WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

465

A recent study published in American Political Science Review, a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University, begins with a teasing question: “Is authoritarian power ever legitimate?”

In a Godless world where people think they are god the answer is a resounding yes. Though they'll never tell you this. They'll also bever tell you that they think of you as worthless scum that came from a primordial goo.

For many, the answer is clearly no, concedes the study’s author—Ross Mittiga, an assistant professor of political theory at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. But Mittiga, in the abstract to the study, suggests otherwise: “While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach.” ‘Explicitly Argues for Authoritarian Governance’?

A recent study published in American Political Science Review, a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University, begins with a teasing question: “Is authoritarian power ever legitimate?” >In a Godless world where people think they are god the answer is a resounding yes. Though they'll never tell you this. They'll also bever tell you that they think of you as worthless scum that came from a primordial goo. For many, the answer is clearly no, concedes the study’s author—Ross Mittiga, an assistant professor of political theory at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile. But Mittiga, in the abstract to the study, suggests otherwise: “While, under normal conditions, maintaining democracy and rights is typically compatible with guaranteeing safety, in emergency situations, conflicts between these two aspects of legitimacy can and often do arise. A salient example of this is the COVID-19 pandemic, during which severe limitations on free movement and association have become legitimate techniques of government. Climate change poses an even graver threat to public safety. Consequently, I argue, legitimacy may require a similarly authoritarian approach.” ‘Explicitly Argues for Authoritarian Governance’?

(post is archived)

[–] 3 pts

If you want to impose your own politican system, such as liberal fascism, on an unreceptive population, first you postulate a fantasy problem that doesn't exist (man-made climate change, for example) and pretend that it is a grave threat to the people; then you regretfully inform those people that in order to save them from the imaginary problem, you are going to need to take complete control over their lives and tell them all what to do and say in perpetuity. The people you have terrified with imaginary horrors will get down on their knees and beg you to take away their liberty so that you can save them from the imaginary danger.

[–] 1 pt

Excellent explanation. Spot on. Unfortunately we are surrounded by these sheeple. Imagine this, culling all the sheep into one direction without the use of one Border Collie. Perhaps the Border Collie would give it away. :)

[–] 2 pts

How else do you "fight" an intangible enemy that crosses all borders and boundaries? This has always been the end goal of the environmental movement

[–] 1 pt

I will ask these self appointed 'experts' to explain the three separate ICE AGES in California. Then pretend they are experts on climate change.

[–] 1 pt

The earth's climate is constantly changing so they are saying "We need Authoritarianism for YOUR own good". Now I see why they've been dumbing down students for the last umpteenth years.