NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't want to hear about random facist, commie, whatever flames. If you have something constructive to say, the go ahead.


Why I believe that a RIGHTLY RUN dictatorship is the best form of government. (realisticlly, obviously a true democracy or something along those lines is IDEAL)

In a nation, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees, someone who wants to hurt things, and someone who believe differently. Now there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but when you are trying to have an orderly society that trusts one another, loves one another, and supports one another, those elements are very corrosive to the equation. I believe that the best way to get those unfriendly elements to cooperate is to start with children. By installing a large sense of nationalism, and providing a firm guideline for them. Also, millitary service would be compulsive. 2 or 3 years would be fine. Equal rights would be of importance, along with religious tolerance. You might say well that kills your unity theory, however I do not belive so. People can argue and not hate. With a well funded police force domestic violence would be very low, the same with crime.

Well I could ramble on and I know I have been jumping topics but oh well. NOW the important thing is that this only works with a true, honorable ruler. AGAIN you might say well there are always corrupt people. Thats why I belive that the ruler should not be ruler for LIFE, but until a sensible age. (60?) Then he would appoint the next ruler according to who he sees best fit. And if that ruler tries to abuse that power, the former dictator has the power to remove him.

ok eat me now.

bizump

Well, sometimes autocratic governments are needed for stability. For example, Tito held Yugoslavia together.

Just because they are honourable when placed in to power doesn't mean they will stay that way. Beyond the fact that people can and do change, I am reminded of the saying: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What is with this influx of fascists? The problem with fascism is that if people are too bad to be trusted without government, they can't possibly be trusted with dictatorial powers. Being given power doesn't seem to work wonders for morality.

how do you GET a rightly run dictatorship? how do you insure that the dictator really has the best interest of the people at heart? how do you get rid of him when he loses his focus and becomes corrupt? what do you do when he gets too old to do the job? how do you insure that the NEXT guy is going to be a good dictator?

and what if YOUR (the dictators) idea of rightly run doesnt match up with the majority of the population?

you are wrong, simply because better is subjective

the dictatorship is much more efficent and has a great sence of nationalism, but it normally breeds dissatisfaction in the people, not because they are necessarily dissatisfied with government, just at a lack of power.

unless you establish systems of control in education and media to ween that out or marginalize its influence (sound familiar) then those people will never be satisfied. If you do however I believe you no longer have a dictatorship, but a theocracy.

Like I've been saying for a while now, freedom and peace are polar opposites -unless you're a politician. I mean the freer you are, the more chaotic society becomes; but the more peaceful you are, the more restrictive society becomes. There are advantages and trade-offs either way, the idea is to find the "perfect balance," whatever it may be in any particular situation. Autocratic governments are definitely more on the peace & homogeny & dictatorship & social order end of the scale.

The problem is, you might get stuck with a dictator for thirty years, even if he proves himself to be utterly incompetant after only thirty minutes.

That's the only real advantage of democracy. When it comes down to it, democracy doesn't allow people much more control over how they are governed; it merely allows you to get rid of the current leader if you don't like him, and replace him more or less randomly with some other cretin.

To answer your concerns of what happens when bad people are choosen and such.

I believe that by starting off with the right man in power, say oh ME, (haha i love it) then I will be able to choose a man who will not be corrupted. (i know that sounds ify) I'm sure most of you have seen gladiator. Now the emperor chose Maximus over his own son because he KNEW his son was a bad person, and that maximus was a good person. I believe that I and others could make that distinction, and in turn choose the right man for the job.

And to answer when someone BECOMES corrupted. The previous ruler would have one power after he retired, and one power only. The power to remove a leader if the man became corrupt OR had very different motives than the people. And if it came down to it the ability to use military force to remove him. This power would also be given to another man of office, so if the other we're to become ill or die then there is still a check.

I beileve in the existance of Benevolent Dictators, but no, Sadaam was not one, Castro is not one, Hitler was not one. The list goes on.

You call me a facist, but how am I a facist if I believe in the equal rights for all, freedom of religion and the like?

