When I first put the outline for my book (Globanomics) together, I did not include a chapter on freedom vs. authoritarianism.  It was only about one-third of the way into the writing of the book that I discovered the need to address this subject specifically on its own and to address the view that globanomics takes on the subject.  There have been many other well-researched and well-presented views offered on the subject of freedom vs. authoritarianism written by Doctors in Political Science, Business Administration, Public Administration, Organizational Development, etc.  What follows is how globanomics looks on the subject.

To begin with it must be recognized that one of the main principles of globanomics is: “freedom is preferable over subjugation”.  Globanomic principles are valid and cannot be broken.  Freedom vs. authoritarianism is a subset that falls within the realm of the principle of freedom vs. subjugation.

What is important to understand is this: globanomics looks upon the term, authoritarianism, as being broad in its definition.  Sometimes the differential gap between freedom vs. authoritarianism is quite wide, and sometimes the gap is much narrower than what one might otherwise think.  But regardless of the case, globanomics will always prefer freedom over authoritarianism.

The widest gap between freedom vs. authoritarian comes about when the authoritarian in the authoritarian regime “knows everything--more than anyone else in the world, more than even the experts that surround him or her.  Authoritarian regimes with this kind of authoritarian leader cannot exist in the same atmosphere as globanomics.  They must be stomped out, pillaged, and exterminated.    

Many historical leaders fit this description, but I will name just two: (1) Adolf Hitler; and (2) Donald J. Trump.  Both leaders knew more than their generals, both men knew more than their scientists and health care experts, both men knew more than anyone else what was good for the country, both men wanted to rule the world, and both men were frankly not particularly smart.

Donald Trump compared to Adolf Hitler?  That is taking things too far!  No one in their right mind should compare Trump to Hitler!

Globanomics does and here are the reasons why.

Both Trump and Hitler came to power by stirring up racial tensions, backed by a small minority of thugs.  Once in control, both kept up their racial threats and started implementing policies matching their biases.  Both Hitler and Trump started breaking down the Government support mechanisms (i.e., agencies, departments, justice, parliament, etc.) to get to the point that the agencies/departments were nothing more than tools to be used to meet their racist agendas.  Hitler was successful in his effort to gain total control of his government.  Trump failed in his effort in two ways: (1) by losing a second-term election by a landslide; and (2) by failing in his attempt of January 6, 2021 to take over the Congress of the United States of America.  Nothing stopped Hitler.  Democracy stopped Trump.

What concerns globanomics the most is the fact that the United States is the leader of the world (not just the free world, but the entire world), and it goes against one of the primary principles of globanomics to have an authoritarian-type leader in the White House of the United States of America.  Globanomics does not believe in authoritarianism, and to have the leader of the United States be an authoritarian-thinking person is antithetical to globanomics.

Nothing keeps globanomics up more at night than the fear of having an authoritarian-thinking person in the oval office of the United States of America.  Such an event would essentially destroy globanomics and everything it represents.  United States democracy and globanomics survived its first couple of tests of survival (outside of the Civil War) in the 2020 election and subsequently again on January 6, 2021.  Even though both events can be viewed as victories for freedom, the United States of America, and the world, neither can be viewed as being a decisive victory.  There still remains within the United States a surprisingly large cult of followers that want a “know-it-all” to run the country.  Sadly, this cult continues to also be supported by a smaller group of followers who are too afraid of the consequences to call the authoritarian out for the sham and con artist that he is.

So, the question becomes: can we trust globanomics to survive long term if the threat to democracy in the United States is as narrowly thin as it is--as proven and measured by the voting voices of the American public?  The American people put a Hitler-style leader in charge of its country once, but they revoked him the second time they had a chance.  Who’s to think, however, that things could not change in the future?

Here is how I would answer that question.  Globanomics offers the people of the United States an opportunity to look at things differently than they have been recently.  The United States of America did not have to “be made great again.”  The United States has always been great—in fact, the United States has been a lighthouse to the world for more than 240-years, shining its great beacon of light out into the fog for the world’s protection.  Outside of the Civil War, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the United States has ever been on a downward trajectory—needing to be made “great” again.  Since the end of the last World War, the beacon of light shining out from the lighthouse has only kept getting brighter and brighter and brighter.

Americans are spoiled and they need to wake up and accept the arrogant fact that they are spoiled.  Cry the blues all you want America, there are billions of people around the world that would love to trade places with you.  America, you are so great--that through your example and belief in freedom and the frontier-spirit—you have captured 50% of all the business/economic activity in the world.  You should be proud of that!  When you act maturely, America, the world looks up to you.  When you act like a six-year-old spoiled child, the world looks down on you.

America, you are too good for the likes of a Donald J. Trump—or any authoritarian-minded person like him.  Your Constitution, democracy, and free elections are what makes you great—everything else is cloud cover.  Many individuals have given their lives to protect the American way, and it is important that American voters consider it their responsibility to protect us and the world from authoritarian-type leaders, which debase that Constitution, democracy, and free elections.

