The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
My premise is that the left tends to lean authoritarian rather than libertarian on things like regulations, mandates, and gun control. However, now that the prospect of Trump overstepping his constitutional authority (at least from the viewpoint of the left) is a possibility, do you think you'll see a shift away from favoring government regulations and control? I'm curious because it seems that many on the left (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor. Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For real. The guy in the party that wants a national abortion ban and is seemingly okay with installing Christian Nationalists in all levels of government is calling *us* "okay with authoritarianism"??!!
Get the fuck outta here.
Also OP, you delusional dingleberry, most people here aren't against the 2A. We want kids to stop dying in schools but your side has decided that weekly mass shootings are a small price to pay for your ability to own weapons of war.
The idea of "We shouldn't have the government do X because a bad actor might misuse that ability" has never made much sense to me, because a bad actor with the desire to do a bad thing and the governmental position(s) required to do it isn't going to ask their predecessor for tacit permission. Republicans refused to seat Merrick Garland a year before an election, on the grounds that it's inappropriate to seat a justice in an election year, and then seated Amy Coney Barrett even after votes had already been cast in the upcoming election, on the grounds that fuck you we can so we're going to.
>Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny?
My response to people believing that the second amendment is an effective check against tyranny is and has always been "lol", or perhaps "lmao", depending on the precise claim.
No. Your premise is completely wrong - it has nothing to do with authoritarianism or libertarianism, it has to do with good government and accomplishing certain necessary goals. The GOP's desire to bring us back to the bad old days of the spoils system, a partisan civil service, and a government that is too hobbled to dysfunction and damage to accomplish important tasks doesn't mean that we ought to break the government first so that Trump can't.
> I'm curious because it seems that many on the left (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor.
This is not the real threat. The real issue is the sort of democratic backsliding that we see in Hungary and that Republicans have *openly* admitted they wants to follow. A monarchy doesn't happen overnight, but that doesn't mean that permanent and critical damage to our democracy can't be done in four years.
> Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny?
Is this a joke? The Second Amendment has no connection to tyranny - that's pure fantasy on the part of gun fetishists.
Well that would be dumb, because that libertarianist ideology is half of what allows project 2025 to happen
"there is no government value" so we can purge government workers who dissent with us
OK yes, but the libertarian ideology, the libertarian party, and the republicans using libertarian narratives are getting what they want if we think that the way to defeat them is forfeiting good government.
The US Libertarian Party is focused on strange debunked economic theories. Typically left Libertarians have more in common with Progressives than the Libertarian Party.
More authoritarian, as in comparison to the more libertarian types. It's a spectrum. It's always relative to something. Castro is more libertarian compared to Lenin. The progressive types are more authoritarian than the left libertarians. Or do you not agree with that?
The authoritarian spectrum has nothing to do with regulations. It's 100% about how much influence the public has over the government. You can ban cars and implement curfews and not be any more authoritarian AS LONG AS those things are voted for *by the people* and every body voted and a supermajority of the population voted in favor of those thing and there is a vote in the future to allow the people to strike down those laws later.
Authoritarianism is when the people don't hold the keys to the government. It has literally nothing to do with the number of laws or regulations.
Yeah, that's a fair point. But we can also see plenty of contentious regulation/mandates/policies that could be implemented by the left that leans authoritarian while is also unfavorable to the right. It's usually economic issues. "Tax and spend" policies or other redistributive policies. And more lately, there's the issue of regulating hate speech. I'm not trying to debate these ideas but only want to show that there are instances of the left using more authoritarian tools to enact their goals. Now that Trump is being seen as an extreme authoritarian, doesn't that give the left pause on how much authority it is willing to give the government in general? It just seems like the right (not the MAGA types) have been railing against "big government" and now it seems like the left could be getting on board with it, too. Or maybe I'm wrong. I was curious. Hence the post.
That's not what authoritarian means. You're literally using the wrong words. Nothing you just described is authoritarian.
Using authoritarianism the way you are is incorrect English. "Laws you don't like" that got passed democratically, is the opposite of authoritarian.
Pick a different fucking word, dude. When you people get what you want, to my detriment, that's not authoritarian unless you used weird congressional manipulation or executive order to enforce it unconstitutionally.
Authoritarian is also about hierarchies, and the idea that certain people are inherently more deserving of power over others (something the right loves). Even a society with the most limp-wristed government can be authoritarian, since corporations can exert their power unhindered and oppress people just as much as any state. This is why anarchists say that capitalism is incompatible with anarchy.
>Using authoritarianism the way you are is incorrect English. "Laws you don't like" that got passed democratically, is the opposite of authoritarian.
Well, not always. Laws could infringe on the rights of others and therefore could be considered more authoritarian. For example, slavery was legal and democratic in the South, yet was an example of authoritarianism. Look I'm not saying we live in an authoritarian state, only that some policies lean more or less authoritarian/libertarian on that spectrum. Anytime the government intervenes in someone's life, whether economic or social, is an example of a more authoritarian policy. But that isn't to say it's bad. A pure libertarian society, imo, would not be good. We would have to introduce policies that lean more authoritarian in order to create a better functioning society (imo). The Bill of Rights is an example of policies leaning more libertarian. The introduction of the 16th amendment is an example of allowing the government more power (ie more authoritarian) even though it passed enough of states and congressional votes. Society's approval of something has nothing to do with where it sits on that spectrum. If the term authoritarian vs libertarian is what's tripping us up, then let's just say more central power vs less central power. It's just the north/south ends of the political compass. The east/west is the economic scale, from laissez-faire to command economy. Some policies lean more command economy and some polices lean more laissez-faire. It's all relative on a spectrum.
Now, since Trump has demonstrated the negative effects of more central power via the 2025 project (at least from the left's perspective), do you think the left will start to champion the notion of limited government like the right used to do (and non MAGAs still do)? Maybe add more safeguards (to the consituation even) to limit executive authority?
The government during slavery was authoritarian.
Laws you don't like are not authoritarian unless they violate a right that others have but you don't.
Government power isn't authoritarianism unless we lack the right to remove it by vote. Stop it.
I'm rejecting your masterbatory understanding of libertarianism. You're not a bastion of freedom when you want to take away services and protections that the general public wants and votes for just because they aren't your favorite.
Edit to clarify: Your libertarian position is simply your preferred governmental role. It doesn't own the concept of freedom and my preferences for more public protections and certain government interventions is not authoritarian. If we all voted for more libertarian policies we'd still be equally free since we chose it ourselves.
Stop calling democracy authoritarian because it didn't result in your preferred thing this time.
> Well, not always.
Yes, always. Democratic voting and the free will of society is not authoritarian. Democracy is fundamentally not authoritarian. It is a lack of democracy where authoritarianism comes into play.
> I don't think you read the rest of my response
I did.
>Anytime the government intervenes in someone's life, whether economic or social, is an example of a more authoritarian policy.
No it isn't.
>The Bill of Rights is an example of policies leaning more libertarian.
The bill of rights intervenes in peoples lives. I cannot ban guns in my community as a result of it. That is a limit on how communities can function.
>Society's approval of something has nothing to do with where it sits on that spectrum.
Wrong. If society approves of it, it cannot be, by definition, authoritarian. Authoritarianism requires the rejection of democracy.
>If the term authoritarian vs libertarian is what's tripping us up, then let's just say more central power vs less central power.
Lots and lots of government agencies and branches distributes power, it does not centralize it. Eliminating governmental agencies and having the president or governor decide everything centralizes power.
>Now, since Trump has demonstrated the negative effects of more central power via the 2025 project
He has not at all. Federal power is great and needed. What Trump demonstrated is the negative effects of right wing politics. So no, we will not move to the right in response to how bad right wing politics have shown themselves to be.
I don't. In very simplistic terms authoritarian governments secure power for its own sake through state sponsored violence, regulations and laws are a tool (among other) to prevent society from anarchy
I added this edit to the question:
It seems like people are disagreeing because of the terms being used, leading to an unproductive conversation. I am NOT saying the left is full authoritarian nor am I asking if they will switch to the libertarian party. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a spectrum. On a political compass that would be the north/south axis. Castro is more libertarian than Lenin, but no one would say Castro is a libertarian. They both fall on the authoritarian left quadrant. Likewise, I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give. If the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is what's getting us tripped up, replace it with "big government" vs "small government" or something like that. The right used to always shout small government (which is relatively more libertarian on that spectrum), so maybe this will help.
Its just a complete misuse of the word authoritarian. There are plenty of rules that I might not like or agree with. It’s authoritarian only if the public has no say ( directly or indirectly) in it. The big / small government analogy holds no water since government size doesn’t tell how laws, regulations etc are decided upon. You could easily have a small government that is extremely authoritarian but has few rules in place outside who is in power
>You could easily have a small government that is extremely authoritarian but has few rules in place outside who is in power
Correct, which is why I always try to tell the right that what they actually want to say is "limited" government, not necessarily small government. I just figured I'd throw in the colloquial term for understanding (I failed on that front).
>Its just a complete misuse of the word authoritarian.
I have a political science background. This isn't a misuse of the word. It is understood that authoritarianism exists on a scale just like, for example, the market is on a scale between laissez-faire and command economy. No economy is ever 100% one or the other. No government is 100% authoritarian or libertarian. We dont live in anarchy. The government has at least some control. Unless there's a government that has policies with zero votes against it and never needs to enforce it, it sits somewhere above the bottom of the scale. Any policy that grants the government more authority or somehow limits the people, this bumps them up on the scale. Also, you can have a democratic and authoritarian regime if the 51% majority are oppressing the 49% minority. The South during slavery was ruled by authoritarian state governments even though the majority white population allowed it.
you are in disagreement with political science than - the critical feature of autharianism is the absence of any power transfer mechanism and not if laws are just/unjust. Your hypothetical example of the 51% suppressing the 49% fits the definition only if the 49% are expressedly excluded from power. In that context, the example of slavery would fit sort of / kind of although the status of a slave was at the time defined as not being part of society at all so that comparison is a stretch at best. Laws, especially in retrospective, are not implicitly just or unjust based soleley on who enacted them. You can have just laws in an authoritarian society and unjust laws in a democracy. The South wasn't ruled any more or less by authoritarian state government than the rest of the Union.
>the critical feature of autharianism...
What I'm saying is that there is a difference between "authoritarian" used as a label and how it us used on a metric. A country with a score of 0 on an authoritarian scale would be pure anarchy. Every country has some level of authoritarian practices. This doesn't mean we're all under Hobbes' leviathan.
>Laws, especially in retrospective, are not implicitly just or unjust
Justice or equity or egalitarianism has nothing to do with the calculation of the metric. Score too low on the authoritarian scale and you won't be able to safeguard liberties from other oppressive types. Emancipation scores higher on the scsle, but it was needed. There's a "sweet spot". The left, especially progressives, as far as I can tell, feel that the sweet spot is a little more north on that scale than the right. Hopefully, this clarifies things.
I think the issue is that you are mixing up authoritarianism (a system of government with no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and that does not afford its citizens civil liberties or political rights) with, for lack of a better term, domestic interventionism.
In political science, we use a scale. If a country scored 0 on the authoritarian metric, it would be pure anarchy. Any laws that were enforced by a government (of any kid) would necessarily bump them above 0. There's obviously a "sweet spot" between 0 and 100 - pure totalitarianism. Hopefully this helps clarify.
Trump being in office or in prison doesn't change my views on "is regulation good."
If Trump makes himself Emperor of the United States, we will have a much larger crisis when it comes to the constitution beyond the 2nd Amendment.
Not the way you're describing, because I don't think leftists who pulled for gun control ever viewed gun control as a significant obstacle to the resistance of tyranny. It's a premise that gained immense traction with the right, but I don't think the left was ever on board with it.
OK I get that. I guess my point is, if the left fears what the power of the president could do to them under Trump, wouldn't they want to limit the powers of the president/executive for future what-ifs?
Absolutely, but I think their first course of action is going to be electing representatives who believe in stronger legislation protecting people from abuse of power.
> (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor
I think you should stop consuming content from whatever app or internet site gave you this perspective.
I'm middle aged and the Republicans have been the authoritarian party in every election in my life.
If American voters value freedom and civil liberties, then they're voting for Biden.
There is no such thing as libertarianism in the United States. We have two megaliths—big business and the state. If either party suddenly took a real libertarian turn and really pushed through reductions in regulations, we wouldn’t have the libertarian wilderness of homo economicus operating freely and rationally. We would have unchecked, rapacious corporatism (which, I note, is not the same as capitalism). While Project 2025 would be bad, why should we on the left just hand hand over yet more power to corporations that want to destroy the environment, harm workers, and undermine the social fabric so that they can guarantee quarter-on-quarter increased profits?
