Liberalism vs. Authoritarianism

Andrew Doyle provocatively asserts that authoritarianism is humanity’s default state, while liberalism is not truly an ideology but rather an absence of ideological dogmatism—a method for negotiating our flawed and uncertain human condition. This invites a rigorous inquiry: Are liberalism and authoritarianism diametrically opposed, or do they share nuanced overlaps?

The Core Diametric Opposition

At the fundamental philosophical level, liberalism and authoritarianism stand firmly opposed:

• Authority versus Autonomy: Authoritarianism centralizes decision-making in hierarchical authorities—be they political, cultural, or religious—demanding submission and conformity. Liberalism, conversely, prizes individual autonomy, agency, and self-determination as foundational.

• Coercion versus Consent: The authoritarian project inherently relies on coercion—imposing compliance through credible threats of harm. Liberalism explicitly rejects coercion, championing voluntary consent and negotiation as the ethical basis for human interactions.

• Dogmatic Certainty versus Conditional Epistemology: Authoritarianism insists on dogmatic truths—fixed, immutable, and non-negotiable. Liberalism is epistemically humble, recognizing that truths are always conditional, context-dependent, and subject to continuous scrutiny and revision.

From this vantage, liberalism and authoritarianism are philosophically irreconcilable adversaries.

Nuanced Overlaps and Practical Realities

Yet, upon closer examination, we observe nuanced points of intersection—particularly around social order, stability, and the role of law:

• Shared Goal of Coordination: Both liberalism and authoritarianism aim at maintaining social order. However, authoritarian regimes impose order coercively, disregarding individual agency, whereas liberal societies seek voluntary coordination grounded in mutual consent and individual rights.

• Rule of Law versus Rule by Law: Authoritarian states exploit the law as an instrument of arbitrary power—rule by law. Liberal societies, conversely, uphold the rule of law as a universal constraint, limiting even those in positions of power through uniform, predictable, and impartial legal norms.

These practical intersections, though subtle, highlight that liberalism is not merely "anti-authoritarian" but rather a sophisticated and conditional approach to achieving orderly cooperation without sacrificing individual freedom.

The Conditionalist Insight

This distinction is sharpened through a Conditionalist lens. Conditionalism underscores that all truths—moral, political, or epistemic—are contextually dependent and must be continually evaluated against shifting conditions. Liberalism uniquely embodies this epistemic humility, acknowledging human fallibility, uncertainty, and the necessity of voluntary association.

In conclusion, liberalism and authoritarianism fundamentally conflict in their philosophical foundations. Yet liberalism remains nuanced, acknowledging the conditional nature of social order, law, and stability, making it uniquely suited to navigate the inherent uncertainties of human life without surrendering individual autonomy or resorting to coercion.