Empire, Imperialism and other geo-political naughtiness

[welsh]

Well I will take the position that democracy is the best type of government. Even where you have very capable dictators in charge you have the risk of excessive rent seeking by that regime and you also have the problem of succession. While some of the Roman emperors might have been good, overall the system became increasingly corrupt.

But democracy is hard to establish, hard to keep. German democracy gives way to Facism because of the economic circumstances of Germany at the time. Germany has been able to sustain a democracy since the Second World War (a democracy imposed from outside) in large part due to its economic success.

Some recent studies on democracy have pointed out the relationship between stable democracy and GDP-per capita. Where one find a country where incomes are about $6000 and above, the government type is generally stable (be it democratic or authoritarian, but generally democracy fairs better). The problem is that democracy can out live the ruler, authoritarians usually don't. If the authoritarian leader dies, than the choice is that there can be either democracy or a new autocrat. Over time, democracy is likely to become more regular, as democratic governments live longer than autocratic.

Yes, sometimes imperialism creates democracy- but often democracy is rolled back when the state is independent.

But if we talk about culture, the question is what is about certain cultures that either promote or reject democracy. Culture is a concept that grabs many different variables (language, religion, history, family structures, relationships, etc) and then mixes them up. Which matters? For example, if you argue that a culture doesn't want a democracy, than ask yourself why? Could it be that they don't trust the institutions of governance that have a history of corruption? COuld it be that societies that are made up of different ethnicities don't trust each other because past rulers have kept them divided? In which case, does culture, per se, matter?

Here's the thing, democracy is very difficult to create and to sustain. Many new democracies fall because they can't handle the combined pressures.

Back to Europe- in most cases democracy came very late, after the creation of national identities, after the creation of complex industrial economies. In the developing world, states are forced to do a dance that involves industrialization, nation building, state building and democratization, all compressed in a period much shorter than the hundreds of years that it too Europe to build.

If you make the argument, well, this society doesn't want democracy because their culture says no, then the least you could do is be a bit more exact and explore why a civil society would not want democracy (where they probably get to have a greater share in governance) rather than a authoritarian (who will probably repress them).

 

[Brother None]

I again have to quote Churchill; "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others".

At the moment, democracy is prolly best, however...

I think you misinterpreted my post, welsh. What you're saying is that I was saying "If a culture does not have the grounds or want for democracy, it does not deserve democracy". This has the following flaws:

1) There can be no talk of "deserving" democracy unless you believe it's the absolute peak of human leadership, which I don't.

2) Cultures are on inadaptable. What I was stating is the widely accepted belief that it is impossible for a culture which has no basis for democracy (Eastern cultures are the first to come to mind) to become a democracy unless it ADAPTS.

But this isn't only true for democracy, it's true for any new form of government. The Chinese culture changed when it became a communist society, it had to, because communism isn't inherent of the Chinese culture. Just the same way the Japanese culture had to change to become a democracy.

What these changes are I leave to wiser men than myself...

3) On certain levels, forcing a people to become democratic is wrong and very often falls under the old "the best intentions have the worst effect"-rule.

Currently the UN is way too easy about this. "Oh, yes, let's fix their problems...let's make them a democracy!" This doesn't solve anything, you can't JUST smash a democracy into a country, it's proven fatal many times...

 

[Sander]

Well, welsh, I'd have to disagree here, I don't think democracy is the best form of government, in fact, I don't think that having the people themselves rule in any way is the best way to solve anything, all democracy is for, is this:
1) It gives people the ability to choose what they want, meaning that decisions won't go into the majority if done properly(Ofcourse, that's almost never true anymore...)
2)It keeps people happy because they have a certain control over their lives.
However, there are downsides:
1) The fact that even the dumbest of the dumbest is allowed to vote can lead to very nasty and silly things(Again, I will take Germany and the rise of Hitler as an example, even though Hitler may have been elected due to circumstance, he DID get elected.)
2) Decisions can take a long long time, because there has to be a democratic voting, and most probably a debate as well.
3) Elections tend to be partially about appearance and charisma, and this can lead to weird outcomes, where a person gets a lot of votes purely because he is charismatic, and not because of what he wants to do with the country.

