Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Two Boots of Authoritarianism
cyberclass.net ^ | 1/30/04 | Gary Lloyd

Posted on 01/30/2004 1:31:42 PM PST by tpaine

The Two Boots of Authoritarianism

By Gary Lloyd

"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence."

Mainstream political pundits waste endless amounts of time and effort condemning, criticizing, and categorizing one political movement or another as right-wing or left-wing.  The merits (or otherwise) of one "wing" over another are a point of never-ending obsession with reporters, academics, and similar self-proclaimed experts.

Supposedly, right-wingers are "for" the elitists and trend toward fascism: top-down control over an oppressed and helpless common people who are prevented from reaching their true potential.

Supposedly, left-wingers are "for" the common people and trend toward socialism: top-down control to ensure equality amongst all people, even the elite. Like most mainstream discussions these days, such distinctions exist to provide only an illusion of true differentiation, whilst the underlying similarities (and therefore the points of legitimate concern) are ignored or dismissed.  Thus the appearance of constructive debate is maintained while more fundamental issues remain almost completely unrecognized.

What the mainstream media conveniently forgets is that inevitably, both right and left wing ideologies, taken to their logical conclusions,  converge toward the same objective of totalitarianism - regardless of those ideological origins.  This is because in order to enforce a stated objective, both fascism and socialism must exert greater and greater control over a nation's finances and social policies.

In the end, the only difference is the label used to justify the force-backed oppression. Both socialism and fascism have the same ultimate objective of controlling people at the expense of their individual rights. Those who doubt this should be reminded that the traditionally condemned archetype for a fascist state was none other than Nazi Germany and paradoxically, the term "Nazi" comes from the name of Hitler's political machine "The National Socialist Party".  Whether a dictator or a comrade, leaders of both wings aspire to the same Big Brother ideal.  Therefore theleft-wing/right- wing two dimensional distinction is ultimately useless in attempting to define a political ideology and the evolution of a party (or candidate).

A much better way to examine politics is to orient political ideologies along a state control/individual control axis.  In other words, which entity (government or individual) has the most power under the prevailing regime?

At one extreme of this new spectrum would be Big Brother's dream State of perfect government control over every conceivable action committed by the individuals under its power - in other words, unmitigated totalitarianism.

At the other extreme would be a non-existent state where each individual is left to fend for himself/herself and construct his/her own code of conduct and law - in other words, complete anarchy.

Now we have a reference point by which we can measure the "protection" offered by a political ideal vs. the "freedom" offered by the ideal.  Maximum protection results in minimal freedom (and privacy), since the perfect high-security state is one in which Big Brother knows everything.  In a free society unencumbered by the state, an individual has few if any state-backed emergency resources to utilize in an emergency, therefore there is little protection available. All political ideologies can be plotted somewhere along the state control/individual control axis.

  Libertarianism is without a doubt the one closest to complete individual control, and totalitarian regimes such as the ones imposed by Stalin or Mao would lie very close to the complete state control point. However, a problem arises when trying to compare ideologies with different types (but similar levels) of state intervention into personal affairs.  This is most apparent when trying to evaluate the relative merits of conservatism vs. liberalism.  In other words, the traditional argument of right wing vs. left wing.

To accomodate such a distinction, we can add another dimension to our existing "straight line" definition measuring protection against freedom.

Imagine a two-by-two matrix turned on its corner.  In other words, a box divided internally into four smaller squares and turned 45 degrees so that it resembles a diamond. In the top square, write "Totalitarianism: High Degrees of State Control Over Both Financial and Social Policy."  Examples: Soviet Russia, Myanmar/Burma, Communist China, and Communist Cuba.

In the left hand square, write "Liberalism: High Degree of State Control Over Financial Policy, Low Degree of State Control Over Social Policy." Examples: continental Europe.

In the right hand square, write "Conservatism: High Degree of State Control Over Social Policy, Low Degree of State Control Over Financial Policy." Examples: USA, Singapore.

In the bottom square, write: "Libertarianism: Low Degrees of State Control Over Both Financial and Social Policy."

Examples:

No known libertarian countries at this time. Now we have a convenient picture onto which all political ideologies can be mapped, including the all-important "state control vs. individual control" variable.

Just because a particular country may fall into (for example) the Conservative square does not mean it is identical to all other countries in that square, i.e. Singapore does not equal the US. They could both be plotted as different "points" within the Conservative square.

And needless to say, those "points" are not fixed in place, but change position as a country's political ideology evolves.  Most readers of this newsletter would heartily agree that the US is steadily sliding up and towards the left of the Conservative square, seemingly hell-bent on making the crossover to the odious Totalitarian square unless halted by more moderate forces.

In fact, the worldwide trend right now seems to be that nations are steadily creeping upwards towards the "ideal" of total top- down control by the State.  This is most disturbing to those of us who prize individual freedom and liberty, but there is one great hope.

In opposition to "Totalitarian Creep" is the Internet.  Of course, cyberspace is not true "nation", but it is nevertheless a large grouping of individuals with some common roots (which is close enough to be considered a "nation" for the purposes of this discussion).  And of course the Internet is about as Libertarian a nation as is likely to exist anywhere, despite the efforts of certain control-minded governments in France, China, the Middle East, and other areas to restrict its content. So will the official dogma of "Big Brother is good for you!" win the day, or will the freewheeling Internet's explosive growth and dynamism (itself a testament to the power of individual freedom) be too much for the Statists to handle? We suspect that matters will get worse before they get better, largely because of the misinformation campaign waged by the Establishment to further its goals.  Certainly one small weapon that could be used against this campaign is the willingness of political commentators to use the 2 X 2 Political Matrix in place of their idiotic and pointless Right vs. Left arguments.

If the matrix picture is deemed too difficult to explain to a dumbed down population, using the simpler axis of State Control vs. Individual Control would at least be a far superioralternative than a right-left discussion that is ultimately meaningless.

Those following the US election should realise that neither of the two major parties are oriented toward a lower level of State control. 

They are merely using different labels as they proceed upon the path of "Totalitarian Creep."  Having said that, the Republicans are creeping more slowly than the Democrats (perhaps buying the freedom and liberty-minded a little more time), but ultimately it will all be the same unless they are stopped by an enlightened and motivated population.  As goes the US, so goes the world, in our opinion.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: authoritarianism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 01/30/2004 1:31:43 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The fellow tries really hard, but there's a fallacy lurking in his 2x2 matrix.

Specifically, Mr. Lord is trying to define societies in terms of their types of government. Thus, he puts libertarianism down in the "low government control of social and fiscal policy corner." He then says that there are "no libertarian governments."

Warning flags should start flying when a libertarian argument is advanced solely in terms of government, and especially when this swell little matrix (which is not Lord's invention) comes into play.

We actually do know about plenty of countries featuring minimal government control over social or fiscal policies -- Somalia of the 1990s being a particularly fine example. Lord's argument is damaged by the fact that Somalia rested in Lord's "preferred corner," and yet was not a libertarian paradise.

What's missing? Simple: a self-controlled population.

To drag out my favorite John Adams quote:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Libertarianism might work in a place where people tend to behave properly -- but noplace else.

2 posted on 01/30/2004 1:42:54 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
I think you've just illustrated the close relationship of Libertarianism and Anarchism.
3 posted on 01/30/2004 1:55:42 PM PST by lormand (Dead People Vote DemocRAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Actually, classical liberal or libertarian government would describe the historical norm in tribal and agrarian cultures as well as in frontier periods in North America and Australia. There was no central government "boot" to plant upon anyone's neck in these circumstances. No village would abide a thief or brigand, he would have been exiled at least.

Strong central governments simply concentrate the tempting spoils for thieves and brigands to claim as "public servants".

4 posted on 01/30/2004 1:58:09 PM PST by yatros from flatwater (The Anti-Federalists were on target!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yatros from flatwater
No village would abide a thief or brigand, he would have been exiled at least.

Precisely: the people behaved themselves, or else. (We can ignore for now the fact that many tribal societies are, in fact, quite authoritarian.)

BTW, history shows that the tribal/agrarian model only works so long the various tribes/communities are too weak and/or poor to look longingly on their neighbors' belongings.

Once you get a group with the wealth to feed armies, and the desire to use them, then everybody else has to either surrender or, if they're going to fight back, follow suit.

The only guarantee against aggression by rich and powerful is the presence of a "moral and religious" population.