What is with this influx of fascists? The problem with fascism is that if people are too bad to be trusted without government, they can't possibly be trusted with dictatorial powers. Being given power doesn't seem to work wonders for morality.

Not among the corrupt people of our society, however what you don't seem to realize is that no government doesn't work because then the majority has the power, and the majority are not innately honorable. Amongst a fascist-style nation, the few the rule (or singular ruler in the case of a true fascist state, although I still believe in more of an Oligarchy) could be all (or mostly) honorable, because there is no requirement that they be the majority...

Then they can act unanimously in favor of the national image, national pride, national power and honor of the country... so on so forth.

Okay. What if Dubya was declared dictator? Or Kerry? Or Sharpton? Or Gore? Or Cheney? Millions of people support these 'candidates'. What about the millions that don't? Like it or loathe it, as the saying goes: ' Democracy is the least worst form of government' Fortunately, the number of people willing to place their lives in the hands of a dictator are very few indeed.
One more point. Have a bit more respect for the millions of men and women who have had their lives ripped away so that people like you can spout this sort of rubbish.

Those millions of men and women died so that a corrupt dictator could not take over.

The only reason democracy thrives in our society is because people are always unhappy with the way the leader does thing, and they want to be able to change that.

What if very few people were ever unhappy with their leader? Would there be something wrong with a dictatorship then?

You'll probably say yes just because you've been raised to believe nothing else, or say no and come up with some excuse that really is beside the point.

Or there's the very very small chance you'll answer with something logical, intelligent, and takes into account all the arguments for authoritarianism, but seeing as this is extremely rare....

What if very few people were ever unhappy with their leader? Would there be something wrong with a dictatorship then?

You'll probably say yes just because you've been raised to believe nothing else, or say no and come up with some excuse that really is beside the point.
.

Your blessed dictator, he would do no wrong then? Who would pay for his mistakes? I assume you're imagining a human being as dictator, you know, someone who makes mistakes? I'll tell who pays.......... us, you and me. At best with taxes, at worst with blood. No thanks, an elected president or prime minister is already enough of a dictator for four or five years. I demand and deserve the right to kick the bastard out if he or she screws me into the ground.

Your blessed dictator, he would do no wrong then? Who would pay for his mistakes? I assume you're imagining a human being as dictator, you know, someone who makes mistakes? I'll tell who pays.......... us, you and me. At best with taxes, at worst with blood. No thanks, an elected president or prime minister is already enough of a dictator for four or five years. I demand and deserve the right to kick the bastard out if he or she screws me into the ground.

Didn't say he'd do no wrong, but he could very well do LESS wrong than elected candidates. You knwo who pays for mistakes of your democratically elected leaders? Us, you and me, just like you said, and again, in your words, at best with taxes, at worst with blood.

The problem is that the majority are too short-sighted, they can't see beyond their own immediate surroundings. Most are also extraordinarily selfish, dishonorable, immoral, etc. (at least in today's society, although this could be changed, at least partially). These people cannot be given the power to choose the leader of an entire nation....

If you can create a society where everyone (or the majority) are honorable, intelligent, competent, so on so forth, then that'd be a good country for democracy.

That country is not possible, therefore, democracy is NOT the best possible solution.

Didn't say he'd do no wrong, but he could very well do LESS wrong than elected candidates. You knwo who pays for mistakes of your democratically elected leaders? Us, you and me, just like you said, and again, in your words, at best with taxes, at worst with blood.

The problem is that the majority are too short-sighted, they can't see beyond their own immediate surroundings. Most are also extraordinarily selfish, dishonorable, immoral, etc. (at least in today's society, although this could be changed, at least partially). These people cannot be given the power to choose the leader of an entire nation....

If you can create a society where everyone (or the majority) are honorable, intelligent, competent, so on so forth, then that'd be a good country for democracy.

That country is not possible, therefore, democracy is NOT the best possible solution.

Sorry. I almost thought I was talking to someone with a brain. Good luck.

The problem that affects both democracy and dictatorships is the corruption presented to leadership by special interests and behind the scenes corporate lobbying etc.

