NationStates Jolt Archive

If you could have absolute, dictatorial control of your country, do you think you would be able to do a better job of running the country than the nation's democratically-elected government? Assume that the populace doesn't negatively react because of a change from a democratic government to a dictatorship; also, you would be free to appoint any and all advisers you wish in order to aid you in the decision-making process. You could, of course, make whatever economic, social, or foreign policy changes you desire.

considering my first act as Dictator would be to step down and appoint a Democratic Government...

yes.


because I reconize the fact that I would make a TERRIBLE leader. :p

Yes.

Well, looking at the crew the US has, I'd say that a rhesus monkey would do better.

Of course, I'd have to spend a lot of time undoing the past eight years thanks to Darth Cheney and Bush there... but after that, I don't think it'd take more than maybe twenty years to do what I'd need to do (which would include both returning jobs to America (I kind of don't like having Canadian water and Chinese wheat. This sort of sh*t felled Rome...) and raising the minimum wage to at least $8 to $10 an hour... while we're at it, how about spending less on that goliath military and more on fixing our own country).

Just some ideas...

I would make a superb dictator of the United States. Under my administration, the following policies would be put into effect.


Mass executions
Curfews that last from 1pm to 10 am
The reinstation of "sedition" as a felony
CCTV cameras in every room of every building
Mass conscription of troops
Suspension of all human rights, including, but not limited to, freedom of expression, freedom to have a family, the right of habeus corpus, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from slavery
And many, many more, all at the low cost of $9.99 plus shipping and handling


Why this would be good: in a society ruled by fear, order would be absolute. Muhahaha!

Absolutely!

Meh, not worth the effort. You'd have everyone running to you to fix everything and at least democratically elected leaders can fire back that the people elected them so they got the government they wanted and deserve.

Governing better than my country's current administration is like being better at baseball than a blind paraplegic, so... yes.

Governing better than my country's current administration is like being better at baseball than a blind paraplegic, so... yes.

*raises glass*
"Here, here"

No but seriously it would be rather difficult for me to do worse, at least wiithout trying that is, than the current group of slightly evolved baboons down in D.C.

EDIT: Oh, and Corsairs can I sig that, plz?

If you could have absolute, dictatorial control of your country, do you think you would be able to do a better job of running the country than the nation's democratically-elected government? Assume that the populace doesn't negatively react because of a change from a democratic government to a dictatorship; also, you would be free to appoint any and all advisers you wish in order to aid you in the decision-making process. You could, of course, make whatever economic, social, or foreign policy changes you desire.

The current regime is a dictatorship. Just, not honest enough to call itself such.

The current regime is a dictatorship. Just, not honest enough to call itself such.

they cant be called a dictatorship until they try to hold power past 2008.

I think I would make a better leader, because I would immediately try to abolish the monopoly on jurisdiction. If I couldn't do that, at least I would establish an absolute monarchy, which has much better incentives than democratic charlatanry.

they cant be called a dictatorship until they try to hold power past 2008.

I wonder how long it will be between that declaration and the White House being overrun by every rational, activist sort of person within a 10-mile radius.

I would just say "rational" but some people are just too lazy.

I wonder how long it will be between that declaration and the White House being overrun by every rational, activist sort of person within a 10-mile radius.

I would just say "rational" but some people are just too lazy.

What do you mean by that? Wait one sec....
"Andrew the President just declared himself dictator, here, I brought the shotguns up from the bomb shelter"
"Oh, but dear the Pizza just came and Fox news is telling me that its only temporary."
"Oh, PIZZA, YAY!"
__________________
Seriously, I have no idea what your talking about...

Of course I could run the country better than it's being run now. Natural egotism FTW.

*raises glass*
"Here, here"

No but seriously it would be rather difficult for me to do worse, at least wiithout trying that is, than the current group of slightly evolved baboons down in D.C.

EDIT: Oh, and Corsairs can I sig that, plz?