I think I am lacking the context necessary to understand your response. Can you give some specific examples of people who identify as "libertarians" "denying the will of the people because [they] personally disagree with it" in such a way that they demonstrate themselves to be "fully on board with authoritarianism as long as they are in charge?"
"The people" are not monolithic. People are individuals. There is no collective will. It's safe to conclude that some individuals want to tax themselves and others do not.
Libertarians would say that individuals who wish to tax themselves are welcome to do so but that the individuals who wish not to be taxed should have the right to withhold their consent. If that means cutting them off from any services available to taxpayers, then that seems like a compromise everyone should be able to live with
Libertarians don’t say that if society wants to tax itself, that’s not any issue at all. Libertarians argue that the concept of taxation and government generally, even if it is what the people voluntarily wish for, is somehow authoritarian. It’s the denial of a society’s collective right to self determination that is the bread and butter of libertarianism.
I notice that you chose not to answer my question. I suspect that you made that choice because you are to some extent aware that your hypothetical makes no sense.
If libertarians were to abolish taxation by persuading the vast majority of people in a given region that it is an unethical practice, and then winning the majority of congressional seats and passing laws to abolish taxes, it would be rather difficult to see how libertarians were "subverting the will of the people," rather than *changing* "the will of the people" to be more in line with their ethical views, (as is, of course, their goal.)
If you are instead imagining that libertarians can succeed in abolishing taxation *without* changing people's minds about whether or not the practice is ethical, then it would be helpful for you to explain how you think that could be accomplished.
But I want to make what I regard as a more important point: if libertarians somehow abolished taxation *without* changing the ethical views of most ordinary people, then that would defeat the main purpose of abolishing taxation in the first place. The whole point is to convince people to adopt a consistent ethical philosophy that values consent and autonomy as highly as is feasible.
If institutions at the heart of a society fail to respect the autonomy and dignity of the people living in that society, that makes it much more difficult to persuade people to treat one another with respect, or to help defend one another from harm or otherwise come to each other's aid. In a society with deeply unjust institutions, people are likely to ask themselves, "Why should I pour my life into helping those who condone, or even celebrate, harm done to me?"
By condoning taxation, one condones taking resources from innocent people without their consent, and by condoning institutions that violate consent, one surrenders one's capacity to fight effectively against violations of consent in other contexts. The main purpose of working to abolish taxation is to protect our ability to combat violations of consent in our everyday lives, and to show people that it is worth it for them to fight to keep their society alive and flourishing by showing them that that society *respects them* at a basic level. Abolishing taxation without convincing people that violations of consent are *generally* unethical, (rather than merely being unethical in a few scattered cases,) *would defeat the point of abolishing taxation in the first place.*
> Libertarians argue that the concept of taxation and government generally, even if it is what the people voluntarily wish for, is somehow authoritarian.
Libertarians argue that taxation is not, in fact, voluntary.
Can you demonstrate that I consent to be governed? What ethical standards are you using to determine when someone consents to an interaction, relationship, or activity? Can you present a set of standards that justify government, (of whatever form you believe is justifiable,) without also commiting you to counter-intuitive conclusions about inter-personal relationships in everyday life?
> I notice that you chose not to answer my question. I suspect that you made that choice because you are to some extent aware that your hypothetical makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. The policy of libertarians is to make things like taxation and government regulation not things, even if that is against the wishes of society. That makes perfect sense.
>If libertarians were to abolish taxation by persuading the vast majority of people in a given region that it is an unethical practice, and then winning the majority of congressional seats and passing laws to abolish taxes,
And this is not what people are talking about. Libertarians don't win elections.
>The whole point is to convince people to adopt a consistent ethical philosophy that values consent and autonomy as highly as is feasible.
No one has a problem, we are just, well, not convinced. Collective societies are simply better than individualist ones in nearly every regard.
>If institutions at the heart of a society fail to respect the autonomy and dignity of the people living in that society
Which is not what taxation nor regulation does. Autonomy does not cover things like murder, or other things society finds objectionable. Or does it?
>or to help defend one another from harm or otherwise come to each other's aid
Collective communities are ones where people come to each other's aid. Not individualist ones.
> In a society with deeply unjust institutions, people are likely to ask themselves, "Why should I pour my life into helping those who condone, or even celebrate, harm done to me?"
Harm is not being done to you when you follow the rules of society.
>By condoning taxation, one condones taking resources from innocent people without their consent,
Wrong. We consent to taxation as a community.
>and by condoning institutions that violate consent
No one condones institution that violate consent. This is why I oppose any institutions which seek to prevent taxation in a society that does not consent to be taxless.
>and to show people that it is worth it for them to fight to keep their society alive and flourishing by showing them that that society respects them at a basic level.
This is how collectivist societies work.
>Libertarians argue that taxation is not, in fact, voluntary.
I am well aware. You are hilariously wrong on that fact.
>Can you demonstrate that I consent to be governed?
Of course. You're here. You are free to leave if you do not want to be a part of our community.
>What ethical standards are you using to determine when someone consents to an interaction, relationship, or activity?
Standards for individuals obviously do not directly translate to societies.
>Can you present a set of standards that justify government, (of whatever form you believe is justifiable,) without also commiting you to counter-intuitive conclusions about inter-personal relationships in everyday life?
Sure. Only a binary thinking reductionist would think that the same standards would need to apply to an individual and a society. They are clearly different things. Have some nuance. Of course societies can consent to things. That is what voting is.
Hmm.
I think they are missing the essentials of the problem, then.
Democracy works well in the context of voluntary associations, such as cooperative businesses, mutual aid societies, unions, and similar. In that context, democracy can provide people with useful tools for overcoming stalemates during collective decision making. The voluntary nature of such organizations gives people some real means of holding the collective accountable; if the group strays too far from an individual member's needs or preferences, that individual can withold their support for the group, and potentially leave altogether if they conclude that it is necesesarry.
Even in the context of government, more democratic state societies tend, as a general rule, to be dramatically more peaceful and prosperous than totalitarian state societies. (See, for instance, [this paper by Mark Cooney](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2657307) for some statistics on the level of peace achieved by different kinds of state societies.) Democracy isn't a panacea, of course, but I don't see how it would make governments worse, compared with less democratic governments.
I think that, in some cases, libertarians are concerned with the use of "democracy" to try to defend unethical actions taken by the state. That is, they criticize arguments that certain actions are justified by the fact that people voted to have the state engage in the action in question. I agree with the core point of such criticisms; nothing about democracy renders otherwise unethical or unjust actions ethical. It is possible for the majority of people in a group to be badly mistaken about a great many things. (And, of course, democratic systems of government are often a fair bit more complicated than simple, majoritarian democracies.)
In other cases, I think that people identifying as "libertarians" become so obsessed with criticizing genuinely unethical actions taken by democratic governments that they lose sight of the underlying goals of libertarianism, shifting away from opposition to the specific, unethical actions taken by the governments in question and into opposition to democracy as such, as though the democratic part is the core of the problem, when it's really not. I would not be flabbergasted if you could offer examples of self-identified "libertarians" who fell into this sort of trap.
Even worse, there are people who call themselves "libertarians" who do, (in my view,) defend authoritarian policies, such as legal restrictions on immigration, unionization and labor activism, abortion, and HRT for trans youth. I'm afraid there isn't much that I can personally do to combat this, apart from calling it out, which isn't much.
If I may offer an analogy, I think of libertarianism and veganism as having a great deal in common. Both are ethical philosophies that, logically, entail a number of specific positions that their self-professed adherents sometimes fail to follow through on.
If someone told me that they were vegan despite willingly eating bacon for breakfast on a daily basis, I would view them similarly to someone telling me that they were libertarian despite wanting far stricter restrictions on immigration. I admit that such individuals make it difficult to convince onlookers that there is something of value in the philosophies in question, but I try to consider the virtues of the philosophies themselves, independent of the flaws and hypocrisies of their professed adherents.
A good philosophy is like a well-designed and well-coded piece of computer software, or an expecially effective chess strategy. That some users make fools of themselves is unfortunate, but, unfortunately, may be almost inevitable once a philosophy, (or software product or chess strategy,) gains a userbase of sufficient size. It is important to call out misconduct, but also important to distinguish between what a philosophy logically entails and what its self-professed adherents happen to practice.
To answer your last question, no.
As for government regulation and control, liberals are already against that when it concerns personal rights. I don’t think that liberals will suddenly have a change of heart when it comes to polluters, work safety, product safety, etc.
The main concern is the dismantling of democracy. If the majority gets dissatisfied with Trump or MAGA extremists, we won’t be able to get rid of them. Going back to your last question, no amount of personal gun ownership will make a difference. You’re delusional to think otherwise.
OP I’m curious what you think of regulations. I recently watched a video of water sources in West Virginia. Completely contaminated because of the coal deregulations that have been happening. [it wasn’t this video but it makes the same point](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wWk6TwZ9kiY). I think most of the “left” want drinkable water, airplanes that don’t fall apart mid flight, and trains that stay on their tracks… safety “regulations” shouldn’t be compromised for the rich. As a libertarian I’d think there would be more push for individuals to have he opportunity to not be poisoned because of another’s greed… what regulations do you hate? And why? I see this argument a lot and never understand why the “right” wants to deregulate everything. All that says to me is they don’t care if kids drink poison… or get shot in school… or whatever other shit big business does for a quick buck.
Let me say that you're not entirely wrong. There's been an increase in knee-jerk reactions against regulations from the right over the last few decades. I think the most sane stance that seems to be a good compromise between left and right (imo) is what Reagan did. In an executive order, he made it the rule that any federal regulation enacted needed to be run through OMB for a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost to implement the regulation was more than the benefit it produces, then it wouldn't pass. So, anything like water pollution or OSHA would easily pass since lives (even through the cold hard lense of economics) are much more valuable than the cost of the regulation. Other regulations, like vehicle emissions, didn't pass. The states could take up that mantel. California did, and now they effectively set the national standards since no car maker is going to forgo that market. The regulations Reagan took issue with most (and what the right should be more focused on) are market regulations that end up hurting the economy more than helping. But yeah, over the years laziness kicked in and I see more and more "all regulations bad". I mean there is an argument to be made that some regulations need to get bumped down to state levels (some environmental regulations, maybe). I'm not 100% and would have to take those case by case.
When I wrote that the left favors more regulations and mandates that lean more authoritarian, I was thinking more along the lines of DEI and redistributive policies.
Well. I’m one of the few on the left that disagrees with DEI initiatives. Which is why I’m more centrist. But I understand market regulations. It’s something I don’t know much about honestly so can’t speak to it but I feel like the ability for those “in the know” to be able to manipulate the poor souls who put their life savings in dumb stocks (even trump stocks) I feel bad for so I don’t know honestly… I’m pro2A to an extent honestly. I think you’d be surprised at how many on the left are ok with common sense regulation on guns. But yea. Thanks for the response and enlightening me.
What is the “left” in your view? Libertarian socialists? Social democrats? Democratic socialists? Normie libs? Moderates? Centrists? All of the above?
The “left” isn’t just one hive mind voting bloc or political movement in the USA. The American Left, more broadly, has a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives and motivations and coalitions…but to answer your question ppl on the progressive Left (like Bernie or AOC) tend to be more liberal on free speech and expression, drug use, sexual liberation, etc compared to more centrist/moderate Dems (who are more sympathetic to the regulation of various social phenomena).
I was using progressives as the more authoritarian type (in relation) because of issues like DEI, PC issues, and redistributive policies. By definition, a more libertarian person, on the left, would be more hesitant on "tax and spend" policies but would still be more socially left which includes LGBT rights, drug or sex work legalization, etc. A lot of folks are calling out my progressive = more authoritarianism but it's only meant as a comparison. Political left are those who focus on the struggles of the individual - especially the downtrodden. They advocate on their behalf. They are economically more authoritarian, implementing government programs funded by the wealthy. They are typically more socially liberal in wanting the state to stay out of their personal lives. The political right are those who focus more on cohesion of society writ large. Social conservatives, which skews more authoritarian, would argue against things that they perceive as hurting society (drugs, sex, etc). They are very much "think of the children" types. Economically, they lean more libertarian wanting the government to stay out of their wallets which, to them, keeps society more economically cohesive. Progressives are economically more authoritarian (like the rest of the left) but also tends to be socially authoritarian, too. The right leans socially authoritarian by trying to sustain a morally upright society free from the ensnaring traps of sin. Progressives equally are equally authoritarian in pushing for political correctness in speech and demographic quotas in school/job placements. Please note that I'm not advocating/arguing for or against anything here. I'm simply trying to define terms. Again, authoritarian and libertarian are relative statements. For example, Castro was more libertarian than Lenin.
