NationStates Jolt Archive

A corrupt democracy or a benevolent dictatorship?

Benevolent dictatorship. It can't be any worse than the corrupt democracy we've got here in the U.S.

benevolent dictatorship. whats the point of voting for your officials if they arent going to do the will of the people or oppress them and violate their rights?

edit: how about a poll?

If it was benevolent, I wouldn't care if the government was a phallic cult priesthood ruling from atop a ziggurat. :rolleyes:

Benevolent Dictatorship. But the problem is who takes over on his/her death. It's really hard to find anyone in power that's willing to be benevolent.

Anything where Bush isn't in charge...

If it's a modern, Western-style Democracy? Definitely the benevolent dictatorship- it's better to be ruled by one person who's looking out for you than many people who're looking out for themselves.

If it's an Athenian-style democracy (ie. with people representing themselves, rather than sending representatives or delegates), I'm a lot more uncertain... partly because, although an Athenian-style democracy is practically impossible unless either a) you're a city-state, or b) all citizens have an internet connection, it's a lot more difficult for it to be truly corrupt.

A corrupt democracy or a benevolent dictatorship?

Benevolent Dictatorship. As long as it stayts that way.

Wow, no corrupt democracies.

As my historically minded friend says, "A dictatorship can get done in one hour, what takes a democracy weeks."

Wow, no corrupt dictatorships.

As my historically minded friend says, "A dictatorship can get done in one hour, what takes a democracy weeks."

Exactly. That's why I RP Pythogria as being a Limited Democracy. Al lthe freedoms of a democracy, and the efficiency of a dictatorship.

Everybody wins.

A corrupt democracy or a benevolent dictatorship?

A Benevolent Dictatorship.

I would rather be under the rule of one person who honestly cared about the well being of his/her people than under the rule of many people who only cared about themselves and how best to improve their life instead of their citizen's lives.

ok ill go against the flow

corrupt democracy

sure the benevolent dictatorship is better run but for how long? 10 years maybe? then what? without a democracy to choose the next leader we are stuck with whoever the current guy wants or whoever fights his way to the top.

not likely to be benevolent in the next generation

so ill go with the evil i know.

Anything where Bush isn't in charge...

seconded!

seconded!

Thirded!

Thirded!

Arrow'd!

I mean, Fourth'd!

If you're refering to a benevolent dictatorship such as a Lord of the Rings-esque monarchy (except with all our current technology), then that may be pretty good. As long as they do their jobs and promise to butt out of our private lives...I'm fine with it.

Benevolent Dictatorship, assuming that the dictator is immortal.

If not, then a benevolent dictatorship.

Benevolent Dictatorship, assuming that the dictator is immortal.

If not, then a benevolent dictatorship.

Uh.... Do you mean Corrupt Democracy for that second one?

Uh.... Do you mean Corrupt Democracy for that second one?
No.

Corrupt democracy. Can reform it but a benevolent dictator could easily be succeeded by a psychotic heir.

A corrupt democracy. Having a choice is always better than not having a choice.

I tend to go for strong leaders, so if the corrupt democrat was charismatic and strong willed id vote for him

If the benevolant dude hat a stutter and tended to ask peoples opinions id tell him id prefer slavery thanks. :D

(is a natural submissive-switch-dominant mwahhaah my complicated split personalities)

Basically i dont care.

ok ill go against the flow

corrupt democracy

sure the benevolent dictatorship is better run but for how long? 10 years maybe? then what? without a democracy to choose the next leader we are stuck with whoever the current guy wants or whoever fights his way to the top.

not likely to be benevolent in the next generation

so ill go with the evil i know.

*sighs*

The point of a benevolent dictator is that they're alright and if the country didn't want them in power, they'd step down just to make them happy.

A benevolent dictator for sure.

Anything but corrupt bureaucrats :mad:

As my historically minded friend says, "A dictatorship can get done in one hour, what takes a democracy weeks."

That's why anarchists like democracy; it's easier to fight.:D

A corrupt democracy. Having a choice is always better than not having a choice.

The point is that you don't have a choice in a corrupt democracy. The only argument that I have seen so far against the benevolent dictatorship is that of the potential of a future non benevolent one. While that is a problem, it is a problem for any form of government (corrupt democracies in particular are prone to suffering from coup d'etats), so I go with the benevolent dictatorship with the promise of a peoples revolution if the benevolence goes AWOL.