NationStates Jolt Archive

No, seriously.

Would you like the idea of ruling with an iron fist and being waited on hand and foot? Of your word being law?

I have to admit that the corrupted parts of me think so...

(If I could post the "twisted" smilie, I would! Stupid boards!)

No. I personally wouldn't enjoy it, but I suppose it entirely depends on the individual. For some people, being an unquestioned ruler might be a dream come true.

Well, most everyone thinks having everything how they would like it sounds like fun. The question is, how do they think they would rule? Would it be with an iron fist or with mercy? What happens when you die and there are squabbles over your throne. Bad stuff happens when dictators are involved. It's just the idea of having everything you way that appeals to people.

That's good. I mean, I and too many others in the world yearn for absolute power, but it really is a bad thing. Still...

I told her that I came from Detroit City,
and that I played guitar in a long haired rock and roll band.

She asked me why the singers name was Alice...

I said "Listen baby, you probably wouldnt understand."

No. I personally wouldn't enjoy it, but I suppose it entirely depends on the individual. For some people, being an unquestioned ruler might be a dream come true. Some dictators have fun, others have a tough time...

I told her that I came from Detroit City,
and that I played guitar in a long haired rock and roll band.

She asked me why the singers name was Alice...

I said "Listen baby, you probably wouldnt understand."
What?

I'd be a benevolent dictator if I would have to be one. Being a dictator already makes you hated enough, so you'll be even more paranoid if you're a really bad repressive dictator.

What kind of person seeks a position of authority, without harbouring a desire to opress the masses? I mean.. come on!! All heads of state want to be Pinochet. They all covet the exile that the Marcos's got in Hawaii, not to mention the shoes!! Look at Kadafi and Castro who get to walk around in their taylored military uniforms!! How rad is that!!

I don't think i'd find it much fun at all.

I think that something that you would have to take into consideration is the fact that you would have to find people that you could trust in order to be a dictator, and what dictator has been able to do that..... I personally don't think that I couldbe a dictator, just because, even though I think it would be great to have everything as I want it and be waited on had and foot, I don't think I could knowingly oppress people.... Perhaps I could just be a really nice dictator, but who has heard of that? *rolls eyes*

For everyone who answers yes, be sure to pick up a game in September called Evil Genious. Build your own undergroud lair, raise an evil army of yellow jumpsuit-clad henchmen, resist invasions by those pesky spies, and take over the world!

It looks very amusing. In one mission you get to steal the Eiffel Tower.

To be true to the post, I don't think so. Being a dictator just can't be as fun as it appears. Near Stalin's death, he was paranoid about Jewish doctors conspiring to kill him. The guy was messed up.

dunno, i'll ask tony blair

:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:
:mp5:

I don't know how being a dictator would be fun for very long.

The constant threat of assasination and overthrow by thousands/millions of people would quickly turn the small amount of benefits into a constant living nightmare...

(thinks "If I wanted to be waited on hand and foot, or have my word become law, I'd just become a mommy...")

Look at Kadafi US officials concerned Gaddafi diverting funds from WMD to tacky wardrobe (http://www.freepressed.com/gaddafi.htm)

:p

US officials concerned Gaddafi diverting funds from WMD to tacky wardrobe (http://www.freepressed.com/gaddafi.htm)

:p


Ok, so he's funded international terrorism.. big deal! *yawn*

He's a rebel without a cause.. he's a fashion victim.. he's... the wind beneath my wings.

Nyborg loves Quadaffi.. or however the hell you spell it this week!!

Yeah, he is indeed an interesting character.

Gaddafi has lots of causes but none of them really make sense.

Nope, although I might accept the post on a small scale if necessary. The problem is that many of us were taught that power and responsability go hand in hand, the more power you have over people the more responsability you have for thgose people people. The most sucessful dictatorships have always limited the term of the dictatorsd and I see no reason not to emulate them. This modern (post-renaisance) trend towrds allowing dictators life terms is bothersome, if you cannot get what needs to be done done in five years of absolute power, there is no reason to believe you can get it done at all.

Good job! Y'all are a bunch of (as yet) uncorrupted people unconcerned with taking power! *grins*

I'm not sure, Squi, what you're talking about when you mention limited-term dictators...

