Reverse checks of power

[Tahuti]

Authoritarianism is basically absolutism, with or without a monarch. While it does not technically require that the authority be stronger than those the authority is exercised against, it would be extremely difficult for it to be otherwise.

Authoritarianism is essentially a demand for societal uniformity. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the amount of power a given ruler has. Absolute monarchs and dictators may actually be very libertarian (authoritarianism's true antonym) by contrast.

 

[James Stuart]

Authoritarianism is essentially a demand for societal uniformity. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the amount of power a given ruler has. Absolute monarchs and dictators may actually be very libertarian (authoritarianism's true antonym) by contrast.

Societal control is not societal uniformity.

 

[aelf]

Authoritarianism often follows the success of might-makes-right ideologizing regimes. Merry X-Mas.

I think most fascists were more concerned with socialism myself, but they definitely didn't like liberalism. Your expansion makes more sense than your original comment.

Authoritarianism is basically absolutism, with or without a monarch. While it does not technically require that the authority be stronger than those the authority is exercised against, it would be extremely difficult for it to be otherwise.

I think this is incidental. You could even say that "might makes right", or a certain take on it, is a fundamental part of the liberal state (c.f. Weber and a lot of IR scholars). IIRC, Schmitt saw himself as a liberal political thinker, albeit one that follows in the same tradition while discarding major elements of it.

My point is "might makes right" is not a concept that is exclusive to authoritarianism, nor what really defines it. You can find plenty of American liberals (and I mean this in the classical sense) who subscribe to it while also proclaiming the ideals of freedom and etc. Just look at those who have only disdain for the legitimacy of the UN, for example.

 

[James Stuart]

I think this is incidental. You could even say that "might makes right", or a certain take on it, is a fundamental part of the liberal state (c.f. Weber and a lot of IR scholars). IIRC, Schmitt saw himself as a liberal political thinker, albeit one that follows in the same tradition while discarding major elements of it.

My point is "might makes right" is not a concept that is exclusive to authoritarianism, nor what really defines it. You can find plenty of American liberals (and I mean this in the classical sense) who subscribe to it while also proclaiming the ideals of freedom and etc. Just look at those who have only disdain for the legitimacy of the UN, for example.

Point taken. This is probably my fault for making such a spurious definition. In my defence, I have food poisoning - thanks Christmas! - so it's a small miracle I didn't write something even stupider. I'm currently going through several of my posts today to see if I made any similar errors.

 

[Hygro]

I think this is incidental. You could even say that "might makes right", or a certain take on it, is a fundamental part of the liberal state (c.f. Weber and a lot of IR scholars). IIRC, Schmitt saw himself as a liberal political thinker, albeit one that follows in the same tradition while discarding major elements of it.

My point is "might makes right" is not a concept that is exclusive to authoritarianism, nor what really defines it. You can find plenty of American liberals (and I mean this in the classical sense) who subscribe to it while also proclaiming the ideals of freedom and etc. Just look at those who have only disdain for the legitimacy of the UN, for example.

I agree. I will also tangentially add that Locke correctly identifies that Might Makes Right is a philosophical nonstarter that has no meaning. The people who espouse it do tend to fall into some of the same traps.

:

 

[Tahuti]

Societal control is not societal uniformity.

That's the point I already made. So?

 

[James Stuart]

Authoritarianism is essentially a demand for societal uniformity. It doesn't need to have anything to do with the amount of power a given ruler has. Absolute monarchs and dictators may actually be very libertarian (authoritarianism's true antonym) by contrast.

I'm saying that authoritarianism is not a call for social uniformity, but a call for social control. I think you misinterpreted my statement.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm saying that authoritarianism is not a call for social uniformity, but a call for social control. I think you misinterpreted my statement.

I did. I would indeed argue that the imposition of social uniformity is authoritarianism.

In this case, social control would be not enough, since any ruler can chose to not exercise it.

 

[James Stuart]

I did. I would indeed argue that the imposition of social uniformity is authoritarianism.

In this case, social control would be not enough, since any ruler can chose to not exercise it.

Any ruler that ceases to exercise social control, or at least make an attempt, has lost the ability to rule.

 

[Tahuti]

Any ruler that ceases to exercise social control, or at least make an attempt, has lost the ability to rule.

Every functioning state has the ability to completely ban alcohol. Few states have, and the states that haven't did not become Somalia's. So this assertion is pretty much busted.

 

[James Stuart]

Every functioning state has the ability to completely ban alcohol. Few states have, and the states that haven't did not become Somalia's. So this assertion is pretty much busted.

Social control does not equal totalitarianism. Nor does the failure to exercise authority in one area necessarily diminish the capacity to exercise it in others. Go back to the drawing board and find a better argument.

 

[Tahuti]

Social control does not equal totalitarianism.

How would you define 'social control'? Because I think we now do not really understand each other because we lack a coherent understanding of the terms we use.

I would define it as a built up capacity to enforce certain edicts that impact society such as banning alcohol, though it doesn't necessarily imply totalitarianism. Hence, this is why I said that social control doesn't need to be exercised.

 

[James Stuart]

How would you define 'social control'? Because I think we now do not really understand each other because we lack a coherent understanding of the terms we use.

I would define it as a built up capacity to enforce certain edicts that impact society such as banning alcohol, though it doesn't necessarily imply totalitarianism. Hence, this is why I said that social control doesn't need to be exercised.

I would classify the ability to affect such a fundamental change in human nature as absolute social control, befitting totalitarianism, while social control is little more than the maintenance of the monoploly on legitimate violence. The enforcement of edicts in general, not the ability to enforce any edict.