Go ahead. I wouldn't say it if I was ashamed for people to see that I'd said it!:)

Democracy is to leadership as TV is to life - I'd prefer one wise king or queen (and his/her wisely chosen vassals) to millions of selfishly tyrannical voters; the Ballot Crowd seems to turn into a passively sociopathic monster in every election, and the elected get more dysfunctional every year.

I wonder how long it will be between that declaration and the White House being overrun by every rational, activist sort of person within a 10-mile radius.
They'd be around 20 M1s on the Lawn all pointing their Cannons at the Oval office by January 2nd. As well as the entire DC Garrison and half the city's population.

I would just say "rational" but some people are just too lazy
I bet that half of everyone would be there just because everyone else was doing it.

-----
But yeah I could run the country better.

However the first thing I'm doing is getting some "Loyal" soldiers and rounding up all the oil exec and Haliburtan cronies. As well as the majority of the previous group of baboons.

Then deport them all to Cuba, (And I don't mean the prison I mean give to Castro to do what he wants with them)

Then give a tax cut to NSG members but raise taxes everywhere else.

Who wants to be in my cabinet?

If I were an absolute dictator, I would repeal any law infringing upon peoples' social, political, and economic freedoms, so they would be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as it didn't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Then I would give a boring farewell speech and resign. ;)

they cant be called a dictatorship until they try to hold power past 2008.

I don't really agree. Suspension of habeus corpus on it's own is a pretty strong signal. The lengths to which nepotism, croneyism and protectionism have been carried is another big indicator. The extent of redefining of what is within the 'power' of the President (interesting to hear him talking about a reasonable 'use of my power' in the recent Libby incident) is astounding - but not as astounding as the way he has been allowed to do it.

He has basically played himself as 'comrade Bush', defining himself as a kind of everyman president, and just like us plebs... the fact that Americans have embraced this persona - basically a religiously bigotted, inarticulate violent redneck asshole - is a sad testament.

I would make a superb dictator of the United States. Under my administration, the following policies would be put into effect.


Mass executions
Curfews that last from 1pm to 10 am
The reinstation of "sedition" as a felony
CCTV cameras in every room of every building
Mass conscription of troops
Suspension of all human rights, including, but not limited to, freedom of expression, freedom to have a family, the right of habeus corpus, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from slavery
And many, many more, all at the low cost of $9.99 plus shipping and handling


Why this would be good: in a society ruled by fear, order would be absolute. Muhahaha!

Bush has beat you to it already.

I dunno. Yeah, maybe. If I got a crew of chums to help.

I DO play Civ III really well...

Your poll phails...no joke option

Fuck yes.

*rubs hands in maniacal glee*:D

I would be the next Churchill.


That is, drunk for the entire time I'm in charge.

I would make a superb dictator of the United States. Under my administration, the following policies would be put into effect.


Mass executions
Curfews that last from 1pm to 10 am
The reinstation of "sedition" as a felony
CCTV cameras in every room of every building
Mass conscription of troops
Suspension of all human rights, including, but not limited to, freedom of expression, freedom to have a family, the right of habeus corpus, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from slavery
And many, many more, all at the low cost of $9.99 plus shipping and handling


Why this would be good: in a society ruled by fear, order would be absolute. Muhahaha!

^This^

I don't really agree. Suspension of habeus corpus on it's own is a pretty strong signal. The lengths to which nepotism, croneyism and protectionism have been carried is another big indicator. The extent of redefining of what is within the 'power' of the President (interesting to hear him talking about a reasonable 'use of my power' in the recent Libby incident) is astounding - but not as astounding as the way he has been allowed to do it.

He has basically played himself as 'comrade Bush', defining himself as a kind of everyman president, and just like us plebs... the fact that Americans have embraced this persona - basically a religiously bigotted, inarticulate violent redneck asshole - is a sad testament.

even tho. it's not a dictatorship unless he refuses to reconize the Democratic Process.


but also being that now he's a lame duck prez.... hardly a dictator...

I think i can do a good job, but it's too egoistic the Dictatorship ...

Bush has beat you to it already.

