Liberal democracy means majority rule and minority rights. What prevails in liberal democracy--or what should prevail in a liberal democracy-- is not a war of views over common good, rather a dialogue and discursive process over common good. That is to say liberal democracy is essentially government by discussion and not war. The analogy with war, in my view, is incorrect. However, what concrete shape a liberal democracy takes is not determined at a conceptual level. It is determined by the concrete circumstances, social, political and economic within which a liberal democracy operates. These contextual circumstances can push the liberal democracy into varying degrees of liberality and authoritarianism. Political ideologies, a spectrum of them --conservative to radical-- by themselves do not entirely determine reality. They can probably help shape reality. However, as the good old Marx put it, it is always the concrete circumstances that determine ideas and the limits to the operationlization or operability of ideologies. ' Mankind takes upon itself only such tasks as it can solve'. Even in a liberal democracy.

Anil, you did not answer the question extreme liberal democrcacy(USEXIT) and authoritarianim(ALLSORTS OF DICTATORS/strong men)....that is the heart of the question....

I live in a normal liberal democracy and here we have war of views without throwing physical punches....a war means heated dialoge and discussions about different ways of advancing the common good with science as a backbone as I described in the context of the question....

Do you know the difference between a normal liberal democracy and an extreme liberal democracy? If you do, you may be able to see the links in this question. If you do not, you will not be able to see the links in this question clearly....Based on your comment, it seems you do not....

If you look at extreme liberal democracy from the point of view of Trumpism you may be able to see the links...

Thank you for your comment Anil

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Extremalities often point to the same - as in this case, to the visible "invisible hand".

Arvydas, as you have seen in my papers things you can not see when looking from inside the box become evident when you look at the same things from outside the box

Do you have any comments on the central links in this question?

Thanks for your comment

Dear Uchendu, you comment is not clear....Can you please expand it?....

There are 3 components, normal liberal democracy/democratic outcome, extreme liberal democracy/democratic outcome, and authoritarian regimes...

The question is about specificallly extreme liberal democracy/democratic outcome and strong men regimes.....

Are you saying that normal liberal democracies are run by dictators or dictators like?

Dear friends, with the positive goal of sharing ideas, I am providing here an article about Trumpconomics that has some food for thoughts related to this question, perhaps some of you may find it interesting.... You can take a look at it when you have time....

The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically

Article The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme libe...

This question engages with an important aspect of current political phenomena. I think the best way to respond would be to break down the parts of the question and preamble text and respond to each. I believe it is best to give a thorough answer to give the question justice. Before I start, I would like to state that I present the following as a constructive dialogue and do so with due and utmost respect.

"Under normal liberal democracy there is war between several views on how to advance the common good either at the expense of the minority(e.g. traditional liberal democratic parties) or at the least cost possible to the minority(e.g. traditional liberal conservative parties)."

In my view, this is a narrow conception of liberal democracy that overexaggerates conflict. This is especially evident in the use of "war", as has been stated previously in the comments. Is political debate really just a zero-sum game? Isn't there more to it than that? What about the cooperative elements of democracy, such as pluralism and compromise to name a few?

"In normal liberal democracies, science plays a central role, and if science is not followed or it is partially followed or it is ignored completely and things go bad, the opposition party will use that rational [I'm guessing the intended word here is "rationale"] in the next election and the incumbent party may spin the reality, but the buck stops there…and the people decide at election day…."

This could be how it happens, and one could even argue that it should happen this way, but I don't think that's how it always happens. Does science here indicate "facts" or "knowledge" or just STEM fields? If it's the former, it would make more sense. For instance, I can envision similar situations happening over interpretations of historical events and processes. On another note, who decides what is science or fact? Should the process of validating knowledge not require some collective decision-making to prevent the enforcement of dogmatic values masqueraded as science or the supremacy of outdated ideas?

"Hence, liberal normal democracies of all sorts are incompatible with authoritarianism."

