NationStates Jolt Archive


Shotgun Democracy: The Birth of a Violent Benevolent Dictatorship

The American Diasporat
24-06-2005, 20:37
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " - Thomas Jefferson

It's dark. Well, not so much dark as there isn't enough light for someone to call it bright out. There's a crowd standing outside a building that vaguely resembles the White House: indeed, the only difference is the battered look of this building could never be seen on the proud center of the American Republic. However, on a second glance, and by looking at one's surroundings, one can only conclude that this is the White House.

Further leaps of logic would tell you that this crowd might have something to do with the damage done to the building. Everyone in it is armed, whether with a simple butcher's knife taken from a shop in a rush, a shotgun brought from a man's home miles away in Rural America, a hunting rifle taken down from some rich man's mantle, or even a recently purchased military surplus assault rifle. All of these weapons are eager to be used. As a matter of fact, they stand a decent chance of such; on a day like today, violence becomes expected.

A single man departs from the forefront of the crowd, a shotgun held loosely by his thigh in one hand a balled fist in the other one. He slowly climbs the steps up towards the front door of the Not-So-White-Anymore House, closely watched by a cadre of suited men with pistols stationed at a myriad of windows around and above the entrance.

The man is oblivious to all this, his attention centered on the man that is even now cowering somewhere within the building. The tyrant, the despot that riled up these people enough to cause the one thing that has but two results: liberty or death. Keeping his eyes riveted on the front door until he reaches the top of the steps, he suddenly spins, the surprise action causing several of the younger suited men to tighten their trigger fingers ever so slightly.

The man surveys the crowd, the people in front of him, spread throughout the entire of the White House's lawn on all sides. Then, in another sudden action, he thrusts his shotgun into the air, simultaneously yelling and pulling the trigger.

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDOOOOOOOM"

A few hours later, the latest revolution is over. The old dictator of the United States of America is dead and his appointed replacement has taken his chair. The man, now standing in the front hall of the White House, is talking on a cell phone. He is working on plans to get the damage to the building repaired, the entire thing repainted to restore its former glory.

Things had gone very well for him, just as they had for his father, and his grandfather before him.

You see, this wasn't just the first revolution America had experienced since the war in 1776, not even the second. It was one of a dozen.

America had been, for a while at least, a shotgun democracy. A system of government that circumvents the bureaucracy and politics of a Republic but maintains the power of the people in government.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone, if you've read this far, I'm hoping the opening of this post has you intrigued. The meaning of it is a way of introducing what I hope would be a solution to the current problem faced by the world's peoples, namely that large countries have an immense amount of trouble in being efficient and free at the same time. A new system of government that preserves the social contract but gets rid of the politicians that muck things up.

This solution is what I have dubbed Shotgun Democracy, or a democracy where the violent power of the People and their ability to revolt is the deciding factor. Basically, the people are the ultimate check on corruption.

It is rather complicated in its intricies, but on the surface it is simple: a single person is appointed dictator for life. Upon being enthroned, this person must immediately chose a successer. Now, this isn't a permenant decision, they can change it whenever they want to, they just need to fill out the proper forms.

The check against the dictator's power, however, is that he must maintain a re-written bill of rights (Re-written in the sense of making it clearer in certain areas like the 1st and 2nd amendments). This ensures the populace will always retain the ability to bear arms. The dictator has no power to change this bill of rights, that can only be done with an 75% in favor vote of the people.

There is also included the right of the people to revolt when not satisfied with the way the dictator is running things. Considering the sheer amount of people in this country, this means the dictator has to work pretty damned hard to keep everyone happy, otherwise we get a situation like the above.

The basic reasoning being this: what does a man value more than his life?

Is this system rather disrespectful of the value of the dictator's life? Yes, it is, but it is necessary for liberty to florish.

NOTE: I have not included all my thoughts on this subject in this topic, but feel free to ask any question you might have, I probably have an answer for it.
Andapaula
24-06-2005, 20:49
Interesting...but flawed and ineffective, in my opinion. First of all, who's to say that all of the people will rebel at once? What if one group of people is pleased with the current dictator, while another is not? Does that mean that they fight each other over whether or not to rebel, thus enciting a Civil War, creating loyalists and rebels? Even aside from this, the idea of appointing a dictator for life is risky. Who's to say that this dictator doesn't decide to violate the rights guaranteed to the citizens, such as the right to bear arms? Does that mean that all of the citizens of the country will rebel? Not necessarily...you forget, not all of them may believe in bloody revolution, or agree with the right to bear arms in the first place...
The American Diasporat
24-06-2005, 21:14
Interesting...but flawed and ineffective, in my opinion. First of all, who's to say that all of the people will rebel at once? What if one group of people is pleased with the current dictator, while another is not? Does that mean that they fight each other over whether or not to rebel, thus enciting a Civil War, creating loyalists and rebels? Even aside from this, the idea of appointing a dictator for life is risky. Who's to say that this dictator doesn't decide to violate the rights guaranteed to the citizens, such as the right to bear arms? Does that mean that all of the citizens of the country will rebel? Not necessarily...you forget, not all of them may believe in bloody revolution, or agree with the right to bear arms in the first place...