Democracy allows the groups to fight eachother for power which they can only keep for so long. This prevents any one group from becoming invincible and provides a tense but stable political atmosphere. So long as the power shifts constantly, no one can complain.

Dictatorships unfortunetly get tuned onto one frequency, so to speak, and all the other groups get downtrodden and oppressed. The government often tries to control rebellions with violence or fear, but invariably fails this way because those tactics breed a stronger resistance. The government cannot satisfy the oppressed groups however because doing so would A) piss off their own side, and B) the oppressed groups really only want power and wont be satisfied with second place. Invariably the oppressed groups will gang up on the government and topple it.

Basically: democracy works because it ensures everyone can grab a piece of cake at some point, dictatorships fail because they keep the cake locked in a room by itself, and the partygoers are good lockpicks.

I ♥ republics!

Sorry. I almost thought I was talking to someone with a brain. Good luck.

Thank you for providing no defense for what you said and giving up.

Just because something works doesnt make it right! in a dictatorship anyone can take power. and what happens when that person decides to abuse their power? commit genocide for one reason or another lets say. now the people of that nation are pissed and want that dictator out because of his crimes against humanity but they cant do anything peaceful because the dictator has complete power so the only option is to revolt. but the problem with this is that the dictatorship has a massive army and police force, so an internal civil war wont work. this brings the people who want to overthrow the dictator to ask for help from foreign nations. and there will always be help given to those who need it that badly in some form of another. so now many civilized and democratic nations are pissed at the dictaorship. and the dictator has a massive revolt going on which is being backed by a crap load of nations. basically he is screwed. that is why a dictatorship sucks. it never works because all people who have power abuse it. and when u have absolute power u are tempted to abuse it even more, but you will always have the intelligent and free thinking proletariat to worry about. because they dont stand for that kind of crap. long live the liberal socialist workers party!

I don't want to hear about random facist, commie, whatever flames. If you have something constructive to say, the go ahead.


Why I believe that a RIGHTLY RUN dictatorship is the best form of government. (realisticlly, obviously a true democracy or something along those lines is IDEAL)

In a nation, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees, someone who wants to hurt things, and someone who believe differently. Now there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but when you are trying to have an orderly society that trusts one another, loves one another, and supports one another, those elements are very corrosive to the equation. I believe that the best way to get those unfriendly elements to cooperate is to start with children. By installing a large sense of nationalism, and providing a firm guideline for them. Also, millitary service would be compulsive. 2 or 3 years would be fine. Equal rights would be of importance, along with religious tolerance. You might say well that kills your unity theory, however I do not belive so. People can argue and not hate. With a well funded police force domestic violence would be very low, the same with crime.

Well I could ramble on and I know I have been jumping topics but oh well. NOW the important thing is that this only works with a true, honorable ruler. AGAIN you might say well there are always corrupt people. Thats why I belive that the ruler should not be ruler for LIFE, but until a sensible age. (60?) Then he would appoint the next ruler according to who he sees best fit. And if that ruler tries to abuse that power, the former dictator has the power to remove him.

ok eat me now.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any dictatorship will become corrupt given enough time.

Dictatorships can be better than democracies, in extreme circumstances. One that comes to mind immediately is Pinochet's military dictatorship in Chile in 1973. Allende, the "elected" socialist/communist leader, was destroying his country. Economically, politically, and socially. There was chaos in Chile in 1973. Knowing he was about to lose an election, he and his supporters were engaged in infiltrating Cuban and other communist thugs into the country to ensure he would either win another election through intimidation, or to stage a revolution if he lost.

Pinochet removed Allende from office, justifiably, and created a dictatorship that turned Chile into the most prosperous country in S. America. Sure, about 4,000 extreme left thugs, terrorists, and psuedo-intellectual nuts were eliminated during his rule. But these people were intent on either committing or encouraging acts of violence and creating an extreme-left communist dictatorship that would have wiped out the Chilean middle class, murdered tens of thousands of people, and made Chile into a third world country like Castro's Cuba is today.

