to live off of welfare instead? Or is it just one of those things that have to happen because I'm sure Dave down the street is doing it?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 03:51:19


Post by: sebster


SemperMortis wrote:
Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.


Yes, we know that's what you're referring to. And now extend some thought to that idea. Consider that many people who have no job or a poor paying job have children. Now, the person might have no job because they're lazy, ignorant, a drunk or whatever else... but why do their kids need to starve?

Do you get it now? Are you starting to figure that this 'every man stands alone' stuff just makes no fething sense, because we are all born dependent on either our parents or the state to provide for us during childhood?


 Peregrine wrote:
Ah yes, the classic complaining about "participation trophies". You do realize that these are games for small children, right? The point of the game is to have fun and get some exercise, not some kind of high-stakes contest to prove who the strongest survivors are. And three of your four examples involved cases of teams blatantly running up the score, long after the outcome of the game had been decided. Even in professional sports teams will often pull their starters out and keep the clock running once the score is a blowout with no realistic hope of the other team coming back. Continuing to play all-out competitively when your team is up by 150+ points is a sign of poor sportsmanship.


The really insane part of all the nonsense about participation trophies is that once it gets explained as only applying to very young kids no-one has much of a problem with it. It'd be a very strange kind of lunatic who insisted that 8 year olds should play in fully competitive leagues.

But despite this kind of thing only applying to young kids, and no-one having a problem with that, the complaints about 'participation awards' roll on anyway. It's like the War on Christmas, it's such an important cultural battle that it doesn't matter one bit that it isn't actually true.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 04:17:06


Post by: LordofHats


SemperMortis wrote:
]maybe take a moment to use rational thought and figure out what was said wasn't implying child labor, or that kids need to work in order to live.


No one said anything even remotely close to that, and we're the one's doing mental gymnastics?

Trust me the list goes on and on, and it is absurd.


Yes. Your list and your argument is absurd

Instead of rewards the truly exceptional


Rewarding the exceptional is great. Doesn't mean we have to treat everyone else like garbage. Not everyone is going to be exceptional. Extremely few people are exceptional. An argument that the masses should shut up and accept their exceptional overlords as the one true masters of the universe is Ayn Rand's worst contribution to American politics, and it be funny if it weren't repeated over and over with such fervor (well it is funny. Scary funny). We've been there before. This country was founded on a notion that all men (well, it was founded on the notion that white land owning Christian men were equal but that's another discussion).

are there any actual numbers for healthy adults who can work for a family-supporting wage but choose to live off of welfare instead?


A lot of welfare recipients do work. It varies by state. This idea that "healthy adults should be working and not on welfare" is a really stupid notion. Lay offs, shifts in the job market, the job market just sucking, high competition for positions. There's really no other way to put it. It's just plain stupid, based in nothing more than head fantasies about work and social morality with no real baring on the actual market. People can end up out of work for so many reasons, and personal health isn't really relevant to many of them. There's 0 point in quantifying welfare recipients by "how many of them can work but don't." They don't have enough to get by on their own, and that's really the only factor that matters where welfare is concerned. The rest is labor and economic concerns, and can't be dealt with on an individual basis.

I like to say that to have an intelligent conversation, you have to ask intelligent questions. "Why are we paying for all these people who can work but choose not to?" is not an intelligent question. It's a really stupid question.

Or is it just one of those things that have to happen because I'm sure Dave down the street is doing it?


It often feels that way. And here's the thing. For everyone anyone can think of who "can work but doesn't." someone can think of someone who ":works but shouldn't" or someone "who wants to work but can't." It's part and parcel of why the stupid question is so stupid. It relies on this fundamental dumbing down of people, their motivations, and basic job economics.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 06:36:25


Post by: Kilkrazy


SemperMortis wrote:
LMAO, I make a comment about working in order to feed yourself and your family and you SJW types rush in with CHILD LABOR IS BAD!!

The mental gymnastics you guys have just pulled off is astounding.

