Arguments for Authoritarianism

What are some pros of authoritarianism, pol?

Leave that keyboard down slowly and raise your hands up miss

Open dissent of the government tends to be extremely low, so that means everyone is happy!

Also, their uniforms tend to look nicer.

When you have a smart dependable leader your people get almost no debt and Jewish tricks. This hasn't happened yet.

>Pros:
- Everyone knows their place
- Cool uniforms
- Probably better chance of having a wife

>Cons:
If you don't agree with some of things your leader says, well you can't say shit.

Its good if the leader is correct, aka National Socialism or National Syndacism.

Its bad if its Stalinism.

There are no innate human rights, only that which you are given. Might makes right and a nation gives your people more rights.

Pros:
>No
>Subjective
>[X] Doubt

Cons:
>You got this one right.

Order is nice. Leadership is preferable to power struggles. Unity feels nice.

>pros
not having to decide for yourself relives stress. but if thats what you are looking for, religion does it better.

pros
- you are entitled for a job, you don't have to think nearly as much or bother
- chill as long as you follow the leader and like him
- a good leader can be better then any democracy.

cons
- less effective the capitalism
- often uses force
- a bad leader can be much worse then any democracy
- chances are that over time it will get corrupt even if the foundation was noble

Allows you take part in a revolution.
Revolution is fun.

That last 'con' applies to every form of government, everywhere, ever. And the more centrally concentrated the power, the harder it is to decorrupt.

Shit gets done. Also good leaders tend to think long term unlike elected officials who are just concerned about their limited time in the office. Way less bureaucracy

>If you don't agree with some of things your leader says, well you can't say shit.
This never made sense to me. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with the governing system. Authoritarianism doesn't mean you can't express your opinion, it just means the governing power doesn't have to respect it.

Authoritarianism places no obstacles in the path of a leader. A good leader can thus function unhindered.

And a bad leader can run the country into the ground. Works both ways.

yes but a democracy can fix itself, a authoritarian ruller will claim that his cause is so noble that its ethical for him to exterminate the opposition.

Authoritarian is arguably more efficient in that they don't have congress or senates when passing certain bills or actions. Some example is China's new marine base that got a same day approval as opposed to how most Western country's bills needs years or even decades to finish.

The con is no check and balances, military coups are relatively common and political assassinations are always a thing since authoritarian positions are more valuable than a position in a democratic or republican government.

Indeed, it's a double-edged sword.

Power is more efficent and better off when it is consolidated in the hands of a few or a single individual/s

Democracy is inherently progressive in its nature and thus is self destructive because during new elections the politicians reach new and new lows just to make the masses happy and thus democracy eventually destroys itself. Thus a democratic society is a society that eventually decays and ends itself.

Democracy is inherently weak to foreign plants/shills overtaking your government by lies .

If you have a direct democracy its bad because every single dumb citizen that has no degree or no education and is otherwise dumb (majority of the population) has the same voting power as someone with decades of experience.

If its not a direct democracy then as soon as you get into office you can just start doing whatever you want.

An authoritarian society is much moew steadfast and usually conservative. In such a society changes happen very slowly and thus it over time it can become very clear if an idea works or not.

If not it can quickly be overturned if it does work it can quickly be instated.

The happiness of a person is not determined by how wealthy he is and not by how many rights of his are written on a piece of paper called human rights.

What matters is his needs need to be satisfied.


When something goes wrong (and it often does) in a democracy people usually vote againts the current government. Despite the fact that thw government had no control of what happened. This makes it possible for a bunch of good for nothing kikes to take over just because the time for them was right.

In a dictatorship/monarchy the people endure the hardship and are able to overcome it.


This one is for monarchy

Since intelligence is both hereditary and not it makes sense to put in power a good and capable leader (monarch) with good genes and nurture his offspring very well.

The combination of good genes as well as the best upbringing makes a good leader

Not anime you stupid fucking weeb. :^)

The main problem is free speech can cause problems for an authoritarian government. You're not wrong, but it's better to not have to deal with the headache of radicals

Nice blog post

Something that most people don't get is that pyramidal type of structures are stronger, last longer, are more efficient and every component is codependent. People below to obey and people up to be obeyed, a good leader knows its place. This type of structure only collapses when the people in the tip are corrupt or when the people down believe that and upside down pyramid is better (the first one is called tyranny and the second one marxism).

Democracy is partially functional, to some extend, but eventually it collapses.

I'd rather go with parliamentary monarchy

The underage understanding of an authoritarian government has been bastardised over the last century, and even further malformed on Sup Forums.

It doesn't mean much besides, well, an authorative government. That's all. So I think if a government genuinely represents the interests of a civilisation/people it has every right to make use of its authority.

Regardless of how cool the suits or, if an authoritarian government only has legitimate authority through seizing power, or it is cruel and bad for its own people then the Mandate of Heaven is broken.

"With great power comes great responsibility" - Unle Ben's minute rice

more stable than democracies but doesn00t have a long lifespan

How can you faggots have such a complex about being submissive, yet the ideology that is the epitome of submission if your favorite?

Really, what do you think that tells you about this board?

that we're cute anime girls who need to be dominated and loved

>doesn00t have a long lifespan
Pardon me?

Creepy, but probably true.

Adorable

The empire wasn't too authoritarian by Sup Forums standards. I was thinking more along the lines of any 20th century totalitarian system

#UnderageWhoresForTrump
You like my little girl bod senpai?

It also tells me some other things.

It tells me that you guys don't know much at all about history. How you could be unaware that authoritarianism is universally unpleasant for the people subject to it is telling.

There's another possibility though. It's reasonable to assume that you faggots hate democracy because you're very odd people who rarely identify with other people, and I think you hate freedom because you're hermit shut-ins who can be happy watching anime and posting angry things about women and Sup Forums all day rather than living a normal life.

Most importantly, I believe you all have a complex about domination and submission. You all really like submissiveness, and through reaction formation and projection, you constantly mock others for being submissive and the concept itself, despite everything else you say showing a clear affinity for submissiveness and giving up control of your lives to someone else.

>tl;dr
make us submit and give us attention or gtfo

Read my post like a good little bitch.

>How you could be unaware that authoritarianism is universally unpleasant for the people subject to it is telling.
But that's plain false, user.
And even if it was "unpleasant", it's necessary. The survival of a nation is more important then your personal pleasure and enjoyment.

It worked for past 6000 years when menaged right. Also, Machiavelli wrote few books about pros and cons of it, and he is one of Sup Forums incarnates.

Yes daddy
I'd say instead of projection it's more indirectly feeling who's more submissive and needy for attention to feed attention off of, I don't care about history much, I had girlfriends but I genuinely prefer trapping / degeneracy over them. You're taking this too seriously and making yourself look like an angry faggot, just saying~

>it's necessary.
The vast majority of authoritarian régimes collapse quite dramatically user
The fact you just posted Hitler isn't helping your point of "authoritarianism saving nations" because Hitler lead to the utter destruction of all of Germany in 12 years

>The vast majority of authoritarian régimes collapse quite dramatically user
The higher you fly the harder you crash. And what's interesting is that the collapse is almost exclusively due to exterior factors. Meanwhile democracies are eating themselves from the inside out, with a slow and gradual push for self-destructive liberal policies. I'd much rather live under nationalistic authoritarian rule then the democratic modern day Sweden.

>Hitler lead to the utter destruction of all of Germany in 12 years
You're conveniently ignoring the state of Germany before he came to power, and the fact that (((circumstances))) turned the entire world against him. He transformed a completely destroyed, impoverished, starving country into a global superpower that conquered the whole Europe, but more importantly - his people absolutely loved him, despite loosing their democracy. My point remains - Hitler would never have allowed masses of third world migrants into his country and the systematic destruction of his own people.

I think our Turkish friend was joking, user.
As for your ad hominem arguments about submissiveness, you have misunderstood the fundamental basis of traditionalism and conservatism- that each person understand their own weaknesses and utilizes their own strengths.
Basically, if someone who is stupider than you, unhealthier than you, and all-in-all worse at leadership than you resents you being in charge of a team project, you'd be annoyed. Not because of entitlement, but because you're clearly the person for the job, and are more able to take responsibility. You'd be annoyed because they can't see that you're all on the same team, and it is therefore mutually beneficial to put the best team members in the positions of most responsibility (responsibility = power btw).
Similarly, if someone is significantly better at you than something, there's no reason not to let them do it, provided their motives are right and they are, in fact, working towards the team goal.
This is the central argument for why a society should have accepted authorities. This is why children should obey their parents, and why sometimes, the leaders of a society must take measures without the consultation of those who are more ignorant, less experienced, or simply unable to lead and make decisions in the same way.

Also we're into BDSM. (joke)

If you guys are so good at bantz and wit how come murrica turned out like this? Is it years of inbreeding and race mixing?
*slaps tits*

This.

Cuck is just Sup Forums projecting.

I'd say it's more about understanding which heirarchies MUST be in place. The people should follow the leaders, and as a person I would have no problem with that. But look at the world today, look at who submits to who and the divisiveness and subversion it causes.
Men should not be submitting to women
Those born in your country should not be submitting to those who have just arrived
To me, following a good leader is as natural as assimilating a foreigner or having an obedient wife.