Authoritarian as in undemocratic, not just in terms of people not getting to vote, but also in terms of not being responsive to the will of the people. Rule by one man facing few if any formal limitations on his power, and no checks and balances.
Libertarian in terms of letting people do almost anything they want.
You would have few if any formal rights, but the absolute ruler would have strong libertarian leanings, or perhaps he is limited by custom and tradition that he could transgress in theory but in practice he respects either out of conviction, personality, or desire not to be unpopular.
I think such a situation would be most likely to occur in a relatively primitive society, ruled by some sort of monarch, that has a strong tradition about what areas are up to the ruler, and that leaves most of your everyday life outside of what the ruler is supposed to control. But within the area of the rulers control his will would be absolute. If the ruler went outside his traditional bounds he wouldn't be ignored or impeached but people might be shocked and there might even be a revolution.
This isn't really 100% authoritarian or 100% libertarian but it has elements of both.
Tim |
