Comment by perching_aix
3 days ago
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.
Amazing mental gymnastics, literally every point is applicable to prosecution for not wearing a seat belt.
Only there are even more people who do not wear seat belts than practicing homosexuals, i.e. by your logic, a fine for not wearing a seat belt is MORE AUTHORITARIAN than the law on persecuting homosexuals.
1 reply →
> 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".
> nor do I recognize that recognition to be widely established at all.
> absolutely the first time I've ever heard someone describe the persecution of homosexuals as an authoritarian behavior
Google defines "authoritarian" even more broadly than I do:
> favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
So I would say that that recognition is established extremely wide.