I understand this argument to indicate authoritarianism being referred to as enforcing a particular reality upon others even when facts indicate otherwise. Liberal democracy would thus rely on facts and would be structurally opposed to authoritarian attempts to enforce conceptions of reality that do not align with facts. Ideally that's how it's supposed to work, but unfortunately that's not always how things turn out.

"When we have an extreme liberal democracy such as USEXIT, the whole thing changes….extreme liberal democratic outcomes should be expected to align better with authoritarianism than with normal democratic thinkers,,,"

USEXIT isn't the extreme democracy here, since it's a phenomenon. The alleged extreme democracy being referred to would be the US in general. Extreme liberal democracy is not defined here; if USEXIT is interpreted as an example of something an extreme democracy would do, would this mean any country that displays isolationist tendencies is extreme? Would the pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 US also be considered extreme democracies according to this logic?

Extreme liberal democracy as a term seems convoluted. What does the "extreme" part mean? I'm guessing it refers to a liberal democracy that has authoritarian elements. The problem is that topically reading the term could bring about a range of meanings. For example, could an extreme liberal democracy not also be understood as a democracy that takes liberalism to the extreme? Or could it not also refer to a liberal democracy that leans toward the extreme left or right (in which case would it still even be considered a liberal democracy)? The "extreme" part needs a point of reference within the term that identifies what is being expressed above in regard to authoritarianism.

Even if we accept the term as it stands, at what point does a liberal democracy become an extreme liberal democracy? At what point does an extreme liberal democracy become fully authoritarian?

On a third note, the term extreme liberal democracy seems to hide the political system in question's authoritarian elements. Perhaps the term could be revised to more clearly emphasize the slide towards authoritarianism. We need this to be explicit to avoid any potential of extreme liberal democracy being perceived as the new normal or just another political system when it in fact is something detrimental to democracy and its citizens.

"I can see several reasons why that is the case, which leads to the question, Which are the central links between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism?. Can you see them? Or What do you think?

Please express your views on the question."

For the first question, I think that extreme liberal democracy as discussed above is linked with authoritarianism because it simply has elements of authoritarianism within it. These could be the denial of facts as outlined above or any other authoritarian aspect. In terms of whether they are visible, it depends. Some may be very evident while others may be more sinister like subtle changes to policies with implications not evident to the general public. John Dewey went as far as to identify authoritarian elements, including attitudes, practices, and fundamental concepts, within contemporary conceptions of liberal democracy generally. Nathan Crick's analysis of Dewey's works on the subject help illustrate this further.

I think that perhaps instead of using the term extreme liberal democracy, it may be good to visualize a spectrum with liberal democracy on one end and authoritarianism on the other. While the above idea of extreme liberal democracy may be understood as being somewhere in the middle, the spectrum allows us to account for all levels of authoritarian elements in liberal democracy, as well as to theorize how we can improve current conceptions of liberal democracy further. This way, the extreme elements would be directly called out as authoritarian to help raise alarm bells that things need to change.

Those are my views- I hope they are helpful. Feel free to disagree or discuss aspects of them further.

Thank you Justin for your detailed comment. We are here to exchange ideas in a positive, respectful environment, not to convert any one….

In 2015 I saw the world of extreme democratic outcomes coming in the UK and in the USA and I started thinking that the current democratic theory breaks down under extreme democratic outcome dynamics creating a type of paradigm shift knowledge gap when going from normal to extreme liberal democratic environment; and I saw the difficulties traditional normal democratic institutions and policy makers were going to have dealing with an extreme democratic outcomes as the knowledge gap would make them to try to rationalize the actions of the extreme democratic outcome following morality rules when in fact they run on amorality thinking….So I took the task to write about it and advance a theoretical link between normal and extreme liberal democracies and the expected dynamics and shared it in RESEARCHGATE right away then , and I will share this material at the end of this posting as it is clear that those commenting here have not had the opportunity to see this material….