5 posted on 01/30/2004 2:21:29 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The fellow tries really hard, but there's a fallacy lurking in his 2x2 matrix. Specifically, Mr. Lord is trying to define societies in terms of their types of government.

Whats wrong with that? It a valid diagramic method, not a 'fallacy'.

Thus, he puts libertarianism down in the "low government control of social and fiscal policy corner." He then says that there are "no libertarian governments." Warning flags should start flying when a libertarian argument is advanced solely in terms of government, and especially when this swell little matrix (which is not Lord's invention) comes into play.

Warning flags? That's pure [& amusing] hype on your part . And I doubt he claimed the 'diamond' as his invention..

We actually do know about plenty of countries featuring minimal government control over social or fiscal policies -- Somalia of the 1990s being a particularly fine example. Lord's argument is damaged by the fact that Somalia rested in Lord's "preferred corner," and yet was not a libertarian paradise.

Who said anarchy is preferred? Are straw man ploys your main posting tactic?

What's missing? Simple: a self-controlled population. To drag out my favorite John Adams quote: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . ... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Wrong. Our constitution worked just fine til a bunch of blue nosed socialistic moralists started violating it back in the early 1900's. -- Been downhill for liberty ever since.

Libertarianism might work in a place where people tend to behave properly -- but noplace else.

Between 1800 & 1900 probably the most 'misbehaved' people on earth were americans..
Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.

6 posted on 01/30/2004 2:22:06 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Libertarianism might work in a place where people tend to behave properly -- but noplace else.

But isn't that where the old saw "An armed society is a polite society" comes into play?

7 posted on 01/30/2004 2:23:16 PM PST by Johnny_Cipher (Miserable failure = http://www.michaelmoore.com/ sounds good to me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Whats wrong with that? It a valid diagramic method, not a 'fallacy'.

It is a fallacy, in the sense that he's treating the matrix as if it were fully descriptive of the problem. It's not, as my Somalia example shows.

Who said anarchy is preferred? Are straw man ploys your main posting tactic?

The fact that both anarchy and libertarianism fit in that corner of the matrix merely proves the point: Lord's analysis is not complete. There's more to the puzzle.

Wrong. Our constitution worked just fine til a bunch of blue nosed socialistic moralists started violating it back in the early 1900's. -- Been downhill for liberty ever since.

I think you need to look at what those folks were responding to, before you blame it all on them. There was plenty of blame to go around, including to industrialists who really were greedy, to the detriment of others.

Between 1800 & 1900 probably the most 'misbehaved' people on earth were americans.. Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.

I think you'd be rather hard-pressed to prove that.

8 posted on 01/30/2004 2:28:50 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Johnny_Cipher
But isn't that where the old saw "An armed society is a polite society" comes into play?

The folks in Somalia were nothing if not heavily armed. There's other stuff required -- i.e., civilized behavior.

9 posted on 01/30/2004 2:29:55 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; Roscoe
Whats wrong with that? Its a valid diagramic method, not a 'fallacy'. <

It is a fallacy, in the sense that he's treating the matrix as if it were fully descriptive of the problem.

"Fully discriptive" is just more of your straw man hype. His diagram is a good way to describe political opposites, and how all can meet in the middle of the diamond, among reasonable men.

It's not, as my Somalia example shows.

You 'showed' us nothing. Anarchy is at the bottom of the libertarian diamond. Rationality is near the top, in the middle.

Who said anarchy is preferred? Are straw man ploys your main posting tactic?

The fact that both anarchy and libertarianism fit in that corner of the matrix merely proves the point: Lord's analysis is not complete. There's more to the puzzle.

What is missing? Your generalizations are getting repetitive already.

--- Our constitution worked just fine til a bunch of blue nosed socialistic moralists started violating it back in the early 1900's. -- Been downhill for liberty ever since.

I think you need to look at what those folks were responding to, before you blame it all on them. There was plenty of blame to go around, including to industrialists who really were greedy, to the detriment of others.

Thank you Mr Marx, and you too Ms Nation..

Between 1800 & 1900 probably the most 'misbehaved' people on earth were americans.. Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.

I think you'd be rather hard-pressed to prove that.

Obvious historical fact requires no proof for reasonable men.
Find a roscoe type to argue with if you want to argue cites & quotes.

