What is the difference between Libertarian and Authoritarian?

Here are three brilliant explanations of what is the difference between an authoritarian and a libertarian.







Are you authoritarian or libertarian? Do you want government to control other people with force and violence? Do you want for someone or group of someones to have a monopoly of power? Do you believe in privacy,self-ownership,inherent human rights and not controlling other people's lives?

What is the difference between Libertarian and Authoritarian?

Complete diametric opposites ?
Peace

a reply to: Gothmog

I liked your old avatar more .. just saying

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

it's all illusive...

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Gothmog

I liked your old avatar more .. just saying

This one is my original avatar . Bigger , Meaner , and Uglier. Me to a T. In fact , if I remember right , it is a selfie

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Gothmog

I liked your old avatar more .. just saying

This one is my original avatar . Bigger , Meaner , and Uglier. Me to a T. In fact , if I remember right , it is a selfie

Ok then in that case I Love It!!!

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I remember the quote: "Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment".......

originally posted by: tommo39
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I remember the quote: "Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment".......

That quote is only accurate every other decade. Then it reverses

Liberalism was the conservative tenant. It came from Locke and the empericists. Then conservatives became fiscal conservatives and took over the liberal meaning. Then some progressives were " Republicans" like T.Roosevelt. Now the "conservatives" are every bit as authoritarian if not more than the liberals. The Republican party since JFK and the fight to keep a Catholic out of the white house created the religeous right. 5he religeous right pretty much control the Republican party policy. All of it authoritarian. Liberals use socialism as there authoritarian platform.

It's the Cincinnati shuffle.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: tommo39
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I remember the quote: "Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment".......

That quote is only accurate every other decade. Then it reverses

Liberalism was the conservative tenant. It came from Locke and the empericists. Then conservatives became fiscal conservatives and took over the liberal meaning. Then some progressives were " Republicans" like T.Roosevelt. Now the "conservatives" are every bit as authoritarian if not more than the liberals. The Republican party since JFK and the fight to keep a Catholic out of the white house created the religeous right. 5he religeous right pretty much control the Republican party policy. All of it authoritarian. Liberals use socialism as there authoritarian platform.

It's the Cincinnati shuffle.

Good post, highlights very well the complaint I often make about our political discourse having been poisoned and the English language bastardized by the same.

OP- Great thread. People are stuck in this mode of identifying themselves in a false dichotomy, a fraudulently one-dimensonal scale on which to identify someone's varying levels of "leftness" or "rightness". It's silly and simplified to the point of being useless.

The 2 axis political compass scale (I'm sure there is a legitimate term for this scale, I dont know it) from www.politicalcompass.org is much closer to the truth, IMO. It measures your leftness and rightness in terms of economics, and your authoritarianism/libertarianism based on social issues.

If any members have not taken the test here, I highly recommend it.

originally posted by: Gothmog

What is the difference between Libertarian and Authoritarian?

Peace

I don't know if you were saying this the way I initially interpreted or if that's just how you were signing off.

Either way, I think you summed up one of, if not the, key difference(s) between the two quite beautifully. And in one word, no less.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Neither extreme makes for a livable, sustainable society. Libertarianism becomes anarchy, which allows the strong to exploit the weak. In order to retain their gains, the strong turn authoritarian. An authoritarian society is not only oppressive, it is inflexible. This is why totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union eventually collapse... into anarchy, and the cycle repeats.

A stable society requires democratic institutions, the rule of law, and well regulated free markets. Toleration, mutual respect, freedom of expression, and community service are also necessary. Neither Libertarianism nor Authoritarianism can provide these conditions. Liberal democracy, which as even Hayek acknowledged, can include "socialist" institutions, is the most livable option.

outsider vs insider

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Neither extreme makes for a livable, sustainable society. Libertarianism becomes anarchy, which allows the strong to exploit the weak. In order to retain their gains, the strong turn authoritarian. An authoritarian society is not only oppressive, it is inflexible. This is why totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union eventually collapse... into anarchy, and the cycle repeats.

A stable society requires democratic institutions, the rule of law, and well regulated free markets. Toleration, mutual respect, freedom of expression, and community service are also necessary. Neither Libertarianism nor Authoritarianism can provide these conditions. Liberal democracy, which as even Hayek acknowledged, can include "socialist" institutions, is the most livable option.

This. So many times this.

Wish I could star your post a million times, sir/ma'am. I feel like I've been trying to make this very point the past couple days in various threads but failing to articulate it as eloquently as you have here. This is exactly as I see things, put into words better than I ever could.

a reply to: atomish

Thank you.

originally posted by: tommo39
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

I remember the quote: "Fear is at the core of liberalism, and love/trust is at the core of conservatism. Liberalism is about control. Conservatism is about self-empowerment".......

Pretty sure that quote was from when conservatism was conservatism, before it became Liberalism bred with Fascism. It was once true. Now people think people like George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and Pat Robertson are conservatives LOL!!

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Neither extreme makes for a livable, sustainable society. Libertarianism becomes anarchy,libertarianism is a vast umbrella of doctrines.Anarchism is just one family of libertarian doctrines. Anarchism is a pure/ideal form of libertarianism. which allows the strong to exploit the weak.Anarchism is not strong taking advantage of the weak. That is what authoritarianism is. In order to retain their gains, the strong turn authoritarian.true An authoritarian society is not only oppressive, it is inflexible. This is why totalitarian states like Nazi Germanyfascist nationalistic authoritarian craphole and the Soviet UnionSocialist authoritarian craphole eventually collapse... into anarchyfalse.They instituted another new power structure in the place of the old power structure. The new power struction was not based on the NAP nor did it have no rulers. So no it was not textbook anarchism. Nice try., and the cycle repeats.Nope.