The comments made before you Justine led me to think that the difference between a normal liberal democracy and an extreme liberal democracy is not clear, which make it difficult to address the question…. To ease that difficulty I shared the Trumpconomics articles….the last article on the series of normal and extreme based democratic outcomes I have written….. And your comment make me think that you sent your comment without taking a look at that article…, which extend the idea of extreme democratic outcomes linking it to Trumpconomics….

However, at the end of your comment you indicate a general link between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism as “ it simply has elements of authoritarianism within it.”, which is true…and this goes back to the question, what are the main links between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarians? Leading to their alignment…

As understanding the nature of extreme democratic outcomes is key to unlocking those “elements of authoritarianism” by focusing only on the question alone, I am sharing here the articles indicated above to help with that understanding:

a) How a normal liberal democracy works and implications

Moral and Practical Sustainability Gaps: Implications for the Current Liberal Development Model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282331974_Moral_and_Practical_Sustainability_Gaps_Implications_for_the_Current_Liberal_Development_Model

b) The differences between normal and extreme liberal democracies

Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319743153_Majority_Rule_Based_True_Democracy_Under_Complacency_Theory_Pointing_Out_The_Structure_of_Normal_and_of_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Analytically_and_Graphically

Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320443702_Upside_Down_Democratic_Outcomes_Stating_the_Complacency_Conditions_Under_Which_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Such_as_BREXIT_and_USEXIT_Should_Be_Expected_to_Take_Place_Using_Qualitative_Comparative_Mean?_sg%5B0%5D=T4UOF3tGR50feeDKkia5VBOu6im0XMCVH9Ph-vpPjGGx2e1sU8PyVZshzwB6ppyXDMXWSBFZLcYCgRR8lVvltpxzByu-vO1aNzlZkmji.16pCqCEts6x3i-Gm8nvWJ41H-AQZaWHOq8ML4xg3sj-62d53z4JHXlPQAqsio_k5kbel2A7Re3acqc8psZq5tQ

True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expectations to Complacency Variability Using Qualitative Comparative Means.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322924090_True_Democracy_and_Complacency_Linking_Voting_Outcome_Expectations_to_Complacency_Variability_Using_Qualitative_Comparative_Means

Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329905677_Moral_and_Amoral_Liberal_Democracies_How_Targeted_Chaos_Can_Affect_the_Democratic_Process

c) Linking extreme democratic outcome theory to Trumpconomics

The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334964196_The_2016_shift_from_normal_liberal_democracy_to_extreme_liberal_democracy_in_the_USA_Pointing_out_the_structure_of_Trumpconomics_its_meaning_and_its_expected_local_and_global_implications_both_analyti

The “central links between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism” are the interaction between their innate rights. A short presentation on “The Science of Rights” at the Thermodynamics 2.0 conference covers such links and their interactions thereof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4

Dear Michael, thank you for your comments....

Can you please elaborate how innate rights are a linked between them in your view? Keep in mind, a normal liberal democracy is not an extreme liberal democracy, like apples and oranges, and hence they have different structure.

Dear Lucio Muñoz ,

My apologies for the slow response.

In your post you gave “Trumpism” as an example so I’m assuming you are referring to the structure of US governance. The US is a republic not a “democracy”.

In reference to “science”, the ruling-class in any form of governance, is an entity having its own innate rights according to the physical constructal law (the law of evolution). That is, using constructal flow-current pair notation: Governance has a natural evolutionary tendency to flow towards the currents in the power to rule; in other words, the natural evolution towards “authoritarianism” (the “Iron law of oligarchy”). Please, see the following short presentation covering the constructal law and its flow-current pair notation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4

Empirically, over the last hundred years the authorities in DC slowly transitioned from the design of the US Constitution to a progressive “living constitution” towards authoritarianism, and it continues today. Authoritarianism gives more weight to the ruling-class innate rights over the innate rights (unalienable Rights) of the governed. Said “living constitution” was a concept from the former president Woodrow Wilson (one of the fathers of progressivism).