Maybe instead of trying to twist anything that slightly disagrees with you, maybe take a moment to use rational thought and figure out what was said wasn't implying child labor, or that kids need to work in order to live.

Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.
...


Maybe, just maybe you should have said that in the first place.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 13:29:33


Post by: SemperMortis


 LordofHats wrote:


No one said anything even remotely close to that, and we're the one's doing mental gymnastics?


I guess you just choose not to read your fellow socialists posts.
A kid who dies at five is a kid who will never have a chance to pull himself up by his bootstraps, or whatever the silly analogy reducing all success to a binary of financial gain is

Yeah, let 'em starve. Stupid poors. This country was founded on the principal of 'you work or you don't eat', by God, and it's time that became our rallying cry once again! Hear that, little Timmy? Get back in the coal mine or no dinner for you! No free lunches in the good old USA, no sir, turf 'em out of those soup kitchens!



Trust me the list goes on and on, and it is absurd.



Rewarding the exceptional is great. Doesn't mean we have to treat everyone else like garbage. Not everyone is going to be exceptional. Extremely few people are exceptional. An argument that the masses should shut up and accept their exceptional overlords as the one true masters of the universe is Ayn Rand's worst contribution to American politics, and it be funny if it weren't repeated over and over with such fervor (well it is funny. Scary funny). We've been there before. This country was founded on a notion that all men (well, it was founded on the notion that white land owning Christian men were equal but that's another discussion).



Yes. Your list and your argument is absurd

Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.

The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district. The idea that everyone should receive an award for participating, regardless of how good they are, or how hard they work, waters down the entire idea of competition. It rewards those to lazy to practice or study and diminishes the accomplishments of those who worked hard.


are there any actual numbers for healthy adults who can work for a family-supporting wage but choose to live off of welfare instead?


A lot of welfare recipients do work. It varies by state. This idea that "healthy adults should be working and not on welfare" is a really stupid notion. Lay offs, shifts in the job market, the job market just sucking, high competition for positions. There's really no other way to put it. It's just plain stupid, based in nothing more than head fantasies about work and social morality with no real baring on the actual market. People can end up out of work for so many reasons, and personal health isn't really relevant to many of them. There's 0 point in quantifying welfare recipients by "how many of them can work but don't." They don't have enough to get by on their own, and that's really the only factor that matters where welfare is concerned. The rest is labor and economic concerns, and can't be dealt with on an individual basis.

I like to say that to have an intelligent conversation, you have to ask intelligent questions. "Why are we paying for all these people who can work but choose not to?" is not an intelligent question. It's a really stupid question.


Nobody has said welfare should go away completely, but the numbers show that a large percentage of able bodied adults choose to not work, or work 1 part time job of less then 20 hours a week instead of working full time because they know they can make up the difference on food stamps and welfare checks.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/maine-food-stamp-work-requirement-cuts-non-parent-caseload-by-80-percent

Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to. What does that tell you? im sure you and the rest of the left will perform some more wonderfully artistic mental gymnastics to prove Maine is evil somehow.

Or is it just one of those things that have to happen because I'm sure Dave down the street is doing it?


Yes, if you consider entire states to be "Dave" then yes, it is dave down the street, or in the North East of the United States.

It often feels that way. And here's the thing. For everyone anyone can think of who "can work but doesn't." someone can think of someone who ":works but shouldn't" or someone "who wants to work but can't." It's part and parcel of why the stupid question is so stupid. It relies on this fundamental dumbing down of people, their motivations, and basic job economics.
Or proof from studies done by the states requiring Able bodied people to work in order to receive benefits that by requiring people to work most either stop getting the program because Feth that noise or become successful to the point where they no longer need food stamps. But hey, lets not let ACTUAL proof get in the way of our socialist goals right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
LMAO, I make a comment about working in order to feed yourself and your family and you SJW types rush in with CHILD LABOR IS BAD!!

The mental gymnastics you guys have just pulled off is astounding.

Maybe instead of trying to twist anything that slightly disagrees with you, maybe take a moment to use rational thought and figure out what was said wasn't implying child labor, or that kids need to work in order to live.

