Study: Left-wing authoritarians share key psychological traits with far right

People with extreme political views that favor authoritarianism—whether they are on the far left or the far right—have surprisingly similar behaviors and psychological characteristics, a new study finds.

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published the research by psychologists at Emory University—the first comprehensive look at left-wing authoritarianism.

"We took the long history of research into right-wing authoritarianism and used insights from that to develop a conceptional framework and measures to test for authoritarianism in the political left," says Thomas Costello, an Emory Ph.D. student of psychology and first author of the study. "We found that in terms of their psychological characteristics and their actual behaviors, left-wing authoritarians are extremely similar to authoritarians on the right."

Right-wing authoritarians tend to aggressively back the established hierarchy, while left-wing authoritarians tend to aggressively oppose it. They are almost like mirror images of one another that both share a common psychological core, the researchers conclude.

"Authoritarians have a predisposition for liking sameness and opposing differences among people in their environment," Costello says. "They are submissive to people they perceive as authority figures, they are dominant and aggressive towards people they disagree with, and they are careful to obey what they consider the norms for their respective groups."

At its core, authoritarianism is likely about power, Costello adds.

"It's a mistake to think of authoritarianism as a right-wing concept, as some researchers have in the past," he says. "We found that ideology becomes secondary. Psychologically speaking, you're an authoritarian first, and an ideologue only as it serves the power structure that you support."


https://phys.org/news/2021-09-left-wing-authoritarians-key-psychological-traits.html


More to read on the link

Makes sense to me. The authoritarian mindset is intolerant -- my way is right, your way is wrong. The authoritarian longs for a strongman, big boss-style leader who will "hurt the people he needs to be hurting" and try to enforce some type of uniformity of values on the people he governs.

That's sort of why I think most -isms themselves are authoritarian at their root. Ideas like communism, anarchy, libertarianism, etc. only work if everyone agrees with them, which of course they won't. The only effective government must allow for people to be diametrically at odds with one another, ideologically, and still get things done.

That's also why if given the choice between living in a democratic country controlled for the moment by a right-wing party, and living in an authoritarian country controlled for the foreseeable future by a left-wing party, I'd choose the democratic country without hesitation.

Ben Reilly wrote:Makes sense to me. The authoritarian mindset is intolerant -- my way is right, your way is wrong. The authoritarian longs for a strongman, big boss-style leader who will "hurt the people he needs to be hurting" and try to enforce some type of uniformity of values on the people he governs.

That's sort of why I think most -isms themselves are authoritarian at their root. Ideas like communism, anarchy, libertarianism, etc. only work if everyone agrees with them, which of course they won't. The only effective government must allow for people to be diametrically at odds with one another, ideologically, and still get things done.

That's also why if given the choice between living in a democratic country controlled for the moment by a right-wing party, and living in an authoritarian country controlled for the foreseeable future by a left-wing party, I'd choose the democratic country without hesitation.

I agree Ben, but the point is the US is becoming so divisive, which is pushing more people further to the left and right

Its only going to end badly

The reality is and I see this all the time, is we have gone from a view to argue what is wrong

To go backwards to religious mentality of people holding a view they believe they are morally righteous based politically

Its either believe my views or face the consequences if you do not

The US is moving away from being a secularism/democracy society and being drawn further into authoritarianism

Social media is driving this

We all have to help people become detached from the radicalisation we are seeing create people being drawn to the far left and right in society

It doesn't matter if it's the left or right boot on your throat.

That's why I don't focus much on the left right axis and spend more time worrying about the authoritarian libertarian axis.

LW'ers generally align themselves with correct measures, anyway. It is the RW that tolerates untruthful and outlandish beliefs such as drinking Clorox will cure Covid and we won the election despite the 7-million vote plurality for the other guys.

As long as LW'ers pursue the common good, they will inevitably steer the right path. RW'ers pursue special interests...and that's where things things go awry.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all about the.common good.

Shame.about those 10s of millions of victims..

Maddog wrote:Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all about the.common good.

So were Roosevelt and Lincoln.

