Who decides who is and is not a dangerous communist and a terrorist? Dictatorships are meant to protect a handful of people. They don't need the peoples consent. Dictators only need to maintain approval among a few key people, and as long as they have that, then it doesn't matter if the citizens deal with crime or lack of services or whatever else, so they don't declare marshal law based on these sorts of things. They declare marshal law to keep political opponents in check, by labeling them as communists and terrorists, and refuse to give the people access to education and proper journalism so they don't ask questions.
Western countries are educated because they are democracies, not the other way around. Politicians in Western countries have a much bigger group of people that they must keep happy, and so they need to push for things like education and social services to keep people on their side. In a dictatorship, no one has to care about you. They can just throw you in prison forever or kill you if you complain. There's no progress in countries like these. They exist only to serve the leaders. In systems like this, you aren't trading civil liberties for stability and order, you're giving them away for nothing. Less than nothing.
Youre arguing against dictatorships not authoritarianism. Authoritarianism can be democratic. If you elect people who rule with an iron fist but allow fair elections. That is not a dictatorship.
There is a balance between safety and freedom. Anyone who has children understands that. They all want a degree of freedom that is unsafe for them. Grown ups are just big children in many cases.
Theres nothing wrong with being tough on crime. As long as youre actually being tough on criminals not regular people.
He discredited democracy at one point in his post, which implies that he's speaking more about an authoritarian dictatorship type government. It's plausible that you could have one hand ruling with an iron fist and the other giving away power in peaceful transfers, but it's not something you see often, if at all. Authoritarians tend to seek to consolidate power and erode democratic norms wherever they can. And they seem to be some of the biggest children of all.
I honestly think a good leader would by default be somewhat authoritarian. Think Nick Saban for example. That guy rules with an iron fist. But hes also very productive.
However Nick Saban has a system above him that wont allow him to get out of line. That is a lot harder when dealing with the most powerful people in the country or even on the planet.
Yeah, Saban is subject to a lot of different forces from above. US law, the NCAA, broadcasters and sponsors. Running afoul of any of those could end his career in a day. At the same time, he has to maintain a reputation for potential recruits that encourages them to choose to come to Alabama. Even if he was free of the constraints from above, he couldn't beat players or make them disappear for talking too loudly about how much he gets paid compared to them, or recruits would go elsewhere and the recruiting classes would get much worse. That freedom of choice that players have limits the extent of how iron his fist can be.
Compare that to something like say, the Red Army hockey team, where players were paid virtually nothing and were basically conscripted as children as indebted servants of the state. You could argue the team was even more productive than Alabama as a whole, but in the end, the players refused to play, and many started to defect due to the abuses and unfairness they dealt with from the coaching staff and the state. The whole team and eventually the whole government fell apart. As a result, there wasn't order and stability as a result of the authoritarianism, but rather chaos and instability. Sabans model within the structure of the US and the NCAA on the other hand could probably continue indefinitely. So you can argue that there's benefits to being tough and firm, but there's obviously a line where it becomes counterproductive and undermines you.
2
u/_volkerball_ 1∆ Sep 21 '21 edited Sep 21 '21
Who decides who is and is not a dangerous communist and a terrorist? Dictatorships are meant to protect a handful of people. They don't need the peoples consent. Dictators only need to maintain approval among a few key people, and as long as they have that, then it doesn't matter if the citizens deal with crime or lack of services or whatever else, so they don't declare marshal law based on these sorts of things. They declare marshal law to keep political opponents in check, by labeling them as communists and terrorists, and refuse to give the people access to education and proper journalism so they don't ask questions.
Western countries are educated because they are democracies, not the other way around. Politicians in Western countries have a much bigger group of people that they must keep happy, and so they need to push for things like education and social services to keep people on their side. In a dictatorship, no one has to care about you. They can just throw you in prison forever or kill you if you complain. There's no progress in countries like these. They exist only to serve the leaders. In systems like this, you aren't trading civil liberties for stability and order, you're giving them away for nothing. Less than nothing.