Maybe, just maybe I was referring to healthy adults who have the ability to work to earn a wage in order to support their families, who instead choose to squeeze by on welfare and food stamps instead of just getting that job to support themselves.
...


Maybe, just maybe you should have said that in the first place.


And maybe you should take basic reading comprehension. It is not the fault of the author if someone reads their work and infers that x = y. That is completely based on assumption, and as anyone who has bothered to study analytics knows, assumptions are not fact.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 13:42:19


Post by: Kilkrazy


And maybe you should stop being so rude.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 16:15:02


Post by: feeder


SemperMortis wrote:


The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district. The idea that everyone should receive an award for participating, regardless of how good they are, or how hard they work, waters down the entire idea of competition. It rewards those to lazy to practice or study and diminishes the accomplishments of those who worked hard.


The object of a sport is to win. The point is to display your athleticism, skill and good sportsmanship.

When I was a child I ran track (way, way back. I'm friggin' old.) Every kid got a ribbon, from 1st all the way to 30th. Didn't mean the kid that took first wasn't proud, or that the kid that took 30th didn't know he came last. The best I personally took was 7th, and that was a result of me trying harder and harder to work my way up, getting a bit better each time.

Have you read any actual studies that show that "participation medals" waters down competition? That kids are going, "yeah, I could try and get first place, but this generic 'Good Job!' sticker is good enough for me."


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 17:08:38


Post by: Easy E


So, is someone suggesting that "participation ribbons" leads to Authoritarianism?





Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 17:26:42


Post by: Manchu


 Easy E wrote:
So, is someone suggesting that "participation ribbons" leads to Authoritarianism?
No that was just a bit of hyperbole/venting; I believe his actual point was, there are many (especially young people?) who assume a central authority should have the power to provide for XYZ and control ABC - and presumably, this is connected to a purported desire for unmerited validation ("entitlement").


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 17:28:49


Post by: feeder


 Easy E wrote:
So, is someone suggesting that "participation ribbons" leads to Authoritarianism?





I'm not sure. Perhaps Semper Mortis's "SJW's" are unwittingly leading us to Authoritarianism? Road to hell/good intentions? Idk. It was a pretty good "old man angry that the world has passed him by" rant last page that brought us here.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 17:41:25


Post by: Easy E


 Manchu wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
So, is someone suggesting that "participation ribbons" leads to Authoritarianism?
No that was just a bit of hyperbole/venting; I believe his actual point was, there are many (especially young people?) who assume a central authority should have the power to provide for XYZ and control ABC - and presumably, this is connected to a purported desire for unmerited validation ("entitlement").


Is it part of the human condition that we all feel this way to some degree? I mean, without it aren't we struck by existential dread and the inability to move forward and grow? We have to rationalize our place int eh world somehow so let's call it fate, destiny, a higher-power, the central authority, class, etc.

Therefore, are humans pre-disposed to Authoritarian command and control structures?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 17:46:24


Post by: Manchu


Erich Fromm would say, Ja!


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 18:46:42


Post by: SemperMortis


 Kilkrazy wrote:
And maybe you should stop being so rude.


I am truly sorry I hurt your feelings. It was not my intention to belittle you or to make you cry if I did in fact do that. merely to put out that by insisting that I had influenced others to make such blatantly off topic comments was absurd.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 19:26:04


Post by: Rosebuddy


SemperMortis wrote:
Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to. What does that tell you? im sure you and the rest of the left will perform some more wonderfully artistic mental gymnastics to prove Maine is evil somehow.


Human beings should not be demanded to be profitable units of labour for capital in order to be able to live. Industrial production is so bonkers that far from everyone actually needs to work. Leisure is a worthy goal and something that we collectively should strive more towards. We should structure society in such a way that art and play can be freely pursued.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/05 20:49:23


Post by: LordofHats


SemperMortis wrote:
I guess you just choose not to read your fellow socialists posts.


There you go assuming things no one said again.

Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.


