An often overlooked benefit of authoritarianism (if done right) - Expression and debate of ideas could never be more free and open

welcometotherock

استعباد القلب أسوأ من استعباد الجسد
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Speaking as someone who hails from an authoritarian third world hellhole, I can safely say that you're 100% full of shit. While it is true that the "democracies" of the third world are rife with corruption and may very well be ineffectual at times, they don't hold a candle to the absolute worst that authoritarian governments have.

So what if enlightened autocracy is possible? That doesn't change the fact that authoritarianism in any capacity has the potential to be severely abused. At least in a democracy, there's more red tape to go through before we can get to the abuses of power.
 

Anti Pedo Action

If you disagree with me, that means you're a...
kiwifarms.net
Speaking as someone who hails from an authoritarian third world hellhole, I can safely say that you're 100% full of shit. While it is true that the "democracies" of the third world are rife with corruption and may very well be ineffectual at times, they don't hold a candle to the absolute worst that authoritarian governments have.

So what if enlightened autocracy is possible? That doesn't change the fact that authoritarianism in any capacity has the potential to be severely abused. At least in a democracy, there's more red tape to go through before we can get to the abuses of power.
May I ask from which authoritarian shithole you hail? If it's anything Islamic, I can tell you why you feel the way you do.
 
  • Autistic
Reactions: GHTD

Emperor Julian

kiwifarms.net
Well one should understand that there are many corporations that pride themselves on quality.
Not genrally they don't, that's just their pr. Most corporations are focused on profit rather than product quality as the two do not automatically equate.

Many gladly pay more for a high quality tool that they enjoy using as opposed to a shitty one that's a quarter the price.
Yet bloated ammoral corporations producing crappy exploitive products are the norm and that's before we consider the system produces people who can't afford 'quality'.

These companies that produce high quality product are doing just fine.
I'm honestly trying to think of one. Pretty much all of them turn horrible eventually.

And when you get to vote with your feet (ie. leave or enter a country based on your desire for cheaper living or better living), you impact their profits.
So this country will have an open border policy? Would this rely on other countries doing the same?

Apple is probably a decent counter example, mind you, and actually a decent failure mode. People love Apple because it's Apple (ie. nationalism) and they stick with it despite the company fucking them time and time again. That's what I could see go wrong here.
Doesnt this explicitally endorse my concern as apple is often presented as the 'nice' corporation with good product?

But as far as your complaint about "modern corporations" goes: Well "govcorp" could fire problematic individuals and people can quit by leaving the country. That's literally the point. But aside from that, companies are generally more effectively run than most governments. That's the stake in the heart right there.
how would the 'firing' go? why would the other countries take on these problematic people? Are other goverments going to assume this model?
It's debatable if most corporations are actually well run vs goverments and pretty much all of them are only run for the maximisation of profit without any consideration of other factors which is a bad model to work with.
 
Last edited:

alreadyhome

kiwifarms.net
Fair enough. The answer is that the CEO is likely to want to stay in power for as long as possible (why would he take the job otherwise unless to be intentionally subversive?). Since he is beholden to stockholders who want to maintain long-term profits (again: these are people from professions of high responsibility), he would do best (or at least better than in a democratic system) to ensure those profits are stable and aren't going to collapse at a moment's notice.
It's conceptually tidy, but you have to think about human nature. Even were the stockholders and autocrat to be focused on long term rather than short term profitability, long term would most likely mean their lifetime, not long term in relation to a system of governance or a country. No one living contemporaneously to them could argue that they had over their lifetime generated massive profits but it was to the financial detriment of the system in its entire course, even were it to be true. The profits would decrease over time because of this principle. No one has the scope necessary to execute this system wisely, or even successfully in an economic sense, for more than a few generations, if at all.
 

JP's_Canadian_Cider

kiwifarms.net
I have not read Aristotle, he's on my list. The point, though, was that all of these systems of government were known in antiquity. Our shift towards democracy wasn't because we suddenly discovered by some guy who said "hey, let's ask people how they'd prefer the government run" but because of an ideological shift.
And, btw, warefare has increased, not decreased, since the near-universal adoption of democracy. Learn your history. It was more wars, yet much smaller scope, back then.
Warfare has certainly decreased. You are an idiot if you think otherwise. Seriously.

The world was in constant conflict. Especially tribal societies were locked in constant violence towards external tribes. Europe burned to the ground every fortnight. They were smaller in scope because there was less people. The amount of violence in society and among states was higher than today.

