Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Uh-oh spaghetti-o's! Political polling is back, asking for how you would place yourself on the Authoritarian/Libertarian political axis, as recommended in this thread to compliment its Left/Right axis poll. It's for... like... research and stuff.

31 days for the poll to run.

NB: I'm fully aware that I probably got the poll wrong, please criticise.

Right wing libertarian standing by!

Replace "Nazism" with "Totalitarianism". Nazism is specifically a far right authoritarian ideology. Make room for the auth-left people, please.

And yes, Left-Libertarian, reporting. I was surprised by my 8values results, I am apparently more libertarian than I thought.

For reference: https://8values.github.io

 Verviedi wrote:
Replace "Nazism" with "Totalitarianism". Nazism is specifically a far right authoritarian ideology. Make room for the auth-left people, please.

Done and done.

It depends of the day. Somedays I'm a hippy libertarian speaking about personal freedom.

Others day, after watching how stupid people can be, I just want a militarist state and put them in line!

As usual I must vote "centrist" because there is no option "that depends on a subject"...

To give just one example on how not every area of life/politics can be left liberal and free and should be governed in strictly authoritarian fashion: antimicrobial resistance due to overuse/misuse of antibiotics in food industry and medicine... It is not a subject that can be maintained by attitudes like "self regulating free market will take care of everything" or "everyone should have free and uncontrolled access to whatever drug they wish" (NOT "whatever drug is required for their health")...

Yeah... There are good reasons for govt intervention, even if you hold liberal values. Wanna know why we can't have nice things? Reality. Reality is why we can't have nice things.

Is like vacination. You MUST vacinate your pets, but you can choose to not vacinate your children, when that is a problem of public health?

Or you can let your children die if you think a blood transfusion goes against' your religion. Theres freedom and then theres debauchery.

Do what you will, unless it harms others. The vaccination argument is where harming others comes into play. Do whatever drugs you want, but if you're neglecting your children because you're always high, you are harming others. That's when social services comes in.

I do agree that pure libertarianism doesn't work as of right now, mostly because things like religion, conspiracy, and malicious corporate influence still exist, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have as much liberty as we can get.

Debauchery is perfectly acceptable, as long as consent is involved and nobody else is being harmed.

Totalitarianism: 1
Anarchism: 0

Interesting spread of results at this early stage - there seems to be some congregation around the "Somewhat"s

You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.

Also, there is no actual difference between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". The latter was simply invented to defend Western support of dictatorships. See, those other guys are totalitarian while our guys are merely authoritarian.

Libertarianism loathes society?

You must have a VERY different definition than most folks do.

Not really sure where I fall on this one.

My impression of Libertarians tends to be 'everyone should be free to be just like me' - but that's only based on the few I've met.

Centrist is probably the closest. I'm a Feminist and LGBTQ+ ally. I want to see everyone left alone to just get on with their own lives - but have no problem at all with laws being brought in to ensure that.

But, I strongly object to any kind of religion based laws. Your Good Book is your book. Keep it to yourself, and don't try to inflict it on anyone else.

I fear that the hard-right's much vaunted 'slippery slope' logic mostly applies to religious fundamentalism in law. Give them an inch, and they want more - and there's a lot of exceptionally dangerous things in all religious texts. You're absolutely free to believe what you want of course - you can be as fundamental as you see fit. Just don't pretend you're somehow the soul source of morality.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


My impression of Libertarians tends to be 'everyone should be free to be just like me' - but that's only based on the few I've met.

[...]

I fear that the hard-right's much vaunted 'slippery slope' logic mostly applies to religious fundamentalism in law. Give them an inch, and they want more - and there's a lot of exceptionally dangerous things in all religious texts. You're absolutely free to believe what you want of course - you can be as fundamental as you see fit. Just don't pretend you're somehow the soul source of morality.

Funnily enough, both those two sentences describe ideally two different individuals I personally know - one is catholic monarchist and one is sworn libertarian, i.e. both think their way of thinking is the only ethical way of thinking and will shove it down your throat. Just not in a physically agressive ways.

@CptJake: European and US term "libertarian" probably have different meanings. In Poland, "libertarian" is a usually a far-right person whose ideal "country" is "anarcho-capitalistic freedom of two-sided, consent agreements in any area of life", and definately not "universal basic income" left style person. One defining paradoxes of libertarianism and a topic of many discussions is a question "does a consent person have a freedom to sell oneself into slavery?".