The design of the US Constitution was to support and protect the individual’s unalienable rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government; no more, no less. The State governments did the rest, compete with each other for the best and brightest.

“Trumpism” or the Trump Administration over the last four years, had met his promise to seek lifetime judges who are US Constitutional originalists trying to slow down or reverse this DC authoritarianism.

I took your phrase “extreme liberal democracy” to mean the extreme progressive left liberal movement within the US; hence, the “central links between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism”. Because the progressives want to eliminate the Electoral College turning the US into an “extreme democracy”.

On the other hand, the US conservative movement supports “Trumpism” to conserve the original design of the US Constitution. Note, Trump is working in an authoritarianism environment, thanks to the “living constitution”, and using that power trying to reverse course. One could sense the ruling-class in DC is against Trump by their conduct in a soft coup trying to remove him over the last four years.

We are comparing similarities and differences that link authoritraim regimes with extreme liberal democracy like the one in the USA/USEXIT, we are not comparing different groups/parties in the USA/dynamics in the USA, Think Trump and Russia for example..

Two things from your comment: a) Trump is acting like authoritarian; and b) Trump is trying to conserve the constitution.

The first is true, but how that link to authoritariam regime's behaviour/acting?

The second tells me you do not understand yet what extreme democratic outcomes are about....the constitution is a majority rule based document designed for majority rule point of view rule, not the minority point of view.... If you read my paper on TRUMPCONOMICS you will be able to see that if Trumpism persis it will erode the constitution as it limits the free hand of trumpism/the extreme liberal democracy leader....to advance the interest of the minogiry good,,,,,

Now you see the first link, both autorariamism regimes and extreme liberal democracies are not for the common good....

Thank you for your comment;

Lucio

Dear Lucio Muñoz ,

My recommendation you should refresh your US government background by referencing the US Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers (by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison), and the US Constitution. You will find a government design that is not “a majority rule based document designed for majority rule point of view”!

In fact, Federalist paper #10 Madison wrote, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The historical empirical observation of Madison’s take on democracies is in agreement with the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” backed by the physical constructal law.

In fact, you will not find the word “democracy” in the US Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, or any of the 50 State Constitutions.

The “authoritarian” power of the US Executive Branch (the home of the president) today is the result of the progressive movement over the last hundred years, putting the power of the Executive Branch out of balance with the other two.

Obama, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Reagan, Carter.... did not behave like Trump because the traditional Republican party and the democratic party were two different points of view of pushing the common good toward increasing morality...they are the two.main currents in normal liberal democracies as described in the background of the question, but remember the question is about the central links between extreme liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, can you see them? If yes, can you list them, there are many...

Dear Lucio Muñoz ,

“If yes, can you list them, there are many...”

Again, it is a physical law of nature (the constructal law) were all forms of governance have the natural tendency to evolve toward the power to rule ending in some “authoritarian regime”. Empirically demonstrated throughout the ages and today, as in the example of the US over the last hundred years.

It is true, Trump is not a purebred politician, indoctrinated by the traditions of the ruling-class, bypassing all those who spent a lifetime trying to sit in that seat of power. A form of power not found in the US Constitution.

Again, Trump is trying to reverse the “traditions” of “Obama, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Reagan, Carter....”; trying restore the US Constitution, cut regulations, cut taxes, bring back jobs to the US, reduce our military presents around the world, and stop fighting other nations’ wars; in other words, the “traditions” over the last hundred years.

But I regret to say, four more years of Trump cannot change the natural tendency towards the power to rule.

Dear Michael:

Extreme democratic outcomes come along when there is full true majority complacency driven by targeted chaos….and

keep in mind, President Trump is not trying to keep tradition with the actions he takes as you say, he, as expected from extreme liberal democracy leaders, has an issue with any aspect of a normal liberal democracy, with democratic values and with local and international democratic institutions as they are barriers for championing, not just the best interest of the minority, BUT THE LEADER OWN BEST INTEREST....Now we found another link dictators and leaders of extreme liberal democracy follow what is best for them because that is usually the best for the minority sailing on a wider swamp....