I question whether the Bolsheviks you mention were truly LW'ers.  Read about them.  They had other missions besides the 'common good' for their countries. Alternatively, is Kim Jung Un a LW'er?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all about the.common good.

So were Roosevelt and Lincoln.

I question whether the Bolsheviks you mention were truly LW'ers.  Read about them.  They had other missions besides the 'common good' for their countries.  Alternatively, is Kim Jung Un a LW'er?

Yes. An authoritarian left winger.

Left and right operate independently of libertarian and authoritarian.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So were Roosevelt and Lincoln.

I question whether the Bolsheviks you mention were truly LW'ers.  Read about them.  They had other missions besides the 'common good' for their countries.  Alternatively, is Kim Jung Un a LW'er?

Yes. An authoritarian left winger.  

Left and right operate independently of libertarian and authoritarian.  

I believe that libertarians are, or can become the ultimate authoritarians. They just need to sweep the field clean of other powers first, before taking over.

The Bolsheviks were not LW'ers. Like the libertarians, they had other plans.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes. An authoritarian left winger.  

Left and right operate independently of libertarian and authoritarian.  

I believe that libertarians are, or can become the ultimate authoritarians.  They just need to sweep the field clean of other powers first, before taking over.

The Bolsheviks were not LW'ers.  Like the libertarians, they had other plans.

A libertarian that becomes an authoritarian is no longer a libertarian..

They are polar opposites like communists and capitalists.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I believe that libertarians are, or can become the ultimate authoritarians.  They just need to sweep the field clean of other powers first, before taking over.

The Bolsheviks were not LW'ers.  Like the libertarians, they had other plans.

A libertarian that becomes an authoritarian is no longer a libertarian..

They are polar opposites like communists and capitalists.  

That's merely a dictionary (definitional) argument.  Libertarianism had its heyday during the gilded age of the late 19th century, from the 1870s to about 1900.  I'm sure the principals of that era didn't even realize they were wielding power, or cared if they did realize.

Power, like smoke, creeps in and soon you don't even know it's smoky.  I'd rather have an open and obvious government, and the safeguards to control it - and give it the ability to trump any power that gets too strong and too feisty - than have the smoke quietly creep in under the door.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

A libertarian that becomes an authoritarian is no longer a libertarian..

They are polar opposites like communists and capitalists.  

That's merely a dictionary (definitional) argument.  Libertarianism had its heyday during the gilded age of the late 19th century, from the 1870s to about 1900.  I'm sure the principals of that era didn't even realize they were wielding power, or cared if they did realize.

Power, like smoke, creeps in and soon you don't even know it's smoky.  I'd rather have an open and obvious government, and the safeguards to control it - and give it the ability to trump any power that gets too strong and too feisty - than have the smoke quietly creep in under the door.

Words have meaning, except when you use them.

"Most political characterizations of people come down to liberal (collectivism) versus conservative (individualism) but we don’t speak enough about authority versus the lack of authority. Both rightists and leftists throughout history have ranged higher or lower on the authoritarianism scale and, when you think about it long enough, you realize that this characteristic more than any other (being high on the authority spectrum) is what has led to the most monstrous outcomes of the series of political experiments that have determined the characteristics of our societies."




https://medium.com/@allenkithowell/authoritarianism-versus-libertarianism-its-really-about-freedom-99ce466b5617

Maddog wrote:"Most political characterizations of people come down to liberal (collectivism) versus conservative (individualism) but we don’t speak enough about authority versus the lack of authority. Both rightists and leftists throughout history have ranged higher or lower on the authoritarianism scale and, when you think about it long enough, you realize that this characteristic more than any other (being high on the authority spectrum) is what has led to the most monstrous outcomes of the series of political experiments that have determined the characteristics of our societies."

https://medium.com/@allenkithowell/authoritarianism-versus-libertarianism-its-really-about-freedom-99ce466b5617

I don't believe in "lack of authority".  It's like dimension-less space...a chimera.  Even private contracts give and take authority, fcs.  As long as humans have expectations of one another, there is going to be some form of authority.  Political authority is just a variant.