I voted centrist. There's good reasons for a lot of government regulations, and the government being an extension of us should take care of the most vulnerable. Leave a minimum value for everyone.

However, the government should allow people to do what they want when it doesn't affect someone else. You can have whatever beliefs you want as long as you don't force others to follow those beliefs.

You want to smoke pot. That's fine. Just don't do it around people that don't want it who you are giving a contact high to and being forced to breath the smoke. Also don't do it while driving or at work. Also don't do it around children(even your own) who cannot give informed consent.

Conversely, don't fire people for smoking pot unless they are under the influence at work.

I'm an authoritarian learning centerist, if I'm complete honestly. Maybe even somewhat more authoritarian than that.

If I can use an analogy, right now in my opinion uk law is a fat useless mess than lies on top of you and prevents you from living to your fullest whilst at the same time being too fat and pathetic to stop the serious issues like crime and terrorism. It prohibits soft drugs, making criminals out of ordinary people who mean no harm, yet gives slaps on the wrist to violent serial offenders and is hopeless at dealing with terrorists. I think the law should be like one of those 'trap door' predators. Generally out of sight and out of mind, but cross it's path and you won't know what hit you.

I think my personal problem with going down authoritarian routes is that the government answers to no higher power, (who watches the watchmen?), and the more power they have the easier and more likely abuse of power becomes.

That said, I'm often the one in the room arguing that it makes no sense to oppose current anti-terror laws because prevention is the only possible solution to groups that do not fear punishment.

Depends on the nature and scope of the anti-terror law.

If it's say, the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of an arrested suspect - not so bad.

But, if it's the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of anyone in the country - far, far too open to abuse.

 Verviedi wrote:
Do what you will, unless it harms others. The vaccination argument is where harming others comes into play. Do whatever drugs you want, but if you're neglecting your children because you're always high, you are harming others. That's when social services comes in.

I do agree that pure libertarianism doesn't work as of right now, mostly because things like religion, conspiracy, and malicious corporate influence still exist, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have as much liberty as we can get.

Debauchery is perfectly acceptable, as long as consent is involved and nobody else is being harmed.

I wasn't talking about sexual debauchery but as I look for that word in english in google probably I have used a word that I don't really understand, sorry about that

I was trying to transmit that one has freedom until the freedom of others began, so pure freedom is just chaos.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Depends on the nature and scope of the anti-terror law.

If it's say, the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of an arrested suspect - not so bad.

But, if it's the security services have the absolute right to access the mobile phone or computer of anyone in the country - far, far too open to abuse.

Can't they technically search anyone's mobile phone/computer if they have a probable cause?

I'm relatively libertarian. The rights to free speech, press, assembly, and those of privacy are very important, equal protection under the law, and all adult citizens must be guaranteed the right to vote. Specific and very well founded reason must be given to bypass these rights.

Other things I am supportive of however, anti-discrimination laws, safety laws (explosives and toxic regulations, helmet laws, ect). As well as not agreeing that corporations should be given these same rights.

Somewhat authoritarian. But leaning toward being very authoritarian in mindset. Politically, I'm on the right.

Rosebuddy wrote:
You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.

There are multiple meanings for libertarian. Civil libertarians are people who focus on protection of individual rights without any of the oddball baggage you get from the US rightwing libertarian movement.

Also, there is no actual difference between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". The latter was simply invented to defend Western support of dictatorships. See, those other guys are totalitarian while our guys are merely authoritarian.

Hogwash. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are quite distinct. Authoritarianism, and the hint really is in the name, focuses on total political authority. They will limit or ban political opposition, and they will restrict individuals and institutions to the extent those groups might challenge their political authority. That's awful, of course, but that is it's limit. Totalitarianism is something else, and again the hint is in the name - total. Totalitarian governments look to dominate the total lives of their citizens, their art, culture, friends and relationships, all of it is done only with party approval, or possibly only with party instruction. Putin's Russia is authoritarian, Stalin's Russia was totalitarian.

I voted anarchist. I identify as both a libertarian and an anarchist. I think that I am both, other people might consider me neither.

