NationStates Jolt Archive

Myself.

Whenever my students get the funny notion that my classroom is a democracy and that they can VOTE on whether or not to do something they'd rather not (like take a test) I very quickly assure them that this is not the case, and that the form of government is actually a benevolent dictatorship... which gets less benevolent the more time is wasted.

Lord Vetinari of Ankh-Morpork.
One man, one vote. He is the man and thus has the vote.
YES!

The Patrician ftw.

Kat: LOL yes I have been on the receiving end back in my school days despite the fact that we were first given the vote, and then when we voted for someone they didn't want (yours truly) they turned around and appointed someone else sports captain. Yes I am still bitter about it despite it happening 10 years ago.

Ahh, see, I would not suggest a vote on anything unless I was willing to go along with the parameters of the vote. For instance, I HAVE asked my students, "Would you rather create and act in your own skits based on the book we just read, or would you rather do the newpaper project?" What they choose is what we do.

What I do not appreciate is when I say, "We're having a test next Friday," and someone says, "Let's have a vote on whether we have a test." Um, no, not a democracy.

Lol.. I like the "give them power sometimes to make them think like they actually have power" stance, well then again you could be totally benevolent and I'm grossly wrong (hard to imagine though)

Ahh, see, I would not suggest a vote on anything unless I was willing to go along with the parameters of the vote. For instance, I HAVE asked my students, "Would you rather create and act in your own skits based on the book we just read, or would you rather do the newpaper project?" What they choose is what we do.

What I do not appreciate is when I say, "We're having a test next Friday," and someone says, "Let's have a vote on whether we have a test." Um, no, not a democracy.

Ahh yes, but you have got to admire them trying?

Not really. ;) They know there have to be assessments, they know I do as few as humanly possible (I think testing every time they fart is ridiculous, once per unit with a couple quizzes for extra points is just fine) and if I schedule something and a significant (read three or more) number of them are not able to do it on that day because of a specific reason, it's moved.

"We don't want to do it," is not realistic or admirable. I don't want to do it either --but like paying bills and changing diapers, it's necessary.

This reminds me of the difference between employee participation and employee involvement that I learned about in employment relations. Both seek to increase job satisfaction and morale; participation achieves this by putting employee representatives on the board of directors, giving them a direct hand in strategic decision making. Employee involvement encourages employees to make suggestions and constructive criticism to management, creating the belief that they are contributing to strategic decisions.

Unsuprisingly, employee involvement is the favoured method because it increases morale without actually letting employees make any of the important decisions :)

Myself.

Whenever my students get the funny notion that my classroom is a democracy and that they can VOTE on whether or not to do something they'd rather not (like take a test) I very quickly assure them that this is not the case, and that the form of government is actually a benevolent dictatorship... which gets less benevolent the more time is wasted.
I haven't had the dictator thing yet, but I have had my kids accuse me of violating their human rights when I insist that they participate in class. I usually tell them that, sadly, Japan has never ratified the convention of human rights as applied to phonics in English classes treaty.

Alas though, none of my students has ever gotten that due to the English, but my homeroom teachers have cracked up a few times.

OMG HIJACKED! lol... Yo Nervun I'm also an American in Japan! Rally!

School children of the world unite and and throw off the chains of oppression...or just act a bit moody, whatever.

OMG HIJACKED! lol... Yo Nervun I'm also an American in Japan! Rally!
Heh! Welcome to NSG then! We can always use someone else who know what the hell we're talking about!

JET or what?

Ehh not sure what JET is, but I'm a student in Japan so go figure =P I'm in Hiroshima too which is notorious for the movie "The Yakuza" and learning Hiroshima-ben is pretty cool.

Not really. ;) They know there have to be assessments, they know I do as few as humanly possible (I think testing every time they fart is ridiculous, once per unit with a couple quizzes for extra points is just fine) and if I schedule something and a significant (read three or more) number of them are not able to do it on that day because of a specific reason, it's moved.

"We don't want to do it," is not realistic or admirable. I don't want to do it either --but like paying bills and changing diapers, it's necessary.

Sorry Kat I didn't mean anything by it, I think the schoolboy in me is wanting to come back out and it was posting. I understand the need for testing but... I don't know where I am going with this I see your point and agree with you as I post with a sensible attitude now so umm yeah.

Whenever my students get the funny notion that my classroom is a democracy and that they can VOTE on whether or not to do something they'd rather not (like take a test) I very quickly assure them that this is not the case, and that the form of government is actually a benevolent dictatorship... which gets less benevolent the more time is wasted.

except, of course, your classroom is actually under the authority of several layers of hierarchy, one of the ultimate of which is those kids' parents. if you ever really piss the students off, they very probably could force you to change.