As long as there is authority, there is going to be someone demanding that someone else do their bidding.  Politics is real, and cannot be wished away by utopian thinkers contemplating an atmosphere-less atmosphere of power.

Power will always be extant, and cannot be wished away.  As I say, I would rather have an open and obvious understanding of how to direct that power, in which I have some chance of a modicum of control.  Libertarianism is self-delusion...or worse.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:"Most political characterizations of people come down to liberal (collectivism) versus conservative (individualism) but we don’t speak enough about authority versus the lack of authority. Both rightists and leftists throughout history have ranged higher or lower on the authoritarianism scale and, when you think about it long enough, you realize that this characteristic more than any other (being high on the authority spectrum) is what has led to the most monstrous outcomes of the series of political experiments that have determined the characteristics of our societies."

https://medium.com/@allenkithowell/authoritarianism-versus-libertarianism-its-really-about-freedom-99ce466b5617

I don't believe in "lack of authority".  It's like dimension-less space...a chimera.  Even private contracts give and take authority, fcs.  As long as humans have expectations of one another, there is going to be some form of authority.  Political authority is just a variant.

As long as there is authority, there is going to be someone demanding that someone else do their bidding.  Politics is real, and cannot be wished away by utopian thinkers contemplating an atmosphere-less atmosphere of power.

Power will always be extant, and cannot be wished away.  As I say, I would rather have an open and obvious understanding of how to direct that power, in which I have some chance of a modicum of control.  Libertarianism is self-delusion...or worse.

Libertarianism is the polar opposite of authoritarianism.

I don't care what you'd rather have. You're an authoritarian collectivist. Own it and move on.

Just don't twist definitions.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't believe in "lack of authority".  It's like dimension-less space...a chimera.  Even private contracts give and take authority, fcs.  As long as humans have expectations of one another, there is going to be some form of authority.  Political authority is just a variant.

As long as there is authority, there is going to be someone demanding that someone else do their bidding.  Politics is real, and cannot be wished away by utopian thinkers contemplating an atmosphere-less atmosphere of power.

Power will always be extant, and cannot be wished away.  As I say, I would rather have an open and obvious understanding of how to direct that power, in which I have some chance of a modicum of control.  Libertarianism is self-delusion...or worse.

Libertarianism is the polar opposite of authoritarianism.

Libertarianism is the invitation for authoritarianism...or worse.

Maddog wrote:I don't care what you'd rather have. You're an authoritarian collectivist. Own it and move on.

Just don't twist definitions.

You were expecting a snowflake? Suck it up, whiner.

On the political spectrum, libertarianism is on the opposite end as authoritarianism.

That's not debatable, but an understood fact..

You can babble on all you like. I'll pop in to correct you now and then if need be.

Maddog wrote:On the political spectrum, libertarianism is on the opposite end as authoritarianism.

That's not debatable, but an understood fact..

Ehhh...maybe you need to rethink that. The point is that, with anarchy as well as libertarianism, both are a void waiting to be filled. With no government, or constitutional principles to guide people, more likely than not the void will be filled with amoral, if not immoral powers.

There is no world without rules. If I say of a person, I respect his integrity, it means I respect his word to do what he says he will do. Think about that. That is the authority created by 'his word'. Writ large, that's all that government is - a promise to keep your word. Government is a derivative of the concept of contracts.

Thus, if you reject government, you also reject contracts. It’s the same principle – both are dependent on the good word of the contractors. If you reject contracts, there can be no commercial relationships…indeed, without anyone’s good word, there can be no social relationships. So, a good and truthful libertarian would also reject commercial and social relationships.

Ungoverned people are drawn by their own interests, the common weal not even being recognized. So, what the libertarian is left with is HIMSELF – or, in other words, his self-interest. Even if you hypothesize an honest libertarian, inevitably there will come along another with dishonesty in his/her heart. S/he will begin to fill the void with socially infectious untruths, in order to motivate people in his or her advantage (think of advertising). If it is successful, s/he will increase his/her influence (think of market share). Whether you talk about ‘influence’ or ‘authority’ it’s the same thing: a demanding power will begin to fill the void.