So I say Pinochet is one dictator to be admired. Going further back, Franco in Spain should be admired. And in the present, Musharraf in Pakistan. All three were/are useful and productive to their respective countries in the constant fight against extremism.

Well, I don't have much of an opinion about dicatorships specifically, but I do think the political cycle really happens over an appropriate amount of time:

Start with a monarchy, rule by one. The monarchy becomes a tyranny. The tyranny is then overthrown in favor of an aristocracy, or rule by a few. The aristocracy becomes an oligarcy. The oligarcy is then overthrown in favor of democracy, which of course is rule by many. Then the democracy descends into anarchism*, which is overthrown and a monarchy is established once again.

*anarchy is the wrong word, but I can't remember the proper term. I'm thinking of a word which roughly means "mob rule", which is not anarchism.

And yes, I know my spelling is abysmal on this post.

Thanks for initiating the thread, because it is an interesting topic.

Dictatorship, Monarchy, rule by one does have the potential for the most efficiency. Now if politicians are supposed to be professionals at government, why don't they get the same standard as, say, doctors, who are professionals at medicine. Do we take votes on the doctor's prescription, diagnosis? Normally and in general, no. What about with chefs? Do we vote on his recipes or cooking? No.

So why isn't government left to professionals. Is it scary that a backwoodsman brandishing a shotgun ranting racism has the same power as a soldier returning home from serving his country, under the democratic system? Democracies are ruled by the uneducated - read history. And that is their weakness and downfall. Because the uneducated can always be swayed and manipulated by common errors and human weaknesses. Education is democracy's lifeline, and don't look now, but where's the public education system gone? We throw money at schools like stones at tanks, but we handcuff and bondage the teachers, and then expect them in the name of philanthropy, because no religion is allowed, to offer up their lives and teach. And we keep saying the children are the future.

Historically, democracies don't last, because in this system good politicians cannot survive. We have showmen, not politicians, who seek to win the vote, but not use it. They have to do what everyone wants, and not necessarily what is right. Things change, but some things never change. There is only one type of politician that can survive in a democracy, and you'll have to read Plutarch's Lives, on Pericles, to find out. Even the Roman Senate was toppled by dictatorship - because of populist opinion - the uneducated masses.

Not that dictatorships are perfect either, but democracy is way overrated and in need of serious adjustments. On the otherhand, there have been some great dictators in history, i would say just as many or more than the bad ones.

Thanks for initiating the thread, because it is an interesting topic.

Dictatorship, Monarchy, rule by one does have the potential for the most efficiency. Now if politicians are supposed to be professionals at government, why don't they get the same standard as, say, doctors, who are professionals at medicine. Do we take votes on the doctor's prescription, diagnosis? Normally and in general, no. What about with chefs? Do we vote on his recipes or cooking? No.

So why isn't government left to professionals. Is it scary that a backwoodsman brandishing a shotgun ranting racism has the same power as a soldier returning home from serving his country, under the democratic system? Democracies are ruled by the uneducated - read history. And that is their weakness and downfall. Because the uneducated can always be swayed and manipulated by common errors and human weaknesses. Education is democracy's lifeline, and don't look now, but where's the public education system gone? We throw money at schools like stones at tanks, but we handcuff and bondage the teachers, and then expect them in the name of philanthropy, because no religion is allowed, to offer up their lives and teach. And we keep saying the children are the future.

Historically, democracies don't last, because in this system good politicians cannot survive. We have showmen, not politicians, who seek to win the vote, but not use it. They have to do what everyone wants, and not necessarily what is right. Things change, but some things never change. There is only one type of politician that can survive in a democracy, and you'll have to read Plutarch's Lives, on Pericles, to find out. Even the Roman Senate was toppled by dictatorship - because of populist opinion - the uneducated masses.

Not that dictatorships are perfect either, but democracy is way overrated and in need of serious adjustments. On the otherhand, there have been some great dictators in history, i would say just as many or more than the bad ones.

Absoluetly. If you ever get the chance, read a short play by Henrick Ibsen: Enemy of the People. It's wonderful.

To answer your concerns of what happens when bad people are choosen and such.

