| I'm not sure where you got the idea of "laws = authoritarianism" from my questions, but it definitely is an easy strawman to knock over. In fact, I believe the level of laws a society has should be negotiated by its citizens. I prefer a more liberal society, but that does not mean I do not want laws. The question to be debated is just how much power a government should have. Personally I would prefer that parents and their community determine what is right for a child to be exposed to instead of a top-down approach, but there is a lot of grey area there and must be negotiated culturally and politically. What I do fear is that authoritarians rarely give up authority once given, and once given enough authority the populace's ability to negotiate government's role in their life democratically evaporates. Increasingly despotic leaders seek the power the government now holds. The history of the 20th century shows this in extreme forms in the likes of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. Especially in the case of Germany - Hilter was elected! - the people wanted his authority because he promised to fix Germany, promised to fix the morals of their society. I see parallels in legislating morality, or the attitude that government _should_ legislate every moral or social quandary. Anyway, I'd encourage you to steel-man your opponents ideas instead of assuming the most ridiculous, easily-defeated idea of it. |