The point here is that a certain amount people will be able to overwhelm the forces guarding the dictator. It doesn't need to be "everyone". It doesn't even have to be a majority. Actually, the whole methodology depends on people being hesitant but open to revolution. This means the people won't rebel when the dictator raises taxes by a dollar but they will when he tries to take their weapons away, or censor people, or anything like that. The point being that he has to have everyone be reasonably satisfied that they don't want to kill him.
Andapaula
24-06-2005, 21:24
The point here is that a certain amount people will be able to overwhelm the forces guarding the dictator. It doesn't need to be "everyone". It doesn't even have to be a majority. Actually, the whole methodology depends on people being hesitant but open to revolution. This means the people won't rebel when the dictator raises taxes by a dollar but they will when he tries to take their weapons away, or censor people, or anything like that. The point being that he has to have everyone be reasonably satisfied that they don't want to kill him.
Who's to say a large enough amount of people won't rebel when taxes are raised by a dollar? If they know that they have the power to rebel, that their goverment encourages it, then why not if not every single tiny detail doesn't adhere to their every wish? And my "civil war" point is still unaddressed -- what if there are groups of people, loyalists, who wish to protect the current dictator from bloody rebellion? And, if the dicator is overthrown, what if certain factions of people are tired of the current "get oppressed, kill leader, get new leader, repeat..." cycle and wish to form a government of their own?
CSW
24-06-2005, 21:29
Or just one lone wacko (we have a lot of those) could keep on killing dictators as soon as they are established. Nothing would get done, as they all would have a life span of about a day. A week at most.
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
25-06-2005, 15:59
This wouldn't work at all. After all, whose to say that the dictator has to live in the U.S. I would simply move to a country that didn't allow every American to carry a shotgun. I could hide out there for the rest of my life, surrounded by armed guards.
Further, you forget that no one in their right mind is going to simply sit by and let themselves get killed. They'll have bodyguards (and if you think that for one minute a country can exist without keeping its leader under guard, you are quite clearly insane).
Vintovia
25-06-2005, 16:10
And you think people will want to invest in a country where the government is overthrown all the time?

People want stability, and what will happen if the army are used to control the people, like in a real dictatorship. You're stuck.

To quote JFK (vaguely), 'Democracy may not be perfect, but its the best system we've got'

Can anyone tell me the exact quote?
Deleuze
25-06-2005, 17:24
If you really want to go through with this, you might as well declare your allegiance to Thomas Hobbes. Because this is largely the same as his thoughts on government with a few changes.

This system to me seems like a disaster. How do you decide who gets appointed dictator? And how do you know they're not lying about their positions? If they control the military, your revolution will fail. Not only that, but their policies could be disastrous, and since people could only revolt if the Bill was violated, this guy would bring the country into chaos.

Democracy is the system of government which most often comes to the right compromise between disparate views in the people of one society. A dictatorship can't allow for that.

Further, your system treats the people as having one monolithic viewpoint, which is false. What happens if the dictator does something 49% of the population thinks is revolution-worthy, and 51% loves? The 49% gets violently repressed by mobs and the military.

And if you think the dictator is going to roll over and let someone take over, think again. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Wisjersey
25-06-2005, 17:44
It's mindless and ineffective, but I assume that this is the ultimate type of government that the survivalists desire.
Fattistan
25-06-2005, 18:11
ever heard anyone say "you can't please everyone?" well its true. as long as a small group of citizens have the power to kill the leader of a country, that leader will always be killed. he could be doing a good job, he could be ruining the country. doesnt matter, he will always piss off someone and they will simply kill him. This "government" is assinine.
Soheran
25-06-2005, 18:36
I think you would end up with a lot of shotgun use, but not much democracy.

What stops the dictator from violating the Bill of Rights? The people? What if he scares them into acquiesing?

What if people disagree on what to do? How are such disagreements resolved? Any dictator would end up dead in that situation, because whatever he did would result in popular anger. The result? Civil war.

This is not a solution at all, merely a road to a lot of violence.