In my opinion, a country would be better served with a democracy of the intellegentia, however, there are many points against this:
1) The people will not be properly represented, and this can lead to decisions that won't benefit the people, however, if the leaders are indeed smart enough, they will realise that any form of misdirection of the wills of the people(If carried on for a while) will eventually lead to resistance and revolution - which is something they don't want.
2) If amongst those people there are those with inklings towards power, and that group gains a majority an oppressive government may arise, however, this danger is also present in any other form of government, so maybe this argument can be discarded.
3) The people might become unhappy with their relatively powerless situation, which is never good.

The pros should be quite obvious.

However, this form of government is undoable, because noone will actually accept it, due to discrimination based on intelligence and knowledge, and the removal of power from the hands of the common man.

I don't think any such thing will happen in the near future, or maybe even in any future. It isn't ideal either. The problem with every type of government is that it can always be better. Meh, this is all I'll say about this, though, I know what I am saying, and I know that it is a bit of a silly idea and unrealistic as well.

Another thing: WHo believes that the way the USA handle a democracy(Or rather, a republic, I think that is more appropriate) is the best way to go about it?

PS: Welsh, what do you teach at what university...just curious.

 

[welsh]

I again have to quote Churchill; "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others".

At the moment, democracy is prolly best, however......

No argument there. Democracy may be better, but its not ideal. But then neither is human society.

I think you misinterpreted my post, welsh. What you're saying is that I was saying "If a culture does not have the grounds or want for democracy, it does not deserve democracy". This has the following flaws:

1) There can be no talk of "deserving" democracy unless you believe it's the absolute peak of human leadership, which I don't.

2) Cultures are on inadaptable. What I was stating is the widely accepted belief that it is impossible for a culture which has no basis for democracy (Eastern cultures are the first to come to mind) to become a democracy unless it ADAPTS.

Kharn, you are right, but I misinterpret for a reason. The cultural arguments for democracy are very problematic for a number of reasons.

For example, why should some cultures adapt to democracy and others not? As I point out, the idea of culture incorporates a large set of potential variables. Until we can disaggregate them, and show their causal linkages, then I would hesitate about giving "culture" too much baggage. Also, it allows too much fluffy thinking about societies- leading to that "good culture" vs. "bad culture" for democracy bit.

But this isn't only true for democracy, it's true for any new form of government. The Chinese culture changed when it became a communist society, it had to, because communism isn't inherent of the Chinese culture. Just the same way the Japanese culture had to change to become a democracy.

3) On certain levels, forcing a people to become democratic is wrong and very often falls under the old "the best intentions have the worst effect"-rule.

Currently the UN is way too easy about this. "Oh, yes, let's fix their problems...let's make them a democracy!" This doesn't solve anything, you can't JUST smash a democracy into a country, it's proven fatal many times...

I think a lot of the UN mandate on this comes down to principles of the UN Charter. You can't really expect the UN to impose or create monarchy or oligarchy when it speaks of peace and prosperity of people. There is also a strong argument around the notion of "good governance" which is often another word for effective rational democracy.

But with regard to smashing democracy into a country- two of the most successful democracies of the Post-World War 2 era were imposed- Japan and Germany, which are also very different cultures. However, both had very similar economies.

The problem I think is not the creation of democratic governance. Since 1990s, democratization has spread into regions once considered inhospitable to democracy. But as mentioned before, democracy is not easy and, with the other problems that developing states face, may create new pressures that may lead to its undoing.

 

[welsh]

Sander, you made some points about the pluses and minuses of democracy, but if you look at virtually any form of governance, there are trade offs. The question is what trade offs are you willing to tolerate, and which ones are good for the long term.

If you are asking about long-term growth and the prosperity of a society, I am willing to bet that democracy is probably going to get you there. This is subject to a great debate- some autocrats have done very well economically and there is no reason, per se, to say that autocratic rule is necessarily worse for a society.