I do not want to keep moving away from the question, your original contribution said "The central links between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism” are the interaction between their innate rights", but you never indicated why that is a central between dictators and leaders of extreme liberal democracies....Would you like to do that to make sure Innate rights is a link….

Sometimes when we are inside the box is hard to see what is going on around us.... I am sharing with you two papers, which you can read when you have time related to the issues and concepts of this question:

Moral and Amoral Liberal Democracies: How Targeted Chaos Can Affect the Democratic Process?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331824825_Moral_and_Amoral_Liberal_Democracies_How_Targeted_Chaos_Can_Affect_the_Democratic_Process

The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334964196_The_2016_shift_from_normal_liberal_democracy_to_extreme_liberal_democracy_in_the_USA_Pointing_out_the_structure_of_Trumpconomics_its_meaning_and_its_expected_local_and_global_implications_both_analyti

Dear Lucio Muñoz ,

I read over your 2019 paper and the key is morality in any form of governance.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331824825_Moral_and_Amoral_Liberal_Democracies_How_Targeted_Chaos_Can_Affect_the_Democratic_Process

When a society becomes less civil so does its government. I don’t know enough about the UK (BREXIT/LeaveEU) to add to this discussion but I do know about the USA where I can contribute to this post.

In your paper you classify the US as a “liberal democracy” but I regret to say, it has evolved beyond that. Today the US is more of an oligarch than a democracy.

To understand how the US evolved into an oligarch we must start with the constructal law. Relative to the physical constructal law all living entities (individuals, governments, corporations, foundations, markets, social systems, society, etc.) have innate rights. The evolution of an entity’s Life flows towards its currents.

https://www.academia.edu/43512871/The_Science_of_Rights_an_Overview

Using constructal flow-current pair notation and keeping it simple for illustration we have the following:

1) Humans flow towards the currents of happiness.

2) A civil society flows towards the currents of harmony.

3) Markets flow towards the currents of wealth generation.

4) Media flow towards its currents of propaganda.

5) Governance flow towards the currents in the power to rule.

Therefore, "The central links between extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism” are the interaction between their innate rights" that is, the convolution between flows 1 through 5, known as politics, where politics is a function of “morality”.

I could go over the history how the US evolved from a republic (US Constitution 1787) to a democracy (early 1900s) to an oligarch (after WWII); an oligarch as in the “traditions” of “Obama, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Reagan, Carter....”. Then along came Trump “(USEXIT/Trumpism)”. It turns out that Trump is the most moral President in my lifetime, by the fact he is exceeding his campaign promises trying to get the ruling-class back onto the US Constitution.

I must admit Trump’s efforts are admirable, but as soon as he leaves office “tradition” will resume back to an oligarch.

Before Trump, a movement among the constitutional experts throughout the State governments realized the amoral “authoritarianism” in DC is going too far. As a result, the States were organizing to engage the second part of Article V of the US Constitution. The US Constitution was designed where the State governments conditionally gave power to the Federal government. If the Federal government goes rogue, the State governments could take back the power from the Federal. This design was to prevent historical violent revolutions from the populous when a government becomes too tyrannical.

https://conventionofstates.com/article-v-of-the-u-s-constitution

Dear Michael, I do appreciate your comments, now I realized why your first contribution did not make sense to me, the question is about dictactorship ruler/behaviour and extreme liberal democracy ruler/behavior, CENTRAL links....why they should be expected to get along?...and the idea of innate rights felt a little bit off, but it could be that all dictators feel they were born to be dictators...