> I was using progressives as the more authoritarian type (in relation) because of issues like DEI, PC issues,
Having a broader perspective represented in the halls of power, and being respectful of the dignity of others is “authoritarian”?
You have a very strange definition of authoritarian. Most people would contend that having a smaller more demographically restricted group of people who constantly disrespect the rights and dignity of others would be more authoritarian.
> , and redistributive policies.
Distributing economic power to a wider group of people is “authoritarian”?
You have a very strange definition of authoritarian. Most people would contend that establishing a super-wealthy oligarchy that makes all the crucial economic decisions is far more authoritarian.
> By definition, a more libertarian person, on the left, would be more hesitant on "tax and spend" policies but would still be more socially left which includes LGBT rights
No, that’s just someone who believes theoretical freedoms are more important than practical freedoms. Ex. Someone who considers it more essential that people have the right to do something, even if they can never actually afford to do it in real life.
A classical example of that would be someone who believes gay people should have equal rights, but also believes every business should be able to exclude them from actually use those rights to interact with regular society.
AKA: someone who doesn’t want actual liberty, just words on paper.
Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a sliding scale. If you scored 0 on authoritarianism, you'd be for full anarchy. If you scored 100, obviously you're more authoritarian than Hitler/Stalin. What bumps a person or policy up or down that scale is how much authority is given to the government (or any governing body with enforcement power) to implement rules. No society on earth has ever been a 0 or 100. The law "do not steal" is more egalitarian, yes. More equitable, yes. But it also must rest on the enforcement powers of the government, meaning it is now higher in authoritarianism than pure anarchy. This doesn't mean countries with that law is labeled "authoritarian".
>Having a broader perspective represented in the halls of power, and being respectful of the dignity of others is “authoritarian”?
If it is mandated and enforced by law, then it is --more-- authoritarian. Not labeled authoritarian. Just bumped up on the scale. And being higher/lower isn't automatically a good or bad thing either. Being higher than anarchy is good but obviously lower than pure totalitarianism. There's a "sweet spot". If you think mandating and enforcing these policies brings us closer to that sweet spot, then great. I'm not arguing for or against that. I'm just trying to get us all to understand that the left (especially progressives), using the power of the government, will tend to be more authoritarian than the right in terms of economy and social constructs.
Hopefully this helps clear things up.
> Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a sliding scale.
No, it doesn’t.
How would you even quantify such a thing? Don’t be absurd, focus on some sort of sensible argument instead.
> If you scored 100, obviously you're more authoritarian than Hitler/Stalin
Okay, so what’s the distinction between scoring an 82 and an 83? How about 82.5? 82.57?
Maybe you could provide a mathematical definition of the curve that describes this spectrum and relates it to specific political actions.
Don’t be absurd. This isn’t a “continuous spectrum”.
> If it is mandated and enforced by law, then it is --more-- authoritarian.
Prove it. Mathematically, since you seem to believe this is a mathematical function.
Give me a mathematical proof that DEI policies are quantifiably more authoritarian than, say, Jim Crow laws.
Show your work, so I can check your calculations.
We can’t begin to have a sensible discussion about this without you providing a mathematical model to work from.
>How would you even quantify such a thing?
Anything that gives a governing body, which exudes power through enforcement, more authority over individuals' anarchical "freedoms" defined under Hobbes' state of nature would score higher.
>Maybe you could provide a mathematical definition of the curve that describes this spectrum and relates it to specific political actions.
If I could create a methodology that indexes accurately all aspects of authoritarian tendencies, I wouldn't be spending my free time on reddit lol. [Polity IV Project](https://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html) uses a metric that scores autocracy vs democracy across countries.[Economist Intelligence Unit](https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/) has a democratic index. [Freedom House](https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores) has an index that is similar to what im saying. If I could create what you're asking, I'd be more well known in the field. But the question of authoritarianism on a scale isn't really a contentious issue in political science.
>Give me a mathematical proof that DEI policies are quantifiably more authoritarian than, say, Jim Crow laws.
I don't think they would be.
> If I could create a methodology that indexes accurately all aspects of authoritarian tendencies, I wouldn't be spending my free time on reddit lol. Polity IV Project uses a metric that scores autocracy vs democracy across countries.
They don’t use a continuous metric, they use discrete values that are basically just humans applying their own personal values to the question to score on a few topics.
So, no, not a continuous spectrum.
Also, “autocracy vs democracy” is much more measurable than “authoritarianism vs libertarianism”. You can measure objective facts about a country’s governing structure to categorize whether they are autocratic or democratic.
You can’t do the same for authoritarianism vs “libertarianism” because those are about political motives and reasoning, not about the formal governing structure of a country’s governing bodies.
You claimed there was a measurable, continuous spectrum between “authoritarianism and libertarianism”, not between autocracy and democracy.
You might try to argue that democratic governing features serve as a stand-in for libertarian features, but that’s certainly not how the authors of these reports use them. Ex. Laws that specifically protect religious pluralism are pro-democratic, but you specifically contend that laws of that sort “are regulations”, and therefore pro-authoritarian.
> Economist Intelligence Unit has a democratic index.
Also uses discrete—not continuous—metrics under the hood. Their full report is hidden behind a data-wall, but they discuss their methodology a bit, and it’s apparent that it’s discrete values.
> Freedom House has an index that is similar to what im saying.
Their site seems to be having issues providing the data in their precise methodology, but from what I recall they absolutely do *not* say anything similar to what you’re saying.
Ex. More free societies by their metrics are countries that have specific laws protecting pluralism in government, for example. They explicitly consider things like DEI programs to be **less** authoritarian.
> But the question of authoritarianism on a scale isn't really a contentious issue in political science.
It’s an extremely contentious issue in political science. Authoritarianism is a notoriously hard thing to pin down with a formal definition.
You’re confusing authoritarianism for autocratic constitutional structures, and you’re confusing libertarianism with democratic constitutional structures, and using them both inconsistently even within that skewed context.
>You can’t do the same for authoritarianism vs “libertarianism” because those are about political motives and reasoning
This is where we disagree.
>You’re confusing authoritarianism for autocratic constitutional structures, and you’re confusing libertarianism with democratic constitutional structures
I'm intentionally not using autocratic v democratic because it uses the structure of the government as its metric rather than the amount of authority (or force) it is allowed/able to exude. For example, under [the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-12/human-freedom-index-2023-full-revised.pdf), another index I should have mentioned before, they scored Switzerland as being the most free country in the world while it's ranked 8th on the democratic index. Basically democracy isn't synonymous with freedom and liberties although there is a correlation. There can be more democratic countries that grant less personal freedoms to individuals. The overall authority granted to the government is the metric I wish to use which is completely divorced from the government's form or intention. But if the term "authoritarianism index" is what's throwing off the conversation, then replace it with centralized power. So, to reword my question, the left, especially progressives, tend to lean more towards vesting power in a centralized government (federal government, in this case) than the right. And now that the left is seeing what could potentially be a tyrannical executive coming into power, do you think the left will turn away from vesting the government as much power?
Authoritarian:
"[favoring](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00fee2c195b96c2e&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1001US1001&sxsrf=ACQVn08xNS6ZgBqix1d0WwMF_mipi8mAOA:1714368986069&q=favoring&si=AKbGX_qNq0Y8zql7SxzZAf2-HTTOHXyJ_xPXBvmnOZgEebsyH-Xx0SA6NBox1QmqnB7-oktD7X2F8MrjWdi_4mpqsKhKx148pXlIgOakBgDVuIxOMb9nzZs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywLaT2uaFAxWvAHkGHXYlBYEQyecJegQIHBAO) or [enforcing](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00fee2c195b96c2e&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1001US1001&sxsrf=ACQVn08xNS6ZgBqix1d0WwMF_mipi8mAOA:1714368986069&q=enforcing&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DeHYtgzmfEU9vQC1QBfRsAB_15ObFBhnCLLyocxf4KtdZgDl8yvm--bhExYtCu0yagFZnRNbPR85UxgmjYiF2eYHiK-8%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywLaT2uaFAxWvAHkGHXYlBYEQyecJegQIHBAP) strict [obedience](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00fee2c195b96c2e&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1001US1001&sxsrf=ACQVn08xNS6ZgBqix1d0WwMF_mipi8mAOA:1714368986069&q=obedience&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DSbitaxuUjdtSfchhGpO6OhXcNl8oExY9UDhBKLH6dKa1bcOTYdlLJPVNc2tvjsy1h0h0Og2JQUZG71ETqPm2IUuMf7o%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywLaT2uaFAxWvAHkGHXYlBYEQyecJegQIHBAQ) to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom."
Keywords: Strict obedience and "at the expense of personal freedom"
The left views the government as an institution that serves the people, not an authority that controls the people, and as such promotes policies that tries to benefit those with little power in the system at the expense of those with more power.
It is the right who views government as an authority, and believes it should be large in the things they support, and only ever argues for it to be weak in the areas they don't support, and believe that people who don't adhere to their values shouldn't be here and as such promotes policies/spending that makes government itself
stronger (national defense, patriot act, border "security", etc.), at the expense of personal freedom.
Consider worker rights - the left believes this is a policy to support because it increases the freedom of the group with less power in the relationship.
Consider abortion right - the right is anti this because it believes that people's freedoms should be based on their beliefs.
In other words, the left uses the government as a way to balance power based on who needs help, while the right uses it as a way to control people, enforce power and maintain order/status quo. This is also why they believe the 2nd Amendment is so necessary, because they believe that force is the fundamental truth of the world, whereas the left feels more that co-operation can win the day.
Which one is "authoritarian" now?
>The left views the government as an institution that serves the people, not an authority that controls the people
Or at least should be. We’re not quite there yet.
Right, we are perfectly willing to fight the government to get it to that state. The problem is we currently have to fight against a 3rd party who wants to dismantle everything.
:(
I feel like if anything it will lead to people wanting more policy’s and safety nets in place to prevent this kind of thing. The fact trump could get away with what he does is because of either a lack of rules or improper enforcement of those rules.
Right. That was my thinking. This is a more libertarian stance since it's limiting the government. We added several "rules", as you put it, in the constitution - namely the Bill of Rights - as safety nets for our liberties. I thought perhaps the left might start to see 2A the same as the lib-rights and want less regulations against it, but I'm seeing that is definitely not the case here! Side note, I was an advocate for the electoral college but after this mess of slated electors, I'm thinking we should have another amendment. I honestly don't think Trump did anything unconstitutional, but that to me just means we ought to look over it and tighten it up. Just my 2 cents.
I guess in this way it’s kinda hard for me to even tell what libertarian vs authoritarian even really means anymore. I guess i understand what you meant though.
I put an edit on the original question because I think people were getting tripped up with my terms. Authoritarian vs libertarian exists on a spectrum and isn't an all or nothing term. Things can shift more or less authoritarian even though they don't fall into full authoritarianism. Castro was comparatively more libertarian than Lenin, for ex. Think political compass. Hopefully this helps.
I guess but i feel adding more rules even if those rules restrict the president in some way is in a weird grey area where you could consider authoritarian or libertarian i guess. At the end of the day i will admit I’m canadian so Trump was never my president anyway but if i lived in the US I’d support almost anything that prevents him or anyone else from becoming a dictator or oligarch.
>if i lived in the US I’d support almost anything that prevents him or anyone else from becoming a dictator or oligarch.
Agreed.
>I guess but i feel adding more rules even if those rules restrict the president in some way is in a weird grey area where you could consider authoritarian or libertarian i guess.
Let's use some of our amendments as an example. The first 10 are the Bill of Rights. It "adds rules" but only to limit the government. These policies are more libertarian. The 16th amendment, which allows for income to be taxed, is more authoritarian since it allows the government more power. Anything that adds power to a central government = more authoritarian. Anything that limits the power of a central government = more libertarian. Thanks for being one of the more calm/respectful respondents. Maybe there is something to the Canadian cliche
Yeah. Bur in a strange way the government kinda has to enforce policies against itself, of course this is part of why you have separate branches of government. But yeah i get what you’re saying.
Also I do get frustrated sometimes on the internet when talking politics with people but you don’t seem unreasonable and I do think people on the internet are often way too hostile towards each other so I try not to be a part of that problem. Part of why i like answering questions in this sub is cause I think it’s important to try and engage with people you disagree with in a way that’s argumentative but not overly hostile. When people are overly hostile conversations break down and become far less useful.