I believe that by starting off with the right man in power, say oh ME, (haha i love it) then I will be able to choose a man who will not be corrupted. (i know that sounds ify)

If you hold absolute power, you will be corrupted yourself. Even when the time came for you to give the title to someone else, we couldn't trust them either because a) you are corrupted by this point and b) they will be corrupted as well.

I'm sure most of you have seen gladiator. Now the emperor chose Maximus over his own son because he KNEW his son was a bad person, and that maximus was a good person. I believe that I and others could make that distinction, and in turn choose the right man for the job.

Unless you are corrupt. Which you would end up being. As would anyone who you choose.

And to answer when someone BECOMES corrupted. The previous ruler would have one power after he retired, and one power only. The power to remove a leader if the man became corrupt OR had very different motives than the people. And if it came down to it the ability to use military force to remove him. This power would also be given to another man of office, so if the other we're to become ill or die then there is still a check.

First of all, the previous leader would already be corrupted. Secondly the dictator controls the military. If he doesn't, he isn't a very good dictator, and his 'power' is just a guise. If the power is a guise, the dictator is useless. If the power is real, you are helpless before him.

You call me a facist, but how am I a facist if I believe in the equal rights for all, freedom of religion and the like?

So all people would have the right to rule the country in absolution? After all, if everyone is equal in rights, and the dictator has that right, everyone must have the right to absolute control over the country.

Why I believe that a RIGHTLY RUN dictatorship is the best form of government. (realisticlly, obviously a true democracy or something along those lines is IDEAL)

Well I could ramble on and I know I have been jumping topics but oh well. NOW the important thing is that this only works with a true, honorable ruler. AGAIN you might say well there are always corrupt people. Thats why I belive that the ruler should not be ruler for LIFE, but until a sensible age. (60?) Then he would appoint the next ruler according to who he sees best fit. And if that ruler tries to abuse that power, the former dictator has the power to remove him.

ok eat me now.

Well, you seem to have started a well thought out proposition, I will treat it then with due respect, and address my concerns with each point as I go along. In general, you make good points, but you've forgotten or ignored nepotism and clique's. A rightly run Dictatorship is in fact a normal way of running a nation, many widely varying nations have produced dictators with widely varying results.

Within the framework of a nation's government, a dictator is merely the ultimate expression of centralized governmental power. That is to say, dictators can exist within many different "types" of government, beacuse essentially they are little more than one induvidual or clique that has assumed all central power in a nation. The infrastructure, beauracracy, theological beliefs, simply define the dictatorship rather than prevent it.

So, dictators exist in a wide variety of nations...they are adaptable and wield centralized power. Sounds good so far. However, governments are based on sustainability, and dictatorship is virtually impossible to sustain beyond 3 or 4 generations at best. This is because of Nepotism and cliques.

For example, Ruler #1 has picked Ruler #2 to take over; Ruler number 2 has friends, experiences, and allies that differ from Ruler #1. This is because no two people are exactly the same right? Thus even if the initial transition from ruler #1 to #2 is smooth; their allies and friends have now shifted in power, those who once enjoyed fame and fortune now have to remind Ruler 2 that they are important as well.

This conflict of interests may be small or large, well-managed or destructive, it matters little; for each conflict of interest is a potential fracturing of government. With centralized power, those at the top control government, if and when they squabble, it will hamper government efficiency.

Now take this model and reapply it every time a leader shifts power. Then add government internal shakeups, corruption from below, and outside factors, and you have why dictatorships are short-term governments for the most part.

The most important job of a dictator is to ensure that their nation can survive a transition of one generation to the next. This pressure has fractured many governments, making rulers often obsessive or secretive about grooming heirs to power. Therein lies the problem, dictatorships breed only problems in the long term, no solid plan for maintaining centralized power for more than a few generations has been found to work yet.

The most important job of a dictator is to ensure that their nation can survive a transition of one generation to the next. This pressure has fractured many governments, making rulers often obsessive or secretive about grooming heirs to power. Therein lies the problem, dictatorships breed only problems in the long term, no solid plan for maintaining centralized power for more than a few generations has been found to work yet.