But I think if you look at the history of mankind, where one is ruled by kings or emperors, the mass of mankind have led pretty crappy lives. We remember, for instance, the grandeur of the pyramids, or the Taj Mahal, or even the glories of Rome, the great philosophers or powerful kings, but if you look at the mass of lives, well they usually didn't live as good a life as they might have or actually led pretty crappy lives altogether.

The virtue of democracy is that its a check on the predation of kings. Give a king the power to repress (an army to command) than there is a strong chance that the king will turn inward and tax the hell out of society. (Yes- its down to taxes again). There are no constraints. In an oligopoly, the state serves the interest of a few select people. The masses are still screwed.

The costs over the long term is that while the king should restrain his taxation for the benefit of all, usually there is uncertainty with regard to what to spend or if he has enough taxes, and thus he has to borrow or tax at a level that is inefficient. Had the king played it smart, he finds the optimal rate. At that rate, he gets about as much taxes as he can while maintaining the prosperity of society. Beyond that rate, too much taxes leads to too little investment and the economy overall shrinks. The problem is that he doesn't know what that rate is, what kinds of changes, and often he is subject to pressures outside his control that will force him to make short-term sacrifices. Once those short-term sacrifices are made (like Bush's tax policy) it is hard to undo them.

So some of the most powerful empires of Europe end up bankrupting themselves. Spain and France both suffer this fate.

However, if the state is controlled by the populace, than the rational populations primary interest is in their own wealth. The state becomes their servant- providing the institution of security and hopefully wealth maximization by creating wealth creating institutions. Well at least that's the idea.

So what you have in democracy is kind of what you ideally should get from capitalism- by banking on the selfishness of individuals you create a system in which society as a whole prospers. Anyway, that's the idea.

But the key to all of that is good institutions. Institutions that constrain the state, that allow transparency to the population so we know what the government is doing (like "Hey what is that Iraq reconstruction plan and is there any thought of an exit?") That the state is responsible for its errors or misdeeds, that there are institutional restraints against tyranny by a select minority or against a majority, that even if an idealistic individual gets elected president, that there are constraints on his ability to fuck up the country.

In my opinion, a country would be better served with a democracy of the intellegentia, however, there are many points against this:
....
Another thing: WHo believes that the way the USA handle a democracy(Or rather, a republic, I think that is more appropriate) is the best way to go about it?

Actually if you look at quite a few states that have gone under difficult economic transitions, part of the process has included the creation of a technocratic "brain" trust that oversees the transition which is insulated from popular pressures.

To compare- more people put there trust in Alan Greenspan in the US than they do in George Bush. The problem there is that its overreliance on monetary policy than overall national economic policy.

As for whether US presidential democracy is better than European parliamentary democracy is something that has been widely debated and I think has never been satisfactorily answered. I think it comes down to what kinds of bag of constraints and powers you want to buy.

 

[welsh]

Depends on how you look at it. Elfs are fragile but agile, while dwarfs are sturdy but slow. In the end, they are about equally potent armies .

I have ever really done Warhammer, but when I used to read in this genre, I always thought the Elves were a bunch of pansies and the dwarves were just grouchy because of their own size issues (kind of an over compensation issue).

What about Orcs? Hobgoblins?

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Well, welsh, I'd have to disagree here, I don't think democracy is the best form of government, in fact, I don't think that having the people themselves rule in any way is the best way to solve anything.

However, there really isn't any better form of government, nor will there probably ever be any form of government in the future that will be better than Democracy.