But you seem to be talking about how authoritarianism can come out within a democracy like in the USA in the long haul and lead to an extreme liberal democracy and authoritarianism.... but experience since 2016 and after in UK, USA, Brazil.... shows that when competing normal democratic forces take for granted the common good ball, authoritarianims can come quickly through an extreme democratic outcome, you do not have to wait 100 years or so, an outcome where the view of the minority of the population somehow wins the democratic contest....

In my articles I used these two operational concepts below, and concept 18 captures the essence of trumpism as an extreme democratic outcome, do not you think so?:

17) Normal democratic outcome, under no complacency or not protest behavior everybody votes and the true majority wins the democratic contest; governments retain or lose power without big surprises. Inclusion, equality, stability, harmony, the truth, trust, clarity, scientific facts, and the will of the majority for the common good are the heart of normal democratic outcomes.

18) Extreme democratic outcome, under full true majority complacency or full true majority protest behavior the true minority wins the democratic context, governments lose or win power under a big surprise as the democratic option that seems impossible to happen wins the day. Exclusion, inequality, instability, chaos, fake truth, fake trust, confusion, fake facts, and the will of the minority for the good of the minority are the heart of extreme democratic outcomes.

To go back to the question and lead you directly to the core issue I will ask you directly:

What are the central links between the expected behavior of the lider of an extreme liberal democracy like the USA now and the leaders of Turkey or Russia or the philippines and so on.... ? Can you see them?

Dear Lucio Muñoz ,

The US is not an “extreme liberal democracy” it was once a republic today an oligarch, where the president is elected by the Electoral College every four years! For example, Hillary Clinton received more votes in 2016 than Trump, yet Trump won. If the US was a democracy Hillary would be president today.

In my last reply where I referenced a democracy in the early 1900s was symbolic because the State governments lost representation in the Senate. In other words, the US was moving closer to a democracy but never became one. It jumped from a republic to an oligarch where the US Constitution is more of a façade with less adherence by the unethical ruling-class, as the peoples’ representation in the House is over shadowed by lobbyist.

Michael, you keep going away from the actual question, do not you want to answer it?, dictators and trumpism, links?

What was the original intention of the electoral collage? To protect small states right? It was not intended to go against the winning majority view; and hand power to the losing minority view, but targeted chaos allowed that to happen...

In Canada there are no artificial barriers to majority rule....majority rule win big majority or small majority....and opposition parties work together checking each other through hot exchanges....A normal liberal democracy......that IS what life before President Trump was like in the USA....and when the Reagan Republican party felt it could compete democratically....Now the traditional republican party has been swalloed by the Trump party...I think you know that!

Notice that if targeted chaos does not lead to full true majority complacency this time around, we will see a normal democratic outcome in the USA in November

You will find this paper interesting:

True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expectations to Complacency Variability Using Qualitative Comparative Means.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322924090_True_Democracy_and_Complacency_Linking_Voting_Outcome_Expectations_to_Complacency_Variability_Using_Qualitative_Comparative_Means?_sg=at4_sC3xyn0Ov78yVBXk6TO7nk4J3fx5NahBn4eGKnq26nX4r62OFX0YPnoa3SzABG0_P_JqlysicZ7o3uFwsRbOcevk6HQCxnavVFs4._duSdUQy7xuRhZePwrOVv2UxdlBzz5tuD7ZHBTHkHtZuFQu0qF2lw9uhdnxu1mDz7MnYRuniWpzp1YbQGsSDeg

Dear Lucio Muñoz ,

Ever since the US morphed into an oligarch anyone who becomes president is a pseudo dictator for four or eight years. In Trumps case, it will be eight years.

I’m optimistic about the US and the design of the US Constitution gives the citizens a way back to its founding principles, a republic, not a “democracy” with the mission to support and protect the individual’s unalienable rights from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government. The ethical application of our innate rights (“unalienable Rights” claimed by Thomas Jefferson) the foundation to the US Constitution has changed the world, like no other in recorded history, within a short period of 200 years from four-wheel horse and buggy to four-wheel moon rovers, etc., raising the standard of living for all throughout the world.