LOL

Show me where Bush has implemented the following:

Mass executions

Curfews that last from 1pm to 10 am

The reinstation of "sedition" as a felony

CCTV cameras in every room of every building

Mass conscription of troops

Suspension of all human rights, including, but not limited to, freedom of expression, freedom to have a family, the right of habeus corpus, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from slavery


(Granted, many of the rights in the last paragraph are ignored, but not all; for example, Bush has not infrined upon the rights of "freedom to have a family" or "freedom from slavery")

If I were an absolute dictator, I would repeal any law infringing upon peoples' social, political, and economic freedoms, so they would be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as it didn't violate anyone else's right to life, liberty, or property. Then I would give a boring farewell speech and resign. ;)
Then I would promptly shove you out of the way so I can start in the looting,
since you don't own White house.

I DO play Civ III really well...

Ottomans rule!

Well, obviously there would be egregious abuses of power, massive corruption and fraud, and the most decadent palace life since Caligula launched the Nema ships and attacked the Adriatic. However, other than that, I'd be pretty good as a leader; I'd collect taxes fairly, spend them on useful stuff, give people personal and economic freedom and more or less let them do what they want as long as it doesn't bother me or impede my goals as leader.

Yes, I could. Absolutely.

even tho. it's not a dictatorship unless he refuses to reconize the Democratic Process.


but also being that now he's a lame duck prez.... hardly a dictator...

Not strictly true - you can be a dictator and 'recognise' the democratic process. The two don't have to be exclusive. We have seen people who stand astride the democracy-dictatorship divide before.

The key is to pay lip-service to the democratic process, whilst simultaneously doing whatever you want regardless. With the constant suspension of due process and the use or threats of vetoes, line-item-vetoes, signing statements etc - not to mention the positions on unpopular issues such as war, torture etc - I think we have a president who does exactly that.

According to Plato, Democracy is absolutely the best governmental system in a lawless society. It's the absolute worst in a lawful society.

Dictatorship, likewise, is absolutely the worst in a lawless society. Yet, it is the best in a lawful society.

If you have a dictator who is working according to his own will, according to his own desires, for his own "good," then obviously, things are going to go horribly.

However, if you have a dictator who is working according to sound philosophical ideals, according to a unified philosophy of rule, then things should go wonderfully. We see this more or less with the papacy.

So yes, if I could become a dictator, I would change a lot of things. I would make abortion absolutely illegal. I would make contraceptives absolutely illegal. I would make pornography, prostitution, divorce, etc...absolutely illegal.

I would make Protestantism, Heathanism, Atheism, etc...absolutely illegal.

And all of those other things condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.

I would destroy capitalism, and I would destroy socialism, and communism, and bring in a semi-controlled, Corporatist economy.

I would subject all matters of societal rule to Mother Church, and bring into the state the reign of Our Lord.

However, to ensure a good rule, I would ONLY make decisions before the Eucharistic Lord, and in the prescence of holy and zealous priests.

According to Plato, Democracy is absolutely the best governmental system in a lawless society. It's the absolute worst in a lawful society.

Dictatorship, likewise, is absolutely the worst in a lawless society. Yet, it is the best in a lawful society.

If you have a dictator who is working according to his own will, according to his own desires, for his own "good," then obviously, things are going to go horribly.

However, if you have a dictator who is working according to sound philosophical ideals, according to a unified philosophy of rule, then things should go wonderfully. We see this more or less with the papacy.

So yes, if I could become a dictator, I would change a lot of things. I would make abortion absolutely illegal. I would make contraceptives absolutely illegal. I would make pornography, prostitution, divorce, etc...absolutely illegal.

I would make Protestantism, Heathanism, Atheism, etc...absolutely illegal.

And all of those other things condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.

I would destroy capitalism, and I would destroy socialism, and communion, and bring in a semi-controlled, Corporatist economy.

I would subject all matters of societal rule to Mother Church, and bring into the state the reign of Our Lord.

However, to ensure a good rule, I would ONLY make decisions before the Eucharistic Lord, and in the prescence of holy and zealous priests.