Well, most everyone thinks having everything how they would like it sounds like fun. The question is, how do they think they would rule? Would it be with an iron fist or with mercy? What happens when you die and there are squabbles over your throne. Bad stuff happens when dictators are involved. It's just the idea of having everything you way that appeals to people.
Well, I don't care what happens to the country after I die, I'll just give people subtle hints and then contradict myself several times just to have a good laugh before I die.

I'm a benevolent dictator.
Do what you want as long as it's with me in charge.

I'm a benevolent dictator.
Do what you want as long as it's with me in charge.
well then where's the fun in that?

I would LOVE it more than anything else that could ever happen.

oh yes if I had the chance to be a supreme ruler over a country I would definately take it.


And Im pretty sure every normal person in the world would say yes if given the option since the only reason people hate dictators is because they envy there power.

oh yes if I had the chance to be a supreme ruler over a country I would definately take it.


And Im pretty sure every normal person in the world would say yes if given the option since the only reason people hate dictators is because they envy there power.
I just dislike the way they use their power.

I mean, there's SO much more they can do!

I wouldn't mind being a dictator, but I'd be a benevolent dictator.

Good job! Y'all are a bunch of (as yet) uncorrupted people unconcerned with taking power! *grins*

I'm not sure, Squi, what you're talking about when you mention limited-term dictators...
The traditional dicators had limited terms, the Tyrants of ancient Greece and the Dictators of Rome. In cases of extreme emergency a responsible person would be granted near abolute power to deal with the emergency, for a limited time (the Romans went with a five year term if I remember correctly). This sort of thing used to be fairly common in the ancient world, Germanic kings were elected for limited terms and such, and the concept includes systems where one could have absolute power for a time, but one was killed at the end of the term. Having a single person wield absolute power is a very efficent form of government, but limiting the time one can weild it keeps the corruption to a minimum.

Having a single person wield absolute power is a very efficent form of government

Indeed. In Michael Crighton's The Lost World, one of the characters pointed out how the increasing connectedness and democratization of society was likely to be the death of the human race, since we can't get things done like we used to. Like it or not, dicatorship is actually the most efficient form of government there is. It's never going to be fully benevolent, but if something needs to be accomplished, it's the way to go. For example, while I am as horrified by Hitler as anyone else on this board (aside from the neo-Nazis), I do recognize the fact that he got the near-imploded country of Germany back on track early in his reign.

It might be fun to be a dictator, of course I would end up being pretty loose. So long as the tazes came in on time, I wouldn't care what happened.

I am a dictator. Take a look at my country's political freedoms.

Indeed. In Michael Crighton's The Lost World, one of the characters pointed out how the increasing connectedness and democratization of society was likely to be the death of the human race, since we can't get things done like we used to. Like it or not, dicatorship is actually the most efficient form of government there is. It's never going to be fully benevolent, but if something needs to be accomplished, it's the way to go. For example, while I am as horrified by Hitler as anyone else on this board (aside from the neo-Nazis), I do recognize the fact that he got the near-imploded country of Germany back on track early in his reign.
The operative copncept is early in his reign. If he had been limited to a five or even seven year term then most of theworse harms of Hitler would have never happened. It is when dictators last long enough to go from solving the problems of the people to establishing their own ideal nation that the worse problems crop up.

The operative copncept is early in his reign. If he had been limited to a five or even seven year term then most of theworse harms of Hitler would have never happened. It is when dictators last long enough to go from solving the problems of the people to establishing their own ideal nation that the worse problems crop up.
Yes, perhaps. But who has the power to make sure the dictator steps down, aside from the dicator him/herself? And I think Hitler had his heart set on oppressing his people and annihilating the Jews from day one of his reign, at the latest. A term would not have changed that; he would have simply moved up his schedule if he felt he had only a certain amount of time to carry it out.

I prefer freedom over efficiency. Thanks anyway.

I prefer freedom over efficiency. Thanks anyway.
Well, so do I, don't get me wrong. There's a reason I titled the post "Do you think it would be fun to be a dictator?" rather than "Do you think it would be fun to be oppressed by a dictator?". The dictator's the freest citizen of the country.

No, seriously.

Would you like the idea of ruling with an iron fist and being waited on hand and foot? Of your word being law?

I have to admit that the corrupted parts of me think so...

