I have been wanting to take the time to make a master list of the candidates ranked on one criteria - authoritarian versus libertarian. In my opinion, it is the most important criteria and demonstrates whether a president will increase the role of government in the lives of American citizens or decrease it. It is also is an key indicator which has no bearing on left and right (anymore), and so it is inherently non-partisan.
The Premise of Authority
The general idea is that one spectrum in society is as follows:
<– Authority ———————— Freedom –>
Aside from the traditional view of:
<– Conservative ———————– Liberal –>
Authoritarians believe that there is a clear need in society for rulers and ruled, for servants and masters. For example, without government - man will destroy society, without religion - man will destroy morality, without rulers - man will destroy one another. Authoritarianism presumes the inherent moral goodness of some men (rulers, lawmakers, judges, priests) and an inherent leaning towards rebellion, disorder, anarchy and hedonism in other men. Modern authoritarian solutions to these issues have included both right (fascism, monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy) and left ideas (socialism, communism, democracy), but they are all near the authoritarian side of the spectrum.
Application to the Candidates
Here is a look at where the candidates fall on a graph of authoritarianism versus libertarianism:
High Authoritarian: supporting many measures and philosophies that emphasize centralization, authority and power
Dodd
Kucinich
Moderate Authoritarian: supporting some measures and philosophies that emphasize centralization, authority and power
Clinton
Biden
Huckabee
Edwards
Richardson
Thompson
Romney
Giuliani
Low Authoritarian: supporting a few measures and philosophies that emphasize centralization, authority and power
McCain
Gravel
Low Libertarian: supporting a few measures and philosophies that emphasize decentralization, freedom and limits
Paul
The Devil in the Details
In his original chart, David Nolan actually called the libertarian opposite populism. He was criticised for this decision, but I believe it is rather accurate. For example, ideologically Chris Dodd and Mike Huckabee are on opposite ends of the left and right spectrum, but both are populists. They take some of the most mainline positions, clearly driven by poll results. These positions are almost universally authoritarian as well.
For example, Fred Thompson gives a very libertarian sounding message in rhetoric (personal responsibility, free markets, etc…) However, under “Governemnt Effectiveness” on his website he make clear authoritarian statements:
The key to competent government is strong, committed leadership from the top. The key to good government is good people who are well-managed and put the national interest first. I am committed to… attracting and rewarding the best Americans to serve in government and ensuring they have the authority and resources needed to get the job done
In other words, Thompson believes that competence and strength come from a top-heavy authority, rather than a decentralized market or community oriented system. The second sentence implies that what is needed are inherently moral men, “well-managed” and selfless. Then these men will be given (by higher authorities) power and resources to make others, still below them, “get the job done.”
In the same vein, but from the other end of the spectrum, Hilary Clinton’s website promises that she will take many authoritarian measures to force her agenda on the country. Take energy for example:
Harness the power of innovation to create high wage jobs of the 21st Century. Investments in alternative energy can create new jobs for the 21st century; expanded access to broadband will bring opportunities to underserved and disadvantaged communities; the manufacturing base can be re-energized through creative partnerships; and increased government support for research will stimulate the development of new technologies and life-saving medicines
Clinton takes the position that government investment, that is taking citizens money by force (or borrowing by force against their future) and giving them to energy companies will promote growth in energy. She thinks authority needs to “stimulate” those misbehaving energy companies so that they will provide new technology. In other words, technology is not provided by decentralized market actors making voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions - it is created by authority benevolently gracing the underclasses with resources and rules.
An example from a “high authoritarian,” Chris Dodd, would be his idea for manditory national service:
Chris Dodd believes that with leadership that inspires a new sense of American community, we can face the challenges of the 21st Century with the boldness and optimism that have always been the hallmark of our nation. That is why he is calling for a new American Community Initiative – a comprehensive national service plan that will draw upon the very best of our character to call Americans to service… Through Executive Order, Chris Dodd will grant the Executive Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service a seat at the table with a promotion to the Cabinet… every student in America will be required to perform 100 hours of community-based service prior to high school graduation… Participation in this fully funded program is a condition of federal education funding.