Though I agree with you that dictatorships breed only problems in the long term, i have to say, that my views of the job of a dictatorship varies a little bit from yours. As I see it the job of a dictator should be to bring relative stability and savety to a nation or region and its people. For example in the dark ages (or even earlier? I don't know exactly) Germany was engaged in a nearly one thousand years lasting civil war (kind of). As that war ended and germany was finally united (I think at that time the Kaiserreich was born), most people in the region were quite happy about that (not to speak of the reputation of military invincibility germany had earned during that time - though that reputation lastet not very long in hystorical terms). Of course as the Kaiserraich grew old it - as stated earlier - bred more problems than it had advantages (and as the great war ended people really wanted to get rid of that monarch).

Though I agree with you that dictatorships breed only problems in the long term, i have to say, that my views of the job of a dictatorship varies a little bit from yours. As I see it the job of a dictator should be to bring relative stability and savety to a nation or region and its people. For example in the dark ages (or even earlier? I don't know exactly) Germany was enaged in a nearly one thousand years lasting civil war (kind of) as that war ended and germany was finally united (I think at that time the Kaiserreich was born), most people in the region were quite happy about that (not to speak of the reputation of military invincibility germany had earned during that time - though that reputation lastet not very long in hystorical terms).

Well, perhaps you caught me on that point; however I assert that any temporary stability that a dictator allows is rather futile without a degree of sustainability.

True about the Kaiser, but you could say that the German monarchy did not have the same tradition and hence support that the Russian or British, or Austrian monarchies had.

The real problem is secession - who and how good the successor is. In the philosopher kingdom of Socrates, nepotism and cliquism wouldn't exist, cuz philosophers are above the first and don't real hang out, so likewise of the second.

And I think they should only spend their prime running things, so like from 25 to 45; then afterwards they join the "council of elders" - previous rulers - who can give guidance and have the power to remove unworthy successors.

You all have made very valid points. However, such things as Absolute power corrupts absolutely, is a theory. Therefore it is POSSIBLE that a long line of good successors could be choosen. Now I admit this is highly unlikely, especially in todays world. One thing I failed to mention, was that I DO NOT believe that a dictatorship would work in a country to the scale of the USA, or Russia. With such a large landmass, and such a large population, it is nearly impossible to exert control over that area/ people.

I believe for a dictatorship to run smoothly, the country would need to be a small to medium sized country at the most. To have a dictatorship work over a large area you would need to divise lands into territories, give them governors, and exert unwanted force upon the population. No one wants that.

Another thing I would like to point out is that most of you seem to be using Hobbes theory of people are inherently evil. But if they are, then a democracy is thourgholy corrupeted at all levels. From the average joe who wants what is best for himself rather than the whole, to the President who wants whats best for himself. Don't get me wrong I love the United States. I am only trying to show you what I think would be a better system.

With a dictatorship, with a righteous ruler, he will want what is right for the whole, rather than himself. A dictator can order hospitals to be built, schools to be built, medicines to be distributed and such. With a democracy, there are always squabbles over if we need more or not, where it should be, how much money should go into it, and in the end many of these institutions become underfunded, and underequipped.

To the point that a dictatorship will invariably crumble over a period of 3 to 4 generations: This is a very possible factor when dealing with such powers. However, as stated, previous rulers would be able to confer and depose any new ruler that may have seemed, but is obviously not fit for power.

I'll admit that there are MANY things that could go wrong with a dictatorship. And that is the advantage of democracy, bad things can be rooted out within a few years.

But there are also MANY things that could go right with a dictatorship. And that is the fault of democracy. A presicent who is doing a GREAT job will only have 8 years at most to serve, and then he may be replaced by someone who will tear what he accomplished to shreds. Under a democracy, advancements move slowly, because there is ALWAYS somebody who will say that it is unethical, unmoral, too costly, too far fetched, too dangerous and so on and so forth. With a dictatorship, things can be moved along at a steady pace, fully tested and unhindered by money squandering politicans.