Hurrah for benevolent dictatorships!

Down with Student Parents! Their constant hounding of innocent teachers is annoying! Watch GTO for confirmation!

A benevolent dictatorship is the best kind of government possible. However, eventually the power is passed to a not-so-benevolent dictator, and lord knows I've had a few teachers like that.:D

A benevolent dictatorship is the best kind of government possible.

disagreed. it automatically violates fundamental principles of justice, and as such cannot be the best possible.

disagreed. it automatically violates fundamental principles of justice, and as such cannot be the best possible.

Benevolent. Capitalize that a few times. Then highlight it, bold it, and increase it's size to seven. Okay?

Benevolent. Capitalize that a few times. Then highlight it, bold it, and increase it's size to seven. Okay?

The benevolence doesn't matter to Free Soviets, I'd imagine. It is functionally at odds with what many people consider just.

Benevolent. Capitalize that a few times. Then highlight it, bold it, and increase it's size to seven. Okay?

yeah, and?

here try this one on for size - benevolent slave master. does that addition make the slavery just?

yeah, and?

here try this one on for size - benevolent slave master. does that addition make the slavery just?

True, neither is a benevolent mass-murderer or benevolent rapist just - but we are talking about a dictatorship.

Can a dictatorship be a just society? Idealistically it could be, practically I am not so sure.

In democracies people are elected every 4-5-8-10-whatever years. If they are doing a good job and get re-elected for 50 years in a row, is there a problem? But if they get elected once and then pass legislation saying they are 'president for life', even if they then do all the exact same policies for the next 50 years that would have got them re-elected anyway, does that make the society unjust?

It's not the fact they are a dictator, it's what they do in office that makes the difference. And yes, that is rather fanciful, but I don't think its ad absurdum.

Down with Student Parents! Their constant hounding of innocent teachers is annoying! Watch GTO for confirmation!

Uh...how will watching an old Pontiac confirm anything but nostalgia?

[My way of saying please understand that your acronyms make sense to you, but not always to everyone else.]

Music performance classes, like the choirs I teach, are notorious for attempting the "democracy" coup every now and then because they have superior numbers. I merely remind them that I'm the one securing their performances and arranging the tours they so love to take. That usually reels them in from demanding pop-choral tripe and allows me to let Monteverdi or Mozart subtly work their magic. Of course, I'll cave on the pop stuff everyone once in a while, but only on my terms, and only if the arrangement isn't made of suck.

If that makes me a dictator, then jack my boots up.

Music performance classes, like the choirs I teach, are notorious for attempting the "democracy" coup every now and then because they have superior numbers. I merely remind them that I'm the one securing their performances and arranging the tours they so love to take. That usually reels them in from demanding pop-choral tripe and allows me to let Monteverdi or Mozart subtly work their magic. Of course, I'll cave on the pop stuff everyone once in a while, but only on my terms, and only if the arrangement isn't made of suck.

If that makes me a dictator, then jack my boots up.

*jacks Intag's boots up*
:D

yeah, and?
Benevolence ought to mean your voice gets heard in some fashion. A dictatorship doesn't mean that you block out all input from the public, it just means that you lay down decrees rather than faffing about with some kind of parliament.
here try this one on for size - benevolent slave master. does that addition make the slavery just?
No, but does it make slavery more tolerable for those under such a person, and if slavery is the general way of doing things in your particular area, then that's probably the best you can hope for.

I haven't had the dictator thing yet, but I have had my kids accuse me of violating their human rights when I insist that they participate in class. I usually tell them that, sadly, Japan has never ratified the convention of human rights as applied to phonics in English classes treaty.

Alas though, none of my students has ever gotten that due to the English, but my homeroom teachers have cracked up a few times.

Heh. Most of my kiddies are elementary age. I've gotten "you ain't my momma!" a very few times. That one's always ended happy for me and almost always w/ tears from the kid when momma hears about it. :D

OMG HIJACKED! lol... Yo Nervun I'm also an American in Japan! Rally!

Aggghhhh!!!! Pilgrim, NSG ain;t big enough for the three of us. Draw!

(Welcome abroad! :))

School children of the world unite and and throw off the chains of oppression...or just act a bit moody, whatever.

Puts "The Wall" on the stereo:::

Can a dictatorship be a just society?

of course not. political justice requires at least the consent of the governed, and therefore the possibility of universal participation in collective decision-making at a fundamental level. dictatorship, by its very nature, denies this.

