Good said:I don't have the time to go too deep into this, maybe I will get a book on it. But from what I did see, I think I do agree with Hobbes.
But Rousseau says that the state of nature of humans is to be nice and kind and it changed with science and civilization, for people to become more sinful and have vices. I do not agree with that. I think people used to be more savage and brutal in the past, when they raped, killed, and lived for 20 years. The natural state of man is savage and thanks to our scientific progress, we started to worry less and less about survival, giving us time to think about the world. As we became less ignorant and more thoughtful, we could overcome our savage nature.
So similar to Rousseau, but in a glass half empty kind of way?
You in effect see civilization as what is unnatural for how people behave, rather than blaming civilization for why people are horrid. This does indeed sound more like Hobbes:
Why should peaceful cooperation be impossible without an overarching authority? Hobbes provides a series of powerful arguments that suggest it is extremely unlikely that human beings will live in security and peaceful cooperation without government. His most basic argument is threefold.
(i) He thinks we will compete, violently compete, to secure the basic necessities of life and perhaps to make other material gains.
(ii) He argues that we will challenge others and fight out of fear (“diffidence”), so as to ensure our personal safety.
(iii) And he believes that we will seek reputation (“glory”), both for its own sake and for its protective effects (for example, so that others will be afraid to challenge us).
There's more in that section about his opinions over human nature.
Here is my political theory:
Less personal reasons why I prefer authoritarian governments over democratic ones are these:
A leader has no consequences for his actions. When a leader is elected he gets to rule, gets paid, and does his thing. Then when the term is over unless he did something illegal, he just goes back to his life, it does not matter what he did, how bad or poorly it was during his rule. Sure, maybe he won't be elected again, but that is not a large incentive. In an authoritarian regime, the leader usually dies. Now you can see why he would care a lot more about his situation.
A democratic term is usually short, so long-term goals are less important to the leader and he has to fix the mess of the previous leader. If you are a leader for life, you can really see the bigger picture and set up everything to be efficient for your rule.
The power of the leader in a democracy is not in the nation he rules. It is his money. This makes leaders corrupt. Because once his term is over, and even when he is in rule, he can get more done with money, than the system. He has the incentive to pursue money over what has to be done.
In an authoritarian regime, the power of the leader is in the nation. How well it is doing, social, religious, scientific, economic, cultural progress. The army. His life is tied to his nation. If the nation gets fucked, he will probably get fucked and he loses power directly, whenever the nation takes a blow. Now, this is an incentive to rule correctly for your own selfish benefit.
The first problem I immediately see with this idea comes from Monarchy models, setups where the next one to be thrown into power is likely blood related with enough of a system of wealth and security in place to ensure that things like assassination are a lot harder to accomplish.
This sort of thing plays into inherent privilege, they grow unable to relate to the very people they are meant to be in charge of and, as a result, do not end up representing the people's best interests rather than their own as a matter of perceptions. Rather than being desperate enough to work for wages with risk of corruption you now see corruption occurring out of sheer ignorance with no easy means of replacing them.
By comparison, a Democratic government (on paper anyway) would be able to not have to escalate to the point of murder, unlikely murder well above their station at that, to fix the problem. People would be given the idea, or even potentially the illusion, that them voting is equivalent to throwing rocks at their enemy's houses, pacifying them far enough to not throw said rocks until something breaks and even invite infighting among those who'd vote against them, rather than directly at the Monarch itself.
The idea that people have power over society gives reason for people to divide into a social civil war, one that works far enough to tire them out, while Authoritarian structures force much harder demands that could easily boil and bubble into something worse, or be helpless to stop the problem entirely. While both are prone to escalation and corruption, one is less stuck in place and people fighting eachother lets business run undisturbed in the background during the distractions.
