NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)

More efficient does not necessarily equal better. In fact, depending on who you ask, the more efficient the government, the worse the situation. The best answer I can come up with is that it always comes down to the people in charge--incompetent people can fuck up a terrific system, and good people can make the best of a crappy one.

Pretty much any government they tried would work if there was no cporruption, but corruption is a given. Unfortunately, dictatorship practically screams for corruption. Even if you had a wise, kind philanthrtopist as the dictator, what'll prevent the next guy form being a madman?

I think that sounds very good, assuming you make me dictator.

Well, dictatorships never work out, but I do think they will be the common government of the distant future.

Besides the fact that power almost always corrupts, another thing you must also take in consideration is the obvious fact that few humans hold exactly the same view of what is morality and justice.

Your arbiter might be a extremist and enact harsh laws based upon a holy scripture. Effecient, but not all will consider it justice or fair.

On the other side you might have an ultra-liberal arbiter who legalises drugs, abortion and give animals right to the point we are all forced to become vegatarians.

What of a "moderate" dictator? Even then he still has to make decisions that many people won't agree with and aren't always based upon sound scientific thinking. Either you are for or against abortion and either you are pro or contra euthenisia. There is no middle road.

I can understand people's frustration with the slow grinding wheels of law and justice, but red-tape and regulations are useally there for a reason.

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)
Forgive me, but i think you forgot to add "Anakin Skywalker, Episode II" to your poll options.


If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

— Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

and of note ...:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6903200,00.html

Well, dictatorships never work out, but I do think they will be the common government of the distant future.

And assassinations will also, i suspect.

Well, dictatorships never work out, but I do think they will be the common government of the distant future.

Why?

No. Even if there was a such thing as a benevolent dictator, the dictator can still make a wrong decision, but be convinced that ze is right. The mechanisms for overturning a wrong decision in this case are nil.

Every country should have a dictatorship for about 10-15 out of every 50-100 years. A dictator will make the dicisions people need but elected reps are afraid to make and when the 'people' re-establish democracy you can keep on the tough decisions made without the responsiblity.

As long as the Dictator and the political system is modelled on Hobbes' 'Leviathan', I guess a Dictatorship IS a good thing. Unfortunately such a Leviathan is nonexistent in real life, so we're stuck with the best compromise developed so far: Democracy.

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)

What you say makes perfect sense. My nomination for dictator is: http://www.blueharvest.net/images/closeups/emperor.jpg

You're right, you are stupid. A benevolent dictator is as impossible as a true communist society.

I strongly support dictatorships and believe they are they best form of government possible.

I strongly support dictatorships and believe they are they best form of government possible.
*hands Sel Appa a plane ticket to turkmenistan, one way of course since he surely never wants to leave.

*hands Sel Appa a plane ticket to turkmenistan, one way of course since he surely never wants to leave.

How have they been doing without the son of bread?

How have they been doing without the son of bread?
Son of bread? :confused:

Son of bread? :confused:

The former leader named bread after his mother...

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)

You must be either Cuban, venezualian, or pakistani

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)

Global warming is a yet to be proved.....it is just theory. look at the climate cycles and the 1975 newsweek article about "global cooling" i attached a link.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

The former leader named bread after his mother...

Comrade Wikipedia always knows and never errs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Turkmenistan)

Well, dictatorships never work out, but I do think they will be the common government of the distant future.
Lies!

1) Rhodesia, that was a pretty awesome dictatorship

2) I don't think that they'll be the common government of the distant future, because people are always chiming on about how unfair they are and such. Even when they're great. Such is humanity, eh?

Lies!

1) Rhodesia, that was a pretty awesome dictatorship

2) I don't think that they'll be the common government of the distant future, because people are always chiming on about how unfair they are and such. Even when they're great. Such is humanity, eh?

Better than democracy for my money. Far greater risk incurred, but a dictatorship can accomplish far more of note than a democracy.

Global warming is a yet to be proved.....it is just theory. look at the climate cycles and the 1975 newsweek article about "global cooling" i attached a link.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Cute but wrong. Climate Change is on a better scientific footing than the idea of global cooling ever was.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

[...]„This year we explored the failure of democracy, how the social scientists brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since.“[...]

Look what it got you with Bush :D

Comrade Wikipedia always knows and never errs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Turkmenistan)

I never stated support for Turkmenistan's government. I'm thinking pre-2003 Iraq or Cuba.

Speaking of Turkmenistan, my shirt is made there...:rolleyes:

I never stated support for Turkmenistan's government. I'm thinking pre-2003 Iraq or Cuba.

Speaking of Turkmenistan, my shirt is made there...:rolleyes:
Exaggeration makes things clear. Well, you did say that you want a constitutional limit on what the leader can and cannot do... And from what I know, at least in Iraq, even if there was a constitution, it only existed on paper and the Baath party did not care about it.

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)

My answer is yes, but if and only if that great arbitrator is me.

Global warming is a yet to be proved.....it is just theory. look at the climate cycles and the 1975 newsweek article about "global cooling" i attached a link.
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Are you seriously trying to justify your belief that there is no global warming with an article that's over thirty years old?


I think that we've advanced scientifically just a little since then. You might want to research this topic with sources that are, gee I don't know, CURRENT!!!!

The problem is that with any system you will end up with one or several idiots in charge from time to time. The big flaw with dictatorships is that they lack a mechanism for replacing those idiots, like elections perhaps. Look at the US for example, if it was a dictatorship they'd be stuck with Bush until he grows old and dies. But since it's a republic with elections and a limit that the same person can only get elected for president twice he'll be replaced soon.

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)

One person rule may be more effective, but the one person can easily oppress his subjects and doesn't normally follow the will of the people.

One person rule may be more effective, but the one person can easily oppress his subjects and doesn't normally follow the will of the people.

An elected legislature can crush a man's rights just as easily as a king.

I have a question. Would it be better to have an all powerful person, an 'arbitrator' of sorts who had the power to decide things instantly be more effective than legislation? I mean wouldn't that be more effective than years of fighting over things in the legislative process that need a desision now (thing global warming. etc. etc....) Wouldn't any desision be better than none at all? A person with th power to enact and enforce laws imideatly I would think would be more effective than asking for permission from a bunch of people who have a hard time sticking with an issue for more than what it takes to get elected?

(pardon my spelling)

There have only been two cases where this works.

1. Singapore

2. The Romans when they were at risk of having their Republic crumble at their feet.

Better than democracy for my money. Far greater risk incurred, but a dictatorship can accomplish far more of note than a democracy.Perhaps, but the majority of things that dictatorships do of note are negative.