Between democratic nations in the west there hasn't been a single proper war since ww2. Not counting insurgencies, as they are rebellious movements, not actual states. If you want, you can count Russia as democratic, and include their conflicts with Georgia.

And, maybe you should read Aristotle before you start talking about him?

Also, shit, there is just so much wrong with what you are saying. It's actually hard to address it all.

" Fair enough. The answer is that the CEO is likely to want to stay in power for as long as possible (why would he take the job otherwise unless to be intentionally subversive?). "

That is not what we are seeing today. CEO's have contracts were they get bonuses for short-term profit allowing the shareholders to take out dividends. They get their bonuses, and then they leave. Often with the company in shambles as they haven't prioritized the proper investments.

Seriously, dude. Are you a kid? Did you just start to read philosophy? This shit is so basic and biased.

Our shift towards democracy wasn't because we suddenly discovered by some guy who said "hey, let's ask people how they'd prefer the government run" but because of an ideological shift.
No, it was because of a power shift. The ideology "please, stop abusing me" has been around forever. You just don't know about it because you can probably name less than 5 revolutions before the 19th century.

This is a good recommendation if you want to learn about the period https://www.cambridge.org/features/wiesnerhanks/default.html . It seems like you need it.
 

Anti Pedo Action

If you disagree with me, that means you're a...
kiwifarms.net
Not genrally they don't, that's just their pr. Most corporations are focused on profit rather than product quality as the two do not automatically equate.
Usually not, but sometimes are. Hell, a lot of people DO choose to live in shitholes because it's cheaper (see: Gambia). Different strokes for different folks.

Yet bloated ammoral corporations producing crappy exploitive products are the norm and that's before we consider the system produces people who can't afford 'quality'.
This isn't supposed to be utopia. It's just supposed to be better than democracy. And democracy has shown itself to be a one-direction vector. It was even noted by a confederate preacher that women's suffrage would soon be a thing and that conservatives would accept it as part of their platform soon after. Democracy leads to progressivism and conservatives only exist to slow the course. There is no reversal in democracy. If you don' want your kid to become a tranny, you don't want democracy.

I'm honestly trying to think of one. Pretty much all of them turn horrible eventually.
Look no further than power tools. This is precisely the industry where you run the gamut on "cheap crap" vs "expensive glory."

So this country will have an open border policy? Would this rely on other countries doing the same?
"open borders" is a stretch. But refusal of an exit will certainly drive potential immigrants away. It would have to let people leave or force itself to become a massive prison complex. That would be retardedly expensive.

Doesnt this explicitally endorse my concern as apple is often presented as the 'nice' corporation with good product?
It does. And that's the failure mode, as I've stated. People may prefer to stay in a horribly run country since it's their country. That's their problem though.

how would the 'firing' go? why would the other countries take on these problematic people? Are other goverments going to assume this model?
It's debatable if most corporations are actually well run vs goverments and pretty much all of them are only run for the maximisation of profit without any consideration of other factors which is a bad model to work with
[/QUOTE]
I assumed that you were talking about "firing" government employees. This would be easy. Of course, prison would be a thing for the common man so that's what "firing" would look like for them, or at least a temporary "leave without pay."

Warfare has certainly decreased. You are an idiot if you think otherwise. Seriously.
Do you actually have anything to back that claim up, or are you just taking it as gospel? Your abrasive demeanor without providing any corroborating evidence seems to imply the latter.

[note: I'm going to bed now. I may or may not workpost a bit tomorrow. Since that's my "friday," there's like a 50/50 shot I'm gonna wake up in the drunk tank again. So If I don't respond for a while it's not because I've abandoned the thread, but temporary incapacitation.]
 
Last edited:

JP's_Canadian_Cider

kiwifarms.net
I assumed that you were talking about "firing" government employees. This would be easy. Of course, prison would be a thing for the common man so that's what "firing" would look like for them, or at least a temporary "leave without pay."


Do you actually have anything to back that claim up, or are you just taking it as gospel? Your abrasive demeanor without providing any corroborating evidence seems to imply the latter.

[note: I'm going to bed now. I may or may not workpost a bit tomorrow. Since that's my "friday," there's like a 50/50 shot I'm gonna wake up in the drunk tank again. So If I don't respond for a while it's not because I've abandoned the thread, but temporary incapacitation.]
I actually did give you some evidence, you just ignored it.