(If I could post the "twisted" smilie, I would! Stupid boards!)

Honestly? Sounds like a total drag and a waste of my day. The problem with being in charge is the people you're in charge of. They tend to suck.

Of course, I'd work very hard to make it fun. Or at least, funny. :D

Do you think it would be FUN to be a dictator?

If I were dictator, hilarity would most likely ensue.

Yes, perhaps. But who has the power to make sure the dictator steps down, aside from the dicator him/herself? And I think Hitler had his heart set on oppressing his people and annihilating the Jews from day one of his reign, at the latest. A term would not have changed that; he would have simply moved up his schedule if he felt he had only a certain amount of time to carry it out.
The forcing out is a problem, usually if the term limit is well entrenched in tradition one can count on a conspiracy to kill the dictator, and if that's not enough then I supose the Malay scheme of making the killer of the old dictator the new dictator would probably be enough. That's the reason some of the old cultures put their despots to death at the end of thier terms.

As for Hitler, sure we would have had Krystalnacht, but there is a limit to how much he could have done - I doubt he would have tried Polland if his term was ending soon and while Germany might have suffered under him, most of the rest of Europe would have been spared.

No, seriously.

Would you like the idea of ruling with an iron fist and being waited on hand and foot? Of your word being law?

I have to admit that the corrupted parts of me think so...

(If I could post the "twisted" smilie, I would! Stupid boards!)

Being a benevolent dictator might be a bit entertaining. ;)

(If I could post the "twisted" smilie, I would! Stupid boards!)
http://forum.pixelrage.ro/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

The Jolt smilies are way worse.

In fact it frightens me that so many of you would like to be a dictator and it frightens me even more, that so many of you consider a dictatorship being efficient. It does not surprise me though...

Freedom can never be based on oppression. How can you talk of efficiency if you are not adding an aim to efficiently reach for? And the aim should always be the maximal freedom for everyone; and for that, a dictatorship surely is not efficient. Economy is not a purpose of its own...

In fact it frightens me that so many of you would like to be a dictator and it frightens me even more, that so many of you consider a dictatorship being efficient. It does not surprise me though...

Freedom can never be based on oppression. How can you talk of efficiency if you are not adding an aim to efficiently reach for? And the aim should always be the maximal freedom for everyone; and for that, a dictatorship surely is not efficient. Economy is not a purpose of its own...


nothing says a dictatorship has to be oppressive. A dictatorship's ultimate goal is to have the people agree and go along with the government by there will alone(be it just because of good policy or good conditioning.)

In fact it frightens me that so many of you would like to be a dictator and it frightens me even more, that so many of you consider a dictatorship being efficient. It does not surprise me though...

Freedom can never be based on oppression. How can you talk of efficiency if you are not adding an aim to efficiently reach for? And the aim should always be the maximal freedom for everyone; and for that, a dictatorship surely is not efficient. Economy is not a purpose of its own...
Nope, cannot agree with your basic proposition, that the aim should always be maximum freedom for everyone. I could accept that as the general aim, or the ultimate aim but not the constant aim - sometimes you have to set the immediate aim lower, like keeping as many people alive as possible through a famine.

Like it or not, dicatorship is actually the most efficient form of government there is. It's never going to be fully benevolent, but if something needs to be accomplished, it's the way to go. For example, while I am as horrified by Hitler as anyone else on this board (aside from the neo-Nazis), I do recognize the fact that he got the near-imploded country of Germany back on track early in his reign.

The thing is, the main reason Hitler decided to declare war on the US is cause he viewed it as a democracy, and thus would be unable to focus itself on one cause - BIG mistake. He didn't view England as a real democracy, incidently, more a country with a ruling plutocracy, which is part of the reason he respected them so much. In his mind England was a more dangerous country than the US, as it could be mobilised.

Personally if I was going to be a dictator, it'd be along the lines of Caligula. That man knew how to PARTY!! In the 'Twelve Ceasars' by Suetonius (written 100AD, a must read if you have even a vague interest in Roman history) it was said he inherited 20 Million gold pieces from Tiberius - and promptly blew the lot within a year on parties and celebrations. This would be comparable to Bill Gates blowing his wealth. Imagine spending approx $1 Bill a week on parties. Sure he was killed a few years later, but what a time he had.