Clearly, the president needs to be organizing the country’s youth. Dodd emphasizes his authoritarianism by bold phrases such a “leadership that inspires a new sense of American community” - community is not self-regulating or self-generating, but is organized and created by central authority in order to fit into the cogs of the social order. Dodd reinforces this by explicitly noting that this all will happen “by executive order” - the first goal being to put a good man in charge in Washington to oversee mandated national service. Federal education money will be withheld from any district that refuses to submit to authority.
Unfortunately, this is just a brief survey of this topic, which is tremendously relevant in both America’s history and its potential future.
Hillary Clinton’s website said: “expanded access to broadband will bring
opportunitiespornography and Viagra ads to underserved and disadvantaged communities”I’m a cynic.
But see, this is why we need more authority over the internet!
The “moderate authoritarian” club is pretty broad, Thompson and Huckabee are miles apart. And I’m not sure how McCain is a low authoritarian, he did sponsor the campaign finance reform bill that makes it more likely that a rich person will be president.
“Authoritarianism presumes the inherent moral goodness of some men (rulers, lawmakers, judges, priests)”
Does it really presume “inherent moral goodness?” I suppose in dictatorships and the like, it does. But in our democracy, it doesn’t presume that the leaders are inherently better than the rest, but that the voters will hold them accountable if they are not. This presumes more wisdom among voters than they actually possess most times. The love of democracy as a cure-all has taken a major hit recently with the elections of terrorists and dictators in Palestine, Pakistan, and Venezuela, to name a few (though the last may have been rigged).
I’m done with the 21st century. Where is the candidate that will build a bridge to the 22nd century?
Jasen, isn’t that Al Gore? He’s making sure we survive to the 22nd century.
On that note, I finished Bjorn Lomborg’s Cool It book… it’s fantastic; very good at dispelling the MYTHS behind the climate change hysteria.
True. Initially, I had Huck as a “high” authoritarian and Giuliani as a “low”, but I decided that Huck was not in the same category as Dodd or Kucinich, and despite Giuliani being a little more fiscally libertarian, his privacy and civil rights ideas needed to have a fair weight. That does make the moderates broad, but I’m not sure if I want to break it down any more.
Yes, in the sense that authoritarians will proclaim themselves and their managers doing what is in the best interest for the country. And those who support them do so because they think people need “strong leaders” to hold people in line (ignoring that these leaders are all human and therefore have a fallen nature as well). Authoritarianism presumes that good will triumph over evil when individuals are given power - much of this is Machiavellian in origin.
“Authoritarianism presumes the inherent moral goodness of some men (rulers, lawmakers, judges, priests) and an inherent leaning towards rebellion, disorder, anarchy and hedonism in other men.”
I don’t think I can agree with this. Politics aside for a moment, in thinking about other people who have authority over me in various situations, I believe they have been put into those positions of authority not because I or anyone things they are more moral than myself, but because they are more knowledgeable, or experienced, or have an inclination to do a given task, etc. One possible example: I vote to hire a new pastor at my church and view him to have a certain amount of authority in that position. I choose him not because he is a better person than me, but because he is interested in leading the church, he is educated in that arena, he has good social skills for dealing with people, etc. In other words, he is qualified to do that particular job, therefore I submit to his authority.
Or another example: 12 people get put on a jury and one has to be chosen to be the foreman. The person chosen is chosen not because he’s morally a better person, but because he’s done it before, or because he took a class in a related topic, or something like that.
I just don’t think I can agree with your basic premise that “authoritarianism presumes the inherent moral goodness of some men.”
Your events are both bottom up type of authority. I am talking about the idea that men inherently need masters, organizers and planners placed on them. Clearly hierarchy, authority and representation aren’t bad, but the idea that they must exist or men will lose their morals, respect and self-control in not true. Authoritarianism presumes that men must be controlled, and that those in control will be good, moral and pious men.
Is that really the assumption of authoritarianism? I thought the premise of authoritarianism is that open conflict is bad, and that open conflict can most effectively be prevented through a strong central power.
Government as a concept relies on the assumption that regulation of the use of force should monopolized. An anarchist opposes the idea that a single (human) authority has the right to determine the appropriate use of force. This leaves each individual with the moral responsibility of determine what infraction of their “rights” merits the use of force, and how much use of force is merited. In a “government” model, a single organization determines appropriate use of force. (A pacifist would oppose the use of force by anyone for any reason, including self defense.)