Among the EU-nations there has been zero wars since ww2. Compare that to any time period beforehand. Any. Or just google it. Like this.


James J. Sheehan, emeritus professor in the humanities at Stanford University
, wrote in his 2008 book "Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? The Transformation of Modern Europe":

"Between 1648 and 1789, the European powers had fought forty-eight wars, some of them, like the Seven Years’ War in the mid-eighteenth century, lasting several years and stretching around the world. Between 1815 and 1914, there were only five wars in Europe involving two great powers; all of them were limited in time and space, and only one of them involved more than two major states. From the end of the Franco- Prussian War in 1871 until the outbreak of the Great War in 1914, the European states were at peace with one another. This was the longest period without war in European history until it was surpassed toward the end of the twentieth century."
 

Made In China

I'm from Pennsylvania.
kiwifarms.net
Westeners have this retarded tendency to credit libertarianism, muh free market, and democracy for things that have nothing to do with those because they actually believe we currently live in their libertarian free market fantasy land. Not sure you actually live in a democracy either.
 

Emperor Julian

kiwifarms.net
Usually not, but sometimes are. Hell, a lot of people DO choose to live in shitholes because it's cheaper (see: Gambia). Different strokes for different folks.
incorrect and that damns it with faint praise


This isn't supposed to be utopia. It's just supposed to be better than democracy. And democracy has shown itself to be a one-direction vector. It was even noted by a confederate preacher that women's suffrage would soon be a thing and that conservatives would accept it as part of their platform soon after. Democracy leads to progressivism and conservatives only exist to slow the course. There is no reversal in democracy. If you don' want your kid to become a tranny, you don't want democracy.
It sounds more like dystopia than anything. Yeah the confederacy was re-tarded which is why it failed. I don't really care about trans people existing but your proposed system wouldnt really provide any safeguards against transgenderism since it's primary concern is money, it might actually encourage it since cosmetic surgery and body modification is a very profitble industry.
Also clamping down on LGBT stuff negates your earlier premise that we'd be more free since you now want to limit people in terms of expression and self-identity.


Look no further than power tools. This is precisely the industry where you run the gamut on "cheap crap" vs "expensive glory."
Power tools are niche market reliant on informed users and crappy practises still finds its way in. For example

You may notice a couple of 'complete bastards' on the list.
"open borders" is a stretch. But refusal of an exit will certainly drive potential immigrants away. It would have to let people leave or force itself to become a massive prison complex. That would be retardedly expensive.
It's rapidly going to become a bloated disaster area if you do, is the whole world running onthis system or are you relying on people being able to leave?

It does. And that's the failure mode, as I've stated. People may prefer to stay in a horribly run country since it's their country. That's their problem though.
Yes but it's also the ultimate conclusion of the system you propose.


I assumed that you were talking about "firing" government employees. This would be easy. Of course, prison would be a thing for the common man so that's what "firing" would look like for them, or at least a temporary "leave without pay."
So with this in mind what happens to citizens who despise your goverment and constantly argue against it. What happens when they start to achieve success?
 
Last edited:

Hellbound Hellhound

kiwifarms.net
The problem with China is its communist element. It is thoroughly in "dictatorship of the proletariat" mode. While it is FAR from communist in practice, the end goal of communism is there. I would like some justification on the idea that "The idea that an autocratic state would lack an incentive to oppress it's people is thoroughly laughable, and totally at odds with what we observe throughout the world and throughout human history."
You say that, but as bad as communism is, it's still far better than the feudal systems it replaced: with respect to political stability, to improvements in living standards, to technological and social development, etc. The situation of the common people has improved considerably in just about every society which has abandoned feudalism, and this is precisely why the neo-reactionary argument is so incredibly weak. If even communism is preferable to what neo-reactionaries wish to return to, then what does that say about the merits of the system they advocate?
As I said previously: most monarchies have operated themselves just fine. If you don't like Yarvin, maybe you'll listen to Hobbes.
I've read Leviathan, and while I consider it to be a seminal piece of political literature, I think it is extremely imprudent to ignore the wealth of political development that has happened since then, from thinkers such as Locke, to Rousseau, to Mill, all the way to more modern thinkers like Bertrand Russell and Max Weber. The neo-reactionary impulse is to dismiss these developments, and ignore the reasons why they happened. If mercantile autocracy really was such a great system, why didn't it survive?
It's also funny that you think it's "convenient" that Yarvin wants "pasty tech geeks [like him]" to govern society when all of his ideas exclude him and his ilk from ruling. Kinda odd if the guy who wants to "decide how society ought to be governed" is advocating for himself to be excluded from the opportunity. Must be reverse psychology... or something.
I think you're missing my point. Whether Yarvin sees himself as monarch material or not, the monarch he conceives of is still one who would theoretically act in the best interest of society, and who decides what is best for society within the framework of Yarvin's political philosophy? Answer: Yarvin himself.