You don't actually have a point. You're just repeating tired old arguments (some of which have nothing to do with the topic) that have been shot down time and time again over 30 years while throwing out wild assumptions about other people's political opinions as insults.

Nobody has said welfare should go away completely, but the numbers show that a large percentage of able bodied adults choose to not work, or work 1 part time job of less then 20 hours a week instead of working full time because they know they can make up the difference on food stamps and welfare checks.


You really are making a lot of assumptions (but then I've already said there).

Why do you assume its people choosing not to work 20 hours a week? A lot of employers don't let them work more. To be fair, that's at times because the employer doesn't need them to work more than 20 hours. I worked for FedEx as a loader for a few years. It was about 25 hours a week, and honestly the company didn't need to employ me for more than that. Someone needed to load the truck of course, but it's a job that doesn't take more than 4-6 hours of work a day. They simply couldn't give me more work. I tried juggling two jobs for awhile, but that's not exactly easy. For about 4 weeks I was working 70 hours a week between two jobs, which was 4 weeks of physical suffering. I had to quite the second job because the physical pain of doing to jobs with lots of standing and lifting was too much. Finding one two employers and trying to get them both on the same page when it comes to your own workload is difficult.

There's the famous case of the Wisconsin Walmart, which literally told its employees to how to get on welfare because it wasn't going to pay them enough to get by on their own (estimated that this single Walmart cost nearly $1 million). The negative fall out from that decisions actually lead to Walmart giving all its employees across the company a a pay raise. Now everyone who works for the Mart, and Sam's Club, gets at least $10 an hours by company policy, which is actually pretty good money even at low part time hours. Unfortunately it still won't be enough money to support a family if you happen to have one. I had the advantage though of being a single adult male with no children. My expenses are low, so I could get by on 25 hours a week so long as my rent was cheap and I keep food costs low (all hail the mighty coupon!).

There's multitudes of reasons people might not work full time. There's a multitude of reasons they don't work at all. There is no case study that welfare recipients are lazy. That's just your assumption, and your link actually provides no data to back it up. They just throw the claim in with a unrelated data sets that don't support it, and rely on your to make the assumption they know you're going to make because that's the Heritage Foundation's bread and butter.

What does that tell you?


Absolutely nothing actually. The data only supports that when work requirements were set in many people no longer had Welfare because if they didn't have a job before why should we assume they'll be able to magically get one now? Jobs don't grow on trees (unless your an apple farmer that is ). It actually proves nothing about them except that they're no longer on welfare. It's like 2 + 2 = 4. If you instituted a restriction on services, the number of people able to access them drops.

There's probably lots of people on welfare who don't have to be. That's part and parcel of having a welfare system in the first place. The system is there because there are people who need help, and as with any system people will find ways to game it. That's a basic reality of any system. Someone will find a way to game it. It's a cost of business so to speak. I don't really care. Much as I'd rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be incarcerated, I'd rather a lazy bum get a free $167 a month (because that's the kind of money we're talking about here), than someone who really needs help be unable to get any. I don't know enough about Maine's situation to know if it was the right or the wrong answer for that state's needs. The situation when it comes to Welfare program outcomes varies by a lot from one state to the next. I do know that I don't like the way people have used Maine's policy change in national debate on welfare.

im sure you and the rest of the left ... mental gymnastics to prove Maine is evil somehow.


More assumptions!

But hey, lets not let ACTUAL proof get in the way of my assumptions?


Fixed that for you because that's all that's really being talked about here.

And maybe you should take basic reading comprehension.


You might consider that if multiple people are misunderstanding you, it might be because something you wrote was poorly worded. It does happen.

It is not the fault of the author if someone reads their work and infers that x = y.


It so can be. There's an entire trope named for that very thing because it happens so often.

That is completely based on assumption, and as anyone who has bothered to study analytics knows, assumptions are not fact.





I'm glad we agree!


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/06 02:30:22


Post by: sebster


SemperMortis wrote:
Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.