The authoritarian-anarchist scale determines the number of uses for which government use of force to control citizen behavior is considered appropriate. Anyone short of a pacifist approves the use of force in SOME element, even if only in self-defense. If I have the moral right to prevent you hurting my friend, I have essentially formed a government which limits your power. If I gather 300,000,000 of my friends and we threaten you with the use of our combined force for hurting our friend, we have a full scale nation. The determination of what value of “hurt” me and my 300,000,000 friends have a right to forbid you from doing defines our place on the scale.
I’m also not sure that I agree with the statement:
“Authoritarianism presumes the inherent moral goodness of some men (rulers, lawmakers, judges, priests) and an inherent leaning towards rebellion, disorder, anarchy and hedonism in other men.”
Take Hobbes’ Leviathan for a moment; a book in which the beginning justifications of the type of government we have are laid out. The arguments put forward in that work are not that someone who is more moral is needed to govern (Hobbes really doesn’t care about the morality of those in charge, since whoever has more force is right for him) but the fact that someone needs to be in charge of things and maintain order or else we will have an everyone kill everyone state of nature. Hobbes argues not that there is inherent moral goodness in some who should govern, but that to stop from killing each other we invest authority to some to control our lives. You can argue for an authoritarian government without discussing morality at all; Hobbes does some on pragmatism.
Yes, I am familiar with Hobbes. The “war of all against all.” I think Hobbes does embody authoritarian values in many ways. But I think the very premise of authoritarianism, even if it isn’t explicitly stated, implies that men will somehow deviate from their inherent evil towards good in order to make laws, etc… So while Hobbes seems more concerned with the “necessity” for authority and less about the kind, implied is that the authority (while arising out of the same pot of evil men) is going to possess some added virtue.
Yes, but in addition is the idea that such conflict is that the men ruling are somehow more moral and just than other men. The authoritarian ruler is somehow better than the “war of all against all” presumed in anarchy - as if a man, who would normally be a participant in said war, would magically restrain himself when given the monopoly on force.
Perhaps, but again this has never been my understanding. In fact, the “ethical” reason often given for the US supporting dictators has often been that a stable dictator is preferable to a popular chaos. Haven’t you heard the suggestion that Iraq was better off with Saddam, because at least under a dictator the only person slaughtering innocents is the dictator himself? The concept of government isn’t intended to assume that the government will be “somehow better”, but that ANY government is better than complete chaos. When “every man does as he sees fit”, you more readily end up in a situation where neither side can agree on an authority to determine disputes. An authority considered acceptable to the people will be permitted to continue operating. One considered sufficiently unacceptable will eventually be overthrown. No philosophy short of fascism/communism expects its authorities to be “perfect”. Be careful not to put your focus on a straw man.
One more note:
Force WILL be used. We can either determine collaboratively how it will be used, or we can determine by individual use of force how it will be used.
“Clearly hierarchy, authority and representation aren’t bad, but the idea that they must exist or men will lose their morals, respect and self-control is not true.”
To bring this back to the Bible, do you really believe this is supported in Scriptures? For example, prior to Noah there appears to have been anarchy, and almost everyone became the lowest common denominator of evil. Skip forward to after the Israelites have entered their land. God sets up judges to make sure they behave themselves. “But when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their fathers, following other gods and serving and worshiping them. They refused to give up their evil practices and stubborn ways.” This would imply that as long as there was some sort of authority in place, the people were at least somewhat self-controlled.
I don’t think authoritarianism is bad in itself, as it is obviously necessary to some extent to keep people in line. However, it shouldn’t protect people from themselves as much as protect people from their neighbors.
Colin, I think you would enjoy Theodore Dalrymple’s newest book, In Praise of Prejudice. Have you read him before?
Here is a review of that particular book:
http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=26412&title=be_prejudiced
I think everything before this, is understandable, but I simply don’t think it is accurate.
I do not think perfection is expected, just that there is the assumption that these rulers will somehow be less evil. I think it is erroneous to assume that a mob of otherwise evil, immoral and unorganized people, will somehow magically reverse their inclinations, pick a better man then them, give him power over them, and then follow his rules.
