I strongly disagree. If anything authoritarianism seems to cater to the infantile-minded. After all, they're looking for a big daddy to tell everyone what to do, rather than taking personal responsibility like an adult.Originally Posted by Muddy
I strongly disagree. If anything authoritarianism seems to cater to the infantile-minded. After all, they're looking for a big daddy to tell everyone what to do, rather than taking personal responsibility like an adult.
In the last decades, politics and subsequently governance, have become a "marketplace for pop worldviews" in which politicians can appeal to the lowest common denominator and idiosyncrasies. This hasn't anything to do with infantilism but rather with widespread distrust/disdain in institutions(church, science, media, legislative apparatus, UN....) causing them to be neglected/undermined in the last decades. Individualism as a characteristic of neoliberal economies has aggravated this problem of course
Authoritarian or not, Muddy's views are increasingly evident among young people. There's broad support for bigger government among the young, and the likely reason is that the current system hasn't worked for them. I see increasingly more envy of China's progressive industrialism and tighter social contract, whereby the government takes a paternalistic role in uplifting the lives of its citizens.
That cheaper iPhone doesn't make up for the 1.57 trillion dollars in outstanding student loans; that you live in a country with poor healthcare and poor infrastructure; that your dead-end job doesn't offer a sense of progress; that your future is being gambled with due to inaction on global climate change, and that you'll be forced to accept a lower quality of life as a result.
It's easy to talk about rugged individualism when your school tuition cost $100; when your well-paying job provides decent health coverage; and when you could have a predictably upwardly-mobile career path straight out of highschool.
The G.I. generation also embraced bigger government as a solution to the great depression; they helped to create the vast government infrastructure that's currently being torn down. Wanting their lives to be better, and for their country to work well, didn't make them more irresponsible. It certainly didn't make them any more infantile than the current generation in power.
Last edited by xerx; 01-21-2021 at 01:34 AM. Reason: fixed a word
Hmm, not sure we're entirely talking about the same thing. When I talk about authoritarianism, I'm going by the dictionary definition "Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom." Forming a government program doesn't fit that bill, unless it's mandatory and there's no way to opt out of it. I see authoritarianism as being directly opposed to the Bill of Rights. I see it as an infringement on personal autonomy, creating drones and slaves to a system or person.
You didn't mention this, but also I do not see having a set of laws that everyone must abide by as authoritarian either, unless those laws are draconian impositions that prevent a person's free exercise of their rights. Laws and limits are necessary for a functional society. Some of those antitrust laws we already have are currently being heard by courts, which is a step in the right direction imo. I'm fine with rule by law if the laws are just. If they are unjust, then we change them. I'm not okay with rule by tyrant or rule by mob, as those both have disastrous results.
I agree that we should break up large corporations.
It's cartoonishly clear that much attention is paid to governmental predominance, whereas too little is paid to unsought corporate influence over daily life; that is, unless it conflicts with certain political interests, as in the case of social media. Large corporations form an opaque shadow government, and any truly 'Classical Liberal' thesis ought to start with this observation.
I would personally go further by banning the hereditary transfer of capital. We're quite familiar with the pitfalls of hereditary ownership of political office, even given the fact that politicians worked exceptionally hard to acquire their status, continue to work hard to pass laws, and are 'job creators' in their own right: politicians grease the wheels of bureaucracy for the economic benefits of their constituents, a bureaucracy that exists out of necessity to oversee the conflicting interests of millions of people.
Yet no one, with the exception of a smattering of monarchists, suggests (at least openly) a scheme to allow the hereditary transfer of political capital. It's scandalous enough that there are political dynasties like the Bushes and the Clintons.
Last edited by xerx; 01-31-2021 at 02:34 AM. Reason: whitespace change
Indeed, Americans equate freedom with capitalism, when really, capitalism only gives freedom to capital-owners. In our society, we check our hard-won civil rights at the door every time we go to work. The private sector owner class are basically private lords who can control and manipulate the lives of their employees (subjects), at their leisure. We need workplace democracy and worker-ownership.
The biggest beneficiaries of this scheme are the would-be inheritors of capital themselves. Instead of inheriting it, having to work hard to gain their status would make them better people; not only morally, but also in the realm of self-discipline, self-control, and intelligence. Hard work develops character.
People whose fortunes are secured from the start, who are overly sheltered and never given the chance to fail, develop fewer strategies for dealing with the real world. Because of the freedom to gratify any appetite, they're trained to become shallow and materialistic in ways that develop frivolity and self-indulgence; regrettably, in many cases, against resilient and stoic natural tendencies. We have indentured labour whereas they have indentured narcissism.
When they become leaders, they're less effective at handling crises or dealing with change, to their own detriment as well as everyone else's.
Last edited by xerx; 02-09-2021 at 12:35 AM. Reason: reverted wording to original
Absolutely. Socialism is much closer to a meritocracy in this way. If everybody starts from the same place and everybody owns their own labor, then groups of laborers could "elect a leader" from among themselves who shows promise and who would be the best leader. Its democracy taken to its logical extreme.
I’ve been saying for a long time that we need another Huey Long.
Which reminds me of something I read recently....
Student loans have placed enormous burdens on poorer households, especially minorities, who don't have the best employment opportunities, even after graduating. A lot of student debt is held by people who dropped out of college altogether, making their prospects even bleaker. According to the Roosevelt Institute, African Americans are among the worst-affected. link
I like to follow this progressive economist, who makes the case against student loans. link.
Being saddled with debt makes it a riskier proposition to start a new business. Student loans have also helped to push up the price of college, since it has allowed colleges to charge more.
Student loan forgiveness is, however, a tricky subject. Among other things, there's the element of moral hazard — of students taking more loans on purpose, knowing that they'll never have to pay for them. He goes on to argue for better ways to finance higher education.
Let's make families pay for High School.
That's a good joke, but I'd rather take it as a sad commentary on today's politics. Because you just know that someone in some think-tank would love to make it the case.
The question is, why is HS free to students but college is not?
this might be relevant to the discourse on '(radical) openness'. education reform is quite something.
Because if it weren't free and mandatory, some of these young folks wouldn't go to school, and we have so much to teach them.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote