Title. We are all born in different cultures and regions in an area. We are all determined by our geopolitical interests bound by regions. Is Authoritarianism ever good? Combinations of: -Population control. Controlling fertility rate if too high or too low -Control of the media, you don't enemy propaganda to get in your lines, but what most people believe what to hear -Rampant nationalism, even when it harms other nations extremely -Promoting one type of societal value and demonizing others -Controlling power corporations like production, media, banks so they don't get too big -Vast focus on military resources -Control of corporations so they simulate national jobs rather than go overseas. -High control on international trade Take Saddam Hussein for instant. Although he was a Sunni, he was secular. He had Iranians trying to take over the Shia side of his nation and Sunnis extremists from Saudi Arabia trying to take control and make terrorists. He had to be centralized and brutal to make sure his people listen. Security was key, and he was willing to go at all odds to find foreign threats to his regime even to spying on people, harsh executions and torture. Or the Russian regimes, not just the Communists, but the older Empire and newer Russia. To keep control of the vast sorts of ethnicities from falling in chaos, a strong military, mass centralization(such as building railroads) to keep everything order. It is very expensive to transport goods across Russia. Putin effectively dismantled the elite Oligarchs and put them under his control, leadership the previous government lacked. His effective campaign in Chechynia suppressed the Muslim rebels and put them under Russian control. He simulated the economy by government investments.
Yes it is good or at least has been good at certain points in the political maturity of a people. In some areas Democracy is not able to provide for the needs of the people. They have to work their way towards it.
i suppose authoritarianism is good for the peasant mentality that must be told what to do, when to do it and how much of it to do. such people need the guiding hand of the state just to keep them alive, but letting them die off may not be such a bad thing. i know all the social justice warriors out there will start foaming at such an announcement, but i don't really care. while i do consider every life important, each adult's importance runs along a sliding scale that drops off sharply once it reaches the point where a person isn't able to see to his own responsibilities. like it or not, your own survival is your responsibility and it's just downright idiotic to demand everyone else pick up the tab for an intrusive authoritarian state just because you can't hack it. in case you haven't already guessed - i voted NO!!!
Authoritarianism is generally good provided tha tthe person doing the leading is a strong enough leader, who is qualified to be in the position in the first place (ie, was elected by the people). What we should do is have one-party elected leaders every 20-30 years. That way, the election is between candidates who all represent the same beliefs, but want to do different things and may or may not have different and better qualifications to be the authoritarian leader. The issue is of course that candidates dont have to do whatever they said to get elected, so, to fix that, you have party whips repurposed to be whips to the authoritarian leader. So like, if that person stated he wouldnt invade a country, but then did anyways, the party whip is the only one with the power to check the leader.
Authoritarianism is necessary for some kinds of government to function. These include Nazism, Communism, Fascism, and extreme autocratic Socialist regimes like the one that Comrade Obama runs, using his "pen and phone". Hint: Obama has no regard for the Constitution of the United States and he issues his "executive" decrees, proclamations, and orders instead of following the explicit wording of the Constitution. By contrast, Adolf Hitler found a way to avoid dealing with the German "Congress", called the Reichstag. Want to know one KEY difference in the way that Hitler did this...? Hitler went to this German Reichstag FIRST and asked for their PERMISSION to rule like an autocrat by passing legislation called an "Enabling Act of 1933". Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 . The German legislators gave Hitler the power and only then did he rule Germany like a dictatorial autocrat. But not Obama.... . "Before I started ruling like an dictatorial autocrat, I asked my Congress for permission!"
