Vorkosigan

I have presented a strong critique of your inductive argument, and it will not go away even if you re-assert your point. Your reluctance to make the statement 'all authoritarian systems throughout history have led to atrocity' implies that you accept the possibility of an exception. As I have demonstrated in earlier posts, if such an exception does in fact exist, your inductive argument fails.

No, it does not. Political violence in authoritarian societies carries with it the implicit threat of political murder, which is why it is so "persuasive." That is why are no authoritarian societies that do not rest on political violence, and almost all commit political murder. The rulers of Singapore, having some wit, use lawsuits and a complaint judiciary, as well as intimidation and arrests and detention, against their opponents. But Singapore is an exception to many rules.

Next, you raise a different argument. Authoritarian systems cannot be good or neutral, therefore they must be bad. I really don't know how to handle this, because you didn't offer any arguments as to why authoritarian systems cannot be good or neutral. Again, I am going to have to ask you for some reasoning here. If you can show that political violence necessarily follows from authoritarian belief, then I will proclaim to the heavens that authoritarian belief is bad. If not, then we can agree to disagree.

Same argument, actually. Political violence, which occurs in ALL authoritarian governments (it may not advance to killing) is only one facet of why they are bad. The inefficiency, radicalism, arbitrariness, lack of accountability, dysfunctional administrative structures, lack of clear succession of leaders, fundamental instability, and so on, are a few of the many reasons to consider authoritarianism bad even without violence.

I mean, do I have to make an argument that authoritarianism is bad? Surely no formal argument is necessary on that score!

Authoritarians are not necessarily utilitarians. How is that a problem?

It seems to me that you were arguing that the reason authoritarians kill is for utilitarian reasons. But it is not. In authoritarian societies, the highest value is authority, not the greatest good of the greatest number.

The "higher atheist body count" is what was proposed in the argument. As I demonstrated to Rhea, the truth or falsehood of that proposition doesn't matter.

Maybe, but first the asserter has to establish that there really is a higher atheist body count. As far as I know, there is no atheist body count. The body count belongs to Christianity, Communism, Islam, Facism and other authoritarian belief systems.

Michael

Jonsey3333

Here is how the Crusades happened. Pope Urban, the leader of Christianity (it was one church then) declares a holy war on the Muslems who lived to the East. After practicing on Domestic non-believers (Jews), mobs of Christians, including lords and serfs, marched East and terrorized the Muslem cities. What followed was a holy war in reaction from Muslem leaders. All of these killings were directly caused by their respective religions. If the people were Athiest (a big if, virtually none of them could read), none of the killings would have happened.

-Mike