Any totalitarian form of government, for example, would be a terrible form of government in this day and age, no matter who the leader is. I can't think of one succesful and highly praised leader in the history of said state who didn't have brutality and military conquest associated with his rule. Granted, in the past, military conquest and imperialism were great ways for a state to attain power and wealth, but as was argued earlier on, classical imperialism is as good as dead, and with WMD's, the UN and other alliances, plus modern communications, any state powerful enough to conquer other countries and brutal enough to suppress that countries local population, won't because the rest of the world will immediately condemn it, will lend some form of support, whether militarily or through goods, to the conquered, and they won't allow that countries aggression to escalate. It can easily be argued that Hitler was one of the last conquerers in this sense. Many of the traits that the great roman caesars of old, including genocide (and of Jews in some cases) can be found in Hitler. It leaves little doubt to what he was referring to when he spoke of a new third reich. As detestable as Hitler was, I wouldn't be surprised if history would have cast him in a more positive light if he was succesful. As for having a benevolent and wise dictator, that would plainly be contradictory. People are eventually going to disagree with his policies, therefore they will create a party of people that will have different views to what the dictator has, and eventually they will try and change the laws through public support. This will create a situation which will force the dictator into a)cracking down and disband the group, either brutally or b) through some form of propaganda. c) Let them have a say in making laws, thereby abandoning a totalitarian form of government. The first option is definitely not benevolent and the second option is really not effective in the long term and will eventually lead to instability.

As for communism, it looks good on paper, but very poor when executed. Is it surprising that a new society of have and have-nots has been created in all past and current communist states? Not to mention that it's also an economic nightmare. IMO all that communism is is a overly-idealistic sales-pitch that a tyrant uses so that he can come to power.

The sad fact is that all human beings are fallible and therefore any form of government that they create will also suffer from this very same sin. Unless our technology becomes advance enough that we are able to create an entity that is incredibly wise, free of all vices and ambitions, and doesn't suffer from that common human ailment called death, even then I doubt that people would want to defer their leadership to some kind of (dare I say) "God" machine.

However, there are downsides:
1) The fact that even the dumbest of the dumbest is allowed to vote can lead to very nasty and silly things(Again, I will take Germany and the rise of Hitler as an example, even though Hitler may have been elected due to circumstance, he DID get elected.)
2) Decisions can take a long long time, because there has to be a democratic voting, and most probably a debate as well.
3) Elections tend to be partially about appearance and charisma, and this can lead to weird outcomes, where a person gets a lot of votes purely because he is charismatic, and not because of what he wants to do with the country.

No offense, but you seem to have little faith in the common man. For example, it is impossible to expect that the german people would have the foresight to see what would happen if Hitler was elected. History has shown that whenever a country is going through political turmoil, bad things immediately follow. All current communist countries can trace their roots to political turmoil. Even most Democratic countries (US, Britain, etc.) went through a lot of hell before things stabilized. Germany just had the bad luck of getting a Hitler through the democratic process.

As for decisions taking a long time, it's a buerocracy. Unless it's just one person making the rules, there's always going to be disagreements. You can't expect people to agree most, or even half the time. At least when it's a large group of people the chances of creating a serious rift aren't as great as when a small group of people disagree.

The argument for charisma and looks being the main driving force in the democratic process is rather moot. That same person, no matter how charismatic, must have many merits to his name. Hitler (sorry for using him so often, but he is one of the greatest examples of the democratic process creating a major disastor) was a veteran and he did have a vision of a greater Germany. To a certain extent, he did improve the German lot at the beginning of his rule.

Point I'm trying to make is that this is probably as good as it gets. The only bad thing about modern democracy is that it just might fall apart, but hey, we're people...

We all eventually fuck up.

 

[Sander]

it is impossible to expect that the german people would have the foresight to see what would happen if Hitler was elected.

1. They could have read Mein Kampf.
2. They could have listened to what he had said.
Hitler got elected purely because he acted as a disgruntled man of the people, and one with a lot of charisma at that. Then the leaders of other paries made the mistake of thiking "Oh, he'll fuck up, and the people will get sick of him.", then he used the workings of the democratic state to gain absolute power(By having most of the communists locked up so they couldn't vote, and bribing the catholic party with a letter that would never arrive.) He got elected because of his charisma, and because he said something about inequality and the poor state of the economy, if people, however, had looked into what he had actually written instead of just thinking they got the general overall message, he would never have gotten elected, in fact, I bet that if he wasnt a brilliant public speaker, he wouldn't have gotten elected either.
All I was trying to say is that democracy is pretty fucked up, even though it is probably as far as we'll ever get(I DID say that, I think, if not, I say it now...)

