How does this explain Athenian democracy or the Roman Republic? (Or, for that matter, Sparta’s elected ephors?)
Totalitarianism is the novelty. It has never, before recent decades, been feasible for a state to completely monitor all its citizens.
Also, the venetian republic lasted for a thousand years and for about half of that it had a mostly democratic system.
As I read history, I'd say that totalitarianism has been common throughout recorded history, perhaps even the majority.
The idea being that maybe authoritarianism “the natural order” but combined with ‘ok, but you’ll have to kill me first’.
I don’t know what your beliefs are on the matter, nor if you have an entirely valid point. I just wonder if anyone agrees but also feels that citizens shouldn’t have a means to protect themselves from their government that they beleive has an eventual tendeancy to turn authoritarian?
Edit: very strange reaction to asking questions that don’t imply any side one way or another but no responses... if you can’t even recognize another side of an argument without an emotional response... I mean... okay, but I think it’s odd.
Bang, you're dead.
The US romanticises revolution on the idea that every revolution will be like the US war of Independence, which is a really bad guide to how they tend to go in practice. People would do better to look at violence in South America as an example.
If the government wanted to demolish everything they could glass the entire country with the push of a button.. but to what end? To rule over nothing?
This argument inevitably leads to one where you say tanks and drones vs civilians, but like your ”bang you’re dead” example that isn’t a solution to policing a populace, to keep routes open, to keep production going. Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners. For that you need boots on the ground, and for that, you need people willing to go through doors knowing that the first guy or two will die. The supply is those guys runs out fast.
I don’t think it has anything to do with romanticism. It’s an honesty that we’ve seen in Iraq/Afghan/Syria for almost 20 years, even if you have the best miliary in the world with dozens of allies, that you can’t rule over people that don’t want to be if they can retaliate.
So... do all government roads lead to authoitarianism? IDK! But it surely happens slower when the people pose an individual threat, wouldn’t you think?
This view also presumes that there isn't a big chunk of the populace that voted for the authoritarianism and actively supports it.
but the on my mind - is the trend toward authoritarianism due to those in power seeking lordship, or select vocal groups among the serfs seeking to be lorded?