I agree with the first part. A benevolent dictatorship, where power and responsibility are delegated to capable underlings, is by far the most efficient model, and there is certainly an argument for it being 'best'.

However, then you go and ruin it all by conjuring up some bizarre theocracy that would ostracise most everyone within society. You don't seem to be able to reconcile the idea of 'for the greater good' with your 'benevolent' dictatorship. This makes yours a malevolent dictatorship. It fails.

However, then you go and ruin it all by conjuring up some bizarre theocracy that would ostracise most everyone within society. You don't seem to be able to reconcile the idea of 'for the greater good' with your 'benevolent' dictatorship. This makes yours a malevolent dictatorship. It fails.

The Church ostracizes noone, rejects noone, and above all loves everyone. For this reason, She cannot tolerate Sin.

Hard to say. I'll go with yes, though.
The reason that it's hard to say is that the removal of democracy is inherently a negative, which is what would occur if I was dictator (by definition). However, the democracy in the U.S. is only a representative democracy, and only semi-functioning at that, so it wouldn't be as negative as removing some other types of democracy.

The Church ostracizes noone, rejects noone, and above all loves everyone. For this reason, She cannot tolerate Sin.

That sounds doubleplusgood.

The Church ostracizes noone, rejects noone, and above all loves everyone. For this reason, She cannot tolerate Sin.

Which means your little church represents a special interest group, above and beyond the will of the people.

Hence - not a benevolent dictatorship.

I figure you are trolling, which amuses me. No real catholic would make the error of declaring they would destroy socialism and communion. :)

Which means your little church represents a special interest group, above and beyond the will of the people.

You're damn right it is above and beyond the will of the people, and it is specifically because of this that it is the best form of dictatorship. The people don't know what's best for them.

I figure you are trolling, which amuses me. No real catholic would make the error of declaring they would destroy socialism and communion. :)

I meant communism. Traditional Church teaching condemns both.

Get offa me, dammit. I type like 80 plus words a minute. Accidents happen.

That sounds doubleplusgood.

It might if it didn't directly contadict the claims of making just about everything illegal, including religious freedom.

It might if it didn't directly contadict the claims of making just about everything illegal, including religious freedom.

Oh come on... I used doubleplusgood for a specific reason. Don't make me ruin it...

You're damn right it is above and beyond the will of the people, and it is specifically because of this that it is the best form of dictatorship. The people don't know what's best for them.


Which is why yours is a 'malevolent dictatorship'. You would impose your will on the people, not for their own best interests, but for yours.

A malevolent dictatorship doesn't match the Platonic model. Connecticus (I believe that's the spelling) would have been an example of Platonic dictator... and Plato was right... and Connecticus is the evidence.

On the other hand, we've seen countless non-Platonic (or malevolent) dictators... and they have always been doomed to fairly rapid failure. People don't accept being the victims of a thug for long.


I meant communism. Traditional Church teaching condemns both.

Only because 'traditional church teaching' places 'tradtion' above what is scriptural.

And I stand by my reasoning - no real catholic will accidentally make the freudian slip of confusing 'communism' with 'communion'.

Oh come on... I used doubleplusgood for a specific reason. Don't make me ruin it...

How about we split the difference... any model that attempts to make the world a better place is 'doubleplusgood'. A benevolent dictatorship thus could be doubleplusgood... just not the Dark Ages variant the other poster suggests.

Which is why yours is a 'malevolent dictatorship'. You would impose your will on the people, not for their own best interests, but for yours.

My will? When did I say anything about "my" will? I merely said I would enforce Traditional Catholic teaching upon the state, which has not been uncommon in our history, albeit not very well enforced when it has occurred, except in the Holy See.

You would consider the Holy Father a "malevolent dictator"?

Furthermore, you would consider King David and the other Jewish kings "malevolent dictators"?

Only because 'traditional church teaching' places 'tradtion' above what is scriptural.

There is no contradiction between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Those who say so have an errant understanding of Sacred Scripture.

And I stand by my reasoning - no real catholic will accidentally make the freudian slip of confusing 'communism' with 'communion'.