As for your "Totalitarianism leads to problems" thing, I have to strongly disagree, indeed, most totalitarian rulers have gotten their throne in a violent way, because they have to beat the other system out of it's place. This does not, however, mean that that will always be so(Hey, let's take Hitler again, he really didn't have that much violence on his name, and he used almost none to get to power(It was all in a democratic way), in fact, before gaining power, most violence had come from the SA, and hadn't been used in a coordinated way, nor had there been any violence control by Hitler...), and it doesn't mean that the main gaining power through such a wau is immediately a bad man. I stand by my opinion that Totalitarianism is the best type of government if led by the right man(or woman), because he or she has ultimate control. The problem, ofcourse, is abuse of power, so you need the right person in charge. And because of that, it is completely idiotic, because whatever the ways of getting a new leader, eventually some power-hungry jackass will be in charge.

welsh:
1) I was talking abut the republic system of government(Which is identical to the way the Netherlands were controlled in the 1600s and 1700s), where it is basically an alliance of countries with one big institution running military and external policies. I was also talking about the two-party(Okay, three party, but the third will never win anyway) system, and the way the voted of the populace are counted(with a per-state count, instead of grand total).
2) Hobgoblins are part of the Orcs and Goblins Army, they are basically the "Me smash" type of army, which can have difficulty because their troops are completely stupid and can just stand there doing nothing for several rounds. I prefer Vampire COunts, there's nothing like ending with an army bigger than the one you started out with....

 

[Ancient Oldie]

it is impossible to expect that the german people would have the foresight to see what would happen if Hitler was elected.

1. They could have read Mein Kampf.
2. They could have listened to what he had said.
Hitler got elected purely because he acted as a disgruntled man of the people, and one with a lot of charisma at that. Then the leaders of other paries made the mistake of thiking "Oh, he'll fuck up, and the people will get sick of him.", then he used the workings of the democratic state to gain absolute power(By having most of the communists locked up so they couldn't vote, and bribing the catholic party with a letter that would never arrive.)

Granted, he did make his vision clear in Mein Kampf, but I'm pretty sure the German people didn't expect he would take it to the extreme that was WWII. The fact is that the Versailles Treaty was, in hindsight, a terrible and unfair burden on the german people. Add to the fact that the French refused a moratorium requested by the German government and decided to occupy the Ruhr and you have a lot of pissed off Germans (and rightfully so). The only choices that they really had were Marxism, instability and uncertanty under the current government, or a return of a strong Germany under Hitler. As you pointed out, the SA was also pretty "helpful" in eliminating competition, and getting those extra votes. All these factors makes me wonder whether it made a difference that Hitler rose to power democratically, since he probably would have reached that postition regardless of popular support.

As for your "Totalitarianism leads to problems" thing, I have to strongly disagree, indeed, most totalitarian rulers have gotten their throne in a violent way, because they have to beat the other system out of it's place. This does not, however, mean that that will always be so(Hey, let's take Hitler again, he really didn't have that much violence on his name, and he used almost none to get to power(It was all in a democratic way), in fact, before gaining power, most violence had come from the SA, and hadn't been used in a coordinated way, nor had there been any violence control by Hitler...), and it doesn't mean that the main gaining power through such a wau is immediately a bad man. I stand by my opinion that Totalitarianism is the best type of government if led by the right man(or woman), because he or she has ultimate control. The problem, ofcourse, is abuse of power, so you need the right person in charge. And because of that, it is completely idiotic, because whatever the ways of getting a new leader, eventually some power-hungry jackass will be in charge.

I definitely wouldn't say that Hitler barely used violence to get to power. The Beer Hall Putsch fiasco would beg to differ and the SA although not directly under the control of Hitler, definitely helped his cause by disrupting and intimidating opponents, and with over 3 million members, was an extremely powerful semimilitary force. One of the reasons why it was disbanded and many of its senior members purged was because it was feared that it might absorb the smaller German army.