What you have, then, is bad government – or government driven by the self-interest of one or a few individuals. Whereas, if you had started with a principled constitution – rules favoring everyone, equally and beneficially – you would have good government.

Libertarianism is a chimera. As I have shown, it inevitably falls to some sort of power-making, be it contract or political. It is contrary to human nature to not have agreements. You can have either good government, or bad government, but never will you have no government because eventually even agreements need government to enforce them (think Courts). And if you turn your back on the question of government, bad government will develop of its own course.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:On the political spectrum, libertarianism is on the opposite  end as authoritarianism.

That's not debatable, but an understood fact..

Ehhh...maybe you need to rethink that.  The point is that, with anarchy as well as libertarianism, both are a void waiting to be filled.  With no government, or constitutional principles to guide people, more likely than not the void will be filled with amoral, if not immoral powers.  

There is no world without rules.  If I say of a person, I respect his integrity, it means I respect his word to do what he says he will do.  Think about that.  That is the authority created by 'his word'.  Writ large, that's all that government is - a promise to keep your word.  Government is a derivative of the concept of contracts.

Thus, if you reject government, you also reject contracts.  It’s the same principle – both are dependent on the good word of the contractors.  If you reject contracts, there can be no commercial relationships…indeed, without anyone’s good word, there can be no social relationships.  So, a good and truthful libertarian would also reject commercial and social relationships.

Ungoverned people are drawn by their own interests, the common weal not even being recognized.  So, what the libertarian is left with is HIMSELF – or, in other words, his self-interest.  Even if you hypothesize an honest libertarian, inevitably there will come along another with dishonesty in his/her heart.  S/he will begin to fill the void with socially infectious untruths, in order to motivate people in his or her advantage (think of advertising).  If it is successful, s/he will increase his/her influence (think of market share).  Whether you talk about ‘influence’ or ‘authority’ it’s the same thing: a demanding power will begin to fill the void.

What you have, then, is bad government – or government driven by the self-interest of one or a few individuals.  Whereas, if you had started with a principled constitution – rules favoring everyone, equally and beneficially – you would have good government.

Libertarianism is a chimera.  As I have shown, it inevitably falls to some sort of power-making, be it contract or political.  It is contrary to human nature to not have agreements.  You can have either good government, or bad government, but never will you have no government because eventually even agreements need government to enforce them (think Courts).  And if you turn your back on the question of government, bad government will develop of its own course.

On the political spectrum, libertarianism is on the opposite end as authoritarianism.

That's not debatable, but an understood fact..

You can babble on all you like. I'll pop in to correct you now and then if need be.

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

Quill. Read more, type less. You will gain knowledge that way..

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Ehhh...maybe you need to rethink that.  The point is that, with anarchy as well as libertarianism, both are a void waiting to be filled.  With no government, or constitutional principles to guide people, more likely than not the void will be filled with amoral, if not immoral powers.  

There is no world without rules.  If I say of a person, I respect his integrity, it means I respect his word to do what he says he will do.  Think about that.  That is the authority created by 'his word'.  Writ large, that's all that government is - a promise to keep your word.  Government is a derivative of the concept of contracts.

Thus, if you reject government, you also reject contracts.  It’s the same principle – both are dependent on the good word of the contractors.  If you reject contracts, there can be no commercial relationships…indeed, without anyone’s good word, there can be no social relationships.  So, a good and truthful libertarian would also reject commercial and social relationships.

Ungoverned people are drawn by their own interests, the common weal not even being recognized.  So, what the libertarian is left with is HIMSELF – or, in other words, his self-interest.  Even if you hypothesize an honest libertarian, inevitably there will come along another with dishonesty in his/her heart.  S/he will begin to fill the void with socially infectious untruths, in order to motivate people in his or her advantage (think of advertising).  If it is successful, s/he will increase his/her influence (think of market share).  Whether you talk about ‘influence’ or ‘authority’ it’s the same thing: a demanding power will begin to fill the void.

