On Balance, authoritarianism cannot ever be justified

Firstly, I would like to further define some terms in the resolution. The resolution is stated on balance. This implies that in many cases, not only one case. There are some cases, agreed by even libertarians like J. S Mill, that authoritarianism may be justified. However, these cases are specific cases. Burden of proof is shared. Thus the opponent has to prove that an authoritarian state, on balance, can be justified. The opponent’s burden, unlike stated in his R1, is not to only provide one case, but to provide a justification for authoritarian state and its usage in most situations. Definitions: Authoritarian is defined as a form of government in which blind and absolute authority is given to the state. We can briefly say that an authoritarian government is illegitimate and the state is filled with corruption. We may also state at this point that an authoritarian democracy may not be used in this case; an authoritarian democratic government has complete legitimacy. Justified is the action of something being defendable; able to be shown right. With my definitions justified, I would like to move onto my contentions. Contention One: Liberty For something to be moral, which I use interchangeably for right, it must be within the moral limits widely accepted by humanity. Whilst I do agree that morality is subjective, there is a vague measure for what is moral. Something that is moral will completely respect the rights, or at least the three essential liberties of every human being. We may turn this argument into an ethical argument, but this argument will be looking at this issue from a utilitarian manner, in the manner of great political philosopher J. S Mill. J. S Mill outlined three essential liberties that a moral state must have. 1. Freedom of Speech 2. Freedom of Taste 3. Freedom of Unity Authoritarian, by definition, violates all three of these essential liberties. This creates a dilemma; if a state is immoral, can it be justifiable in cases? This question is already hard. As defined, justified is the action of being proven right; but if right, in this case, is a synonym of morality, and it is already immoral to violate one of these rights (never mind the complete violation of all three), then how can such a state be justified? That is for the opponent to prove. As for me, my job here is to prove that an authoritarian state violates all three of these essential liberties. In many authoritarian societies, all three of these essential liberties are absent. Before one looks at this dilemma from an empirical point of view, we must look at the situation rationally. An authoritarian state needs to hold its powers, but naturally, all systems are always criticized. Libertarianism has been criticized for being anarchistic; socialism has been criticized for being oppressive etc. etc. It is very highly unlikely that authoritarianism would not have any critics. In fact, authoritarian regimes are more likely to face criticism than other regimes, partly because of its oppressive nature and partly because its illegitimacy. These three essential liberties allow for people to defy authority, to defy the state and to critique it. In response to this, what does a normal authoritarian regime deals with these critics? The first authoritarian regime we look at is the Assad regime in Syria; after usurping control from the previous sectarian democratic government, the Assad regime took the essential liberties from the Syrian people. Hafez Al-Assad, although he was religiously tolerant, did not approve political dissidence. Bashar Al-Assad also followed the same path; although he briefly allowed dissidence in 2001 during the Damascus Spring, after campaigns of civil disobedience these were dismantled. An authoritarian regime deals with critics of its regime as if it were they were a disobedient crowd in an obedient society; when one uses one’s liberty, this is called using one’s rights. Al-Assad did not allow the second liberty to be exercised either; in regards to homosexuality, the Al-Assad regime took a Muslim approach and outlawed homosexuality. Homosexuality is the freedom of taste as it is one’s individual choice to choose the gender that one is attracted to. Does it harm society? What do two homosexuals having intercourse have to do with your society? Nothing; no harm is exercised. Then therefore, homosexuality is justifiable, via the second essential liberty, yet in Syria, it is outlawed. The Al-Assad regime also violated the last essential liberty; the freedom to unite. The Damascus Spring is brought back as an example; liberty fighters united, but were then arrested by the Assad regime. These people had all the rights to stand for what they stood for; but it was the corrupt and immoral Assad government, whose aim was not to advance the people or the nation, but to increase and glorify one family. It is disgusting how a family, a state, or any institution could violate our rights like this. For a man who “renounces liberty renounces being a man, surrenders the rights of humanity and its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. ” J. J Rousseau, Social Contract, Book One Contention Two: Genocide Authoritarian regimes are genocidal in nature. Empirically and theoretically, they commit more genocides than non-authoritarian regimes. The Assad Regime, previously used, has killed many people; Bashar Al-Assad indirectly led to the deaths of 100,000+, whilst Hafez Al-Assad has killed 30,000 Syrian citizens, but covering it up and saying that they were rebels. This is the true face of authoritarianism; deaths after deaths of innocent civilians, often exercising their liberties. Can this be justified? Individually, each case has its defenders; the defenders of the Holocaust say that the Jewry was out to destroy the world, whilst the defenders of the Great Leap Forward say that the capitalist led to its downfall. However, we are looking at this in an "on balance" perspective; if justified is being able to be shown right, or moral, then genocide under authoritarianism must be shown moral. However, for something to be moral, this thing has to be right. However, the evil minds of authoritarian leaders naturally lead men who hold power to inflict genocide on the populace; evil is the word used here, because the death of one innocent person standing up for their liberty cannot ever be justified, much less millions. It is estimated that 360,000,000 people are dead from the evil face of authoritarian control; this figure is not widely out of the park; in fact, it is quite realistic. The Maoist murders in China resulted in the deaths of 46 million people, 45 million from famine and 1 million from the Cultural Revolution that followed. Hitler’s Holocaust killed 6 million people; Stalin’s Gulagist policies killed 32 million people. Apart from this, World War II, which is normally attributed to the aggression of the Axis Authoritarian Dictatorships, led to the deaths of 60 million people. The Khmer Rouge caused the deaths of 3 million people. In the last century alone, we are given a figure of 118 million deaths already! Authoritarianism, on a balance, cannot be ever justified; being justified requires the majority of the state within that description to be moral. But the majority of these states have killed thousands. The death of thousands are immoral. Contention Three: Freedom and Pursuit of Happiness Firstly, one comes to a need to justify why freedom is not liberty; the two are highly interrelated, but liberty leads to freedom, whilst freedom is not only liberty. Freedom is a will of the mind; it is the “need to be free from outside interferences” Freedom is a means to work towards utopia, and freedom is necessary for the common human being. Then one needs to know what freedom is. What is freedom? Looking back into history, there are two fields of political theorists who have theorized in the concept of freedom; one is led by Hegel and followed by Marx and Engels, first theorized by Plato. This freedom is “liberation from ignorance” The other field of freedom was led by Rousseau, and was followed by Mill and Locke. This freedom is “freedom from outside interferences” We adopt the second school of thought, in which we call “Law-Restricted Freedom” In the school of “Law-Restricted Freedom” the government is an entity/institution to protect humans from the violation of their rights; most notably, the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. An authoritarian government, as stated before, violates two of these four rights; the right to liberty is destroyed by the need to instill fear into the populace, whilst the right to life is destroyed in the need to keep order within the populace. The pursuit of happiness is the subject of this contention. At this point, I would like to say that the only natural rights that the authoritarian state accepts are the rights to property. But again, if one of these rights is violated, then the state is immediately immoral. Pursuit of happiness is freedom to pursue whatever occupation one may need; whether as a journalist, a musician, a monk or a politician. The pursuit of happiness is, however, violated in an authoritarian state; as stated before, an authoritarian state is when the state exercises complete and utter control over every sector of life. This means they control the arts too; abstract art was denounced in the Soviet Union for being too capitalistic, even though it was a right of the painters to paint whatever art they needed. Arnold Schoenburg’s music was degenerated, according to Nazi authorities, and his music was banned, even though the genre of each musician is no state issue. We can see that many authoritarian states have intefered with this right, and the other rights. Is the violation of rights ever justified? On balance, no. The resolution is,therefore,negated. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...;