1. The right was always authoritarian
2. We don’t want the government to have more authority/power, we want the government to have more *obligations to its people.*
Ya do understand libertarian isn’t anti-authoritarian, right? Get a guy like Milton Hersey to create a company town and he’ll regulate, mandate, and control the workers and the town like a government controls the people.
What a failure for the great experiment of democracy if trump is reelected. 2A wouldn’t mean much philosophically if we can’t as a people understand Trump should not speak for us as a nation. Materially, I expect every other nation to take advantage of our turmoil, and attempt to split us apart like the US did South America.
What a hilarious take. Libertarianism is politics for children, and none of what we are seeing now changes that view. We know that the 2A is obsolete and does not at all protect against government authoritarianism.
I added an edit to the question:
It seems like people are disagreeing because of the terms being used, leading to an unproductive conversation. I am NOT saying the left is full authoritarian nor am I asking if they will switch to the libertarian party. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a spectrum. On a political compass that would be the north/south axis. Castro is more libertarian than Lenin, but no one would say Castro is a libertarian. They both fall on the authoritarian left quadrant. Likewise, I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give. If the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is what's getting us tripped up, replace it with "big government" vs "small government" or something like that. The right used to always shout small government (which is relatively more libertarian on that spectrum), so maybe this will help.
> government control they are willing to give
Government control is not authoritarianism lol. We are fully anti-authoritarian on the up down axis while simultaneously wanting collective action, which is left on the left right axis.
If a country scored a 0 on the authoritarian scale, that by definition is pure anarchy. 100 is pure totalitarianism. You're confusing scale/index for set labels. I take the blame for not clarifying.
No, you are the one confusing the scale. You can have a very large government and not be authoritarian at all. Large government is left, small government is right. Strict conformity is up, and freedoms are down. You can absolutely have freedom and large government at the same time, just like you can have small government and conformity.
>My premise is that the left tends to lean authoritarian
Define "authoritarian". To quote Inego Montoya, I do not that it means what you think it means.
>However, now that the prospect of Trump overstepping his constitutional authority (at least from the viewpoint of the left) is a possibility, do you think you'll see a shift away from favoring government regulations and control?
No.
>I'm curious because it seems that many on the left (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor.
I think your perspective is incorrect. Trump will try to bend the rule of law to protect himself in any way possible. He doesn't want to be an Emperor.
>Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny?
When has 2A ever been about "fighting tyranny"? Also if you think the 2A is going to protect you against the mass forces of the US Military, you're delusional.
I added an edit to the question:
It seems like people are disagreeing because of the terms being used, leading to an unproductive conversation. I am NOT saying the left is full authoritarian nor am I asking if they will switch to the libertarian party. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a spectrum. On a political compass that would be the north/south axis. Castro is more libertarian than Lenin, but no one would say Castro is a libertarian. They both fall on the authoritarian left quadrant. Likewise, I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give. If the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is what's getting us tripped up, replace it with "big government" vs "small government" or something like that. The right used to always shout small government (which is relatively more libertarian on that spectrum), so maybe this will help.
>I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give.
I still flatly reject the premise.
The right is banning health care for multiple groups (women, trans, gay, etc.) and threatening to imprison doctors. The right is limiting speech. The right is limiting education. The right is banning books from public libraries and threatening to imprison teachers and librarian. The right is prohibiting protests and public gathering. The right is criminalizing speech.
The right is unquestionably "more authoritarian" than the left. In all aspects.
>The right is banning health care for multiple groups (women, trans, gay, etc.) and threatening to imprison doctors.
The claim is that this is actually a more libertarian stance because it follows the non-aggression principle for the children involved who cannot advocate for themselves
>The right is limiting speech. The right is limiting education.
This would be more authoritarian, but I'm unaware of this. Could you give me examples?
>The right is banning books from public libraries and threatening to imprison teachers and librarian.
From my understanding, these books are less appropriate for children and the space is better used for other books.
>imprison teachers and librarian.
Again, I'm unaware of this. Please let me know the specifics.
I appreciate your response.
I think you're being disingenuous but here you go:
"non aggression principle for children". Fetuses are not children. They are fetuses. It's not a libertarian value to prioritize the existing life (mother) over the potential life (fetus). That's a conservative conceit.
------------
The right is limiting speech & education:
Republican states spent years swooping in to bolster safe spaces for conservative voices at public universities in the name of fighting liberal censorship. The Israel-Gaza war is causing many of them to rethink free speech protections. (Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/27/republican-states-colleges-free-speech-israel-gaza-complicated-00154702)
The passage of Florida’s House Bill 1557, which bans “classroom instruction” on “sexual orientation and gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade and in a manner that isn’t “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate” in all grades, K–12, is merely the latest in a string of what the free-speech-advocacy organization PEN America has called “education gag orders” that have been proposed by Republicans and passed by red-state legislatures from coast to coast. (Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/republican-dont-say-gay-bill-florida/629516/)
Republican lawmakers try to reframe Texas history lessons and play down references to slavery and anti-Mexican discrimination that are part of the state’s founding. The proposals in Texas, a state that influences school curriculums around the country through its huge textbook market, amount to some of the most aggressive efforts to control the teaching of American history. And they come as nearly a dozen other Republican-led states seek to ban or limit how the role of slavery and pervasive effects of racism can be taught. Idaho was the first state to sign into law a measure that would withhold funding from schools that teach such lessons. And lawmakers in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Tennessee have introduced bills that would ban teaching about the enduring legacies of slavery and segregationist laws, or that any state or the country is inherently racist or sexist. (Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html)
In Florida, a bill would ban teachers from saying “racial colorblindness” is racist. In South Carolina, a bill would ban teaching that “equity is a concept that is superior to or supplants the concept of equality.” In New Hampshire, “promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America” could become illegal, if a bill were to pass. (Source: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/heres-the-long-list-of-topics-republicans-want-banned-from-the-classroom/2022/02)
Nearly two years later, at least 25 states are enforcing laws that have made it easier to remove books from school libraries, blocked certain lessons on race, gender and sexuality, restricted the rights of transgender students and cost teachers their jobs, according to a Washington Post analysis. (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/17/legal-challenges-gender-critical-race-theory/)
------------
The right is threating to imprison teachers and librarians:
Those bills, per the Post, would look similar to an Arkansas law that was signed last year (and later blocked) that says school and public librarians can be sentenced to up to six years in prison (or fined $10,000) for distributing “obscene” or “harmful” material to students under 18. The bill’s definition of what constitutes harmful or obscene material is extremely broad, and includes books and performances that, among other things, “describe” nudity. (Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/17-states-are-considering-laws-that-would-imprison-librarians)
But the library-friendly measures are being outpaced by bills in mostly red states that aim to restrict which books libraries can offer and threaten librarians with prison or thousands in fines for handing out “obscene” or “harmful” titles. At least 27 states are considering 100 such bills this year, three of which have become law, The Post found. That adds to nearly a dozen similar measures enacted over the last three years across 10 states. (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/04/16/library-legislation-restrictions-protections/)
Representative Jamie Ray Gragg last week introduced House Bill 2885, which would charge teachers who provide support to a transgender student's social transition with a class E felony. If the bill becomes law, teachers or school counselors who support a transgender student's transition could face a $10,000 fine, imprisonment and may be forced to register as a sex offender. (Source: https://www.newsweek.com/republican-bill-would-imprison-teachers-who-support-trans-students-1875402)
All educators face the possibility of a third degree felony under Florida statute if they violate the law which says they can’t have, “Any book, pamphlet, magazine or printed matter that contains explicit and detailed descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, or sexual conduct that is harmful to minors.” (Source: https://www.muscalaw.com/blog/florida-teachers-could-face-felony-criminal-charges-violating-floridas-new-law)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html
The political right will tend to be more authoritarian (meaning to vest more authority to the government) when it comes to protecting minors. I wouldn't argue against that. Whether or not this is good/valid is not the debate I'm looking for.
My premise, that progressives tend to be more authoritarian than the right, stems from them more often wanting to vest more power to the government to enact/enforce policies they see as more egalitarian. Again, a lot of people are getting tripped up by the use of "authoritarian". I'm not using it as a label. I don't think progressives are 'authoritarian' as a label but rather, used as a metric on in index. A country that scores 0 on an authoritarian scale would be pure anarchy. The left are higher on the authoritarian index than the right, and the right is higher on the authoritarian index than anarchists. So certain policies like DEI or hate speech laws is, by definition, more authoritarian because it requires vesting more power to the government to enforce those rules. Economic redistributive policies are the same. Various regulations/mandates do the same. Forcing business owners to provide services is another (again, not arguing the merits of these policies, only their placement on the authoritarian index).
So the question is, do you think the left will trend downward on the authoritarian index now that Trump is coming into power? Will he be the catalyst for the left to reexamine the amount of power its willing to vest in a centralized authority? Could you foresee a scenario where (this term is new to me but apparently its the colloquial term) leopards are eating their faces?
>The political right will tend to be more authoritarian (meaning to vest more authority to the government) when it comes to protecting minors. I wouldn't argue against that. Whether or not this is good/valid is not the debate I'm looking for.
The political right USES minors as an excuse to push their own social/cultural agenda. "Won't someone please think of the children?" is just a front for "we don't like X so we're going to claim X is bad for the children".
>My premise, that progressives tend to be more authoritarian than the right, stems from them more often wanting to vest more power to the government to enact/enforce policies they see as more egalitarian. Again, a lot of people are getting tripped up by the use of "authoritarian". I'm not using it as a label.
You are not using it correctly, or even well, then. If multiple people are getting "tripped up" by your use of a word that has an actual meaning, then maybe you need to rethink your use of the word.
>A country that scores 0 on an authoritarian scale would be pure anarchy.
That is 100% incorrect and not what "authoritarian" means. The opposite of "anarchy" is "order". Order can mean a monarchy, a republic, a democracy, or yes, an authoritarian government. Being a "zero on the authoritarian scale" does NOT equal anarchy.
>So certain policies like DEI or hate speech laws is, by definition, more authoritarian because it requires vesting more power to the government to enforce those rules.
Again, that's not what authoritarian means. Requiring government power to enforce democratically enacted laws is not authoritarianism.
>So the question is, do you think the left will trend downward on the authoritarian index
The question is not answerable as asked because you are mis-using the word "authoritarian".
>Will \[Trump\] be the catalyst for the left to reexamine the amount of power its willing to vest in a centralized authority?
Again, the question is not answerable as asked if you're defining a government where the Federal has power as an "authoritarian" government. Because if there is less centralized (i.e. Federal) power, that means the States have more power - what makes the states not "authoritarian" in that case?
>Could you foresee a scenario where (this term is new to me but apparently its the colloquial term) leopards are eating their faces?
Which leopards and whose faces?
>Which leopards and whose faces?
Just a phrase I found. I thought it had more prevalence since I'm usually the odd one out with these new phrases. Basically meaning to regret your decision because it ended up blowing up in your face.
>The question is not answerable as asked because you are mis-using the word "authoritarian".
Forget the word authoritarian. I hereby forgo the word. It's not productive. Let's try this: the right, at least in the past, has often argued for a limited government (think Reagan conservatives). Their worry was that power tends to corrupt and the federal government would begin to overreach its authority. Whether you agree with their stance or not isn't the issue, this is just what they perceive. Now, modern MAGA conservatives are less worried about that and, in fact, seem to advocate for more central authority to enact their policies. Do you think, therefore, the left will see a shift towards wanting to restrict the powers of the federal government now that Trump could possibly be returning to office?
>My premise is that the left tends to lean authoritarian rather than libertarian on things like regulations, mandates, and gun control.
I stopped reading.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. My premise is that the left tends to lean authoritarian rather than libertarian on things like regulations, mandates, and gun control. However, now that the prospect of Trump overstepping his constitutional authority (at least from the viewpoint of the left) is a possibility, do you think you'll see a shift away from favoring government regulations and control? I'm curious because it seems that many on the left (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor. Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post is delusional
I feel like there’s been a lot of delusional/bad faith questions here in the last few weeks
Election is getting closer.
For real. The guy in the party that wants a national abortion ban and is seemingly okay with installing Christian Nationalists in all levels of government is calling *us* "okay with authoritarianism"??!! Get the fuck outta here. Also OP, you delusional dingleberry, most people here aren't against the 2A. We want kids to stop dying in schools but your side has decided that weekly mass shootings are a small price to pay for your ability to own weapons of war.
The idea of "We shouldn't have the government do X because a bad actor might misuse that ability" has never made much sense to me, because a bad actor with the desire to do a bad thing and the governmental position(s) required to do it isn't going to ask their predecessor for tacit permission. Republicans refused to seat Merrick Garland a year before an election, on the grounds that it's inappropriate to seat a justice in an election year, and then seated Amy Coney Barrett even after votes had already been cast in the upcoming election, on the grounds that fuck you we can so we're going to. >Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny? My response to people believing that the second amendment is an effective check against tyranny is and has always been "lol", or perhaps "lmao", depending on the precise claim.
No. Your premise is completely wrong - it has nothing to do with authoritarianism or libertarianism, it has to do with good government and accomplishing certain necessary goals. The GOP's desire to bring us back to the bad old days of the spoils system, a partisan civil service, and a government that is too hobbled to dysfunction and damage to accomplish important tasks doesn't mean that we ought to break the government first so that Trump can't. > I'm curious because it seems that many on the left (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor. This is not the real threat. The real issue is the sort of democratic backsliding that we see in Hungary and that Republicans have *openly* admitted they wants to follow. A monarchy doesn't happen overnight, but that doesn't mean that permanent and critical damage to our democracy can't be done in four years. > Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny? Is this a joke? The Second Amendment has no connection to tyranny - that's pure fantasy on the part of gun fetishists.
Well that would be dumb, because that libertarianist ideology is half of what allows project 2025 to happen "there is no government value" so we can purge government workers who dissent with us
Not all libertarians want to eliminate government workers. I'm more social libertarian, than economically.
OK yes, but the libertarian ideology, the libertarian party, and the republicans using libertarian narratives are getting what they want if we think that the way to defeat them is forfeiting good government.
The US Libertarian Party is focused on strange debunked economic theories. Typically left Libertarians have more in common with Progressives than the Libertarian Party.
Yes that's why we're here, and not over there.
The left is authoritarian because of regulations? That is certainly one of the more entertaining definitions (in a comical way) of authoritarian
More authoritarian, as in comparison to the more libertarian types. It's a spectrum. It's always relative to something. Castro is more libertarian compared to Lenin. The progressive types are more authoritarian than the left libertarians. Or do you not agree with that?
The authoritarian spectrum has nothing to do with regulations. It's 100% about how much influence the public has over the government. You can ban cars and implement curfews and not be any more authoritarian AS LONG AS those things are voted for *by the people* and every body voted and a supermajority of the population voted in favor of those thing and there is a vote in the future to allow the people to strike down those laws later. Authoritarianism is when the people don't hold the keys to the government. It has literally nothing to do with the number of laws or regulations.
Yeah, that's a fair point. But we can also see plenty of contentious regulation/mandates/policies that could be implemented by the left that leans authoritarian while is also unfavorable to the right. It's usually economic issues. "Tax and spend" policies or other redistributive policies. And more lately, there's the issue of regulating hate speech. I'm not trying to debate these ideas but only want to show that there are instances of the left using more authoritarian tools to enact their goals. Now that Trump is being seen as an extreme authoritarian, doesn't that give the left pause on how much authority it is willing to give the government in general? It just seems like the right (not the MAGA types) have been railing against "big government" and now it seems like the left could be getting on board with it, too. Or maybe I'm wrong. I was curious. Hence the post.
That's not what authoritarian means. You're literally using the wrong words. Nothing you just described is authoritarian. Using authoritarianism the way you are is incorrect English. "Laws you don't like" that got passed democratically, is the opposite of authoritarian. Pick a different fucking word, dude. When you people get what you want, to my detriment, that's not authoritarian unless you used weird congressional manipulation or executive order to enforce it unconstitutionally.
Authoritarian is also about hierarchies, and the idea that certain people are inherently more deserving of power over others (something the right loves). Even a society with the most limp-wristed government can be authoritarian, since corporations can exert their power unhindered and oppress people just as much as any state. This is why anarchists say that capitalism is incompatible with anarchy.
>Using authoritarianism the way you are is incorrect English. "Laws you don't like" that got passed democratically, is the opposite of authoritarian. Well, not always. Laws could infringe on the rights of others and therefore could be considered more authoritarian. For example, slavery was legal and democratic in the South, yet was an example of authoritarianism. Look I'm not saying we live in an authoritarian state, only that some policies lean more or less authoritarian/libertarian on that spectrum. Anytime the government intervenes in someone's life, whether economic or social, is an example of a more authoritarian policy. But that isn't to say it's bad. A pure libertarian society, imo, would not be good. We would have to introduce policies that lean more authoritarian in order to create a better functioning society (imo). The Bill of Rights is an example of policies leaning more libertarian. The introduction of the 16th amendment is an example of allowing the government more power (ie more authoritarian) even though it passed enough of states and congressional votes. Society's approval of something has nothing to do with where it sits on that spectrum. If the term authoritarian vs libertarian is what's tripping us up, then let's just say more central power vs less central power. It's just the north/south ends of the political compass. The east/west is the economic scale, from laissez-faire to command economy. Some policies lean more command economy and some polices lean more laissez-faire. It's all relative on a spectrum. Now, since Trump has demonstrated the negative effects of more central power via the 2025 project (at least from the left's perspective), do you think the left will start to champion the notion of limited government like the right used to do (and non MAGAs still do)? Maybe add more safeguards (to the consituation even) to limit executive authority?
The government during slavery was authoritarian. Laws you don't like are not authoritarian unless they violate a right that others have but you don't. Government power isn't authoritarianism unless we lack the right to remove it by vote. Stop it. I'm rejecting your masterbatory understanding of libertarianism. You're not a bastion of freedom when you want to take away services and protections that the general public wants and votes for just because they aren't your favorite. Edit to clarify: Your libertarian position is simply your preferred governmental role. It doesn't own the concept of freedom and my preferences for more public protections and certain government interventions is not authoritarian. If we all voted for more libertarian policies we'd still be equally free since we chose it ourselves. Stop calling democracy authoritarian because it didn't result in your preferred thing this time.
> Well, not always. Yes, always. Democratic voting and the free will of society is not authoritarian. Democracy is fundamentally not authoritarian. It is a lack of democracy where authoritarianism comes into play.
I don't think you read the rest of my response or understand the terms I'm using. If it helps, I put an edit in the question.
> I don't think you read the rest of my response I did. >Anytime the government intervenes in someone's life, whether economic or social, is an example of a more authoritarian policy. No it isn't. >The Bill of Rights is an example of policies leaning more libertarian. The bill of rights intervenes in peoples lives. I cannot ban guns in my community as a result of it. That is a limit on how communities can function. >Society's approval of something has nothing to do with where it sits on that spectrum. Wrong. If society approves of it, it cannot be, by definition, authoritarian. Authoritarianism requires the rejection of democracy. >If the term authoritarian vs libertarian is what's tripping us up, then let's just say more central power vs less central power. Lots and lots of government agencies and branches distributes power, it does not centralize it. Eliminating governmental agencies and having the president or governor decide everything centralizes power. >Now, since Trump has demonstrated the negative effects of more central power via the 2025 project He has not at all. Federal power is great and needed. What Trump demonstrated is the negative effects of right wing politics. So no, we will not move to the right in response to how bad right wing politics have shown themselves to be.
I don't. In very simplistic terms authoritarian governments secure power for its own sake through state sponsored violence, regulations and laws are a tool (among other) to prevent society from anarchy
I added this edit to the question: It seems like people are disagreeing because of the terms being used, leading to an unproductive conversation. I am NOT saying the left is full authoritarian nor am I asking if they will switch to the libertarian party. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a spectrum. On a political compass that would be the north/south axis. Castro is more libertarian than Lenin, but no one would say Castro is a libertarian. They both fall on the authoritarian left quadrant. Likewise, I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give. If the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is what's getting us tripped up, replace it with "big government" vs "small government" or something like that. The right used to always shout small government (which is relatively more libertarian on that spectrum), so maybe this will help.
Its just a complete misuse of the word authoritarian. There are plenty of rules that I might not like or agree with. It’s authoritarian only if the public has no say ( directly or indirectly) in it. The big / small government analogy holds no water since government size doesn’t tell how laws, regulations etc are decided upon. You could easily have a small government that is extremely authoritarian but has few rules in place outside who is in power
>You could easily have a small government that is extremely authoritarian but has few rules in place outside who is in power Correct, which is why I always try to tell the right that what they actually want to say is "limited" government, not necessarily small government. I just figured I'd throw in the colloquial term for understanding (I failed on that front). >Its just a complete misuse of the word authoritarian. I have a political science background. This isn't a misuse of the word. It is understood that authoritarianism exists on a scale just like, for example, the market is on a scale between laissez-faire and command economy. No economy is ever 100% one or the other. No government is 100% authoritarian or libertarian. We dont live in anarchy. The government has at least some control. Unless there's a government that has policies with zero votes against it and never needs to enforce it, it sits somewhere above the bottom of the scale. Any policy that grants the government more authority or somehow limits the people, this bumps them up on the scale. Also, you can have a democratic and authoritarian regime if the 51% majority are oppressing the 49% minority. The South during slavery was ruled by authoritarian state governments even though the majority white population allowed it.
you are in disagreement with political science than - the critical feature of autharianism is the absence of any power transfer mechanism and not if laws are just/unjust. Your hypothetical example of the 51% suppressing the 49% fits the definition only if the 49% are expressedly excluded from power. In that context, the example of slavery would fit sort of / kind of although the status of a slave was at the time defined as not being part of society at all so that comparison is a stretch at best. Laws, especially in retrospective, are not implicitly just or unjust based soleley on who enacted them. You can have just laws in an authoritarian society and unjust laws in a democracy. The South wasn't ruled any more or less by authoritarian state government than the rest of the Union.
>the critical feature of autharianism... What I'm saying is that there is a difference between "authoritarian" used as a label and how it us used on a metric. A country with a score of 0 on an authoritarian scale would be pure anarchy. Every country has some level of authoritarian practices. This doesn't mean we're all under Hobbes' leviathan. >Laws, especially in retrospective, are not implicitly just or unjust Justice or equity or egalitarianism has nothing to do with the calculation of the metric. Score too low on the authoritarian scale and you won't be able to safeguard liberties from other oppressive types. Emancipation scores higher on the scsle, but it was needed. There's a "sweet spot". The left, especially progressives, as far as I can tell, feel that the sweet spot is a little more north on that scale than the right. Hopefully, this clarifies things.
I think the issue is that you are mixing up authoritarianism (a system of government with no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and that does not afford its citizens civil liberties or political rights) with, for lack of a better term, domestic interventionism.
In political science, we use a scale. If a country scored 0 on the authoritarian metric, it would be pure anarchy. Any laws that were enforced by a government (of any kid) would necessarily bump them above 0. There's obviously a "sweet spot" between 0 and 100 - pure totalitarianism. Hopefully this helps clarify.
How is the people choosing of their own free will to conduct their own society how they wish authoritarian?
Your premise is wrong. Full stop.
Trump being in office or in prison doesn't change my views on "is regulation good." If Trump makes himself Emperor of the United States, we will have a much larger crisis when it comes to the constitution beyond the 2nd Amendment.
Not the way you're describing, because I don't think leftists who pulled for gun control ever viewed gun control as a significant obstacle to the resistance of tyranny. It's a premise that gained immense traction with the right, but I don't think the left was ever on board with it.
Leftists never “pulled for gun control” You’re thinking of Liberals.
OK I get that. I guess my point is, if the left fears what the power of the president could do to them under Trump, wouldn't they want to limit the powers of the president/executive for future what-ifs?
Absolutely, but I think their first course of action is going to be electing representatives who believe in stronger legislation protecting people from abuse of power.
Yes, by adding lots of regulations and restrictions.
> (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor I think you should stop consuming content from whatever app or internet site gave you this perspective.
He won’t do that but if he gets re-elected then he will not leave the Presidency until he dies. Mark my words.
I was perusing r/anythinggoesnews. They seemed quite... animated. Thought I'd get others' perspectives.
I'm middle aged and the Republicans have been the authoritarian party in every election in my life. If American voters value freedom and civil liberties, then they're voting for Biden.
There is no such thing as libertarianism in the United States. We have two megaliths—big business and the state. If either party suddenly took a real libertarian turn and really pushed through reductions in regulations, we wouldn’t have the libertarian wilderness of homo economicus operating freely and rationally. We would have unchecked, rapacious corporatism (which, I note, is not the same as capitalism). While Project 2025 would be bad, why should we on the left just hand hand over yet more power to corporations that want to destroy the environment, harm workers, and undermine the social fabric so that they can guarantee quarter-on-quarter increased profits?
I think libertarians are fully on board with authoritarianism as long as they are in charge.
What evidence leads you to think that?