What you have, then, is bad government – or government driven by the self-interest of one or a few individuals.  Whereas, if you had started with a principled constitution – rules favoring everyone, equally and beneficially – you would have good government.

Libertarianism is a chimera.  As I have shown, it inevitably falls to some sort of power-making, be it contract or political.  It is contrary to human nature to not have agreements.  You can have either good government, or bad government, but never will you have no government because eventually even agreements need government to enforce them (think Courts).  And if you turn your back on the question of government, bad government will develop of its own course.

On the political spectrum, libertarianism is on the opposite end as authoritarianism.

That's not debatable, but an understood fact..

But...by it's very weakness, as I have shown, libertarianism is an invitation to authoritarianism. That invitation is always, inevitably accepted...and so, the consequence of libertarianism is inevitably authoritarianism.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


On the political spectrum, libertarianism is on the opposite end as authoritarianism.

That's not debatable, but an understood fact..

But...by it's very weakness, as I have shown, libertarianism is an invitation to authoritarianism.  That invitation is always, inevitably accepted...and so, the consequence of libertarianism is inevitably authoritarianism.

This has nothing to do with your opinion of its effectiveness.

It's simply stating a fact. Authoritarianism is the polar opposite of libertarianism. You're ramblings don't change that well documented fact throughout political science and academia..

So stop professor..

Maddog wrote:"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

Quill. Read more, type less. You will gain knowledge that way..

Red, THINK more for yourself; copy the thoughts of others less. Libertarianism may aspire to maximize personal freedom, but by doing nothing it is a huge vacuum that sucks in authoritarianism.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But...by it's very weakness, as I have shown, libertarianism is an invitation to authoritarianism.  That invitation is always, inevitably accepted...and so, the consequence of libertarianism is inevitably authoritarianism.

This has nothing to do with your opinion of its effectiveness.

It's simply stating a fact. Authoritarianism is the polar opposite of libertarianism.

What "effectiveness"?  By it's very nature libertarianism is impotent - it is non-government, remember?  It may be the antithesis of authoritarianism, but that doesn't mean that authoritarianism isn't right around the corner.  That huge sucking sound is libertarianism, inviting in authoritarianism.

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

Quill. Read more, type less. You will gain knowledge that way..

Maddog wrote:"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

Quill. Read more, type less. You will gain knowledge that way..

Redneck...think more; quote less.  They should call you Dumb and Dumber! Don't depend on others to do your thinking for you.  Your repetition is telling: you're avoiding cerebral activity, either because you have no confidence in your own ability, or because you are afraid that Libertarianism might not be as well thought-out as you would like.

There's a story about a woman who took a wood sculpting class.  She had her chisel and she had a block of wood.  She sat, thinking and thinking about what she would make...and thought, and thought, and thought.  Finally, the instructor came up and asked her what she was doing.  She said she was thinking about what she should sculpt and how to do it...but she couldn't decide...and...but she was thinking about it, and...

Finally the instructor said: Make a pile of chips, fgs!  It's the same with you...you'll never be able to defend libertarianism unless you begin by making a pile of chips.

Now...we know that libertarianism leaves a void...a vacuum in which no one has power.  That attracts you.  But, mark my word, nature abhors a vacuum.  That attracts a lot of people, because it leaves open infinite possibilities - including, for someone, the possibility of creating an authoritarian political system in which ‘he’/‘she’ or ‘they’ are the despot.  And, OMG, there's no government in place to stop them!  I promise you, if some god came along and made a libertarian world, a dictatorship is what you would get.

Constitutionalists have anticipated your problem.  They say, write down your principles of association before you construct whatever government you wish.  So, our founders wrote down what they wanted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

That was their mission statement.  Thereafter, they went about constructing the details, and created a constitution.  In deference to your libertarian view, they wrote a system of check and balances…in which any legislation would have to undergo rigorous scrutiny before becoming law.  Now, you may not agree with every detail – who does – but it creates something that would preclude someone recreating another dictatorship.