Thomas Jefferson unknowingly discovered the physical constructal law and the ethical application of it in the US Constitution, has empirically changed the world. Like the laws of aerodynamics, if one wants to fly above the clouds, one has to ethically apply those laws. And on that note, the issue is, one of education in reason and ethics.

The world should review the latest research on the science of rights and one day become a better place to live, for the physical laws of nature are universal and not some ideology:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4

The key is to understand the constructal law, the law of evolution. For evolution to work, there must exist dynamic channels of opposites; hence, good and evil, freedom and tyranny, Yang and Yin, content and discontent, complacency and incompliancy, etc. The empirical signature of the constructal law (the flow of evolution) is dendritic. If one’s model results are dendritic, I will say they’re onto something.

Unfortunately, evolution takes time in units of generational time. Relative to our cave dwelling ancestors, I think humanity is on the right track. I’m excited about the new variable to the human equation thanks to technology resulting in a global neighborhood at the individual level over the last few decades.

Lucio, my apologies if I failed to answer any of your questions, for I simply did not understand or do not have a good enough answer based on science. I’m here to learn to advance my research. And with that said, I wish you luck in your research, I must move on.

No worries Michael, I appreciate your comments, and I am here to share ideas and learn too.

Have a nice day

Lucio

Power centered on major economic groups

Dear Antonio, the question is about extreme democratic outcome behavior and authoritarianism(dictatorship) behavior and their links.... it is best to think in terms of similarities and differences...

Have a nice day

They are both fascistic and centralise dominating power over persons under their regime. These regimes unfortunately, though hidden under the appearance of freedom in many forms, are proliferating since the early 1900s. Though again, they share many of the values of good old feudalism.

Dear Joseph, I appreciate your comment...

Yes, fascism and concentrated decision making are aspects associated with extreme democratic outcomes and authoritarianism, but they can be tools for a more fundamental link, targeted chaos....BREXIT and USEXIT came in 2016 because of targeted chaos to induced true majority complacency in the electoral contest in the UK and in the USA.....leading suddenly to widespread social discontent after the fact when what was supposed to be impossible happened....The minority view won the democratic contest in 2016 in both cases....

Extreme democratic outcomes need targeted chaos to come to exist and to propagate....But to ensure that they persist, they have another fundamental link that they need to have just in case they lose the democratic contest, institutional loyalty/cronyism based rule of law…

An extreme democratic outcome is born out of a normal liberal democracy through targeted chaos, but inside institutional and legal independent layers….To persist, it has to win, but if it loses it cannot persist because it does not have yet the institutional loyalty/cronyism based rule of law to back it up…. In an independent court, fake claims, lies and conspiracy theories, cannot win as independent courts need facts and proof to rule on your favor….

Two links then are targeted chaos and loyalty to individual or group, not country.

Those who follow the news in the USA may be see easily how the theory above seems to apply to the reality on the ground right now in the USA in the last days of Trumpism…

Sharing here final draft of paper about the 2016-2020 rise and fall of Trumpism using the thinking of the road from normal liberal democracies to permanent authoritarianism from within, it has some good food for thoughts:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349682410_Sustainability_thoughts_133_Stating_the_expected_step_by_step_road_from_majority_rule_based_liberal_democracies_to_permanent_authoritarianism_The_case_of_the_2016-2020_rise_and_fall_of_Trumpism?_sg=WRLVUYeypvysJFhtKYCbTTZZP7O9byOn7XMxcfHvhrh-NFEsTBYvQTi_OSzyu4EjF5qsJJa4rJWqNiH-XC5sGUAvg0ahoVF8cEW51XPI.-QBPNHf6ly3k8MUbygftWvjTwkQ62j8UUBniL8dmWVMuWuwnpCXBda_pBVskEJJlmzZGb0KfxanQmJcXHHu6ww