totalitarian vs libertarian

[kedaman]

Is this a false dichotomy?
I've always had problem with it, because i consider both liberty and authority good, even intrinsic to each other.

 

[Randall McNally]

Of course it's a false dichotomy. No modern states are fully one or the other. I'm pretty sure no states have ever been so.

 

[kedaman]

That is one thing judging what sort of state modern states are, but i'm talking conceputally. I can't help but wonder on how this has become thought of as a dichotomy.

 

[Randall McNally]

That is one thing judging what sort of state modern states are, but i'm talking conceputally. I can't help but wonder on how this has become thought of as a dichotomy.

Hmm. Do you mean that you question whether or not they are mutually exclusive?

 

[kedaman]

And jointly exhaustive yes, but I could drop that as well.

 

[Randall McNally]

I think as extremes, they are mutually exclusive. But they do not comprise a true dichotomy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is this a false dichotomy?
I've always had problem with it, because i consider both liberty and authority good, even intrinsic to each other.

I think you should examine your definitions of those terms.

 

[Norea]

It's not Totalitarianism V Libertarianism. It's Authoritarianism V Libertarianism.

The idea of Authority is a false on the grounds that a politician without the support of people loses all validity in any argument or issue. ^__^ So essentially the only authority for one's life isn't the politician but the person him/her-self.

-- Bridget reading way too much Max Stirner....

 

[The Seeker]

IMO, liberty and authority are inherently opposed to one another. You can't have true liberty as long as people have authority over each other. That's why I'm an anarchist, hierarchy only perpertuates authority, which represses the individual, which is you and me

 

[Norea]

Anarchism, muhahahahaha!!!

-- Bridget

 

[IchbinBerliner]

Of course it's a false dichotomy. No modern states are fully one or the other. I'm pretty sure no states have ever been so.

Actually, any communist regime has to be a totalitarianship for it to work.

 

[Randall McNally]

Actually, any communist regime has to be a totalitarianship for it to work.

While the regimes we're all familiar with have been noticeably totalitarian, that isn't part of communism as Marx envisioned it. Where all the historically communist nations went wrong (or at least deviated significantly from Marx's formula) is that they tried to implement communism top-down.

Now make no mistake, I am deeply skeptical of the feasibility of Marxist communism. I just think it's important to note that Marxist communism hasn't ever actually been attempted.

 

[The Seeker]

Anarchism, muhahahahaha!!!

Liking the evil laugh, not so fond of Stirner, he's freakin nuts

 

[Johnnz]

Christians have an alternative position, but not one that most of them practise. Totalitarianism is not a biblical principle, in that it takes freedom of choice away from individuals, and implies that those in authority know best.

The Libertarian position fails to account for the deficiencies in human nature. It allows for the powerful and greedy (usually the same people) to dominate others (a strange contradiction) and that individuals often fail to act out of the common good.

Jesus proposed two radical concepts. He taught service to others as having primacy over financial values, and that leadership was not about the exercise of authority over others by leaders. Instead, as servant leaders, people should only follow from a basis of earned respect. Had the church followed His teaching we would have a rich model for society. Sadly we have been into hierarchical structures which continue to model the wrongs basis of leadership.

John
NZ

 

[kedaman]

The kingdom of God is a hierachy, and I don't believe there is any freedom outside God's supreme authority. The only reason why people are allowed to be powerful and greedy, is because God has mercy with them, because there is still hope for them to be saved. The law is given for a reason, to protect us from each other, but now that faith has come, we don't need the law.

 

[Norea]

Not according to John Locke. According to him, since we are to be inheritors of the Kingdom we also have powers and rights. And thusly on Earth, humans have the right to exercise such rights against government if it found to be unjust.

From a rational perspective, since I'm an entity onto myself, I cannot call for others what is not mine and vice versa. Authority is an illusion produced when permission is implicit.

-- Bridget

 

[kedaman]

Though I agree with you that authority is an illusion, permission is likewise.

 

[Madcoil]

But the rope you'll dangle from when you get caught doing something without the illusion of permission given by the illusionary authority is very real indeed...

 

[kedaman]

yep

 

[Norea]

None of that validates authority still. Authority implies everyone else owns your life. They don't, ever. You don't even own your child's life. It's clear and proven in Nature. Only when you work in 'social orders' do you get group-think, murder, theft and etc, they lead to the illusion of authority.

-- Bridget