I think the various agencies need to offer proposals to Congress then Congress needs to pass them before they go into effect, not where the agencies make rules then Congress must vote to prevent the rules...

Kemp,

Examples of liberal autocracies include the "Five Good Emperors" of the Roman Empire.

Owned.

Oh right, the slaveowning racist empire days?

Kemp,

Fine example? You said liberal autocracy was a contradiction. That means that liberal and autocracy are logically incompatible. Therefore, I only needed to provide one counter-example to prove you wrong.

So you were owned.

Now you mention that there's no way to ensure virtuous autocrats. I assume you are questioning the continuity of liberal autocracy. There, you may have a point. But the continuity of liberalism and autocracy is a very different matter than whether it is a contradiction.

Free markets

Edit: An interesting article.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

The parallels with the US are dreadful.

Kemp,

Poor example? If liberalism and autocracy are a contradiction, then no autocrat can rule liberally. To prove you wrong, I only need to provide one example of a liberal autocrat. Insisting that succession is essential to the definition of liberal autocracy is misguided. With that logic, we would have to apply it to democratic governments as well. Plenty of liberal democracies evolved in to illiberal ones. Likewise, the United States is becoming more illiberal. So if succession is essential to the definition of liberal government, then liberalism and government are a contradiction. Additionally, your reasoning about the illiberal evolution of autocracy applies to democracy as well. So we would have to say that every government inherently heads towards an illiberal direction. At best, it takes longer for a democracy to become illiberal.

Since you don't like those emperors, then I'll provide a stronger example, Augustus. Augustus generally respected the rule of law, invested in public goods, was tactful with the senate, and enacted free-market reforms to stimulate the economy. He maintained these free-market policies for the entirety of ~40 year rule.

Augustan Economics: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html

Augustan Rule of Law:

"Opposites do not have to be mutually exclusive, and we are not obliged to choose one or the other. The story of his career shows that Augustus was indeed ruthless, cruel, and ambitious for himself. This was only in part a personal trait, for upper-class Romans were educated to compete with one another and to excel. However, he combined an overriding concern for his personal interests with a deep-seated patriotism, based on a nostalgia of Rome's antique virtues. In his capacity as princeps, selfishness and selflessness coexisted in his mind. While fighting for dominance, he paid little attention to legality or to the normal civilities of political life. He was devious, untrustworthy, and bloodthirsty. But once he had established his authority, he governed efficiently and justly, generally allowed freedom of speech, and promoted the rule of law. He was immensely hardworking and tried as hard as any democratic parliamentarian to treat his senatorial colleagues with respect and sensitivity. He suffered from no delusions of grandeur."

-Anthony Everitt, British academic

Kemp,

Here's the breakdown of my points for you.

1. Augustus lead to Caligula?
Well, Jefferson lead to FDR.

2. Liberal democracies becoming illiberal is not unusual.
3. The same can be said of all governments.

3. By your own logic, government is inherently illiberal.

4. The best you can say is that democracy takes longer to become illiberal.

____

Now, "Autocracy can be inherently illiberal yet produce liberal policies for a short time" means that,

1. No autocrat can rule liberally and for a long period of time.
2. Any liberal policies an autocrat pursues make up a small fraction of them.

I am saying that,

1. Some autocrats rule liberally and reign for decades. Augustus Caesar is an example.
2. By mentioning Caligula and Commodus, you are not highlighting how autocracy contradicts with liberalism. You are highlighting how an illiberal successor is more likely to result from an autocracy that practices hereditary succession.

Kemp

1. To say that liberalism and autocracy are contradictory means that no autocrat ruled liberally and politically survived.

2. I have shown this to be false.

3. You have only demonstrated that the successor of a liberal autocrat is much more likely to pursue illiberal policies. This is different from saying autocracy and liberalism are contradictory.

A Republic is far more stable and liberal.

My evidence is Greece and various stagses of the life thereof and the United States.

I will not include 2006 and up... so our Republic lasted for 230 years.

The start of the Republic was also much more sound than any period in Roman history. Can you show a non-illiberal period lasting for about a hundred years?

Btw both my period and Rome had slavery so this makes that problem less so for you.

Go ahead and try.

Flint,

The Roman period called the "Five Good Emperors" lasted ~84 years. From Nerva (96 CE) to the death of Marcus Aurelius (180 CE). Secondly, the United States has experienced cycles of liberalism and illiberalism. For example, the autocrat-like powers exercised by FDR and the violation of civil rights under the McCarthy era. Although we recovered from those historical challenges, I fear that the present represents the biggest challenge to freedom yet.

But I will grant you that "republics" are more likely to be stable and remain liberal for longer.

Kemp,

1. I'm not talking about an autocrat whose rule could have been characterized by short liberal periods. I am talking about an autocrat who:

a. Reigned for a period spanning a decade or more.
b. Was able to effectively impose his/her rule.
c. His/her reign was mostly characterized by liberal rule.

2. When two ideas are consistent with one another, then they are not a contradiction. Since some autocrats have satisfied a/b/c, autocracy and liberalism are consistent with one another. Therefore, autocracy and liberalism are not contradictory.

3. I'm not challenging your position on succession. Nor am I challenging your position on man's corruptibility. I am challenging your argument because it is invalid.

P(1): There are no safeguards in autocracy to prevent an illiberal relative from succeeding.
P(2): The majority of autocrats are illiberal.
P(3): Man is inherently corruptible.
______

C: Autocracy is inherently illiberal / autocracy and liberalism are a contradiction.

This argument is plain invalid. The only negative conclusions we can make about autocracy are of a probabilistic nature.

Yell,

A market is free when prices are determined by supply and demand, not by government manipulation. Of course, taxes manipulate prices, so no market is perfectly free. However, low taxes aren't usually considered a disqualifying factor of a free-market.

While Augustus continued the socialist policy of manipulating Rome's grain supply, no government is innocent of having some socialist policies. But by a matter of degree, Augustus' economic policy was a free-market policy.

You're talking about tiny periods of time that show nothing. You're referring to rare exceptions as if they're the rule.

I'm simply stating that, because
(A) Autocrats have inherent motivations to be illiberal in order to stifle challenges to their rule [in order to maintain their power] and
(B) Autocratic systems inherently have no checks on who ends up ruling and
(C) There are absolutely no checks on illiberal policies of autocrats and
(D) Man is inherently corruptible, so no "we'll choose a valiant dictator and he'll appoint a valiant successor!" argument would be anything but ignorant, childish, and stupid,

We may therefore conclude that autocracy is inherently illiberal. Not all four of these simple, indisputable premises are required to come to that conclusion, either. History confirms my argument, without exception. Referring to rare examples of a few decades is no argument.

On top of this, your examples are shortsighted and lack historical depth in regard to your claims of liberalism. Even your "liberal" examples had no checks on their military policy, taxation, and trade. People disagreed, the autocrats just had the power to illiberally squash their dissent.