It may sound like I'm being somewhat facetious, but my point here is by no means cynical. I still maintain that the thought of people like Yarvin (and the so-called "Dark Enlightenment" more generally) is the byproduct of social and intellectual isolation, and it shows up in their writing constantly. They decry popular opinion, yet demonstrate an indifference towards trying to actually influence it; they display a snooty disregard for the will of the people, yet maintain that a leader selected according to their ideals would act in the best interest of the public; they consider democracy to be pure folly; yet argue for a system which is worse than democracy in every measurable respect.

If you look at neo-reactionary thought more deeply, you invariably find that it's a bundle of contradictions and falsehoods, and to the thinkers who make up this movement, I don't think any of this matters. It is my hypothesis that the purpose of these ideas is to offer people an escapist fantasy, not a body of serious political critique.
 

Kosher Dill

Potato Chips
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Leaving aside all the practical objections to autocracy, which everyone else already covered: why on earth would anyone think that a sort of corporate autocrat would allow free expression to bloom in the name of profit? Look at how corporations are being run right now. Do you think rank-and-file wrongthinkers are tolerated in corporate America as long as they're good for the bottom line? Corporations have shown themselves willing and eager to kneecap themselves in the name of whatever social cause is trending. Why would StateCorp be any better in that regard?
If the answer is that we'd find a paragon of enlightenment to be the leader, how come we don't have any paragons leading in the private sector now?
 

Tovarisz

Nuts
kiwifarms.net
I kinda want an authoritarian political party that would annihilate all welfare programs or simplify them to a single one "You can have UBI but you don't get to vote since you're a potentially non-symbiotic, harmful parasite and it should always be up to the host how to deal with a parasite" and give zero fucks about the backlash.

Perhaps that line of thinking comes down to the fact that once I got off the parental welfare program I've put in ungodly amount of tax money that went to fucking worthless shit and parasite upkeep programs that I legitimately don't give a shit. I've never put my hands in the cookie jar, I just keep putting cookies in and they evaporate and I never qualify for any welfare program because I earn too much so I literally can't get any of my own input back.

So fuck it, I don't care how many parasitic, useless shits starve or die, I'd rather have the money I earn for myself to burn if I so desire.

I'm not rich, I'm just sick to death of knowing I have a hand in funding junkies, parasites, brain dead angels and single moms. What's the point of me working if I can get almost the same amount of $ on welfare if I just fill enough paperwork and act retarded?
 

GHTD

volleyball retard
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
OP glows in the dark and needs to be run over.
 

welcometotherock

استعباد القلب أسوأ من استعباد الجسد
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
May I ask from which authoritarian shithole you hail? If it's anything Islamic, I can tell you why you feel the way you do.
1) I'm not stupid enough to reveal my country of origin on KF. The only thing that I'm willing to reveal is that I'm an American with a decent grasp over Arabic, Farsi/Dari, Pashto, Punjabi, and Urdu/Hindi.

2) I already know why Middle Eastern/Central/South Asian countries are shitholes. From a nonreligious "secular dictator" perspective, the Middle East (and Northern Africa to some extent as well) have relied on political strongmen to keep the peace. Centuries of authoritarian rule under the likes of the Ottoman Empire followed by people like Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and the Al-Assad family have completely warped the political landscape.

Qaddafi, Hussein, Al-Assad, among others, are guilty of massive human rights abuses, and yet they're the ones who insured the stability of those countries. Countless revolutionary groups with wildly differing ideologies have been quashed for decades and the moment that they get toppled, a power vacuum emerges. When a power vacuum emerges, those same revolutionary groups end up fighting among themselves in a massive civil war because each side wants to take full credit for a collective effort.

