It appears that you are misinterpreting the form of my argument because you don’t understand how people who aren’t authoritarian can hold an opinion of their own while it also being valid generally because we don’t need to impose them on others, its authority comes from its truth not who I am, which is why you also fail to understand the retort. Thus, my opinion is good enough for me. Only you think it’s backpedaling to point out what should be obvious.
If you’re so keen on educating yourself then you should start with Orwell and move on to J S Mill.
> authoritarianism and totalitarianism are perfectly acceptable views if people work in particular academic and political circles and mask it in the 'better regulation'
Or, just to be devils advocate, maybe people just want better regulation and not authoritarianism or totalitarianism.
His argument is essentially that the lack of authoritarian control is less authoritarian than no authoritarian control. I'm not sure how someone holds such an opinion when its falsehood is self-evident.
> People should learn to be more humble and reject the desire for authority.
Authoritarianism is a horrible force in the world. But it does not mean that ego does not exist, even in fighting against authority. Ego tells you to fight.
One needs an ego to know that authoritarians should be pushed back, walls should be torn down not constructed.
Awareness of ego is the first step in rejecting authority telling you what to do. Authoritarians have their ego tightly coupled to self, and don't realize it is an abstraction of self.
Authority should always be questioned and never trusted because the world operates on self-interest, that is the nature of the game.
> Being uncompromising in your politics and values is hardly authoritarian
In general, yes, but in this particular case it is clearly "I am the Law!" case - he's being authoritarian. And your next two sentences pretty much confirm that, even if you dismiss it with "they knew he was an authoritarian when they joined" and "he's been an authoritarian for a long time". Maybe true, but doesn't make it better.
>"Not everyone thinks authoritarianism is morally wrong"
The people who don't find authoritarianism morally wrong are generally elites who enjoy privilege on account of their being ranking members of that authoritarian regime.
Can you provide any examples of a 21st century authoritarian regimes where this hasn't been true? Mugabe? Bouteflika? Quaddafi? Assad? I don't think so.
I've heard similarly inconsistent statements from Ivan Stang (Church of the Subgenius) and Robert Anton Wilson, whom I'd have not expected it from. I suppose anti-authoritarianism stops being appealing as you progress from most of your life being being in front of you to most of it being behind you.
> It is not an objective truth that non-authoritarianism > authoritarianism. That's just, like, an opinion, man.
Shakespeare > Marlowe is just an opinion.
reply