This is correct. I take the position that a monopoly on force assumes that the monopolistic institution will somehow be less evil than the evil which it arose out of. The idea that removing the market restraints on evil men will lead to more order strikes me as wishful thinking.
http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/site/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1
Colin said: “I think it is erroneous to assume that a mob of otherwise evil, immoral and unorganized people, will somehow magically reverse their inclinations, pick a better man then them, give him power over them, and then follow his rules.”
Sure they will, out of their own self-interest. If I have to pick a man to rule me, am I going to pick someone as heartless and cruel and evil as myself? Of course not. I don’t want him to oppress me. I’m going to pick someone better than me, someone who will respect my rights. It’s in my own self-interest.
Of course if I’m a really motivated evil man, I might try to get elected myself, so I can wield power. But I’ll be competing against other candidates, and I’ll have to convince the public that I’m a good person. It can certainly be done, but it’s not a cakewalk and it’s not inevitable.
Jew is exactly right. Furthermore, in a democracy, if the person turns out to be evil and not acting in the interests of his constituents, then he is usually kicked out of office.
I think you’ve really answered your own point. We would love good men to rule us, but ultimately, all of us being evil men, we have a) an imperfect understanding of “good” so as to put in power good rulers and b) evil tendencies so that even if good leaders are elected, we will not obey them.
The second thing is that elections are a false market. At best it is “competition” for a monopoly contract. I think this is why the competition in monopolies (such as the government) is gradually away from progress, whereas market forces gradually move towards progress.
That was me!
Actually this doesn’t happen at all. We have got liars, crooks and criminals in major offices right now who have been reelected time and time again. A democracy is one of the the most instable and quickest governments to fail and turn to complete disorder, immorality and chaos.
It is indeed wishful thinking, and in my opinion a straw man. Very few people alive today support the idea of “divine mandate” to rule, with the assumption that there is a “royal class” who are somehow better than the masses.
The more modern concept of authority is quite different though. The ideal is to have a government strong enough to prevent individual deviations from the commonly accepted use of force, yet weak enough to be overridden by the “mob” if it overstretches. Under this understanding, a ruler is not considered “better” because they are innately superior, but because if they fail to act with restraint they will be struck down. Modern democracies are designed to provide the citizenry with the ability to separate a ruler from his power if needed. (This is done through laws limiting the rulers power and the ability to use force to ruler to comply with them.)
This is clearly the foundation of the US government, built on a revolutionary foundation and including the idea that a government making undue demands SHOULD be overthrown. Under the US constitution, the rulers are employees of the citizenry. Just as a CEO does not have to be “less evil” than the board members or stock holders, neither does a president have to be “less evil” than the citizenry. If the president violates the terms of employment, they are removed from power. The NEED for a CEO though is based in the complexity of having all stockholders interact on all corporate decisions.
Theory of government:
I’d like to pull back for a minute, and explain my philosophical argument for the authority of government in an ideal case. Ideally, a government should form as the unanimous agreement of adjacent landowners. These landowners contract to abide by a specified set of rules, and to give up their land rights if they cease to agree to the ruleset. One of the rules is that any seller of land must get the agreement of the buyer to submit to the same ruleset. Another is to pay dues of some kind for the enforcement of the agreed rules. A third is that the owners submit to being physically restrained if they violate the rules. These rules are agreed to be changeable by a super majority of the owners. Basically, what I have described is a homeowner’s association, where all land owners agree to the ruleset.
Now the things that these land owners are allowed to do with their land (which belongs entirely to them) are endless. They can agree to specify some of the land as “mutually owned” and build right of ways. Since these roads are fully owned by the group, they can regulate their usage in any way they desire. Anyone buying into the group has no place to complain about their natural rights being violated, because they HAD to agree to the ruleset to buy the land (any other such sale is invalid).
What happens when they have children or visitors? Well, until the child is considered independent, the parents obligations hold them. After that, if they no longer are willing to obey the rules they have no right to be on our group’s land. IMO, an independent child has no moral claim on their family if they will not obey the rules of the family. A visitor also has no right to be on the land if they will not submit to the rules. Of course, under this system a person who violates the ruleset is in violation of land laws, and can be asked to leave the land. If they refuse, most non-pacifists would allow the use of force to make them. As an alternative, alternate punishments should be allowed (such as imprisonment or fines). The option to just leave should always be allowed for such “trespassing” violations, though damage to people or properties would likely require a separate moral system.