Dude, read up in the post. I had mentioned the Holy Eucharist earlier, and I was still thinking about that. And c'mon, it's nearly the same word. Communism and communion only differ by one or two letters.

How about we split the difference... any model that attempts to make the world a better place is 'doubleplusgood'. A benevolent dictatorship thus could be doubleplusgood... just not the Dark Ages variant the other poster suggests.

Erm.

What difference?

I believe that making the world a better place is great. I believe Gens Romae idea is more like... 'doubleplusgood'. If yer unfamiliar with my increasingly less subtle wit then you ought to wiki Newspeak or Orwell. Its fun.

A benevolent dictatorship might be better than what we have now, but as an undecided socialist/anarchist I think I will try to keep my distance from that notion.

I would end up like other dictators, maybe like Fidel Castro, who wanted to bring freedom and make everyone equal and make the country better and stuff, then finally once I begin to realize what power I have at my disposal I would probably degreade myself to acting how most dictators tend to...

Its human nature...

My will? When did I say anything about "my" will? I merely said I would enforce Traditional Catholic teaching upon the state, which has not been uncommon in our history, albeit not very well enforced when it has occurred, except in the Holy See.


Of course it would be your will. You just elected yourself dictator - don't make your first action in office a kind of shrinking pretence that you aren't there.

Most people are not Catholics. Even most Catholics wouldn't necessarily agree with your peculiar version of a Catholic 'utopia'.

Thus - your dictatorship makes no pretense to benevolence,a nd is - by extension - malevolent.


You would consider the Holy Father a "malevolent dictator"?


If you mean 'god', then it is kind of irrelevent. Since, after all, wee aren't alking about 'god'.. we are talking about you.


Furthermore, you would consider King David and the other Jewish kings "malevolent dictators"?


Yes.


There is no contradiction between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Those who say so have an errant understanding of Sacred Scripture.


I would say the opposite. I would say that a true understanding of Scripture would prevent one from being able to even accept the idea of 'sacred tradition'. Jesus made a big deal about ignoring the letter of the law, and clinging to the spirit of it. 'Tradition' is the enemy of that thought.


Dude, read up in the post. I had mentioned the Holy Eucharist earlier, and I was still thinking about that. And c'mon, it's nearly the same word. Communism and communion only differ by one or two letters.

And Virginia and Vagina are almost identical too.

Of course, I'd have to spend a lot of time undoing the past eight years thanks to Darth Cheney and Bush there... but after that, I don't think it'd take more than maybe twenty years to do what I'd need to do (which would include both returning jobs to America (I kind of don't like having Canadian water and Chinese wheat. This sort of sh*t felled Rome...) and raising the minimum wage to at least $8 to $10 an hour... while we're at it, how about spending less on that goliath military and more on fixing our own country).

I'd do that, then step down and appoint a democratic government.

I'd do that, then step down and appoint a democratic government.

Why do people constantly assert that 'democratic' government is best? And why do they not stick to the courage of these convictions when (for example) Hamas is the democratic government?

According to Plato, Democracy is absolutely the best governmental system in a lawless society. It's the absolute worst in a lawful society.

Dictatorship, likewise, is absolutely the worst in a lawless society. Yet, it is the best in a lawful society.

If you have a dictator who is working according to his own will, according to his own desires, for his own "good," then obviously, things are going to go horribly.

However, if you have a dictator who is working according to sound philosophical ideals, according to a unified philosophy of rule, then things should go wonderfully. We see this more or less with the papacy.

So yes, if I could become a dictator, I would change a lot of things. I would make abortion absolutely illegal. I would make contraceptives absolutely illegal. I would make pornography, prostitution, divorce, etc...absolutely illegal.

I would make Protestantism, Heathanism, Atheism, etc...absolutely illegal.

And all of those other things condemned in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.

I would destroy capitalism, and I would destroy socialism, and communism, and bring in a semi-controlled, Corporatist economy.

I would subject all matters of societal rule to Mother Church, and bring into the state the reign of Our Lord.

