edited 7th Mar '11 2:59:55 AM by Tongpu
That is a disturbing line of thought.
EDIT: Okay, that was slightly inflammatory. I think it could be better summed up as, what would be your criteria for who would be considered 'authoritarian'? Are you basing this on actions or words, or thoughts? How would you deal with people who disagree with authoritarianism, but also disagree with your system?
edited 7th Mar '11 7:07:59 AM by EthZee
By murdering anyone who attempts to force their will on another individual, aren't you yourself forcing your will upon them?
Isn't it authoritarian to blindly exterminate any individual who seems to hold authoritarian ideals?
Under your current system you would need to kill yourself if you tried to enforce your doctrine.
edited 7th Mar '11 12:48:04 PM by Pentadragon
Ding, ding, ding!
Reeducation might be "risky", but culling is certain to result in deaths (people die when they are culled).
Given the choice between the risk of something bad and the guarantee of something bad, I'd rather take the risk.
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The StaffThat's so obvious I'm very mad at myself for not noticing it.
edited 7th Mar '11 3:13:13 PM by ViralLamb
Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.
Tongpu: When I say "without government", "killing everybody in government or with a stake in defending it" is a valid option. It's called "revolution". I guess they could also step down peacefully, or they might collapse on their own.
My personal recommendation would be giving no quarter to the authorities during a revolution.
Perhaps those who surrender might be spared, but I wouldn't advise it: If you leave the cops and the politicians alive, they're bound to revert to their old habits. I do not believe in reeducating authoritarians: Culling them is less risky.
edited 7th Mar '11 2:47:48 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.