Now I know this hypothetical system has a few flaws. The biggest is that the US Constitution was not unanimously agreed to by all land owners, and a moral system for establishing “original owner” of a land. That stated, our government is a mutually agreed to organization that citizens willingly agree to. The clear expectation is that to legally buy land here, you must abide by the Constitution and the government it allows. If you are not willing to make that agreement, don’t buy land here. So long as you have not bought land here, you are living and working on other people’s land. They have every right to impose rules on you for the use of their land, and to ask you to leave otherwise. While I might agree that exile should probably be offered as an alternative to such violations, I maintain the moral right for my organization (the US government) to make use of force in mandating its land rights (obtained by agreement by the original land owners).
(One addition needed for this system is the explicit contract statement on land sale transferring these obligations.)
“A democracy is one of the the most unstable and quickest governments to fail and turn to complete disorder, immorality and chaos.”
One of the MOST UNSTABLE??? In your opinion, what form of government is more stable and moral with less of a tendency to chaos???
Colin said: “I think you’ve really answered your own point.”
No, I really haven’t. Other than recognizing that lust for power exists–which is true in any system, including anarchy–I have done nothing. I’d say that a constitutional republic is probably the best way to temper and control that lust for power. Do you have a better idea? Anarcho-capitalism perhaps?
ultimately, all of us being evil men, we have a) an imperfect understanding of “good” so as to put in power good rulers
I don’t need to have a perfect understanding of “good” to know when someone is violating my rights. All I need is an understanding of my rights as a human being. Of course no system of government will be perfect–we are fallible, sinful human beings–but the best systems of government are usually the ones which are held accountable to the public.
One thing that helps keep rulers honest and accountable is scrutiny. Assuming we have an open society with freedom of speech and press, the rulers will be subject to intense monitoring. That tends to keep people more honest in their actions. Of course that requires a preexisting level of liberty, and it requires a public that is educated enough to value the need for a free press.
Darius, dictators often bring stability. For some recent examples, look at the chaos in the wake of Ferdinand Marcos’s fall from power in the Philippines, and after Suharto’s rule in Indonesia. Both countries are much less stable than before. (And a fair bit freer, too, I’d say, but that’s another story.) If it’s stability you want, a good strong dictator is your ticket.
COLIN: the idea that they [authoritarians] must exist or men will lose their morals, respect and self-control in [is?] not true.
So for the Libertarian/Non-Authoritarian, how/who/what decides morals?
Jew, I was focusing on all of the above (stability, morality, order), not just stability. I agree that in many ways, someone like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro brings a lot of stability to their countries. However, do they also bring morality? The answer is obvious. What systems of government offer more of all three than democracy? Colin claimed that democracy is one of the worst in that regard. I just want to which forms of government are better.
Atanamis, I can’t say I disagree with too much you have there. I think it addresses and supports the best system on minimal government out there. The idea that powers come for the consent of the governed, and so on, is very reasonable. But I still maintain, and I think the US case is one that supports my point, that even a government started under such premises is liable to fail because of the “straw man” I have brought up - that people (either ignorantly or willfully) presume that authority will be more moral, ethical and efficient than people acting on their own. This has happened in many of the historical examples I am aware of, especially one I have studied in detail: Rome. It has been all to common for people, even in the ideals of a republic or democracy, to vote good leaders additional power to do good, only to see the inevitable evil man rise into power and use it for the ruin of many.
If you believe conversely to me, that men are inherently good (or at least some men are) then I think we would have to start there. However, if you believe that men are inherently sinful or evil by nature, than they cannot be expected to a) always make good laws b) always follow good laws c) be self-sacrificial in authority.
Your punctuation makes it seem as though my idea is preposterous. Can you please list for me these stable democracies in the present of past? Because I can think of many that failed very quickly into dictatorships and autocracies.
Also I will remind you that the US has, for most of it’s existence, been a republic, that is a rule by law rather than a rule by the demos.
You did in that the man who people elect (who is presumed to be better than themselves) really has to only be able to convince others that he is better than them, regardless of whether he actually is or is not better than them. That leaves us in the same place we started.
