EU countries generally aren't authoritarian regimes, and it's easier to argue that it wouldn't be as likely to be abused in the EU. The countries also have legislation and other controls to curb abuses of powers granted to the authorities. It may not be 100% but it's different than in an authoritarian regime where curtailing dissent seems like an obvious goal, not just a potential and somewhat unlikely side effect.
With that said, it still always seems shortsighted to me to abandon fundamental principles for circumstantial or narrow gains.
That's kind of the point I was going for in my (post-edit) comment. EU countries are broadly very free countries, totally and qualitatively unlike the authoritarian exemplars. The threat of shutting down social media to quench anti-government protests, specifically, is very, very like parallel examples from repressive dictatorships. It's a thought-terminating cliche to erase this second observation by overwriting it with the first.
I don't understand your point. I agree the law is more restrictive in Europe, but not restrictive in ways that limit my freedom in ways that matter to me.
I was questioning why you see it as authoritarian. Are you saying that any law is authoritarian?
Maybe that's the point? It's hard to be authoritarian if people can rebel. Some EU politicians (Verhofstadt) have been talking about the "European Empire".
Of course, but both of them can be true at the same time. I wouldn't call either of those countries an authoritarian regime, but they've both moved several steps in that direction.
Your parent said: "disagree with the EU when the EU points these things out". And that definitely happened, the EU has been saying "we're concerned about that" for a while now, and the only response has been "nah, it's fine".
I mean, yeah, being against those in power isn't a good idea in authoritarian regimes. At the same time, people describe living in former east germany as the most easy-going / carefree time of their life. Being taken care of as long as you do as your told isn't all bad and probably was the default state of the smaller communities in the past. Whish we would find ways to achieve this without the authoritarian aspects.
> favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom
This currently describes a lot of European countries. The proponents will make the argument that this is only "temporary authoritarianism" in the pursuit of "safety", but we've seen how that works out before.
Believe me, I fully see your point. However, in the biggest examples we've seen so far, like the communist Russia and China, the ideals of equality were trampled almost as quickly as they were declared. And their biggest differentiator, as declared by them, was that they were communist.
You don't really get the same level of authoritarian in the so called capitalism or "modern democracy" because in order for this model to thrive, you need to have sound relations with other democratic/"capitalistic" countries and they won't trade with you if you don't obey certain standards.
A good example is what is happening in Hungary and Poland now: after the right took over they decided to make a more or less gradual switch to an authoritarian regime, taking over the courts, media etc. But their EU partners said, if you follow this road, you will not get money form the EU anymore. So apart the war in Ukraine, this is the biggest discussion in the EU now.
I lived in a authoritarian country and think that you are now doing yourself a slippery slope fallacy. I'm also very sorry about what is happening to your country, but the material (sources and distribution of wealth and power) and cultural circumstances of European countries are so much different that the patterns you are seeing might not apply here.
It wouldn't be so much about the rights themselves being authoritarian, but that opening up the framework for renegotiation would weaken existing norms. You could, for instance, almost be certain that some countries would like to put more limits to freedom of expression.
I'm not saying that it isn't authoritarian (in my Libertarian book most western countries including the US and most of the supranational EU organisms are authoritarian to some degree)...
I'm saying that "authoritarian" doesn't equal "dictatorship".
I agree it's not the point. It is one of many root causes though. It's a very interesting root cause because that economical situation gives authoritarian regimes, as you call them, the power to be authoritarian.
As an aside, while I used to be hugely concerned about this state of affairs, I am less so now. Maybe because I'm older and know a lot more than I used to. They may have the ability to "punish anyone", but not everyone. And while it is becoming more common in the EU, it is already fact in the US.
My reality is that I am unwilling to do anything about this situation, because I'm already devoting my time to other things - things I know I can influence. If I'm unwilling to do anything, I'm also technically disqualifying myself from advocating a course of action.
I think its more related to authoritarianism than communism, as same could be said for dictatorships. Authoritarianism gifts both a reason for dissent and the ability to purge it.
Compare and contrast with a parlimentary democracy running a heavily capitalist economic system. While it gives plenty of reason for dissent it also provides little opportunity to purge. This give and take leads to less extremes and more stability in general.
lol, by authoritarian you just mean "not leftist".
The UK is far more authoritarian than anywhere in Eastern Europe, arresting thousands of people for speech crime every year, refusing to allow the registration of opposition political parties, engaging in massive surveillance of the population, illegally jailing political dissidents etc etc. Did you advocate kicking us out?
No, of course not, because it's done in the cause of liberal globalism (people are jailed for saying things that offend left wing victim groups, the people surveilled are "right wing extremists", the parties refused registration are "far right", the dissidents jailed are "right wing populists" etc) so people like you have no problem with it.
I mean you literally advocate "punishing" countries that fail to submit to liberal leftist ideology, and say the EU needs more "shows of strength", you're not "anti-authoritarian, you're just a left wing authoritarian.
But yes, go ahead and kick them out, they'll be lucky to be free of the EU's subversion of their national cultures.
You're right, I'll edit to to "authoritarian" regimes. What I meant was that authoritarian goverments cannot afford dissent and try everything to supress.
With that said, it still always seems shortsighted to me to abandon fundamental principles for circumstantial or narrow gains.
reply