Now one thing that always seems to have plauged dictatorships is the ability to keep its citizens motivated. Many dictatorships have lived under forced labor, or low paid citizens who had no chance to advance in life. For people to be motivated, there are three options.

1. Capitalism. This seems to be the most favoured, however, there are many faults.
2. Appeasment. Games, such as Gladiators, duels, and the such. This idea however is seen in the western world as highly crude and would most likely not be accepted.
3. Slave labour and small buisness. Slaves would be cultivated from criminals. They would do all manual labor at only the cost of food. People would not have to pay for construction. They would be free to start a buisness as soon as they find property. Again, moral issues.


I've said a lot for now so lets have a few more replies.

Well, perhaps you caught me on that point; however I assert that any temporary stability that a dictator allows is rather futile without a degree of sustainability.

Ya, maybe you're right, but as I see it a country should get rid of a dictator as soon as the stability within that region is established I think ancient rome had a good system to ensure that, a dictator with nearly absolute power was elected for four years in times of crisis.
The only problem one could have within such a system would be corrupted individuals (namely the dictator and its Allies) who try to overthrow the system and turn it into a monarchy. And lets be honest even if the dictator guy were a benevolent leader with the right way's to lead its people, at least one of his successors will make some serious mistakes - frankly spoke bullshit like the great war.

babump

On second thought... I really would like to be a dictator, or at least I want to try how it would be to be a dictator, lets say for one week or something like that (I don't want to buy a cat in a bag, you know)...

You all have made very valid points. However, such things as Absolute power corrupts absolutely, is a theory. Therefore it is POSSIBLE that a long line of good successors could be choosen. Now I admit this is highly unlikely, especially in todays world. One thing I failed to mention, was that I DO NOT believe that a dictatorship would work in a country to the scale of the USA, or Russia. With such a large landmass, and such a large population, it is nearly impossible to exert control over that area/ people.

Weeelllll, it worked out quite well in the old UdSSR, Stalin died of old age, didn't he?

But Uncle Stalin wasn't a very benevlolent person was he?

In the history of the world, I feel that there has been only one good dictator ever, and oddly enough, he still lives (but doesn't rule): Lee Yuan Kwan of Singapore. Sure, he was like all dictators with his set of quirky rules (no bubble gum chewing) and an autocratic manner (his son replaced him). But Lee Yuan Kwan has turned his nation from a backwater into something indistinguishible from core nations. He left his nation with a strong tradition for the rule of law, and has embedded free markets into the system. Singaporeans now have one of the world's highest living standards, and are also among the best educated. They tolerate the current dictatorship because they aren't really intrusive, but its political transformation is beginning. Singapore will be a democracy within a generation.
This is the only thing dictators can be good for: they use the rule of law and the free markets as their means to prosperity, turning a backwater nation into a democracy. The UAE emirate of Dubai is following this model, and since the world is more connected today, Dubai may actually become a democracy within a generation. And no, they wouldn't elect some Osama bin Laden type figure.

An autocracy (single rule) state could only exist and prosper successfully under a totally benevolent and all knowing leader. I thought about it once, and figured out that it pretty well discribes the Kingdom of God. I hear that place is coming soon, and I want to make my resume look good for when He decides if I get in or not.

(Hint:If you ask this guy Jesus to help you out, I hear it's a WHOLE lot easier than obeying all this God's rules perfectly)

-R. S. of UC

But Uncle Stalin wasn't a very benevlolent person was he?

Yep, You're completely right, but for some reason he was successfull. but don't ask me why its a complete mystery to me why the russians didn't get rid of him ASAP.

babump

<makes a stupid face and starts drooling> duuhhh... me not speak proper english good, what "babump" means?

Me noticed "babump" thingie before, other threads other posts, me can not figure where "babump" comes from, please me tell, thanks.

Dictatorships can be better than democracies, in extreme circumstances. One that comes to mind immediately is Pinochet's military dictatorship in Chile in 1973.

Rubbish. Pinochet was an evil murdering bastard installed in the government by a CIA backed Coup. Little old USA was scared of the fairly elected communist party. The people wanted to be governed in a particular way but because of the coup, Pinochet went round killing loads of people and dumping their bodies in the pacific, the atacama desert, and in the andes.

