Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
But hes no authoritarian  |
Who said he's not an authoritarian? It is a part of human nature to have authoritarian tendencies. We are all potential authoritarians. Even the notion of individual liberty is ingrained in the belief that a person has the authority to dictate the governance of his own life--has the natural (or God given) "agency" to direct his fortune.
The problem with our authoritarian tendencies is when they are unjustly imposed on the lives of others.
Parents are normally authoritarian in the raising of their children. For the most part we accept that this is justified.
Owners are authoritarian in the operation of their business. For the most part we accept this as justified.
We accept as right that military commanders have tremendous authoritarian power over their soldiers.
When we speak of authoritarianism in politics, we mean a politician's use of power that is not legally his, which is an unjust use of authority. With politicians, unfortunately, but predictably, this happens often. Usually it's the common seemingly unstoppable petty corruption that is often allowed by the people when they view their politician as someone, even if corrupt, who will make their lives better.
When political authoritarianism is most onerous, even dangerous to the notion of individual freedom, to personal agency, is when the political system itself is authoritarian. There is no remedy to this for the individual other than disobedience or revolt.
When a governmental system is crafted, by the consent of the governed, to limit political authority to the least oppressive but necessary functions in order to maintain stability and harmony, governing authorities are limited only to the powers the system grants them. The most dangerous threat to individual freedom in such a system is its destruction and its replacement with one that grants total authoritarian power of the ruling regime over the people--which is far more destructive to liberty than the personality of a given politician, even one of the highest rank.
Those who seek political office may well have more of a desire, than most, to have authority over others. So it is most important to assure that the system of governance limits them to the agreed upon and fewest powers necessary.
There is wisdom in such platitudes or slogans such as "don't hate the player, hate the game." It's what the game allows more than what the player does within the rules that is the problem.
What has been happening over the course of a century is the government "game" has been changing. This game has incrementally been changed from one of limited government to one of growing government power with a vector toward unlimited government.
This election, as have been most over this last century, is about the nature of the "game," not the character of the player.
The government "game" started as a constitutional republic with very limited central government power, and has gradually, continously, been transformed into one of unlimited government power.
The basic nature of Progressivism, the "game" into which we are being made to play, is the unhampered (unlimited) power of government to govern our behavior. The stated intention is that this is all for the good of the people.
That may be so. Personally, I believe the intention, no matter how sincere, cannot withstand the force of human nature. We are all potential authoritarians. Given the legal authority, it is inevitable that the "players" in the Progressive game will rule us to be what they want, rather than the "game" allowing us to be whom we wish.
This election, as much as, if not more, is about the game we wish to play--limited constitutional government, or an unlimited Progressive one.