I’m a little confused. Are you saying you are an authoritarian, and not a liberal? And if so, which sense of “liberal” are you using? I appreciate your taking a moment to clarify. I’m not trying to debate you; I’m just not clear on which position you’re arguing from. Thanks!
LIberalism is the idea that the state should do little or nothing; that people generally should be free to do what they want; it's laissez faire, but not merely in the economy. Liberalism basically means free press and speech. These things are lazy low tax default positions which is why they are easy. But they lead to a society of overweight people, well except for the drug addicts, they're amped up on speed coke heroin and have no appetite. Liberalism means you're free to be an alcoholic, die of tobacco addiction, gamble away your life savings, and over-eat.
Authoritarianism is the opposite view: it regards state power as a necessary and good force to compel thieves and liars to put it down, stop lying, and start exercising and eating properly.
Authoritarianism is harder to implement, not cost free. All that liberalism has features that kill the poor, benefit the rich both in profits from alcohol tobacco drugs firearms and unhealthy food, but also in the sense of no tax outlays for anything. It's an ideology of greed and exploitation masquerading as freedom. My critique of liberalism is more accurate and incisive than Marx's. We allow free speech to form and articulate political will, not so that I have to put up with loudmouthed rude aggressive slobs. I'm definitely an authoritarian: state power should be final but for that very reason shoul be applied in limited well-considerd fields, namely: public health and well-being, policing, the military. I want a powerful but limited state. Lee Kuan Yew was an absolute genius and will make you all live better.
I’m a little confused. Are you saying you are an authoritarian, and not a liberal? And if so, which sense of “liberal” are you using? I appreciate your taking a moment to clarify. I’m not trying to debate you; I’m just not clear on which position you’re arguing from. Thanks!
Kant ist das beste deutsche Beispiel von Liberalismus.
LIberalism is the idea that the state should do little or nothing; that people generally should be free to do what they want; it's laissez faire, but not merely in the economy. Liberalism basically means free press and speech. These things are lazy low tax default positions which is why they are easy. But they lead to a society of overweight people, well except for the drug addicts, they're amped up on speed coke heroin and have no appetite. Liberalism means you're free to be an alcoholic, die of tobacco addiction, gamble away your life savings, and over-eat.
Authoritarianism is the opposite view: it regards state power as a necessary and good force to compel thieves and liars to put it down, stop lying, and start exercising and eating properly.
Authoritarianism is harder to implement, not cost free. All that liberalism has features that kill the poor, benefit the rich both in profits from alcohol tobacco drugs firearms and unhealthy food, but also in the sense of no tax outlays for anything. It's an ideology of greed and exploitation masquerading as freedom. My critique of liberalism is more accurate and incisive than Marx's. We allow free speech to form and articulate political will, not so that I have to put up with loudmouthed rude aggressive slobs. I'm definitely an authoritarian: state power should be final but for that very reason shoul be applied in limited well-considerd fields, namely: public health and well-being, policing, the military. I want a powerful but limited state. Lee Kuan Yew was an absolute genius and will make you all live better.
This is helpful, thanks!