A presicent who is doing a GREAT job will only have 8 years at most to serve,

Not in a Brittish democracy - Thatcher was in power from 1979 - 1990.

The problem with democracy , and the reason why a dictatorship is a great idea (in principle), is that in a democracy everybody gets the vote. That includes stupid people. You do not have to have a clue on any issues regarding the economy or the environment or anything to be able to vote someone in.

Secondly people are selfish. This drives capitalism, but also means that people vote for whatever is best for them, not what is best for everybody (no one is going to vote someone in who will cut their standard of living dramatically, whilst giving the extra money to the poor and needy). A beneveolent dictator could do what is best for everybody.

The question is, as a dictator how can you identify what actions are best for everybody, and what is your own biased piont of view?

I don't want to hear about random facist, commie, whatever flames. If you have something constructive to say, the go ahead.


Why I believe that a RIGHTLY RUN dictatorship is the best form of government. (realisticlly, obviously a true democracy or something along those lines is IDEAL)

In a nation, there will ALWAYS be someone who disagrees, someone who wants to hurt things, and someone who believe differently. Now there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that, but when you are trying to have an orderly society that trusts one another, loves one another, and supports one another, those elements are very corrosive to the equation. I believe that the best way to get those unfriendly elements to cooperate is to start with children. By installing a large sense of nationalism, and providing a firm guideline for them. Also, millitary service would be compulsive. 2 or 3 years would be fine. Equal rights would be of importance, along with religious tolerance. You might say well that kills your unity theory, however I do not belive so. People can argue and not hate. With a well funded police force domestic violence would be very low, the same with crime.

Well I could ramble on and I know I have been jumping topics but oh well. NOW the important thing is that this only works with a true, honorable ruler. AGAIN you might say well there are always corrupt people. Thats why I belive that the ruler should not be ruler for LIFE, but until a sensible age. (60?) Then he would appoint the next ruler according to who he sees best fit. And if that ruler tries to abuse that power, the former dictator has the power to remove him.

ok eat me now.What you are talking about is basically an absolute monarchy with an enlightened and benevolent ruler? Well, at some (all too short) times in history that really existed. There were many pharaohs who ruled that way, and some Roman emperors as well. I think it depends on how the rule is legitimized and how the self-conception of the ruler is in relation to his people.

I think democracy could work really well if the right to vote and hold office was given only to people who have at least passed an intelligence test (or some other kind of test).

There, not as exclusive as a dictatorship, not as loose as a democracy.

Would You Now be happy under a dictatorship?

There are many dictatorships that rule opressivly, there are some dictatorships that were set up with the best intentions in mind.. doing wats best for your people.. but remeber a dictator has power.. power.. no matter how honourable, sensible, careing the peron is.. he will be corrupted in many ways.. dictatorships NEVER have tured out the way they were meant to..

ofcouse i do agree that the ideas behind the dictatorships are perfectly valid and reasonable with many problems being solved.. it can never work in the end.. it is like communism.. both true communism and soviet communism can't work.. only in Utopia.. and this is not utopia.. a massive power should never be concentrated and controlled by the hands a single man for any length of time.. the concequinces will be dire

Can no-one remember that communist countries are officially totalitarian dictatorships? They represent what happens when you have a government with 'the peoples best interests at heart. Fascists are not the only totalitarians. Let us not forget the millions and millions who died due to the failed 'experiment' of communism. :(

I think democracy could work really well if the right to vote and hold office was given only to people who have at least passed an intelligence test (or some other kind of test).

There, not as exclusive as a dictatorship, not as loose as a democracy.

Maybe not an intelligence test, maybe a test to ascertain the level of knowledge a person holds about the complex domestic and foreign issues of importance, and the policies of each party on each important issue.

I'd like to point out that the Kingdom of God would suck just like anything else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
v
Knowledge is power.
v
God is omniscient.
v
Therefore! God must be the most corrupt entity in the universe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And to think, we were made in his image..........