Because, as I’ve said, nature abhors a vacuum.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

Quill. Read more, type less. You will gain knowledge that way..

Redneck...think more; quote less.  They should call you Dumb and Dumber!  Don't depend on others to do your thinking for you.  Your repetition is telling: you're avoiding cerebral activity, either because you have no confidence in your own ability, or because you are afraid that Libertarianism might not be as well thought-out as you would like.

There's a story about a woman who took a wood sculpting class.  She had her chisel and she had a block of wood.  She sat, thinking and thinking about what she would make...and thought, and thought, and thought.  Finally, the instructor came up and asked her what she was doing.  She said she was thinking about what she should sculpt and how to do it...but she couldn't decide...and...but she was thinking about it, and...

Finally the instructor said: Make a pile of chips, fgs!  It's the same with you...you'll never be able to defend libertarianism unless you begin by making a pile of chips.

Now...we know that libertarianism leaves a void...a vacuum in which no one has power.  That attracts you.  But, mark my word, nature abhors a vacuum.  That attracts a lot of people, because it leaves open infinite possibilities - including, for someone, the possibility of creating an authoritarian political system in which ‘he’/‘she’ or ‘they’ are the despot.  And, OMG, there's no government in place to stop them!  I promise you, if some god came along and made a libertarian world, a dictatorship is what you would get.

Constitutionalists have anticipated your problem.  They say, write down your principles of association before you construct whatever government you wish.  So, our founders wrote down what they wanted: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

That was their mission statement.  Thereafter, they went about constructing the details, and created a constitution.  In deference to your libertarian view, they wrote a system of check and balances…in which any legislation would have to undergo rigorous scrutiny before becoming law.  Now, you may not agree with every detail – who does – but it creates something that would preclude someone recreating another dictatorship.

Because, as I’ve said, nature abhors a vacuum.

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

Quill. Read more, type less. You will gain knowledge that way..

Original Quill wrote:

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."


So learn this widely understood concept, so that we can move on. I'm not interested in your theories, if you cant understand basic political science.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

So learn this widely understood concept, so that we can move on. I'm not interested in your theories, if you cant understand basic political science.  

If you learn to think for yourself, you could break through barriers. Original thought...what a concept!

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

So learn this widely understood concept, so that we can move on. I'm not interested in your theories, if you cant understand basic political science.  

If you learn to think for yourself, you could break through barriers.  Original thought...what a concept!

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."


This is about understanding a concept.

Do you understand it yet?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If you learn to think for yourself, you could break through barriers.  Original thought...what a concept!

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

This is about understanding a concept.

Do you understand it yet?

No answer? Thought not. Well, we can put this issue to rest and go on to the next.

Who do you think will cave on the Infrastructure Bill? Manchin or the liberal caucus in the House?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

"The other axis (authoritarian–libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed. The United States Republican Party, for example, would sit in the top right section of the compass as they support market freedom and a doctrine of law and order."

This is about understanding a concept.

Do you understand it yet?

No answer?  Thought not.  Well, we can put this issue to rest and go on to the next.

Who do you think will cave on the Infrastructure Bill?  Manchin or the liberal caucus in the House?

It will be an authoritarian.

A concept that escapes you.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No answer?  Thought not.  Well, we can put this issue to rest and go on to the next.

Who do you think will cave on the Infrastructure Bill?  Manchin or the liberal caucus in the House?

It will be an authoritarian.

A concept that escapes you.  

Hahaha...well, you're not very good at advancing the conversation, yourself.

I'm not the one who refuses to recognize the seeds of authoritarianism in your utopian, so-called libertarian state. Somewhat like the ostrich who sticks his head in the sand...rather than like me, who admits the possibility.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It will be an authoritarian.

A concept that escapes you.  

Hahaha...well, you're not very good at advancing the conversation, yourself.

I'm not the one who refuses to recognize the seeds of authoritarianism in your utopian, so-called libertarian state.  Somewhat like the ostrich who sticks his head in the sand...rather than like me, who admits the possibility.