10 posted on 01/30/2004 3:15:44 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: r9etb; yatros from flatwater
Strong central governments simply concentrate the tempting spoils for thieves and brigands to claim as "public servants".

No village would abide a thief or brigand, he would have been exiled at least.
-yatros from flatwater-

______________________________________


Precisely: the people behaved themselves, or else. (We can ignore for now the fact that many tribal societies are, in fact, quite authoritarian.)
BTW, history shows that the tribal/agrarian model only works so long the various tribes/communities are too weak and/or poor to look longingly on their neighbors' belongings.

Once you get a group with the wealth to feed armies, and the desire to use them, then everybody else has to either surrender or, if they're going to fight back, follow suit.

The only guarantee against aggression by rich and powerful is the presence of a "moral and religious" population.
5 -r9-





Yartos, notice how our boy 'r9' pretends to agree that strong central governments are bad, but then advocates that "a moral and religious population" must "follow suit" in an authoritarian type government.

11 posted on 01/30/2004 4:18:01 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"...the Internet is about as Libertarian a nation as is likely to exist anywhere..." --Gary Lloyd

Gary is an ignorant crackpot.

See Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace by Milton L. Mueller.

12 posted on 01/30/2004 4:43:53 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: tpaine
Gary is an ignorant crackpot. With a fan.
14 posted on 01/30/2004 5:28:06 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You said that already.
15 posted on 01/30/2004 5:34:37 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
the fellow does more than make a bad assumption; he plain doesn't know what he's talking about, unless pulling one out of his ass to satisfy his God of moral relativism qualifies as wisdom nowadays.

take, for example, his basic premise: that extreme right and left both wind up in totalitarianism. This is a "Big Lie" that started back when the (socialist) nazi invasion of Russia blew Stalin's rapprochment with that totalitarian, leftist regime to bits; afterwards, the soviet propaganda machine switched from calling them 'comrades' to labelling them dictators and stamping them as being "of the right (since the soviets were naturally the good guys, and from the left).

Just another example of what Thomas Sowell aptly labels "verbal preemption" in his book, Vision of the Anointed.

Leftists... geez, but how I hate them all...

CGVet58
Juan
16 posted on 01/30/2004 5:48:32 PM PST by CGVet58 (For my fellow Americans; my life... for our enemies; The Sword!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"......inevitably, both right and left wing ideologies, taken to their logical conclusions, converge toward the same objective of totalitarianism......"

Try THIS rather than the Matrix/Cube Model: The 'Political Spectrum' is NOT linear, ie. there is a Left and a Right. Instead, the 'Political Spectrum' is CIRCULAR. If you go too far to either the Left or RIGHT you eventually end up in the same place......a Totalitarian State.

17 posted on 01/30/2004 5:59:00 PM PST by DoctorMichael (Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yartos, notice how our boy 'r9' pretends to agree that strong central governments are bad, but then advocates that "a moral and religious population" must "follow suit" in an authoritarian type government.

Oh, come on, son. Seriously: if you can't see that the difference between libertarianism and anarchy is the presence of John Adams's "moral and religious people," you're never going to understand anything.

18 posted on 01/30/2004 6:31:32 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Instead, the 'Political Spectrum' is CIRCULAR. If you go too far to either the Left or RIGHT you eventually end up in the same place......a Totalitarian State.

Actually, if you really need to describe politics in the verbiage of mathematics (which is a mistake to begin with, IMHO), then let me suggest that it's something like the following (sans squid):

In that sense, one might put "bad" governments at the bottom of the heap, and "good" ones higher up -- plus which, you also get to depict your basic "slippery slope."

The main problem with any such formulation, however, is that it suggests that there is a single, optimal type of government/social arrangement, suitable for all conditions and times. Such might be the case, but I really don't think so.

And, as I suggested before, the governmental arrangements are far less important than the attitudes and beliefs of the people within the society.

Think of it in terms of two work crews. The first is full of people who willingly work hard, and do the best job they can. The second crew is full of slackers from the half-way house, looking to get paid the most they can for the least amount of work. If you were the foreman, could you treat these crews the same way? Of course not. And neither could a government work the same way, faced with drastically different populations.

19 posted on 01/30/2004 6:44:59 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Good grief.. You had that pulled? How pitiful.
20 posted on 01/30/2004 7:08:07 PM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines a conservative. (writer 33 )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson