this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
95 points (92.8% liked)

General Discussion

12013 readers
10 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

To keep it short the reason why some people are ok with authoritarianism is because most structures that we deal with on a daily basis are authoritarian.

Here is evidence that shows a significant amount of people are ok with authoritarianism:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/28/who-likes-authoritarianism-and-how-do-they-want-to-change-their-government/sr_24-02-28_authoritarianism_1/

This should be concerning.

And the thing is that it makes sense once you look at what are the most common systems that people interact with the most.

A clear example would be the Boss-Worker relationship. The boss creates a set of objectives/tasks for the worker and the worker sees them out. Rarely does the worker get the chance to set the higher level direction of what they are supposed to be doing with their time leaving them obedient to the boss and their demands.

Another example would be some Parent-Child relationships. Some parents treat their children as people that should show absolute respect towards them just because they are the parents not because they have something that is of value to the child (experience).

Even in the places where we do make democratic decisions those are usually made in ways that are supposed to be supplemental to authoritative decision making. An example would be how we don’t vote on decisions but instead how we vote on others to make decisions for us.

Once you add up all the experiences that someone has throughout their whole life you will see that most of them come into direct contact with authoritarian systems which means it makes that kind of way of thinking familiar and therefore acceptable.

Unlike democracy which is an abstract concept and something we only really experience from time to time.

If we want people to actually stop thinking authoritarianism is ok then we as a society are gonna have to stop using these kinds of systems / ways of thinking in our daily lives.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hm... I'm not sure I follow what one has to do with the other. Are you alluding to some sort of banana-republic-esque situation? Or just general anticompetitve/monopolistic behavior?

Just very generally. In a company there is generally no formalized structure to represent the opinion of the subjects in this case workers. Neither are there such structures in dictatorships.

For the sake of clarity, are you using quotes to reference some group who misappropriates the libertarian term? Or are you saying that the libertarian philosophy argues for an anti-democratic state?

I do not know what you mean when you say "libertarian philosophy", since things like libertarian socialism has very little overlap with "libertarianism" of the right. And there are the quotes again. I just think the word does not really seem appropriate in describing the philosophy when all I have heard from individuals defending it only reflect over the liberty to opress, never the liberty from escaping that opression.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

I'm just trying to make sure that I don't make assumptions in your position, so please forgive my probing.

In a company there is generally no formalized structure to represent the opinion of the subjects in this case workers.

So, to be clear, when you allude to the idea of companies being dictatorial, you are only referring to the treatment of the workers employed by the company and not how consumers interact with companies?

I do not know what you mean when you say “libertarian philosophy”

I am specifically referring to the political science concept of "libertarianism" [Wikipedia has a good outline, or this Britannica defintion, etc.] — libertarianism's primary interest is in maximizing individual liberties, and strongly upholding individual rights.

all I have heard from individuals defending it only reflect over the liberty to opress, never the liberty from escaping that opression

Imo, this is due to a misappropriation of the term — I think I know what sorts of factions that you are referring to, and I would agree that they are not following what libertarianism advocates. Libertarianism does not advocate for the oppression of others; individual rights, and freedoms are held as paramount — the oppression of another is to infringe on their rights, and liberties. I personally simply refrain from using the term "libertarian" when talking about those sorts of people, as it only tarnishes the public's perception of what the philosophy actually advocates.