However, to ensure a good rule, I would ONLY make decisions before the Eucharistic Lord, and in the prescence of holy and zealous priests.

There is no way anything like this would last more than 5 seconds outside the Bible Belt, and even then...

There is no way anything like this would last more than 5 seconds outside the Bible Belt, and even then...

It wouldn't last even five seconds in the Bible Belt - the Bible Belt is more intolerant of the Papal version of 'christianity' than anyone.

It wouldn't last even five seconds in the Bible Belt - the Bible Belt is more intolerant of the Papal version of 'christianity' than anyone.

True, true... It'd last about three there.

True, true... It'd last about three there.

On the other hand, the same kind of theocracy, just without the Catholic baggage, would probably find a fairly warm reception.

I'd do that, then step down and appoint a democratic government.
You can't appoint a democratic government.

I couldn't possibly be trusted with absolute power because there are just too many people I want to shoot, just to shut them the fuck up. So if I had absolute power, I would not be able to carry out my master plan, because I'd keep getting distracted by shooting people.

What is the Muravyetsian Master Plan (tm)? Similar to what some others have already said. I'd take total control of all government and legal systems. Rewrite the laws to suit me (that means getting them back to where they were pre-Bush). Fix a few weak spots -- creating a system for forcing special elections and ousting bad administrations; term limits for Supreme Court Justices; restoring enforcement powers to the GAO; for starters. Conduct a brutal pogrom against corrupt politicians and lobbyists. And once the house was all clean and neat and functional, embezzle a few billion and vanish in the night, leaving a note saying, "So long, suckers! It's your nation, you run it, ya fat lazy slobs!"

And then I'd retire to my fully furnished volcano lair in Santorini, and if my fellow Americans re-Bush-ified the nation and ran it into the ground within 2 years of my leaving, I'd say, "Fuck em all!"

I would implement a kalesic election system and then give the land back to its people.

Yes, I almost certainly could.

However, it wouldn't be right, and besides, a reasonably gifted squirrel could run the country better than the idiots who run for office.

Why do people constantly assert that 'democratic' government is best? And why do they not stick to the courage of these convictions when (for example) Hamas is the democratic government?

Good point.

You can't appoint a democratic government.

Of course, then I'd just step down.

I couldn't possibly be trusted with absolute power because there are just too many people I want to shoot, just to shut them the fuck up. So if I had absolute power, I would not be able to carry out my master plan, because I'd keep getting distracted by shooting people.

What is the Muravyetsian Master Plan (tm)? Similar to what some others have already said. I'd take total control of all government and legal systems. Rewrite the laws to suit me (that means getting them back to where they were pre-Bush). Fix a few weak spots -- creating a system for forcing special elections and ousting bad administrations; term limits for Supreme Court Justices; restoring enforcement powers to the GAO; for starters. Conduct a brutal pogrom against corrupt politicians and lobbyists. And once the house was all clean and neat and functional, embezzle a few billion and vanish in the night, leaving a note saying, "So long, suckers! It's your nation, you run it, ya fat lazy slobs!"

And then I'd retire to my fully furnished volcano lair in Santorini, and if my fellow Americans re-Bush-ified the nation and ran it into the ground within 2 years of my leaving, I'd say, "Fuck em all!"

Will there be the usual henchman jobs in this volcano lair? I think I could probably get my henching license if there were good henchwork going.

You can't appoint a democratic government.

Not strictly true. 'Democratic' is quite a broad term. You could appoint the government, but make the ratification a referendum process, for example.

Will there be the usual henchman jobs in this volcano lair? I think I could probably get my henching license if there were good henchwork going.

Oh, you bet. I'll have lots of henching needs and will be hiring a whole staff for said purposes. I hope you're not allergic to pirana fish. There will be a pool of them in my living room.

Not strictly true. 'Democratic' is quite a broad term. You could appoint the government, but make the ratification a referendum process, for example.
I maintain that said government would not become democratic until the referendum, so if it were to function for any time before the referendum, it would not be democratic for that time. But what the hell, close enough.