Here are some past dissertation workings that were determined to be superb ramblings. Enjoy:
If the people are arbitrarily interfered with by terrorists at any given time, then the people will suffer grotesque interference. An authoritarian structure does hold and take immediate positions against terrorism. The stationary bandit protects the people from roving bandits. To be sure, a denizen who lost a family member to a terrorist attack suffered an unspeakable loss. The people rally to protect fellow citizens. The people authorize the government to create a panopticon, and to violate civil liberties and rights if and when necessary, in order to prevent terrorist attacks.
Conversely, an authoritarian government may or may not be based on democracy, or the people’s consent. If the people are authoritarians, then they would democratically elect authoritarians. But if the people are non-authoritarians, like liberals or republicans, then the authoritarian elites would usurp power and create mechanisms, like the panopticon, to maintain power. Either way, an authoritarian state is an intrusive regime which creates second-class citizens. The government elites protect interest groups who dominate other interest groups on par with governmental progress and allow an unequal footing for competitors. The economic and environmental exploitation, in the broadest sense, empirically showcases exclusion of citizens from a part of the political and social process. This does not happen in liberal or republican societies.
The authoritarian state is intrusive because the panopticon means that the denizen is never without the monitoring of the state. The person is never alone, and the citizens have no choice in the matter. Perversely, the state shall tell people “WHICH” civil rights and liberties it shall take away—or violate; indeed, authoritarian states often engage pretexts in order to withdrawal all power from the people, and into the distributive (and redistributive) hands of the state.
For example, on Planet Authoritarianism (i.e., Planet Auth), any given regime may claim to only allow illegal searches and seizures when related to terrorist activities, which have come to light via panopticon surveillance. Yet, the regime may abuse the law so that it extends to non-terrorist activity, like drugs or prostitution. On the one hand, the country on Planet Auth has used a pretext to legally search and seize without probable cause or a warrant. On the other hand, the authoritarian regime doesn’t need the pretext, but may find it useful in limiting citizen opposition—particularly if there are liberals or republicans living in the state.
An authoritarian response by a stationary bandit—to control roving bandits—would be to detain roving bandits indefinitely. This, alone, violates numerous liberal and republican tenets. From the liberal perspective, a person has a natural right to their life, liberty, and happiness. The state cannot put someone behind bars without a fair and speedy trial, or the Great Writ of habeas corpus (i.e., charges brought against individual in jail).
Capitalism, further, admonishes the panopticon because it would stifle and stultify creative destruction, and perhaps enable members of the state to limit / squeeze entrepreneurial activity. What would an authoritarian, if in charge of the state, do to “own” the top 1 percent of entrepreneurs within the state? Imagine if Bill Gates grew up in North Korea—and North Korea owned Microsoft.
Republican tenets are obliterated when the government can indefinitely detain an individual. There is no greater form of domination, other than perhaps working as a slave. Indeed, authoritarianism seeks violence by one faction upon another, even if the authoritarian state is designed to protect the people from terrorists. Republicans would never detain a person on earth indefinitely, without charges from a grand jury.
Republican values in the early 21st century are associate “action” with the values of “non-domination” (Pettit 2012). Non-domination creates an integrated society, whereby the denizens are nestled throughout life in efficacious and worthwhile activity. On Planet Republicanism (Planet Repu) for example, a state may show that 80 percent of adult workers are employed (or self-employed) via non-profits, 15 percent are employed in by for-profits, and 5 percent work for the government to enforce non-domination–in theory.
Authoritarians have no interest in a liberal or republican society, because those other societies would prodigiously limit the potential of authoritarians to manipulate the state and society—to own power. Authoritarians almost require a panopticon in order to efficiently coerce the society / state. Since an authoritarian government can be legitimate with, or without, the people’s consent; the regime will likely prefer Ceausescu’s panopticon (i.e., Pacepa’s account of microphones in all denizens phones without the people knowing). Authoritarians may claim to represent the people. However, authoritarianism does not promote the will of the median voter; rather, the will of special power-relations and interests.
For example, Ceausescu is widely thought to be one of the most ruthless dictators under communism behind the iron curtain. Pacepa (1987) said that this stationary bandit openly and often emphasized, “My whole life has been devoted to the World Revolution of the Proletariat” (i.e., the lower class) (77). However, “corruption and prostitution reigned at the highest levels in Romania, and the microphones relentlessly recorded everything… Ceausescu also ordered a monitoring room built behind his office, so he could personally check on the take from the microphones. They were the key to his power” (128). Ceausescu, having literally every phone bugged, said, “We should not trust anyone, family members included, before checking on their thoughts” (131). Ceausescu predicted that by January 1, 1984, the state would be monitoring 10 million microphones simultaneously.
This panopticon would enable Ceausescu to “be the only country on earth able to know what every single one of its citizens is thinking… What you are doing here, comrades, is the real science of government. It is a true public opinion survey… Communism is the only real democracy, and generations will attest to that for generations to come” (138-139). And as citizens spoke out against the government, they could arbitrarily be dealt with by the Romanian secret police. Herein is an example, par excellence, not of communism; rather, authoritarianism!
to be kindly terse: WE NEED REPUBLICANISM TO TRIUMPH OVER AUTHORITARIANISM!
We need to understand why ED SNOWDEN is the Savior of our American Republic!