By Lewk's logic, pretty much any law is authoritarian.
He's obviously an anarchist.
By Lewk's logic, pretty much any law is authoritarian.
He's obviously an anarchist.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Lewk is mostly correct albeit with a very negative shading. Authoritarian isn't just a status for the extreme end of law-making, it is also a direction in the spectrum. Statism and authoritarianism both move down the same road, just with different ascribed intents. You use the former if you're being neutral and the latter if you're being pejorative. A degree of authoritarianism isn't actually a bad thing.Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
By Lewk's logic, pretty much any law is authoritarian.
He's obviously an anarchist.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That's certainly true but the way Lewk is using it is so overly broad that it becomes completely and utterly useless.
Which kind of was my point in the first place.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Define authoritarian to me because we seem to be working with a definition gap. I do view it as when control is placed in the hands of the government as opposed to the individual. Obviously we need some laws but no one should ever lose sight of the fact that laws restrict freedom. They are a necessary evil and should be doled out as limited as possible securing people against the threat of violence from internal and external threats. (Ie, criminals, terrorists and invasion).By Lewk's logic, pretty much any law is authoritarian.
He's obviously an anarchist.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote