NationStates Jolt Archive

I myself am a Statist (like do what we say, no elections, police state) but with Liberal privet values. (Like, do what you want as long as we cant see it.)
I think this would be much better for everyone.
A benevolent dictatorship is the way to go.
The most disgusting regimes of all time were democratic.

Hitler.
USSR (was democratic, but only the first election.)
Saddam Hussein
George HW Bush

while some of the best have been non democratic.
King Arthur
Alexander the Great
Ivan the Terrible. ;)

Whats your favourite style of government and Why?

Why is noone posting?

Debate! dont just awnser the poll!

The problem with your statist view is that it would result in typical dictatorship, and a dictatorship is only the best if the dictator is..well...Bill Clinton. The whole 'Liberal privet values' as you put it, would happen whether it is a democracy, or lack of. If they can do it without getting caught or noticed, they will do it.


Also, how are we categorizing the 'most disgusting regimes'? I'm starting to want Saddam back in power so stability will return. Hitler wasn't bad until the until the extermination of the Jews. Etc.

The problem with your statist view is that it would result in typical dictatorship, and a dictatorship is only the best if the dictator is..well...Bill Clinton. The whole 'Liberal privet values' as you put it, would happen whether it is a democracy, or lack of. If they can do it without getting caught or noticed, they will do it.


Also, how are we categorizing the 'most disgusting regimes'? I'm starting to want Saddam back in power so stability will return. Hitler wasn't bad until the until the extermination of the Jews. Etc.

Good for you.
Hitler was a very good Fuehrer other than the genocide and megalomania.

But im trying to appeal to the masses here, easier to convince a 1000 than 1 and all that.

Thats exactly the point, the dictators would be people like Bill Clinton. People who are actually GOOD for the country.

The mayor problem is that we have no way of beeing sure that our supreme ruler wouldn't be an asshole who wouldnt give a rats ass about our civil liberties.

I guess you would have to choose me as your dictator as I am such a nice person and all. :D

i live in the UK i would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever have a British Style Democracy though in some way i would only too see the Mp's in the house's of Parliament argueing because that's the Best Thrill in Politics in the World Par with Hungarians beating each other up other Anything lol!

I prefer a Monarchy who is picked by the people. well voted in family circles i.e the Windsor household will put forward candidates to be King or Queen or other families can start civil wars to try become the New Family or Kings or Queens. lots of mass killings that would see though:S

But today's British Democracy is RUBBBBBBBISH! a friend of mine said after Reading a paper yesterday, all the trouble with Hose pipe bans lalala.

He would break the Hose pipe ban by watering his car he said and wouldnt mind getting arrested because the Water companies are Still Charging him the same amount if theres was no Hose pipe ban and if the took him to court and told him to pay a fine he wouldnt and he'd rather go to prison because im sure its illegal to arrest someone who is being arrested for using something theve paid for? am i not right or is that very non- understandable! thats Democracy and to send someone down for LIFE imprissonment and they get out in 5 years????? DO NOT HAVE BRITISH STYLE DEMOCRACY IT DOSNT FAVOUR THE PEOPLE.

i live in the UK i would never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever have a British Style Democracy though in some way i would only too see the Mp's in the house's of Parliament argueing because that's the Best Thrill in Politics in the World Par with Hungarians beating each other up other Anything lol!

I prefer a Monarchy who is picked by the people. well voted in family circles i.e the Windsor household will put forward candidates to be King or Queen or other families can start civil wars to try become the New Family or Kings or Queens. lots of mass killings that would see though:S

But today's British Democracy is RUBBBBBBBISH! a friend of mine said after Reading a paper yesterday, all the trouble with Hose pipe bans lalala.

He would break the Hose pipe ban by watering his car he said and wouldnt mind getting arrested because the Water companies are Still Charging him the same amount if theres was no Hose pipe ban and if the took him to court and told him to pay a fine he wouldnt and he'd rather go to prison because im sure its illegal to arrest someone who is being arrested for using something theve paid for? am i not right or is that very non- understandable! thats Democracy and to send someone down for LIFE imprissonment and they get out in 5 years????? DO NOT HAVE BRITISH STYLE DEMOCRACY IT DOSNT FAVOUR THE PEOPLE.