Authoritarian leaders like I have described above are not fitting for the United States of America nor globanomics.  Authoritarian leaders like those above are not hard to identify.  They live on lies and false propaganda.  They know more than the experts.  They have racial tendencies.  They want to rule the world using only their sick mindset as input.  (In Trump’s case, he did listen to Putin).  They work for themselves, not others.  They have a very tight knit group of sycophants surrounding them.  They hold rallies for cult followers.  They love to be in the spotlight. 

Need I go on?

So, in the end, after everything has time to shake itself out, I still have trust in the American people, the American voting system, and globanomics.  I even believe that when Americans learn more about what globanomics is and what globanomics shows, they will understand better where their lives stand in comparison to the lives of their counterparts around the world.  With globanomics in place, I believe Americans will take their voting choice between authoritarianism and democracy more seriously—because it is seriously important that they do.  Globanomics is good for Americans, and it is good for the world.  Globanomics should never be discarded for an American authoritarian President.

* * * * *

Now I am going to shift the dialogue regarding freedom vs. authoritarianism away from individuals and more toward simple intuitive and mathematical thinking. 

Authoritarian decisions can be made quicker than democratic ones—that is the prime reason given for authoritarian rule.  Democracy is too slow; it cannot keep up with the fast pace of the current world. 

The first statement is true.  The second statement is false.

It does not matter.  Authoritarianism just does not make intuitive nor mathematical sense.   For an authoritarian to make the best decision on what to do or in what direction to move, he or she relies solely upon himself or herself (with the possible input from sycophantic yes-people who do not count).  However, no authoritarian has more knowledge than the sum of knowledge from the collective he/she rules.  That is simply an impossibility from an “intuitive”, mathematical standpoint.  The leader is part of the collective.  For the leader to know more than the collective would mean on a scale of 100, the leader’s knowledge would be 51 and the collective’s knowledge would be 49.  I doubt if Donald Trump could have scored better on a knowledge scale against any one of his “undergraduate” contemporaries at Wharton, let alone the collective of those contemporaries. 

Thus, if you accept any part of my argument or example, authoritarians lack the knowledge level of the collective.  So, that means a democracy, which receives more knowledge input from the collective, should always outperform an authoritarian regime.  Debate that fact all you want, but it is hard not to believe this is the case from both an “intuitive” and mathematical sense.  The only argument against this premise is “speed”.

But as Einstein told us “speed is relative”.   Some things should move fast, and other things should move more slowly—democracy can handle both situations.  Authoritarianism only has one speed—fast.  There need be no deliberation for an authoritarian-decision.  The authority simply makes it.  That, too, is a mathematically unsound approach to optimization.  Everyone knows that there is a lot more room for error in a quick decision than one that is more deliberated.  While all decisions can be made quickly, the amount of error in the outcome increases.  Sure, the error of the decision could go in either a positive or negative way, but not only is the error usually in the negative direction because of hopeful bias in the decision, it goes against the principle of having to cover for “unnecessary risk”.  When one approach must account for “unnecessary risk”, that approach will be inferior to an approach that does not have to account for the “unnecessary risk”.   Democracy and freedom offer more optimal decision-making results than authoritarianism.  Regarding the speed issue relating to decisions, one should recognize that on matters of the utmost critical importance, democracies can move as fast as those under authoritarian regimes.

The numbers from the EGSB tell us the same thing: freedom-loving, democratic nations outperform authoritarian nations in terms of the National Hierarchy of Needs.

* * * * *

Now this brings us around to another type of authoritarian regime, different from the “know-it-all” authoritarian regime like those mentioned in relation to Hitler and Trump.  Places like China, Russia, and Iran operate under authoritarian-type regimes, but they are not of the “know-it-all” type.  Instead, they tend to operate more like “benevolent dictator” regimes.  And there is a substantial difference between a benevolent dictator-type authoritarian and a know-it-all-type authoritarian.  

Although globanomics does not believe there is such a thing as a “benevolent dictator”, globanomics suffers benevolent dictator-type authoritarian regimes much better than know-it all authoritarian regimes.  Globanomics views benevolent dictators as individuals who believe what they are doing is best for their nation or people—that is different from the “know-it all” authoritarian.  The know-it-all authoritarian cares more for himself or herself than for the people of the nation. 

There are degrees on the scale towards what it means to be a 100%, full out, benevolent dictator—but for several reasons, there has never been a case where a leader has topped the scale.  Globanomics can co-exist with benevolent dictators; it cannot co-exist with know-it-all dictators.  This distinction between know-it-all authoritarianism and benevolent dictator authoritarianism must be understood.  One is acceptable in globanomics, the other is not.

Globanomics would advise the benevolent dictator regimes to begin shifting towards a more free, democratic form of government for its own good, but it does not demand this to be the case. 

