Authoritarian has a definition, it's not just "people who make laws that keep me from doing what I want."
People in the USA still complain in the same way today about laws mandating seat belt usage, but it's still not authoritarian. It's a net positive for the wearer and everyone around them, and it's incredibly childish to push back on something for no other reason than because someone is telling you to do it.
I don't claim to have the perfect definition for authoritarian behavior, but I would say that intending to consolidate authority is pretty key to it. Which making drivers' life miserable isn't really connected to, or at least I really don't see it.
Otherwise, the typical government is a central authority made up of people, carrying out lawmaking, adjudication, and enforcement activities [0], and so basically all of them could be characterized this way, with sufficient bad faith. So I'm not sure that's a very meaningful claim.
It definitely could be a misuse of power regardless though, but there's no evidence that I see in your comment that would suggest it was the officials in question misusing their powers rather than aligning with community sentiment or interests.
In my understanding, authoritarianism is not only defined by the desire to strengthen their own power, but also by the desire to bring the way of life of all other people in line with their own moral values.
For example, the persecution of homosexuals is widely recognized as an authoritarian behavior and has nothing to do with consolidate of authority
The persecution of homosexuals absolutely has an impact on consolidating authority.
* Some of your political opponents will be homosexual, so it gives you an avenue to remove them. You can turn a blind eye to your political allies, if they are discrete.
* You can use the accusation to persecute anyone.
* It sets the frame that the authority governs every private aspect of your life.
> the persecution of homosexuals is widely recognized as an authoritarian behavior
I have unfortunately missed out on that then, because I both do not recognize it as authoritarian behavior, nor do I recognize that recognition to be widely established at all.
There is a distinct correlation between authoritarian regimes and homosexuals being persecuted that I'm also aware of, but this is absolutely the first time I've ever heard someone describe the persecution of homosexuals as an authoritarian behavior.
Maybe we read the phrase here different? When I read "authoritarian behavior" I do not read it as "behavior associated with authoritarians", but instead as "behavior that is authoritarian in its nature".
Authoritarian has a definition, it's not just "people who make laws that keep me from doing what I want."
People in the USA still complain in the same way today about laws mandating seat belt usage, but it's still not authoritarian. It's a net positive for the wearer and everyone around them, and it's incredibly childish to push back on something for no other reason than because someone is telling you to do it.
New Hampshire is a state with no seat belt laws, yet it's near the bottom of traffic fatality rates in the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_road_de...
In the EU, Germany infamously has roads with no speed limits, but its traffic fatality rate isn't high either.
The statistic is almost funny to looking at, seeing SC at the top of the list with 40% more fatalities as the next state.
Germany only has no speed limits on some Autobahns. But you mostly end up in a Stau or Baustelle anyway, so it's not that exciting.
>It's a net positive for the wearer and everyone around them
This is literally the argument autocrats use for any authoritarian law they pass.
I don't claim to have the perfect definition for authoritarian behavior, but I would say that intending to consolidate authority is pretty key to it. Which making drivers' life miserable isn't really connected to, or at least I really don't see it.
Otherwise, the typical government is a central authority made up of people, carrying out lawmaking, adjudication, and enforcement activities [0], and so basically all of them could be characterized this way, with sufficient bad faith. So I'm not sure that's a very meaningful claim.
It definitely could be a misuse of power regardless though, but there's no evidence that I see in your comment that would suggest it was the officials in question misusing their powers rather than aligning with community sentiment or interests.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers
In my understanding, authoritarianism is not only defined by the desire to strengthen their own power, but also by the desire to bring the way of life of all other people in line with their own moral values.
For example, the persecution of homosexuals is widely recognized as an authoritarian behavior and has nothing to do with consolidate of authority
The persecution of homosexuals absolutely has an impact on consolidating authority.
* Some of your political opponents will be homosexual, so it gives you an avenue to remove them. You can turn a blind eye to your political allies, if they are discrete.
* You can use the accusation to persecute anyone.
* It sets the frame that the authority governs every private aspect of your life.
2 replies →
> the persecution of homosexuals is widely recognized as an authoritarian behavior
I have unfortunately missed out on that then, because I both do not recognize it as authoritarian behavior, nor do I recognize that recognition to be widely established at all.
There is a distinct correlation between authoritarian regimes and homosexuals being persecuted that I'm also aware of, but this is absolutely the first time I've ever heard someone describe the persecution of homosexuals as an authoritarian behavior.
Maybe we read the phrase here different? When I read "authoritarian behavior" I do not read it as "behavior associated with authoritarians", but instead as "behavior that is authoritarian in its nature".
1 reply →
But Finland is a democracy. People clearly voted for it.