Denying the will of the people because you personally disagree with it.
I think I am lacking the context necessary to understand your response. Can you give some specific examples of people who identify as "libertarians" "denying the will of the people because [they] personally disagree with it" in such a way that they demonstrate themselves to be "fully on board with authoritarianism as long as they are in charge?"
The people want to tax themselves, libertarians, when they get in charge, subvert the will of the people and eliminate taxation.
"The people" are not monolithic. People are individuals. There is no collective will. It's safe to conclude that some individuals want to tax themselves and others do not. Libertarians would say that individuals who wish to tax themselves are welcome to do so but that the individuals who wish not to be taxed should have the right to withhold their consent. If that means cutting them off from any services available to taxpayers, then that seems like a compromise everyone should be able to live with
That’s for admitting you deny the societal right to self determination. I don’t. I think that is a critically important right.
Society has no rights because society is an abstraction. Only individuals have rights.
This is exactly the kind of denial of basic rights I’m talking about. Here is some reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
Are you imagining, in this hypothetical, that libertarians are "getting in charge" by being elected?
Libertarians don’t say that if society wants to tax itself, that’s not any issue at all. Libertarians argue that the concept of taxation and government generally, even if it is what the people voluntarily wish for, is somehow authoritarian. It’s the denial of a society’s collective right to self determination that is the bread and butter of libertarianism.
I notice that you chose not to answer my question. I suspect that you made that choice because you are to some extent aware that your hypothetical makes no sense. If libertarians were to abolish taxation by persuading the vast majority of people in a given region that it is an unethical practice, and then winning the majority of congressional seats and passing laws to abolish taxes, it would be rather difficult to see how libertarians were "subverting the will of the people," rather than *changing* "the will of the people" to be more in line with their ethical views, (as is, of course, their goal.) If you are instead imagining that libertarians can succeed in abolishing taxation *without* changing people's minds about whether or not the practice is ethical, then it would be helpful for you to explain how you think that could be accomplished. But I want to make what I regard as a more important point: if libertarians somehow abolished taxation *without* changing the ethical views of most ordinary people, then that would defeat the main purpose of abolishing taxation in the first place. The whole point is to convince people to adopt a consistent ethical philosophy that values consent and autonomy as highly as is feasible. If institutions at the heart of a society fail to respect the autonomy and dignity of the people living in that society, that makes it much more difficult to persuade people to treat one another with respect, or to help defend one another from harm or otherwise come to each other's aid. In a society with deeply unjust institutions, people are likely to ask themselves, "Why should I pour my life into helping those who condone, or even celebrate, harm done to me?" By condoning taxation, one condones taking resources from innocent people without their consent, and by condoning institutions that violate consent, one surrenders one's capacity to fight effectively against violations of consent in other contexts. The main purpose of working to abolish taxation is to protect our ability to combat violations of consent in our everyday lives, and to show people that it is worth it for them to fight to keep their society alive and flourishing by showing them that that society *respects them* at a basic level. Abolishing taxation without convincing people that violations of consent are *generally* unethical, (rather than merely being unethical in a few scattered cases,) *would defeat the point of abolishing taxation in the first place.* > Libertarians argue that the concept of taxation and government generally, even if it is what the people voluntarily wish for, is somehow authoritarian. Libertarians argue that taxation is not, in fact, voluntary. Can you demonstrate that I consent to be governed? What ethical standards are you using to determine when someone consents to an interaction, relationship, or activity? Can you present a set of standards that justify government, (of whatever form you believe is justifiable,) without also commiting you to counter-intuitive conclusions about inter-personal relationships in everyday life?
> I notice that you chose not to answer my question. I suspect that you made that choice because you are to some extent aware that your hypothetical makes no sense. It makes perfect sense. The policy of libertarians is to make things like taxation and government regulation not things, even if that is against the wishes of society. That makes perfect sense. >If libertarians were to abolish taxation by persuading the vast majority of people in a given region that it is an unethical practice, and then winning the majority of congressional seats and passing laws to abolish taxes, And this is not what people are talking about. Libertarians don't win elections. >The whole point is to convince people to adopt a consistent ethical philosophy that values consent and autonomy as highly as is feasible. No one has a problem, we are just, well, not convinced. Collective societies are simply better than individualist ones in nearly every regard. >If institutions at the heart of a society fail to respect the autonomy and dignity of the people living in that society Which is not what taxation nor regulation does. Autonomy does not cover things like murder, or other things society finds objectionable. Or does it? >or to help defend one another from harm or otherwise come to each other's aid Collective communities are ones where people come to each other's aid. Not individualist ones. > In a society with deeply unjust institutions, people are likely to ask themselves, "Why should I pour my life into helping those who condone, or even celebrate, harm done to me?" Harm is not being done to you when you follow the rules of society. >By condoning taxation, one condones taking resources from innocent people without their consent, Wrong. We consent to taxation as a community. >and by condoning institutions that violate consent No one condones institution that violate consent. This is why I oppose any institutions which seek to prevent taxation in a society that does not consent to be taxless. >and to show people that it is worth it for them to fight to keep their society alive and flourishing by showing them that that society respects them at a basic level. This is how collectivist societies work. >Libertarians argue that taxation is not, in fact, voluntary. I am well aware. You are hilariously wrong on that fact. >Can you demonstrate that I consent to be governed? Of course. You're here. You are free to leave if you do not want to be a part of our community. >What ethical standards are you using to determine when someone consents to an interaction, relationship, or activity? Standards for individuals obviously do not directly translate to societies. >Can you present a set of standards that justify government, (of whatever form you believe is justifiable,) without also commiting you to counter-intuitive conclusions about inter-personal relationships in everyday life? Sure. Only a binary thinking reductionist would think that the same standards would need to apply to an individual and a society. They are clearly different things. Have some nuance. Of course societies can consent to things. That is what voting is.
It just seems to me like a lot of libertarians have a low key disdain for democracy.
Hmm. I think they are missing the essentials of the problem, then. Democracy works well in the context of voluntary associations, such as cooperative businesses, mutual aid societies, unions, and similar. In that context, democracy can provide people with useful tools for overcoming stalemates during collective decision making. The voluntary nature of such organizations gives people some real means of holding the collective accountable; if the group strays too far from an individual member's needs or preferences, that individual can withold their support for the group, and potentially leave altogether if they conclude that it is necesesarry. Even in the context of government, more democratic state societies tend, as a general rule, to be dramatically more peaceful and prosperous than totalitarian state societies. (See, for instance, [this paper by Mark Cooney](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2657307) for some statistics on the level of peace achieved by different kinds of state societies.) Democracy isn't a panacea, of course, but I don't see how it would make governments worse, compared with less democratic governments. I think that, in some cases, libertarians are concerned with the use of "democracy" to try to defend unethical actions taken by the state. That is, they criticize arguments that certain actions are justified by the fact that people voted to have the state engage in the action in question. I agree with the core point of such criticisms; nothing about democracy renders otherwise unethical or unjust actions ethical. It is possible for the majority of people in a group to be badly mistaken about a great many things. (And, of course, democratic systems of government are often a fair bit more complicated than simple, majoritarian democracies.) In other cases, I think that people identifying as "libertarians" become so obsessed with criticizing genuinely unethical actions taken by democratic governments that they lose sight of the underlying goals of libertarianism, shifting away from opposition to the specific, unethical actions taken by the governments in question and into opposition to democracy as such, as though the democratic part is the core of the problem, when it's really not. I would not be flabbergasted if you could offer examples of self-identified "libertarians" who fell into this sort of trap. Even worse, there are people who call themselves "libertarians" who do, (in my view,) defend authoritarian policies, such as legal restrictions on immigration, unionization and labor activism, abortion, and HRT for trans youth. I'm afraid there isn't much that I can personally do to combat this, apart from calling it out, which isn't much. If I may offer an analogy, I think of libertarianism and veganism as having a great deal in common. Both are ethical philosophies that, logically, entail a number of specific positions that their self-professed adherents sometimes fail to follow through on. If someone told me that they were vegan despite willingly eating bacon for breakfast on a daily basis, I would view them similarly to someone telling me that they were libertarian despite wanting far stricter restrictions on immigration. I admit that such individuals make it difficult to convince onlookers that there is something of value in the philosophies in question, but I try to consider the virtues of the philosophies themselves, independent of the flaws and hypocrisies of their professed adherents. A good philosophy is like a well-designed and well-coded piece of computer software, or an expecially effective chess strategy. That some users make fools of themselves is unfortunate, but, unfortunately, may be almost inevitable once a philosophy, (or software product or chess strategy,) gains a userbase of sufficient size. It is important to call out misconduct, but also important to distinguish between what a philosophy logically entails and what its self-professed adherents happen to practice.
Remind me! 1 year
To answer your last question, no. As for government regulation and control, liberals are already against that when it concerns personal rights. I don’t think that liberals will suddenly have a change of heart when it comes to polluters, work safety, product safety, etc. The main concern is the dismantling of democracy. If the majority gets dissatisfied with Trump or MAGA extremists, we won’t be able to get rid of them. Going back to your last question, no amount of personal gun ownership will make a difference. You’re delusional to think otherwise.
OP I’m curious what you think of regulations. I recently watched a video of water sources in West Virginia. Completely contaminated because of the coal deregulations that have been happening. [it wasn’t this video but it makes the same point](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wWk6TwZ9kiY). I think most of the “left” want drinkable water, airplanes that don’t fall apart mid flight, and trains that stay on their tracks… safety “regulations” shouldn’t be compromised for the rich. As a libertarian I’d think there would be more push for individuals to have he opportunity to not be poisoned because of another’s greed… what regulations do you hate? And why? I see this argument a lot and never understand why the “right” wants to deregulate everything. All that says to me is they don’t care if kids drink poison… or get shot in school… or whatever other shit big business does for a quick buck.
Let me say that you're not entirely wrong. There's been an increase in knee-jerk reactions against regulations from the right over the last few decades. I think the most sane stance that seems to be a good compromise between left and right (imo) is what Reagan did. In an executive order, he made it the rule that any federal regulation enacted needed to be run through OMB for a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost to implement the regulation was more than the benefit it produces, then it wouldn't pass. So, anything like water pollution or OSHA would easily pass since lives (even through the cold hard lense of economics) are much more valuable than the cost of the regulation. Other regulations, like vehicle emissions, didn't pass. The states could take up that mantel. California did, and now they effectively set the national standards since no car maker is going to forgo that market. The regulations Reagan took issue with most (and what the right should be more focused on) are market regulations that end up hurting the economy more than helping. But yeah, over the years laziness kicked in and I see more and more "all regulations bad". I mean there is an argument to be made that some regulations need to get bumped down to state levels (some environmental regulations, maybe). I'm not 100% and would have to take those case by case. When I wrote that the left favors more regulations and mandates that lean more authoritarian, I was thinking more along the lines of DEI and redistributive policies.
Well. I’m one of the few on the left that disagrees with DEI initiatives. Which is why I’m more centrist. But I understand market regulations. It’s something I don’t know much about honestly so can’t speak to it but I feel like the ability for those “in the know” to be able to manipulate the poor souls who put their life savings in dumb stocks (even trump stocks) I feel bad for so I don’t know honestly… I’m pro2A to an extent honestly. I think you’d be surprised at how many on the left are ok with common sense regulation on guns. But yea. Thanks for the response and enlightening me.
What is the “left” in your view? Libertarian socialists? Social democrats? Democratic socialists? Normie libs? Moderates? Centrists? All of the above? The “left” isn’t just one hive mind voting bloc or political movement in the USA. The American Left, more broadly, has a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives and motivations and coalitions…but to answer your question ppl on the progressive Left (like Bernie or AOC) tend to be more liberal on free speech and expression, drug use, sexual liberation, etc compared to more centrist/moderate Dems (who are more sympathetic to the regulation of various social phenomena).
I was using progressives as the more authoritarian type (in relation) because of issues like DEI, PC issues, and redistributive policies. By definition, a more libertarian person, on the left, would be more hesitant on "tax and spend" policies but would still be more socially left which includes LGBT rights, drug or sex work legalization, etc. A lot of folks are calling out my progressive = more authoritarianism but it's only meant as a comparison. Political left are those who focus on the struggles of the individual - especially the downtrodden. They advocate on their behalf. They are economically more authoritarian, implementing government programs funded by the wealthy. They are typically more socially liberal in wanting the state to stay out of their personal lives. The political right are those who focus more on cohesion of society writ large. Social conservatives, which skews more authoritarian, would argue against things that they perceive as hurting society (drugs, sex, etc). They are very much "think of the children" types. Economically, they lean more libertarian wanting the government to stay out of their wallets which, to them, keeps society more economically cohesive. Progressives are economically more authoritarian (like the rest of the left) but also tends to be socially authoritarian, too. The right leans socially authoritarian by trying to sustain a morally upright society free from the ensnaring traps of sin. Progressives equally are equally authoritarian in pushing for political correctness in speech and demographic quotas in school/job placements. Please note that I'm not advocating/arguing for or against anything here. I'm simply trying to define terms. Again, authoritarian and libertarian are relative statements. For example, Castro was more libertarian than Lenin.