You have absolutely no idea what socialism is or how it operates. You think there are no medals in a socialist society? You think Mao went around telling everyone that they all just as good as each other? The exact opposite was true. Socialist countries are almost always nationalist countries, they love the idea of working for the state, and so people who are recognised as big contributors are celebrated and made in to heroes. At the same time those who are seen as not contributing are villified and pushed to the outer of society.

Indeed, one of the scariest things about socialist states is how people who are deemed as non-useful can be made in to pariahs almost overnight.

The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district.


The idea that we should set up COMPETITIVE SPORTS leagues for 8 year olds that are no different to those for 15 years olds is bonkers.

Also, CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT.


Nobody has said welfare should go away completely, but the numbers show that a large percentage of able bodied adults choose to not work, or work 1 part time job of less then 20 hours a week instead of working full time because they know they can make up the difference on food stamps and welfare checks.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/maine-food-stamp-work-requirement-cuts-non-parent-caseload-by-80-percent


Yeah, see the problem is that you're reading Heritage. They're basically a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, their intellectual credibility is negative.

Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to.


Under what fantastical world view does someone decide to work, and then all of a sudden they've just got a job?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/06 04:16:34


Post by: Ouze


Perhaps they got a job manufacturing bootstraps.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/06 14:16:29


Post by: Easy E


 Manchu wrote:
Erich Fromm would say, Ja!


Interesting, but I was under the impression that Psycho-analysis was on the outs in today's day and age.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/07 01:15:07


Post by: LordofHats


 Easy E wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
Erich Fromm would say, Ja!


Interesting, but I was under the impression that Psycho-analysis was on the outs in today's day and age.


Is Fromm a psycho-analyzist? I've generally only heard him referred to as a social scientist. Methodology falling out of favor with modern practicioners doesn't per se mean it was wrong, or that all work produced by such methods is false. Fromm's work on freedom and democracy has had far more influence in political science than in psychology for example, because his work in those areas is quite insightful, and arguably more relevant now than it was when he first published.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/08 20:15:42


Post by: Easy E


Reading more of Fromm, it seems like much of today's politic's are focused on his idea of 'Freedom From" as opposed to the more positive "Freedom To" concept.

Fromm has some ideas on what is the best way to counter the rise of Authoritarianism. However it is individual based and less societal focused.

What is the best way to counter-authoritarian thinking and thought processes?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/08 20:21:57


Post by: Manchu


Maybe the answer lies in diagnosing the problem. IMO authoritarian thinking today is largely the product of constant mass media exposure, which will only ever become more intense from here on out. So it is crucial to develop critical - rather than only or primarily analytical - skills in our population.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/07/08 20:45:40


Post by: Iron_Captain


 sebster wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
Meaning you couldn't find a rebuttal for my point or you just accept that our culture has watered down success, much like socialism likes to do. We are all equally good because otherwise someone might get their feelings hurt.


You have absolutely no idea what socialism is or how it operates. You think there are no medals in a socialist society? You think Mao went around telling everyone that they all just as good as each other? The exact opposite was true. Socialist countries are almost always nationalist countries, they love the idea of working for the state, and so people who are recognised as big contributors are celebrated and made in to heroes. At the same time those who are seen as not contributing are villified and pushed to the outer of society.

Indeed, one of the scariest things about socialist states is how people who are deemed as non-useful can be made in to pariahs almost overnight.

The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS is not for exercise as someone else pointed out, that is what P.E. in school is for. The point of COMPETITIVE SPORTS and other competitive events is to test yourself or your team against the rest of your school or area or district.


The idea that we should set up COMPETITIVE SPORTS leagues for 8 year olds that are no different to those for 15 years olds is bonkers.

Also, CRASSUS ARMOURED ASSAULT TRANSPORT.



Nobody has said welfare should go away completely, but the numbers show that a large percentage of able bodied adults choose to not work, or work 1 part time job of less then 20 hours a week instead of working full time because they know they can make up the difference on food stamps and welfare checks.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2016/02/maine-food-stamp-work-requirement-cuts-non-parent-caseload-by-80-percent


Yeah, see the problem is that you're reading Heritage. They're basically a propaganda wing of the Republican Party, their intellectual credibility is negative.