In the case of explicitly Islamic nations like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, those countries as we know them today are extremely new. Post-Khomeini Iran tries to implement a balance between a democracy and a theocracy, but it leans much more heavily to the religious side because they took a page out of the Communists' handbook and instituted a Revolutionary Guard, so-to-speak. They don't want threats to the new government to take root, lest all that they worked for go to waste.

The KSA, on the other hand, was formed through power politics that the Saud family have been playing with other tribes on the Arab peninsula shortly after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Until they discovered oil, the entire country was poor as shit. Nowadays, the Saudi government is corrupt to the bone while pretending to be the proprietor of all things Islamic due to their claims over Mecca and Medina. The Saudi royal family is more concerned with their wealth than they are with the overall health and prosperity of their people, which is why they act like such a stereotypical Islamic autocracy.

Pakistan's unique in that it historically shifted between military dictatorship to democracy and back. Pakistan was also the first nation founded specifically in the name of Islam, and yet it was explicitly founded as a republic. However, Pakistan's inability to maintain neutrality during the Cold War meant that it was often caught in the middle of the USA and Russia/China's Great Game. The last time that Pakistan was truly stable was when it was under the rule of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who ended up getting overthrown in a military coup orchestrated by Muhammad Zia ul-Haq. Bhutto had Soviet-leaning sympathies, while Zia was very much in favour of US policy so long as he was free to rule like a tyrant. This also happened around the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where the USA funded the mujahideen.

***

In short, it doesn't matter why these nations are authoritarian. The fact of the matter is that autocracy doesn't work. Even the most long-running of empires in the past had to implement some form of counterbalance to the power of the monarchs in question. When you have a system where absolute power is channelled in the hands of one person, that power will undoubtedly corrupt and weaken whatever good that could come out if it.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
The primary motive of the autocratic ruler would be to maximize his own finances and/or those of invested parties. This leaves the dictator largely unconcerned with the public so long as they're being productive, paying taxes, and not fucking with anyone else's ability to do so. Being materially rather than ideologically motivated means he won't be incentivized to stamp out dissenting opinion or to regulate non-destructive behavior. He will, in fact, be incentivized against it; people don't want to move to an oppressive shithole after all. If people don't want to live there, that means less revenue for the state.
You already fucked up with the first paragraph. The primary motive of the non-democratic ruler is to continue to rule, getting kickback from ruling is secondary. And considering people don't live in a vaccum, the ruler must constantly be on the lookout on threat from within and without, necessatating political violence to ensure it since the state of authoritarianism always lead to either the most vicious one being on top, or a puppet for a group of vicious people.
Being undemocratic, the media/education complex won't have nearly the same incentive they do in a democratic society to influence the minds of the people, and the state would have no incentive to implement bad ideas from this complex. That's a death blow to political correctness and the bad legislation it comes with. Good ideas will spread and bad ideas will fall based on their capacity to improve the finances of the state (depending on the competence of the ruler). These could either make life better for the common man (higher standard of living means more people would want to come there and pay taxes) or directly improve economic output (more revenue means more money for the state).
Media will always fuck up with the country, especially if you allow a free market of ideas (otherwise you face the other end of the scales where bad ideas are not challenged). Not to mention that the people do have agency and the ruler needs to decide whether to allow them to protest, stamp them out, or carry what they want.

Basically the idea fails because it thinks that running a country is a single player game rather than a constant race towards appeasing different groups without running out of money.
 

Emperor Julian

kiwifarms.net
In short, it doesn't matter why these nations are authoritarian. The fact of the matter is that autocracy doesn't work. Even the most long-running of empires in the past had to implement some form of counterbalance to the power of the monarchs in question. When you have a system where absolute power is channelled in the hands of one person, that power will undoubtedly corrupt and weaken whatever good that could come out if it.
Their's loads of issues with such goverments

-failure to provide effective transfer of power when leader dies (alexanders empire)
-Kratocratic aspects ensure the only real legitimacy is force which explictly endorses any act of violence against the state (china)
-Goverment is effectively paralized on any front the leadership has a blindspot (Byzantine empire).
-Goverment will often waste massive amounts of time and effort on non-issues since indviduality is opposition to the state (ethnic and religious purges in the roman empire)
-Even if the leader isnt corrupt or manevolant they are ultimatly human so can be blindsided or decieved and can frankly simply not get around to something ( early modern france).

I think the real question isnt why would anyone choose autocracy it's a total non-issue if you read a history book, the real question is why anyone would think an autocratic model is a viable option.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: welcometotherock
Tags
None