But, I propose to be an agnostic in this matter. I would not call myself an anarcho-capitalist in the absolute sense. In other words, perhaps good government does exist, but I have yet to see it. And, in the same way we apply logic to the question of God, if what has been called “natural law” is the starting point, then government must prove itself. The absence of perfect order in nature is not an automatic proof that government is inherently correct, moral or efficient. I think the agnostic argument (while wrong in the particular instance of God) is a valid logical construct for evaluating claims. The burden of proof is placed on government, not anarchy (or whatever the natural state of mankind is).
I also can agree with much of this, I just think it is unrealistic. This doesn’t happen in reality and cannot be proven empirically. When it does happen, it is not sustainable - I think this is where Jefferson was at with his “blood of patriots and tyrants” comment. I agree with you that in a perfect world, we could have and sustain such a government - but we do not. The premise of inherent evil and sin nature precludes goodness to come out of human society. I would think especially so when inherently evil men are awarded power over others.
When I refer to “democracy,” I mean of the representative type. Representative democracy is similar to a “republic”. Thus, in this country, we have a (partially) representative democracy/constitutional republic.
So I am just wondering what forms of government are better than a representative democracy (with regard to stability, morality, and order). Communism offers stability and sometimes order, but little morality. A dictatorship is similar. Saddam kept great order and provided decent economic stability for many of his people, but also killed them on a whim.
That is really a heart-of-the-matter question, and hopefully I will answer it with adequate respect.
A man, himself, has to decide morals. Being a believer in God, I think it is evident that God, being a morally perfect being, is the source of morality. Through knowing him, and learning about him, morality becomes understood and man has an opportunity to make moral choices. But even God respects man’s free will, and does not intervene every time a man does evil. In other words, God seems to respect his creation so much, that while educating men in very specific terms on what is correct (and the natural consequences for doing what is immoral) is still allows men to chose. So, morality comes from God, but the choice in whether to be moral has been given to man.
Darius, I think this is the important question. I think the “least evil” government follows Atanamis’ definition. But a “good” government I have not seen because government are made by men, who are evil. Good things don’t spontaneously generate from evil seeds.
Atanamis, I wanted to add after a second reading that your “homeowners association” government is essentially a private government and does not strike me as having anything objectionable with a natural state of liberty. But, as you note, this is not what we have in the US. I would not be opposed to the “homeowners association” authority because it is contract based. If I don’t like it, I can pull my land out of the “government.” As we saw in history, this was not allowed in the US. If a government has to force me to stay in the contract, that is not consistent with liberty.
Colin,
I agree that there is no such thing as COMPLETELY good government. But we weren’t talking about that, we were discussing which governments were BETTER than others. You made the claim that democracy (representative or otherwise) is one of the worst (in terms of stability, morality, and order) of all governments. I am just wondering what you find to be better. I will grant you that there probably are one or two forms of government that are better than a representative democracy/republic (at least in theory), but NOT a majority of governments.
The weakness of a democracy is that it is merely a sum of its parts. In other words, you get an immoral regime if the people are immoral (such as in Palestine and potentially Iran).
If I made a rough list, from worst to best in terms of stability, it would follow like this:
Communism
Socialism
Democracy
Theocracy (Rule by supposed priests)
Republic
Fascism (Nationalist State)
Autocracy
Constitutional Monarchy
Monarchy
Colin, I fully agree that assuming any man is “moral, ethical, and efficient” is a recipe for disaster. You can never assume with 100% accuracy that anyone else will be a better man, but can only make decisions based on their likelihood of cheating you. That is why the power to revolt is so important.
The inability to pull land out of the government was actually a pretty central element of my model government. The problem is that a government cannot effectively operate if they only have jurisdiction over random lots of land. Therefore, to join my model government you must delegate some of your “natural” land rights to the model government, including the right to sell to a “non-contracting” party. These rights are voluntarily surrendered for the contracted benefits of a mutually acknowledged standard for the use of force and courts to review uses of force.
As a matter of curiosity, does anyone know of any histories of “capitalistic anarchy”? Have societies managed to operate without the centralized use of force funded by non-voluntary funding? Were they “stable, moral, ethical, and efficient”? I tend to be somewhat suspicious of political theories that have never been made to work at large scales, such as a “true” communism, which is basically just a socialistic anarchy.