No, but does it make slavery more tolerable for those under such a person, and if slavery is the general way of doing things in your particular area, then that's probably the best you can hope for.

well certainly, if you are to be a slave, hope for a benevolent master. but you should still plot to put a bullet in his head if a decent opportunity arises.

likewise with dictatorship

well certainly, if you are to be a slave, hope for a benevolent master. but you should still plot to put a bullet in his head if a decent opportunity arises.

likewise with dictatorship
Why so?

A benevolent leader listens to his followers, considers whether to take their ideas further, and does, or doesn't, depending on which will actually improve the lives of those serving under him.

That sounds pretty excellent to me, and I'd much rather have a benevolent dictator than people who know how to exploit the stupid to get themselves into power, which is the current system.

Why so?

A benevolent leader listens to his followers, considers whether to take their ideas further, and does, or doesn't, depending on which will actually improve the lives of those serving under him.

That sounds pretty excellent to me, and I'd much rather have a benevolent dictator than people who know how to exploit the stupid to get themselves into power, which is the current system.

i am no fan of the current system

anyways, where exactly is our disagreement? is it over the issue of the consent of the governed? or perhaps over my contention that that requires the people themselves to rule over any leaders they may appoint, with the power to remove them as desired? or are we perhaps just using the word 'dictator' in different ways?

of course not. political justice requires at least the consent of the governed
There's not much justice going around in almost any democratic state, then. In the UK, for example, the people about 15% of the population voted in have essentially absolute power due to their majority in the Houses of Commons. Your system of Electoral College also denies the majority opinion from being heard if it doesn't get enough arbitrary points together, see the 2000 election which in any reasonable state Al Gore ought to have won due to the popular vote being in his favour.

People can go back on promises - see the recent furore in Germany or Italy, I forget which, in which to get a ruling coalition together the socialist party agreed to go back on its promise of more financial aid to students, whose votes were the only ones that got them into power overall.

This situation is mirrored across Europe, the states and other so-called democratic nations, and paints a pretty piss-poor picture of what is OK to do when you get power by popular vote.
dictatorship, by its very nature, denies the possibility of universal participation in collective decision-making at a fundamental level
No, the most fundamental level of decision making ought to come from public opinion in general. Dictatorships can still survey the public to hear their opinion on measures, they can just ignore them if they prove to be stupid. It doesn't deny peoples' right to participate in the running of the state, it just balances public opinion with what is actually a good idea in the eyes of those in charge.

i am no fan of the current system
Then what ought it to be replaced with?
anyways, where exactly is our disagreement? is it over the issue of the consent of the governed? or perhaps over my contention that that requires the people themselves to rule over any leaders they may appoint, with the power to remove them as desired? or are we perhaps just using the word 'dictator' in different ways?
I think it's probably that you see a government's power structure as a greater part of its overall merit than myself.

For me, if a government is setting down measures which are unpopular with the public, but will actually bring them benefit then that's a good thing.

I think that for you, a government's responsibility should be to listen to the people and take their views and ideas forward in legislation because that's what the public wants to happen.

The best idea is doubtless somewhere inbetween our two schools of thought, but there we go.

No, the most fundamental level of decision making ought to come from public opinion in general. Dictatorships can still survey the public to hear their opinion on measures, they can just ignore them if they prove to be stupid. It doesn't deny peoples' right to participate in the running of the state, it just balances public opinion with what is actually a good idea in the eyes of those in charge.

And what if your benevolent dictator happens to be an idiot? He listens to his people and really, heartily loves them but his grasp of, say, economic principles is seriously flawed, though he is unaware of it, and is led by this misunderstanding into viewing the populace as being "stupid" in this regard.

A dictatorship does deny the peoples' right to participate as an inherent quality of its function. The people may be used as a tool to gauge a decision's worth, but is being a tool the same as participating?

No dictatorship is benevolent, no matter how well-intentioned the leader is. Political freedoms are just as important as economic and social freedoms.

of course not. political justice requires at least the consent of the governed, and therefore the possibility of universal participation in collective decision-making at a fundamental level. dictatorship, by its very nature, denies this.

Consent of the governed and participation in decision-making can be separate - what about populist dictators riding the wave of revolution?

Possibility of participation in decision-making is not necessarily lost in a dictatorship, but a dictator can ignore popular will without the same consequences as an elected official. Also, what about a dictatorship that promises to dissolve itself at a future date, to bring in elections at that point? That is a dictatorship that offers the possibility of participation in decision-making.

Your argument involves consent and possibility of participation in political process, I think a truly benevolent dictatorship can offer that (as above)

On a side note, how long do you have to be 'non-elected' to qualify as a dictatorship? As in my previous post, if you are elected for x years, then I am dictated to for x years without a say. If it is the possibility of participation then who decides the limit? Am I then dictated to by a constitution I have little hope changing? The whole act of governing involves some sort of dictatorial remit, unless every single issue is decided by referenda.