A stable society requires democratic institutionsA dictatorship of the majority, the rule of law,libertarians are not against laws and rule of law and well regulated free markets.who regulates the regulators? How do you keep the powerful from hijacking the regulation? you authoritarian have failed at that badly Tolerationlibertarians are the most tolerant, mutual respect,ok check freedom of expression,Libertarians are for freedom of expression and community servicecheck are also necessary. Neither Libertarianism nor Authoritarianism can provide these conditions.Wrong. Liberal democracy, which as even Hayek acknowledged, can include "socialist" institutions, is the most livable option.

Social welfare institutions can be voluntarily funded by the community and don't need the state to steal from people to exist.

You have a warped view of what a libertarian is.
-Against the monopoly of force/power/rule in a group of people or person.
-Against the initialization of force.
-We don't hate the poor.
-We are for inherent human rights
-We are don't work for the fortune 500.
-We are for social welfare just not through the state and funded voluntarily
-We are for personal freedom
-We are for extremely decentralized power.
-We are for empowering the individual.
-Against coercive violence
-Against involuntary taxes
-Against centralized power.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Neither extreme makes for a livable, sustainable society. Libertarianism becomes anarchy,libertarianism is a vast umbrella of doctrines.Anarchism is just one family of libertarian doctrines. Anarchism is a pure/ideal form of libertarianism. which allows the strong to exploit the weak.Anarchism is not strong taking advantage of the weak. That is what authoritarianism is. In order to retain their gains, the strong turn authoritarian.true An authoritarian society is not only oppressive, it is inflexible. This is why totalitarian states like Nazi Germanyfascist nationalistic authoritarian craphole and the Soviet UnionSocialist authoritarian craphole eventually collapse... into anarchyfalse.They instituted another new power structure in the place of the old power structure. The new power struction was not based on the NAP nor did it have no rulers. So no it was not textbook anarchism. Nice try., and the cycle repeats.Nope.

A stable society requires democratic institutionsA dictatorship of the majority, the rule of law,libertarians are not against laws and rule of law and well regulated free markets.who regulates the regulators? How do you keep the powerful from hijacking the regulation? you authoritarian have failed at that badly Tolerationlibertarians are the most tolerant, mutual respect,ok check freedom of expression,Libertarians are for freedom of expression and community servicecheck are also necessary. Neither Libertarianism nor Authoritarianism can provide these conditions.Wrong. Liberal democracy, which as even Hayek acknowledged, can include "socialist" institutions, is the most livable option.

Social welfare institutions can be voluntarily funded by the community and don't need the state to steal from people to exist.

You have a warped view of what a libertarian is.
-Against the monopoly of force/power/rule in a group of people or person.
-Against the initialization of force.
-We don't hate the poor.
-We are for inherent human rights
-We are don't work for the fortune 500.
-We are for social welfare just not through the state and funded voluntarily
-We are for personal freedom
-We are for extremely decentralized power.
-We are for empowering the individual.
-Against coercive violence
-Against involuntary taxes
-Against centralized power.

I agree that it more aligns to what you have shared.

Libertarianism doesn't strive to become anarchy. Not that I fully support some parts of it.

a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Social welfare institutions can be voluntarily funded by the community and don't need the state to steal from people to exist.

Historically, these welfare institutions have been funded by the church, which extorted the funds as mandatory tithes.

You have a warped view of what a libertarian is.

You seem to have distaste for democratic institutions and belie your respect for the rule of law with the phrase "who regulates the regulators?"

-Against the monopoly of force/power/rule in a group of people or person.

Unless, of course, you are the one possessing it.

-Against the initialization of force.

Unless, of course, it is necessary.

-We don't hate the poor.

You just don't feel obliged to help them in any way.

-We are for inherent human rights

Which are the rights that you feel you are owed, but not which you owe to others.

-We are don't work for the fortune 500.

But you strive to join them.

-We are for social welfare just not through the state and funded voluntarily

In other words, you don't want to help anyone if you don't feel like it.

-We are for personal freedom

At least your own freedom. Since you do not believe in "the initialization of force," it would be against your principles to liberate others.

-We are for extremely decentralized power.

Which is a polite way of saying you want more power than the state, institutions, or the rest of society (and humanity) in general. This, incidentally, brings you to the slippery slope of anarchy.

-We are for empowering the individual.

Unless other individuals are more empowered than you.

-Against coercive violence

Which is why you need guns, right?

-Against involuntary taxes

If you never want to pay your fair share, all taxes are involuntary.

-Against centralized power.

Unless, of course, you're the boss.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate Libertarian ideals. The problem is, to be blunt, that Ayn Rand wrote fiction. Most people are not Nietzschean supermen who can forge a mighty financial empire out of nothing. Nine out of ten businesses fail within one year, which means that a "nation of entrepreneurs" is a nation of failures. The modern liberal democratic nation state is the product of a thousand years of evolution, It has acquired the features it has in order to place a check on the excesses and abuses that occur in the absence of clearly defined laws and business and social practices.

The scorn and contempt that you heaped on my description of a functional, achievable, society brings to mind the old adage: "An Anarchist is a Monarchist who had the misfortune not to be born a king."

ETA: If you don't think that the absence of strong institutions-- anarchy-- allows the strong to exploit the weak, you have no clue about human nature and history. You might want to read some Hobbes. (Not that I endorse his views, but you have to admit that there is something to Nature being "red in tooth and claw.")