A man after my own heart.
STATIST ROCK!

i choose monarchy lol! but communism well my friend who talked about the hosepipe ban he like communism!

Good for you.
Hitler was a very good Fuehrer other than the genocide and megalomania.

That's a BIG "other than."

In my opinion the problem would be maintaning the dictators benevolence, as in my experience there are very few (if any) cases where absolute power has not corrupt he who possesses it.

That's a BIG "other than."

In my opinion the problem would be maintaning the dictators benevolence, as in my experience there are very few (if any) cases where absolute power has not corrupt he who posses it.

You cant have a pure ideological leader and not have him go uberlyfuckingcorrupt.
However in my experiance if you have a leader with a soft ideology, already SLIGHTLY corrupt and comprimising, they tend not to change much ;)

most of the kings of England b4 charles the first had a major blabla that he was chossen by God were dictators really ! weren't they or am i wrong. i dont like Hitler all that German stuff and Nasi stuff is all abit bland i like a more Stalinistic approach with Red flags and a New USSR would do for me!

most of the kings of England b4 charles the first had a major blabla that he was chossen by God were dictators really ! weren't they or am i wrong. i dont like Hitler all that German stuff and Nasi stuff is all abit bland i like a more Stalinistic approach with Red flags and a New USSR would do for me!

Communism is the sex officially.
Try my new Intellectual Socialism, communism with a flashy name and big titles.

aslong as i get to be your Advisor!

humm... personaly, i advocate a system which is, at it's core, a hybrid of Pure Democracy, and Fudalisem.

ultimatly it's a monarchy, but with most local things being handled by pure democracy, and the people being heard at the higher levels.

the way i figure it, when a persons position depends on doing their job well, BUT NOT on popular opinon, they tend to do it better.

popular opinion skews prioritys, and, well, if they don't have to worry about what Annyone thinks, malevalant dictatorships tend to result.

i can describe it in more detail when i'm actually awake, if you want...

humm... personaly, i advocate a system which is, at it's core, a hybrid of Pure Democracy, and Fudalisem.

ultimatly it's a monarchy, but with most local things being handled by pure democracy, and the people being heard at the higher levels.

the way i figure it, when a persons position depends on doing their job well, BUT NOT on popular opinon, they tend to do it better.

popular opinion skews prioritys, and, well, if they don't have to worry about what Annyone thinks, malevalant dictatorships tend to result.

i can describe it in more detail when i'm actually awake, if you want...

That would be good.
However it sounds like your idea is mine too :D

humm... personaly, i advocate a system which is, at it's core, a hybrid of Pure Democracy, and Fudalisem.

ultimatly it's a monarchy, but with most local things being handled by pure democracy, and the people being heard at the higher levels.

the way i figure it, when a persons position depends on doing their job well, BUT NOT on popular opinon, they tend to do it better.

popular opinion skews prioritys, and, well, if they don't have to worry about what Annyone thinks, malevalant dictatorships tend to result.

i can describe it in more detail when i'm actually awake, if you want...

Reminds me of almost pure serfdom.

Good for you.
Hitler was a very good Fuehrer other than the genocide and megalomania.

But im trying to appeal to the masses here, easier to convince a 1000 than 1 and all that.

Thats exactly the point, the dictators would be people like Bill Clinton. People who are actually GOOD for the country.

The problem with that of course is when the good king dies, and the wicked prince takes over.

The problem with that of course is when the good king dies, and the wicked prince takes over.

Yeh... but wicked princes kickass :p
plus then the hero comes along and we get another good king.

A benevolent dictatorship is the way to go.
The most disgusting regimes of all time were democratic.

A benevolent dictatorship could be great (and by looking at Cuba, you can see it may even be not too disastrous in some very specific cases), but basically, it cannot exist. In order to keep its power, a dictator HAS to use dirty means, and to stop being benevolent. Even Castro is doing it, and that's what's bad about him.

Hitler.

Hardly democratic, since he was not elected. Hitler "only" had 30% of votes, he was then supported by the "democratic" right who wanted to use him against the communists... That's a problem of representative democracy, in which the elected can then do something that what they were elected for.

And then, Hitler suppressed elections and took all the power - not democratic at all.

USSR (was democratic, but only the first election.)

Once again, it was a failure of not enough democracy. On the 1917 elections, the party which won the elections ("Democratic Socialism Party", a peasant party) promised to stop the war before the elections, but then refused to do so. The second party in term of voices ("Bolshevik" party, which won a huge majority in urban areas) allied itself with a part of DSP, and took the power by force, to stop the war (as the will of the people was).

All that only happened because the elected didn't respect their words - so it's a problem of representative democracy, that could be solved with more democracy.

Saddam Hussein

Democratic, Saddam ?!

George HW Bush

Wait wait... elected by stoling an election... and you call that democratic ?

Whats your favourite style of government and Why?

Participative democracy (as close to direct democracy as possible, but with some part of representative democracy where needed, like for handling emergency situations).

One cannot in general advocate statism over democracy, or a republic and be logically consistant. If "the people" cannot rule, obviously no person can do any better. If one were supporting a particular person as dictator, then it would be worth discussing. The reason is that one could discuss why that particular person would know our interests better than we.

Friedrich von Hayek called this fallacy (that a single man, advised by a group of experts knows our interests better than each individual known his own) "the fatal conceit".

There is no essential difference between democracy and statism. A democracy can be the most statist country around, it is just that the state is directed (more or less, usually less) by the people.

I will also throw in a quote of Thomas Jefferson "Government can do something for the people only in proportion as it can do something to the people."

"Democracy British Style" = parliamentarianism?

Participative democracy (as close to direct democracy as possible, but with some part of representative democracy where needed, like for handling emergency situations).

But isn't this the exact form of government that Hitler was able to take control of, using those same Emergency Laws that you speak of?

As the old saying goes, it's all well and good to put the government in the hands of the perfect man, but what do you do when the perfect man gets a bellyache?

Democracy.

ok, so i'm not more awake, but here are some details anyway. if it's incoherant, it's coz i really need to sleep :P

[hehe. i did say i'd explaine if i was asked to, and i was, so, here it is]

at the lowest levels, that is, small towns and/or groups of farms, or suburbs/sub sectors of citys, everything possible is run by as direct an pure a democracy as possible.

above this, you have councils made up of a Representative [or is it Delagate? i can never remember] from each of the smaller groups under that councils juristiction. that council member is NOT voted in to make the decisions. he relays information back and forth and physicaly casts the votes, as decided by those he represents.

the head of each of these councils is a non-elected official, rougly the equivilant of a count. the council probily consists of a single city or a collection of small towns and farmland.

now, while he is not ellected, he Can be removed by way of a vote of no confidance, where upon the various areas put forth candidates, the best of whome is chosen by those at the level Above.

which is another councile, aranged in much the same way, the exception being that it's members are made up of the "counts" from the level below. the official in charge of this councile is the equivilant of a Duke.

finaly, there is the uppermost level, which ammounts to the Monarch and the
Dukes.

at all levels, the head of the council's vote counts for about as much as any five other members. not enough to give them total, or even significant, control, but enough to make them important. the head of the council's votes count for Nothing in a vote of no confidance.

if it is nessisary to replace the monarch due to a vote of no confidance, each duke puts forward a candidate, then the people as a whole vote one who should be placed on the throne. there is only one tally of votes, that is, the entire nation is counted as one unit, and whoever gets the most gets the seat. ties are broken by a vote by the dukes, with only the two tieing candidates as options.

a vote of no confidance cannot be initiated against a head of councile or monarch who has not served at least three years, on the basis that some one has to have time to do Something somewhere along the way.

ultimatly, the monarch really only controls forigen relations and the military, and associated taxes, as well as keeping a lid on the rest of the system. other things being controled at various points down the line.

i'm sure there was more, but i forget it right now. ask questions, i'll awnser :)