And what if your benevolent dictator happens to be an idiot? He listens to his people and really, heartily loves them but his grasp of, say, economic principles is seriously flawed, though he is unaware of it, and is led by this misunderstanding into viewing the populace as being "stupid" in this regard.
Then he should get some decent advisors or step down as soon as things start going badly and call a referendum upon stepping down as to whether people want to go back to a more democratic way of doing things or if they want to try somebody else.
A dictatorship does deny the peoples' right to participate as an inherent quality of its function. The people may be used as a tool to gauge a decision's worth, but is being a tool the same as participating?
It's as much of a right as almost all of us will get in the two or three years between local and national elections. Which is why I wouldn't really mind it.

Puts "The Wall" on the stereo:::

Daddy's gone across the ocean / leaving just a memory / a snapshot in the family album / Daddy what else did you leave for me? / Daddy what'd you leave behind for me?

No dictatorship is benevolent, no matter how well-intentioned the leader is. Political freedoms are just as important as economic and social freedoms.

That is not necessarily everyone's opinion though. Some might have a hierarchy of needs, where democracy is fairly low down, after food, water, security and stability. You are in a lucky position to say that all those things should be equally important.

Then he should get some decent advisors or step down as soon as things start going badly and call a referendum upon stepping down as to whether people want to go back to a more democratic way of doing things or if they want to try somebody else.

At this point, how his benevolence any different than some kind of legally binding constitution? If we are to assume that he will maintain his benevolence, no matter what, then we've turned our dictator from a human being to something more akin to a legal abstraction personified.

At this point, how his benevolence any different than some kind of legally binding constitution?
It isn't, which is why they're not in power any more.
If we are to assume that he will maintain his benevolence, no matter what, then we've turned our dictator from a human being to something more akin to a legal abstraction personified.
Indeed, and the rule of and by law, in the interests of the general public is, in effect what I mean by a benevolent dictatorship.

The Netherlands' "The greatest Dutchman" show put William of Orange in the #1 slot. While technically a prince (not a dictator), he had more power than most current leaders.

That, and about two billion humans seem to insist there's a benevolent dictator (kind of) they love named Jehovah. >_>

except, of course, your classroom is actually under the authority of several layers of hierarchy, one of the ultimate of which is those kids' parents. if you ever really piss the students off, they very probably could force you to change.

They've tried.
So far it's been a decade of Kat 10, students 0.

Parents don't have as much authority to cause trouble as they think when you keep meticulous records and go strictly by the Chancellor's Regs and the discipline code, which students and parents are handed at the beginning of the year.

And unless they are breaking the law, the Chancellor's Regs, or school-wide policies, the educator is the final authority in the classroom.

A benevolent dictatorship is the best kind of government possible. However, eventually the power is passed to a not-so-benevolent dictator, and lord knows I've had a few teachers like that.:D

Me too. They're the ones who had the strongest influence on me on what NEVER to do in a classroom to another human being.

Myself.

Whenever my students get the funny notion that my classroom is a democracy and that they can VOTE on whether or not to do something they'd rather not (like take a test) I very quickly assure them that this is not the case, and that the form of government is actually a benevolent dictatorship... which gets less benevolent the more time is wasted.

I remember someone trying that on my English Lit Class. the teacher replied, "sure." and proceeded to hold an election.

when it was over, she announced that as the senior member of this class (after all, as a democratic process, she can also vote) and taking a clue from Congress, her senority allows her vote to have more value due to her being apart of this class longer than the students, she outvoted everyone since her votes are equal to 32 of our votes (our class only had 30 students) so the test resumes.

"of course," she said, "the test is due at the end of the class, and because [we] wasted all that time with the election, it left less time for the test..." which was an essay test...

I was her TA the next time someone else suggested skipping the test via vote... and since I was part of that class, I could vote and since it was my second... term... I mine counted twice...

like I would try to help those lazy punks out of a test...

Ah, but that's really dirty pool. I wouldn't do that.

I never had tried that on a teacher in HS. And I was in mostly AP classes (smart asses, etc.). However, while student teaching, I saw it happen once. In the class of seniors who had not passed AIMS. And they had to pass AIMS to graduate.

Funny, huh?

As I go through college, I work for Knowledge Learning, Inc which is a daycare/preschool/private kindergarden combination. I have spend a little time with the 4-year class while teaching phonics and math, and I have to tell you, I pitty their teachers in the future. Such attitudes!!!