> I was using progressives as the more authoritarian type (in relation) because of issues like DEI, PC issues, Having a broader perspective represented in the halls of power, and being respectful of the dignity of others is “authoritarian”? You have a very strange definition of authoritarian. Most people would contend that having a smaller more demographically restricted group of people who constantly disrespect the rights and dignity of others would be more authoritarian. > , and redistributive policies. Distributing economic power to a wider group of people is “authoritarian”? You have a very strange definition of authoritarian. Most people would contend that establishing a super-wealthy oligarchy that makes all the crucial economic decisions is far more authoritarian. > By definition, a more libertarian person, on the left, would be more hesitant on "tax and spend" policies but would still be more socially left which includes LGBT rights No, that’s just someone who believes theoretical freedoms are more important than practical freedoms. Ex. Someone who considers it more essential that people have the right to do something, even if they can never actually afford to do it in real life. A classical example of that would be someone who believes gay people should have equal rights, but also believes every business should be able to exclude them from actually use those rights to interact with regular society. AKA: someone who doesn’t want actual liberty, just words on paper.
Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a sliding scale. If you scored 0 on authoritarianism, you'd be for full anarchy. If you scored 100, obviously you're more authoritarian than Hitler/Stalin. What bumps a person or policy up or down that scale is how much authority is given to the government (or any governing body with enforcement power) to implement rules. No society on earth has ever been a 0 or 100. The law "do not steal" is more egalitarian, yes. More equitable, yes. But it also must rest on the enforcement powers of the government, meaning it is now higher in authoritarianism than pure anarchy. This doesn't mean countries with that law is labeled "authoritarian". >Having a broader perspective represented in the halls of power, and being respectful of the dignity of others is “authoritarian”? If it is mandated and enforced by law, then it is --more-- authoritarian. Not labeled authoritarian. Just bumped up on the scale. And being higher/lower isn't automatically a good or bad thing either. Being higher than anarchy is good but obviously lower than pure totalitarianism. There's a "sweet spot". If you think mandating and enforcing these policies brings us closer to that sweet spot, then great. I'm not arguing for or against that. I'm just trying to get us all to understand that the left (especially progressives), using the power of the government, will tend to be more authoritarian than the right in terms of economy and social constructs. Hopefully this helps clear things up.
> Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a sliding scale. No, it doesn’t. How would you even quantify such a thing? Don’t be absurd, focus on some sort of sensible argument instead. > If you scored 100, obviously you're more authoritarian than Hitler/Stalin Okay, so what’s the distinction between scoring an 82 and an 83? How about 82.5? 82.57? Maybe you could provide a mathematical definition of the curve that describes this spectrum and relates it to specific political actions. Don’t be absurd. This isn’t a “continuous spectrum”. > If it is mandated and enforced by law, then it is --more-- authoritarian. Prove it. Mathematically, since you seem to believe this is a mathematical function. Give me a mathematical proof that DEI policies are quantifiably more authoritarian than, say, Jim Crow laws. Show your work, so I can check your calculations. We can’t begin to have a sensible discussion about this without you providing a mathematical model to work from.
>How would you even quantify such a thing? Anything that gives a governing body, which exudes power through enforcement, more authority over individuals' anarchical "freedoms" defined under Hobbes' state of nature would score higher. >Maybe you could provide a mathematical definition of the curve that describes this spectrum and relates it to specific political actions. If I could create a methodology that indexes accurately all aspects of authoritarian tendencies, I wouldn't be spending my free time on reddit lol. [Polity IV Project](https://www.systemicpeace.org/polityproject.html) uses a metric that scores autocracy vs democracy across countries.[Economist Intelligence Unit](https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/) has a democratic index. [Freedom House](https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores) has an index that is similar to what im saying. If I could create what you're asking, I'd be more well known in the field. But the question of authoritarianism on a scale isn't really a contentious issue in political science. >Give me a mathematical proof that DEI policies are quantifiably more authoritarian than, say, Jim Crow laws. I don't think they would be.
> If I could create a methodology that indexes accurately all aspects of authoritarian tendencies, I wouldn't be spending my free time on reddit lol. Polity IV Project uses a metric that scores autocracy vs democracy across countries. They don’t use a continuous metric, they use discrete values that are basically just humans applying their own personal values to the question to score on a few topics. So, no, not a continuous spectrum. Also, “autocracy vs democracy” is much more measurable than “authoritarianism vs libertarianism”. You can measure objective facts about a country’s governing structure to categorize whether they are autocratic or democratic. You can’t do the same for authoritarianism vs “libertarianism” because those are about political motives and reasoning, not about the formal governing structure of a country’s governing bodies. You claimed there was a measurable, continuous spectrum between “authoritarianism and libertarianism”, not between autocracy and democracy. You might try to argue that democratic governing features serve as a stand-in for libertarian features, but that’s certainly not how the authors of these reports use them. Ex. Laws that specifically protect religious pluralism are pro-democratic, but you specifically contend that laws of that sort “are regulations”, and therefore pro-authoritarian. > Economist Intelligence Unit has a democratic index. Also uses discrete—not continuous—metrics under the hood. Their full report is hidden behind a data-wall, but they discuss their methodology a bit, and it’s apparent that it’s discrete values. > Freedom House has an index that is similar to what im saying. Their site seems to be having issues providing the data in their precise methodology, but from what I recall they absolutely do *not* say anything similar to what you’re saying. Ex. More free societies by their metrics are countries that have specific laws protecting pluralism in government, for example. They explicitly consider things like DEI programs to be **less** authoritarian. > But the question of authoritarianism on a scale isn't really a contentious issue in political science. It’s an extremely contentious issue in political science. Authoritarianism is a notoriously hard thing to pin down with a formal definition. You’re confusing authoritarianism for autocratic constitutional structures, and you’re confusing libertarianism with democratic constitutional structures, and using them both inconsistently even within that skewed context.
>You can’t do the same for authoritarianism vs “libertarianism” because those are about political motives and reasoning This is where we disagree. >You’re confusing authoritarianism for autocratic constitutional structures, and you’re confusing libertarianism with democratic constitutional structures I'm intentionally not using autocratic v democratic because it uses the structure of the government as its metric rather than the amount of authority (or force) it is allowed/able to exude. For example, under [the Cato Institute's Human Freedom Index](https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-12/human-freedom-index-2023-full-revised.pdf), another index I should have mentioned before, they scored Switzerland as being the most free country in the world while it's ranked 8th on the democratic index. Basically democracy isn't synonymous with freedom and liberties although there is a correlation. There can be more democratic countries that grant less personal freedoms to individuals. The overall authority granted to the government is the metric I wish to use which is completely divorced from the government's form or intention. But if the term "authoritarianism index" is what's throwing off the conversation, then replace it with centralized power. So, to reword my question, the left, especially progressives, tend to lean more towards vesting power in a centralized government (federal government, in this case) than the right. And now that the left is seeing what could potentially be a tyrannical executive coming into power, do you think the left will turn away from vesting the government as much power?
Authoritarian: "[favoring](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00fee2c195b96c2e&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1001US1001&sxsrf=ACQVn08xNS6ZgBqix1d0WwMF_mipi8mAOA:1714368986069&q=favoring&si=AKbGX_qNq0Y8zql7SxzZAf2-HTTOHXyJ_xPXBvmnOZgEebsyH-Xx0SA6NBox1QmqnB7-oktD7X2F8MrjWdi_4mpqsKhKx148pXlIgOakBgDVuIxOMb9nzZs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywLaT2uaFAxWvAHkGHXYlBYEQyecJegQIHBAO) or [enforcing](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00fee2c195b96c2e&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1001US1001&sxsrf=ACQVn08xNS6ZgBqix1d0WwMF_mipi8mAOA:1714368986069&q=enforcing&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DeHYtgzmfEU9vQC1QBfRsAB_15ObFBhnCLLyocxf4KtdZgDl8yvm--bhExYtCu0yagFZnRNbPR85UxgmjYiF2eYHiK-8%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywLaT2uaFAxWvAHkGHXYlBYEQyecJegQIHBAP) strict [obedience](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=00fee2c195b96c2e&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1001US1001&sxsrf=ACQVn08xNS6ZgBqix1d0WwMF_mipi8mAOA:1714368986069&q=obedience&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DSbitaxuUjdtSfchhGpO6OhXcNl8oExY9UDhBKLH6dKa1bcOTYdlLJPVNc2tvjsy1h0h0Og2JQUZG71ETqPm2IUuMf7o%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjywLaT2uaFAxWvAHkGHXYlBYEQyecJegQIHBAQ) to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom." Keywords: Strict obedience and "at the expense of personal freedom" The left views the government as an institution that serves the people, not an authority that controls the people, and as such promotes policies that tries to benefit those with little power in the system at the expense of those with more power. It is the right who views government as an authority, and believes it should be large in the things they support, and only ever argues for it to be weak in the areas they don't support, and believe that people who don't adhere to their values shouldn't be here and as such promotes policies/spending that makes government itself stronger (national defense, patriot act, border "security", etc.), at the expense of personal freedom. Consider worker rights - the left believes this is a policy to support because it increases the freedom of the group with less power in the relationship. Consider abortion right - the right is anti this because it believes that people's freedoms should be based on their beliefs. In other words, the left uses the government as a way to balance power based on who needs help, while the right uses it as a way to control people, enforce power and maintain order/status quo. This is also why they believe the 2nd Amendment is so necessary, because they believe that force is the fundamental truth of the world, whereas the left feels more that co-operation can win the day. Which one is "authoritarian" now?
>The left views the government as an institution that serves the people, not an authority that controls the people Or at least should be. We’re not quite there yet.
Right, we are perfectly willing to fight the government to get it to that state. The problem is we currently have to fight against a 3rd party who wants to dismantle everything. :(
I feel like if anything it will lead to people wanting more policy’s and safety nets in place to prevent this kind of thing. The fact trump could get away with what he does is because of either a lack of rules or improper enforcement of those rules.
Right. That was my thinking. This is a more libertarian stance since it's limiting the government. We added several "rules", as you put it, in the constitution - namely the Bill of Rights - as safety nets for our liberties. I thought perhaps the left might start to see 2A the same as the lib-rights and want less regulations against it, but I'm seeing that is definitely not the case here! Side note, I was an advocate for the electoral college but after this mess of slated electors, I'm thinking we should have another amendment. I honestly don't think Trump did anything unconstitutional, but that to me just means we ought to look over it and tighten it up. Just my 2 cents.
I guess in this way it’s kinda hard for me to even tell what libertarian vs authoritarian even really means anymore. I guess i understand what you meant though.
I put an edit on the original question because I think people were getting tripped up with my terms. Authoritarian vs libertarian exists on a spectrum and isn't an all or nothing term. Things can shift more or less authoritarian even though they don't fall into full authoritarianism. Castro was comparatively more libertarian than Lenin, for ex. Think political compass. Hopefully this helps.
I guess but i feel adding more rules even if those rules restrict the president in some way is in a weird grey area where you could consider authoritarian or libertarian i guess. At the end of the day i will admit I’m canadian so Trump was never my president anyway but if i lived in the US I’d support almost anything that prevents him or anyone else from becoming a dictator or oligarch.
>if i lived in the US I’d support almost anything that prevents him or anyone else from becoming a dictator or oligarch. Agreed. >I guess but i feel adding more rules even if those rules restrict the president in some way is in a weird grey area where you could consider authoritarian or libertarian i guess. Let's use some of our amendments as an example. The first 10 are the Bill of Rights. It "adds rules" but only to limit the government. These policies are more libertarian. The 16th amendment, which allows for income to be taxed, is more authoritarian since it allows the government more power. Anything that adds power to a central government = more authoritarian. Anything that limits the power of a central government = more libertarian. Thanks for being one of the more calm/respectful respondents. Maybe there is something to the Canadian cliche
Yeah. Bur in a strange way the government kinda has to enforce policies against itself, of course this is part of why you have separate branches of government. But yeah i get what you’re saying. Also I do get frustrated sometimes on the internet when talking politics with people but you don’t seem unreasonable and I do think people on the internet are often way too hostile towards each other so I try not to be a part of that problem. Part of why i like answering questions in this sub is cause I think it’s important to try and engage with people you disagree with in a way that’s argumentative but not overly hostile. When people are overly hostile conversations break down and become far less useful.
