|
Sorry to burst your bubble ARTele but Stalin is a textbook example of authoritarianism. Or are you arguing for another form authoritarianism? Nazi Germany? Khmer Rouge Cambodia? Castro's Cuba? Orwell's Oceania? If you're advocating a new yet-unseen form of authoritarianism you haven't given us any details. You complain that this thread is straying off topic and devolving into semantic arguements, yet you don't provide a solid topic and misuse words.
On Libertarian v. Authoritarian: Authoritarians would argue for centralized state control and concentrated power while Libertarians would disperse power among smaller states, provinces, counties etc. Compeletely decentralized Libertarian government runs the risk of dissolving any semblance of a unified nation. Authoritarianism is clearly better for forming a national army capable of defense and especially attack. Strong defense is possible in a Libertarian government through autonomous militia and guerilla warfare but raising an army for attack would be difficult. Authoritarian governments are not as economically strong as democratic ones due to endemic corruption that accompanies that form of leadership. Libertarian governments would almost certainly have to exist as democracies. A flaw of Authoritarianism lies in how new leaders are chosen, typically when a authoritarian leader dies so does his or her government.
|