Maine told everyone on food stamps they were required to get a job in order to retain food stamps (if they were able bodied) and 80% of the able bodied adults got cut because they chose not to.


Under what fantastical world view does someone decide to work, and then all of a sudden they've just got a job?



Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/12/19 22:36:21


Post by: Easy E


So, with what we are seeing today in the Philippines, the U.S., Post-Brexit, Turkey, etc. is authoritarianism actually on the rise? What parallels are there between today and the 1930's?

It seems that one similarity is the hopelessness of "working" people to improve their lot in life. Is this a global issue?


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/12/20 01:00:40


Post by: Pouncey


I've heard that if the author of 1984 had survived to witness the modern world, he'd've said, "Told ya."


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/12/20 03:04:45


Post by: oldravenman3025




I don't think that authoritarianism is on the rise. Just the usual bickering that comes when politics is involved.




Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/12/20 06:51:03


Post by: sebster


 Easy E wrote:
So, with what we are seeing today in the Philippines, the U.S., Post-Brexit, Turkey, etc. is authoritarianism actually on the rise? What parallels are there between today and the 1930's?

It seems that one similarity is the hopelessness of "working" people to improve their lot in life. Is this a global issue?


You can add Poland to that list.

Exactly what is happening is anyone's guess. It seems another one of those issues where everyone just assumes it is because of their own favourite cause. So people who are concerned about income equality say it's because of income equality. People who are concerned with political correctness or some other issue on the left say its because of that. Other people say it's because of Islam, but half say it's because we've denied the problem and the other half say it's because we've allowed vilification of Muslims.

Maybe its all of those things, or maybe it is none of them. I don't know. There is certainly something happening, because I'm not sure there are too many countries where some kind of extremist, reactionary movement isn't gaining power.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/12/20 15:44:14


Post by: Easy E


 sebster wrote:


Maybe its all of those things, or maybe it is none of them. I don't know. There is certainly something happening, because I'm not sure there are too many countries where some kind of extremist, reactionary movement isn't gaining power.


Yes, this is the part that concerns me, that and the fact that the electorates across the globe are O.K. and endorsing it. I really just do not understand and want to know more.

Is it all just part of a Generational Cycle? I seem to recall some theories about how the "Greatest generation" have to fight a big war, then Their kids learn some lesson from it, then their kids begin to dilute the lesson, and their kids "Millenials" do not even know the lesson that the big war taught and hence repeat the cycle ad infinitum.

I am sure someone smarter than me has heard of this and knows the actual name, and can tell me why it is hogwash.


Is Authoritarianism on the Rise? @ 2016/12/20 16:26:21


Post by: Pouncey


 Easy E wrote:
 sebster wrote:


Maybe its all of those things, or maybe it is none of them. I don't know. There is certainly something happening, because I'm not sure there are too many countries where some kind of extremist, reactionary movement isn't gaining power.


Yes, this is the part that concerns me, that and the fact that the electorates across the globe are O.K. and endorsing it. I really just do not understand and want to know more.

Is it all just part of a Generational Cycle? I seem to recall some theories about how the "Greatest generation" have to fight a big war, then Their kids learn some lesson from it, then their kids begin to dilute the lesson, and their kids "Millenials" do not even know the lesson that the big war taught and hence repeat the cycle ad infinitum.

I am sure someone smarter than me has heard of this and knows the actual name, and can tell me why it is hogwash.


Generally the older generations of humans have always believed that the youth of their day are ignorant, rash, reckless and going to cause the downfall of society. There was a well-known guy in Ancient Greece who said things about the youth back then that pretty much directly mirrored what older people nowadays think about young people today.

Personally I think it's just the natural effect that being born knowing nothing has. You need to learn things to know them, and you can't instantly know everything, so the older you are, the more opportunities you've had to learn about things, whereas younger people haven't had as much time to learn. It's also supported by most people looking back at their younger years and remembering what an idiot they were then.