So we need authoritarianism to protect us from libertarianism that may turn into authoritarianism.

Gotcha.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hahaha...well, you're not very good at advancing the conversation, yourself.

I'm not the one who refuses to recognize the seeds of authoritarianism in your utopian, so-called libertarian state.  Somewhat like the ostrich who sticks his head in the sand...rather than like me, who admits the possibility.

So we need authoritarianism to protect us from libertarianism that may turn into authoritarianism.

Gotcha.

No, we need an informed constitutional democracy - mutually agreed upon self-government - to protect us from authoritarians, who otherwise would take advantage of the naïveté and guilelessness of libertarianism.

Every nation-building experiment conducted by the United States in the past 60 years or so has proven that power doesn't ignore a vaccuum. If you topple one leader, another leader will spring up, particularly in a place that has a culture that is used to strongman leaders.

At their extreme/purest forms, libertarianism and communism leave a vaccuum at the top, waiting for an amoral person or entity to seize the unoccupied throne.

That's why the only realistic solution for governance is to fix the throne itself -- to divide powers up among as many entities as possible, to make those entities subject to election and recall, and to not allow their positions to become a path to riches.

On a completely different note, it's really hard to label Communist dictators as left-wing by the modern definition. Outside of redistribution of wealth, none of these leaders had any interest in the values of the modern left such as multiculturalism, freedom of speech and thought, racial equality, gay rights, women's rights, etc., etc.

They were so different from the modern left as to make comparisons pointless -- comparing the two is like comparing the original Republican Party, which wanted to end slavery in order to even the economic playing field, with the modern GOP, which has no interest in levelling any playing fields whatsoever.

Ben Reilly wrote:Every nation-building experiment conducted by the United States in the past 60 years or so has proven that power doesn't ignore a vaccuum. If you topple one leader, another leader will spring up, particularly in a place that has a culture that is used to strongman leaders.

At their extreme/purest forms, libertarianism and communism leave a vaccuum at the top, waiting for an amoral person or entity to seize the unoccupied throne.

That's why the only realistic solution for governance is to fix the throne itself -- to divide powers up among as many entities as possible, to make those entities subject to election and recall, and to not allow their positions to become a path to riches.

On a completely different note, it's really hard to label Communist dictators as left-wing by the modern definition. Outside of redistribution of wealth, none of these leaders had any interest in the values of the modern left such as multiculturalism, freedom of speech and thought, racial equality, gay rights, women's rights, etc., etc.

They were so different from the modern left as to make comparisons pointless -- comparing the two is like comparing the original Republican Party, which wanted to end slavery in order to even the economic playing field, with the modern GOP, which has no interest in levelling any playing fields whatsoever.

The left, nor the right has to be authoritarian by nature.

It's all about force and control.

And that can and has come from Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

We have seen it in Trump. Biden? Nothing yet.

Original Quill wrote:We have seen it in Trump.  Biden?  Nothing yet.

Biden hasn't issued mandates?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:We have seen it in Trump.  Biden?  Nothing yet.

Biden hasn't issued mandates?

Democrats are the more egalitarian party, far less motivated by self-interest. What are the major legislative/mandate accomplishments of both parties? Democrats = health, safety, equality; Republicans = tax-cuts, privatization and deregulation.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Biden hasn't issued mandates?

Democrats are the more egalitarian party, far less motivated by self-interest.  What are the major legislative/mandate accomplishments of both parties?  Democrats = health, safety, equality; Republicans = tax-cuts, privatization and deregulation.  

Are Biden's mandates voluntary?

Yes or no will suffice.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Democrats are the more egalitarian party, far less motivated by self-interest.  What are the major legislative/mandate accomplishments of both parties?  Democrats = health, safety, equality; Republicans = tax-cuts, privatization and deregulation.  

Are Biden's mandates voluntary?

Yes or no will suffice.  

Haha...are you an asshole?  A nod will suffice.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are Biden's mandates voluntary?

Yes or no will suffice.  

Haha...are you an asshole?  A nod will suffice.  

Yes.