People use the same words to mean very different things. This has always been the case. There's a reason why dictionaries frequently have multiple definitions of pretty mundane, uncontroversial words. When it comes to political ideologies many people are convinced they know the correct definitions of all terms, and that any use of the same words and phrases in other ways is incorrect. I'm definitely not claiming to be an expert or anything, but being a political science major I've spent a lot of time reading about political ideologies and I'm always finding new and interesting ways in which different groups use words in different ways. The same thing happened in the past, and definitions usually change over time as well.

I think discussing terminology can be very useful in trying to make sure people understand each other, but it can also be a big waste of time when people get bent out of shape over the "correct" use of words. Jargon quickly develops whenever a group of people regularly discuss a subject. It seems pretty normal for those groups to trace the history of their terms in an effort to prove that they are using the words the correct way and that the other people are unintentionally (or sometimes intentionally) using the words incorrectly. I think it's mostly a waste of time.

I find myself having more in common with leftist anarchists than moderate, minarchist libertarians. Once the state is removed from the picture the differences between free market people and communist people seem pretty small unless, in my opinion, they are quibbling over the nuances of certain words rather than looking at the intent behind what is being said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:
You can't really go from "libertarian" to "anarchist" because anarchism generally has a very collective view of things while libertarianism loathes the very idea of society.

I don't think I know any libertarians that loathe society, they just don't consider the state and society to be the same thing. Most of them would define things along the lines of society being an abstraction of all the interactions and relationships between individuals, while a state is an organization that enforces a monopoly on the use of violence inside of a certain geographic boundary. Of course there are differing definitions of both of those words, but that's how a lot of libertarians think of them.

Obviously you are using the wrong set of axes for your poll - there need to be two axes...

So, Chaotic on the Left, Lawful on the Right, with Good and Evil being the top and bottom....

That should prevent there being any arguments!

The Auld Grump - who is a Lawful Liberal, neither Authoritarian nor Libertarian, nor Anarchist.

Lawful: Follows rules.

Which rules? I can construe that as Authoritarianism...

If I were on that axis, I'd be chaotic good. I'm just too inconsistent a person to be anything else.

It depends on the issue where I slot...

I think we all are on a few points on the scale.
Its too complicated to give one decisive answer

 sebster wrote:

Hogwash. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are quite distinct. Authoritarianism, and the hint really is in the name, focuses on total political authority. They will limit or ban political opposition, and they will restrict individuals and institutions to the extent those groups might challenge their political authority. That's awful, of course, but that is it's limit. Totalitarianism is something else, and again the hint is in the name - total. Totalitarian governments look to dominate the total lives of their citizens, their art, culture, friends and relationships, all of it is done only with party approval, or possibly only with party instruction. Putin's Russia is authoritarian, Stalin's Russia was totalitarian.

As I said, our guys are authoritarian which is tough but not so bad as those other guys who are uh, totalitarian!


It's not a real distinction. It's useless wordgames to justify the support of dictatorships.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Hogwash. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are quite distinct. Authoritarianism, and the hint really is in the name, focuses on total political authority. They will limit or ban political opposition, and they will restrict individuals and institutions to the extent those groups might challenge their political authority. That's awful, of course, but that is it's limit. Totalitarianism is something else, and again the hint is in the name - total. Totalitarian governments look to dominate the total lives of their citizens, their art, culture, friends and relationships, all of it is done only with party approval, or possibly only with party instruction. Putin's Russia is authoritarian, Stalin's Russia was totalitarian.

As I said, our guys are authoritarian which is tough but not so bad as those other guys who are uh, totalitarian!


It's not a real distinction. It's useless wordgames to justify the support of dictatorships.

Errr...sebster just made a pretty clear distinction, far as I can see. No word games about it. One means one thing, the other means something else. A banana isn't an apple by a different name, even though they're both fruit.

Rosebuddy wrote:
As I said, our guys are authoritarian which is tough but not so bad as those other guys who are uh, totalitarian!


It's not a real distinction. It's useless wordgames to justify the support of dictatorships.

No, seriously, there is a difference. Authoritarian governments seek absolute political control, but limit themselves to purely the political. Totalitarian governments seek absolute control of every part of their citizen's lives. It is the difference between Stalin's Russia and Putin's Russia.

And no, it isn't about wordgames to support some dictatorships. That doesn't make any kind of sense. That is like saying the distinction between manslaughter and murder is just word games to support some kinds of murder. Both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are recognised as bad, but we seperate the two in order to more accurately describe them and deal with each.