"The Authoritarians" A free ebook worth a read

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Should we start a fund?

If he'd take Paris Hilton instead, I'd pay the 5 bucks.

[Berzerker]

All Libertarians should read it for a start, as it might make them understand themselves better (and no, they aren't authoritarians, but it will help them understand why they make such little headway in the conservative movement).

Because most conservatives dont believe in freedom, and the ones that do will eventually realize they're libertarians.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
If he'd take Paris Hilton instead, I'd pay the 5 bucks.

But then there are the medical bills for all the diseases

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Agathon


Groan...

Does it really matter what he calls them? They exist, and the vast majority of them are political conservatives.

Apparently it does matter, why would you use an archaic usage if not for your own ends?



ACK!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


But then there are the medical bills for all the diseases

All sin is punished

[Tuberski]

I can't find the damn test.

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

But I still am overwhelmingly convinced that a couple of hours with a naked and willing Mariah Carey would do you a world of good, and provide some perspective

Just once?

That's the trouble Aggie.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Agathon

Does it really matter what he calls them? They exist, and the vast majority of them are political conservatives.

I disagree.

I have a post I made on another site (that LordShiva is famously unaware of) that described my opinion on this matter.

It came down to: both economic conservatives and economic liberals, in the extreme, are in their ideologic, non-power-acquiring phases, antiauthoritarians [to the near extent of anarchism]; that would be Libertarians and ideological Communists (marxists, probably).

However, both economic conservatives and economic liberals, once they attain power, tend to quickly become authoritarians. Hence Bush+co, and Stalin+co (or *insert communist state here*; or *insert extreme capitalist regime here*.) This is in (far) excess of normal "power hungry" regimes [as all are to some extent] that are less extreme economically [or at least, less extreme in any major political issue].

This is because, once they attain power - or in the process of attaining power - those of ideological extremes realize, or come to realize, that they must be authoritarian to maintain a hold over their citizens. It is the nature of extremist movements that they are not the will of the majority of the people. This is because of the definition of extreme; having an opinion that places you in a substantial minority.

In order to maintain a society that matches their ideology, when facing a society where the majority - indeed the far majority, typically - do not support their ideologies, or at least do not support them to anything near the extent they believe them, in their natural state, the extremist movement is forced to create an authoritarian state, where the government enforces their ideology.

Thus the OP's article, in my opinion, sees only a very small part of authoritarian - and misses the boat on the more substantial reasons people support authoritarianism. It is true that anyone in power will tend to have a slight bent, at minimum, towards some authoritarian tendencies just to maintain that hold on power; but those new in their power, and particularly those who support an extremist ideology, will be far more extreme in their authoritarianism, at least once they realize what is necessary to stay in power.

The only thing that pretty much all authoritarians hold in common? They tend to be supporters of the current regime. Funny that...

[Kuciwalker]

quibble: economic conservatives are economic liberals

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I disagree.

I have a post I made on another site (that LordShiva is famously unaware of) that described my opinion on this matter.

It came down to: both economic conservatives and economic liberals, in the extreme, are in their ideologic, non-power-acquiring phases, antiauthoritarians [to the near extent of anarchism]; that would be Libertarians and ideological Communists (marxists, probably).

However, both economic conservatives and economic liberals, once they attain power, tend to quickly become authoritarians. Hence Bush+co, and Stalin+co (or *insert communist state here*; or *insert extreme capitalist regime here*.) This is in (far) excess of normal "power hungry" regimes [as all are to some extent] that are less extreme economically [or at least, less extreme in any major political issue].

This is because, once they attain power - or in the process of attaining power - those of ideological extremes realize, or come to realize, that they must be authoritarian to maintain a hold over their citizens. It is the nature of extremist movements that they are not the will of the majority of the people. This is because of the definition of extreme; having an opinion that places you in a substantial minority.

In order to maintain a society that matches their ideology, when facing a society where the majority - indeed the far majority, typically - do not support their ideologies, or at least do not support them to anything near the extent they believe them, in their natural state, the extremist movement is forced to create an authoritarian state, where the government enforces their ideology.

Thus the OP's article, in my opinion, sees only a very small part of authoritarian - and misses the boat on the more substantial reasons people support authoritarianism. It is true that anyone in power will tend to have a slight bent, at minimum, towards some authoritarian tendencies just to maintain that hold on power; but those new in their power, and particularly those who support an extremist ideology, will be far more extreme in their authoritarianism, at least once they realize what is necessary to stay in power.

The only thing that pretty much all authoritarians hold in common? They tend to be supporters of the current regime. Funny that...

The book isn't about political authoritarianism. He makes that quite clear.

It's about a personality type, not a political institution.

[snoopy369]

I think the two are identical, though. I don't think personal authoritarianism has very much meaning outside of the political affiliation. Not if you're going to bring up the conservative/liberal argument, anyway. If you're going to just talk about 'in the home' essentially, then leave out the political stuff; if you don't, then you HAVE a political agenda, whether you think you do or not.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
quibble: economic conservatives are economic liberals

Not in the current lingo, unfortunately. American Socialists have appropriated the word for their own uses

[Agathon]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the two are identical, though. I don't think personal authoritarianism has very much meaning outside of the political affiliation. Not if you're going to bring up the conservative/liberal argument, anyway. If you're going to just talk about 'in the home' essentially, then leave out the political stuff; if you don't, then you HAVE a political agenda, whether you think you do or not.

?

It's about the tendency of people to submit to authority. Most of Altemeyer's book is not about the people who are in political power, but about those who follow them and vote for them.

How about reading it first? It's not long.

[Arrian]

Drug use is up, more people are getting divorced, more kids grow up without a mom or a dad, more crime is around then in previous. How would you say things are improving?

This is right out of the book (not that I needed the book to know this): the people who are most predisposed towards authoritarianism (submitting to it, that is) are scared. They've decided - whether because of personal experience or because others have told them - that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Natural response: rally 'round a "strong leader," get back to tradition... God is punishing us for our sinfulness (or more accurately, the sinfulness of THOSE PEOPLE), etc.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The concept that one obeys the law or submits to the rule of law because of fear is probably true. Most people drive at or near the speed limit don't cheat on there taxes etc. for fear of getting caught and paying some penalty. Laws by their nature are ultimately enforced by police action hence compliance requires fear.

The concept that doing so is necessarily a bad thing is a completely different matter.

The ultimate appropriateness and 'bravery' of resisting authority is likewise questionable. A) the rule/law/authority may have merit. B) the resistors often are likewise cowed by peer group reaction and simply sheep of their own smaller sect.