Globanomics can work within the current world environment without shaking up leaderships throughout the world.  Globanomics views most of the world leaders as being morally and ethically stable—in other words, generally good and decent human beings.  In most cases, the leader of a nation deserves to lead his or nation—whether that is a result of free elections or otherwise.  Charlatan leaders are easily recognizable.

And that is the reason, China, Russia, Iran, etc., are welcomed into the realm of globanomics regardless of the fundamental globanomic principle of “freedom is preferrable over subjugation”.   Globanomics believes their current forms of government are a disadvantage to themselves, but globanomics does not require them to change—assuming time will resolve the issue on its own.

* * * * *

It bothers me that I must end this dialogue regarding freedom vs. authoritarianism on a sour note, but I feel I must. 

Individual freedom does not mean one has the authority to disobey societal rules set by the governing body.  Societies need rules for their own existence.  Without rules, a society would be nothing but chaos, which is hardly the definition of a society.  No one has the right to raise the flag of their society in one hand and disobey the rules of the society in the other hand.  Neither can an individual pick nor choose which rules to obey—all the rules must be followed—that is a law of globanomics.

I fully understand that freedom-loving people hate rules, but most freedom-loving people follow all kinds of rules every day to which they do not even give a second thought.  Thou shall not kill.  Though shall not steal.  Do unto others.

Who wants to discard those rules for freedom?

What about the “rules of the road”?  I myself have traveled the highways and by-ways of the United States for almost fifty-years now.  Yet, not once in the millions of miles that I have travelled behind the wheel of my car have I had a head-on collision with another car.  Zillions of cars and trucks have passed me going the opposite way of my own journey, and not once has one of those cars hit me straight on.

Why?  Because people follow the “rules of the road”, and they drive on the side of the road that they are told to drive.  Why was such a rule established?  Not only to protect those people who drive, but to protect others, too.  And that is just one example.  Who believes we should stop obeying stop signs, stop lights, and other cautionary warnings on the road?  Does freedom give us a pass to ignore the rules of the road?

No.  Freedom gives an individual the right to pursue “enlightened” happiness, part of the highest tier on the National Hierarchy of Needs, but freedom does not give one the right to break the rules of the society in which one lives.  In some cases, it is noble to challenge the rules of society, but one must be willing to accept the consequences of such a challenge.

Societies tend to deteriorate when they do not follow the science that makes up societal rules.  Ignorance is the deathbed for societies because non-ignorant societies will surpass them.  Humankind is fallible and mistakes will be made; however, a premise of globanomics is to follow the science, the data, the reality wherever it takes you.  One of my favorite Admiral Rickover quotes is the following: “Sit down before fact with an open mind. Be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads or you learn nothing. Don’t push out figures when facts are going in the opposite direction.”

    Arts and science fill the top tier of the National Hierarchy of Needs associated with globanomics.  Maybe it is true that nothing can be known for certain, but science offers humankind the most valid and complete set of facts to help manage the direction our species takes.  Scientists do not push out figures when facts are going in the opposite direction.  Scientists follow the facts.

When it comes to finding a solution for something like a global pandemic, the best of the world’s nations will follow the scientists rather than some sweaty, smelling character sitting in his bathrobe typing in “vaccine conspiracy theories”, feeding his constituents on Facebook.  Believe it or not.  Facebook is not a site for science.

So, what does it mean to globanomics when the constituents of the leading nation in the world act knowingly ignorant, if not completely stupid, when it comes to the vaccine mandate associated with the current pandemic?

It is a concern.  Ignorance is not bliss in this case.  Ignorance is the downfall of nations, yet right now everyone is looking up to a leading nation whose own constituents are acting stupid in the name of Freedom.  Freedom is being misused and abused by the conspiracy theorists and those that follow them.  Freedom takes offense to this abuse.  Globanomics takes offense to this abuse.  

Claim your fear of the coronavirus vaccine all you want, but do not use freedom as your shield.  Society wants everyone vaccinated so innocent people do not die innocently.  Freedom does not give one the right to disobey rules that protect others from one’s actions.  Break that rule and you break the rule and back of society.

Religion?  Does one’s religion give him or her the right to break societal rules?  Unless specific religious exemptions are made for the rule, no it does not.  Religious doctrine itself sets out many rules, and many of those rules are contradictory with each other.  Sometimes the same religious rule is used to defend two completely opposite positions.  How can this be?  There is no such thing as a self-equivalent argument.  If the sides of the arguments are self-equivalent, there would be no argument.  If a rule can be interpreted two different and opposite ways, then the rule needs to be dissected with more detail to distinguish the opposite ways from each other.  If religion does not do this on its own, then societies are left to make things clear—and this is done all the time—that is why we have so many categories for such things as killing and stealing.

When it comes to religious rules within a society’s own rules, globanomics believes that it is important that societies follow some big ones literally (e.g., do no harm, ethic of reciprocity, love is the highest knowledge, etc.), but globanomics gives society free reign to interpret other so-called religious rules through the lens of their societal needs and betterment.