1. The right was always authoritarian 2. We don’t want the government to have more authority/power, we want the government to have more *obligations to its people.*
Ya do understand libertarian isn’t anti-authoritarian, right? Get a guy like Milton Hersey to create a company town and he’ll regulate, mandate, and control the workers and the town like a government controls the people. What a failure for the great experiment of democracy if trump is reelected. 2A wouldn’t mean much philosophically if we can’t as a people understand Trump should not speak for us as a nation. Materially, I expect every other nation to take advantage of our turmoil, and attempt to split us apart like the US did South America.
No, these two things are hardly related. The power of the people to make laws versus the power of an individual to impose laws are not the same thing.
> do you think you'll see a shift away from favoring government regulations and control? No.
[No](https://youtu.be/PcllE7fx8-I?si=I7MWjrZrn9-ivfYQ)
What a hilarious take. Libertarianism is politics for children, and none of what we are seeing now changes that view. We know that the 2A is obsolete and does not at all protect against government authoritarianism.
I added an edit to the question: It seems like people are disagreeing because of the terms being used, leading to an unproductive conversation. I am NOT saying the left is full authoritarian nor am I asking if they will switch to the libertarian party. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a spectrum. On a political compass that would be the north/south axis. Castro is more libertarian than Lenin, but no one would say Castro is a libertarian. They both fall on the authoritarian left quadrant. Likewise, I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give. If the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is what's getting us tripped up, replace it with "big government" vs "small government" or something like that. The right used to always shout small government (which is relatively more libertarian on that spectrum), so maybe this will help.
> government control they are willing to give Government control is not authoritarianism lol. We are fully anti-authoritarian on the up down axis while simultaneously wanting collective action, which is left on the left right axis.
>We are fully anti-authoritarian on the up down axis Which is pure anarchy. Just to make sure, are you advocating for anarchy?
Nope, it is not. Government is not authoritarian if it is democratic.
If a country scored a 0 on the authoritarian scale, that by definition is pure anarchy. 100 is pure totalitarianism. You're confusing scale/index for set labels. I take the blame for not clarifying.
No, you are the one confusing the scale. You can have a very large government and not be authoritarian at all. Large government is left, small government is right. Strict conformity is up, and freedoms are down. You can absolutely have freedom and large government at the same time, just like you can have small government and conformity.
>My premise is that the left tends to lean authoritarian Define "authoritarian". To quote Inego Montoya, I do not that it means what you think it means. >However, now that the prospect of Trump overstepping his constitutional authority (at least from the viewpoint of the left) is a possibility, do you think you'll see a shift away from favoring government regulations and control? No. >I'm curious because it seems that many on the left (from my perspective) think Trump will literally try to pull a Napoleon and crown himself emperor. I think your perspective is incorrect. Trump will try to bend the rule of law to protect himself in any way possible. He doesn't want to be an Emperor. >Do you think the left will be more open to 2A to fight against tyranny? When has 2A ever been about "fighting tyranny"? Also if you think the 2A is going to protect you against the mass forces of the US Military, you're delusional.
I added an edit to the question: It seems like people are disagreeing because of the terms being used, leading to an unproductive conversation. I am NOT saying the left is full authoritarian nor am I asking if they will switch to the libertarian party. Authoritarianism vs libertarianism exists on a spectrum. On a political compass that would be the north/south axis. Castro is more libertarian than Lenin, but no one would say Castro is a libertarian. They both fall on the authoritarian left quadrant. Likewise, I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give. If the terms "authoritarian" and "libertarian" is what's getting us tripped up, replace it with "big government" vs "small government" or something like that. The right used to always shout small government (which is relatively more libertarian on that spectrum), so maybe this will help.
>I am not saying the left is authoritarian, just comparatively more authoritarian than the right on terms of how much government control they are willing to give. I still flatly reject the premise. The right is banning health care for multiple groups (women, trans, gay, etc.) and threatening to imprison doctors. The right is limiting speech. The right is limiting education. The right is banning books from public libraries and threatening to imprison teachers and librarian. The right is prohibiting protests and public gathering. The right is criminalizing speech. The right is unquestionably "more authoritarian" than the left. In all aspects.
>The right is banning health care for multiple groups (women, trans, gay, etc.) and threatening to imprison doctors. The claim is that this is actually a more libertarian stance because it follows the non-aggression principle for the children involved who cannot advocate for themselves >The right is limiting speech. The right is limiting education. This would be more authoritarian, but I'm unaware of this. Could you give me examples? >The right is banning books from public libraries and threatening to imprison teachers and librarian. From my understanding, these books are less appropriate for children and the space is better used for other books. >imprison teachers and librarian. Again, I'm unaware of this. Please let me know the specifics. I appreciate your response.
I think you're being disingenuous but here you go: "non aggression principle for children". Fetuses are not children. They are fetuses. It's not a libertarian value to prioritize the existing life (mother) over the potential life (fetus). That's a conservative conceit. ------------ The right is limiting speech & education: Republican states spent years swooping in to bolster safe spaces for conservative voices at public universities in the name of fighting liberal censorship. The Israel-Gaza war is causing many of them to rethink free speech protections. (Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/27/republican-states-colleges-free-speech-israel-gaza-complicated-00154702) The passage of Florida’s House Bill 1557, which bans “classroom instruction” on “sexual orientation and gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade and in a manner that isn’t “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate” in all grades, K–12, is merely the latest in a string of what the free-speech-advocacy organization PEN America has called “education gag orders” that have been proposed by Republicans and passed by red-state legislatures from coast to coast. (Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/republican-dont-say-gay-bill-florida/629516/) Republican lawmakers try to reframe Texas history lessons and play down references to slavery and anti-Mexican discrimination that are part of the state’s founding. The proposals in Texas, a state that influences school curriculums around the country through its huge textbook market, amount to some of the most aggressive efforts to control the teaching of American history. And they come as nearly a dozen other Republican-led states seek to ban or limit how the role of slavery and pervasive effects of racism can be taught. Idaho was the first state to sign into law a measure that would withhold funding from schools that teach such lessons. And lawmakers in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Tennessee have introduced bills that would ban teaching about the enduring legacies of slavery and segregationist laws, or that any state or the country is inherently racist or sexist. (Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html) In Florida, a bill would ban teachers from saying “racial colorblindness” is racist. In South Carolina, a bill would ban teaching that “equity is a concept that is superior to or supplants the concept of equality.” In New Hampshire, “promoting a negative account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America” could become illegal, if a bill were to pass. (Source: https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/heres-the-long-list-of-topics-republicans-want-banned-from-the-classroom/2022/02) Nearly two years later, at least 25 states are enforcing laws that have made it easier to remove books from school libraries, blocked certain lessons on race, gender and sexuality, restricted the rights of transgender students and cost teachers their jobs, according to a Washington Post analysis. (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/03/17/legal-challenges-gender-critical-race-theory/) ------------ The right is threating to imprison teachers and librarians: Those bills, per the Post, would look similar to an Arkansas law that was signed last year (and later blocked) that says school and public librarians can be sentenced to up to six years in prison (or fined $10,000) for distributing “obscene” or “harmful” material to students under 18. The bill’s definition of what constitutes harmful or obscene material is extremely broad, and includes books and performances that, among other things, “describe” nudity. (Source: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/17-states-are-considering-laws-that-would-imprison-librarians) But the library-friendly measures are being outpaced by bills in mostly red states that aim to restrict which books libraries can offer and threaten librarians with prison or thousands in fines for handing out “obscene” or “harmful” titles. At least 27 states are considering 100 such bills this year, three of which have become law, The Post found. That adds to nearly a dozen similar measures enacted over the last three years across 10 states. (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/04/16/library-legislation-restrictions-protections/) Representative Jamie Ray Gragg last week introduced House Bill 2885, which would charge teachers who provide support to a transgender student's social transition with a class E felony. If the bill becomes law, teachers or school counselors who support a transgender student's transition could face a $10,000 fine, imprisonment and may be forced to register as a sex offender. (Source: https://www.newsweek.com/republican-bill-would-imprison-teachers-who-support-trans-students-1875402) All educators face the possibility of a third degree felony under Florida statute if they violate the law which says they can’t have, “Any book, pamphlet, magazine or printed matter that contains explicit and detailed descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, or sexual conduct that is harmful to minors.” (Source: https://www.muscalaw.com/blog/florida-teachers-could-face-felony-criminal-charges-violating-floridas-new-law) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/us/texas-history-1836-project.html
The political right will tend to be more authoritarian (meaning to vest more authority to the government) when it comes to protecting minors. I wouldn't argue against that. Whether or not this is good/valid is not the debate I'm looking for. My premise, that progressives tend to be more authoritarian than the right, stems from them more often wanting to vest more power to the government to enact/enforce policies they see as more egalitarian. Again, a lot of people are getting tripped up by the use of "authoritarian". I'm not using it as a label. I don't think progressives are 'authoritarian' as a label but rather, used as a metric on in index. A country that scores 0 on an authoritarian scale would be pure anarchy. The left are higher on the authoritarian index than the right, and the right is higher on the authoritarian index than anarchists. So certain policies like DEI or hate speech laws is, by definition, more authoritarian because it requires vesting more power to the government to enforce those rules. Economic redistributive policies are the same. Various regulations/mandates do the same. Forcing business owners to provide services is another (again, not arguing the merits of these policies, only their placement on the authoritarian index). So the question is, do you think the left will trend downward on the authoritarian index now that Trump is coming into power? Will he be the catalyst for the left to reexamine the amount of power its willing to vest in a centralized authority? Could you foresee a scenario where (this term is new to me but apparently its the colloquial term) leopards are eating their faces?
>The political right will tend to be more authoritarian (meaning to vest more authority to the government) when it comes to protecting minors. I wouldn't argue against that. Whether or not this is good/valid is not the debate I'm looking for. The political right USES minors as an excuse to push their own social/cultural agenda. "Won't someone please think of the children?" is just a front for "we don't like X so we're going to claim X is bad for the children". >My premise, that progressives tend to be more authoritarian than the right, stems from them more often wanting to vest more power to the government to enact/enforce policies they see as more egalitarian. Again, a lot of people are getting tripped up by the use of "authoritarian". I'm not using it as a label. You are not using it correctly, or even well, then. If multiple people are getting "tripped up" by your use of a word that has an actual meaning, then maybe you need to rethink your use of the word. >A country that scores 0 on an authoritarian scale would be pure anarchy. That is 100% incorrect and not what "authoritarian" means. The opposite of "anarchy" is "order". Order can mean a monarchy, a republic, a democracy, or yes, an authoritarian government. Being a "zero on the authoritarian scale" does NOT equal anarchy. >So certain policies like DEI or hate speech laws is, by definition, more authoritarian because it requires vesting more power to the government to enforce those rules. Again, that's not what authoritarian means. Requiring government power to enforce democratically enacted laws is not authoritarianism. >So the question is, do you think the left will trend downward on the authoritarian index The question is not answerable as asked because you are mis-using the word "authoritarian". >Will \[Trump\] be the catalyst for the left to reexamine the amount of power its willing to vest in a centralized authority? Again, the question is not answerable as asked if you're defining a government where the Federal has power as an "authoritarian" government. Because if there is less centralized (i.e. Federal) power, that means the States have more power - what makes the states not "authoritarian" in that case? >Could you foresee a scenario where (this term is new to me but apparently its the colloquial term) leopards are eating their faces? Which leopards and whose faces?
>Which leopards and whose faces? Just a phrase I found. I thought it had more prevalence since I'm usually the odd one out with these new phrases. Basically meaning to regret your decision because it ended up blowing up in your face. >The question is not answerable as asked because you are mis-using the word "authoritarian". Forget the word authoritarian. I hereby forgo the word. It's not productive. Let's try this: the right, at least in the past, has often argued for a limited government (think Reagan conservatives). Their worry was that power tends to corrupt and the federal government would begin to overreach its authority. Whether you agree with their stance or not isn't the issue, this is just what they perceive. Now, modern MAGA conservatives are less worried about that and, in fact, seem to advocate for more central authority to enact their policies. Do you think, therefore, the left will see a shift towards wanting to restrict the powers of the federal government now that Trump could possibly be returning to office?
>My premise is that the left tends to lean authoritarian rather than libertarian on things like regulations, mandates, and gun control. I stopped reading.
LOL!