About dictatorships, I wasn't specifically saying that a dictator needs to use violent methods to reach power, as any government change is normally a chaotic and messy affair. What I meant was that there probably will never be a good dictator in this day and age because it is required that for that dictator to stay in power, he needs to abuse power to crush any opposition that might arise. Even if the dictator is wise, the population will still be generally unhappy under his ironfist of good leadership. What it comes down to is whether you consider that it is better for people to unhappily lead good lives or happily wallow in shit.

 

[Sander]

Again: If the right man stands up, he will instate the following:
1. freedom for people, and no bullshit political oppression, one of the few lessons learnt from past dictators should be that political oppression leads to being overthrown.
2. Good, just and fair leadership, in fact, it is very well probable that he would just get the same or better effects than a democracy, but faster and thus more effectively.

That is my opinion, it is probably unlikely, however, it would be the best type of government in terms of ONE service, after the death of the dictator, however, people would have a lot of problems, some power-hungry jackass will rise up and oppress people.

As for Hitler using violence, he would've gotten there with or without violence, because he voiced disconcern and other things. If I'm correct, when he got into the government, he had about 30% of the votes, partially gained through fear, but much much more due to acting disgruntled about the Versailles treaty. He got ultimate power by:
1. Locking up all of the communists because of a fire set by a Dutch communist mason.
2. Bribing the catholic party by telling them that he would let them exist and do whatever they want if he got ultimate power.
3. Having the Reichstag(government, basically) disbanded in a voting with the previous two points.
4. Taking on the seat of both Reichschancellor and the other power-position(can't remember the name) when the previous man gave him that power(being an old, feeble and probably demented von Bismarck(I think)).
Almost everything he did to get to power was democratic, and there lies the major weakness of a democracy of the masses, that one such as Hitler can rise to power legally.
One nice statement I once heard was that the intelligence of a mass is as high as the intelligence of the dumbest person in the mass, I think that may sum up the weakness pretty nicely.

PS: If they wallow in shit they aren't happy, they may be free but that doesn't mean that they're happy with wallowing in shit.

 

[welsh]

Boy this has gotten more interesting!

I am leaning with Ancient on this one.

Sander- the problems with other forms are what you point out. The issue of succession- you may have a benevolent ruler today, but what are your chances that the next will also be benevolent? If a ruler is not benevolent or was benevolent and becomes malicious, than what?

Which fits into the next question- longevity. Most of the people will outlive the dictator. Thus they have longer time horizons for prosperity than the dictator does. This mismatch creates a problem. Both may want to invest for the long term, but chances are the society is thinking about a longer term than the state/ and ruler. Without constraint on the government, there is no reason to think he will restrain from predation on society.

With a democratic government- where the people are actually active, you should have a check on that predation.

I would also agree, a society is not judged by the dumbest member. IF that were true we would all have societies that were mentally retarded. True, we do get people like George Bush, from time to time, and you could think of the Bush-Gore election as a choice between a charismatic dingbat and intellectual geek, with the geek losing. But generally we do get smart folks in office, which represents the desires of society over all.

The dangers to soceity are passivity of the public, thus allowing less constraint on government, and the development of special interests (a creature of the collective action problem yet again- Mancur Olson's Logic of Collective Action is 50% of the story of politics). Special interests allow the state to look after select groups over the benefit of society over all (think about the ethnic lobbies and industrial lobbies (tobacco, auto industry, oil).

 

[Sander]

Meh, the inteligence of a mass thing, was not meant in the large meaning of mass, but in the meaning of a mass attending a speech, in other words, a real mass. Anyone who ever attended a speech of Hitler will have told you that they got swept away, no matter how anti-Hitler they were. That's the effect of a crowd, the effect of the dumbest member dictating the general intelligence of the mass.

But besides that, I agree with you.

 

[welsh]

Meh, the inteligence of a mass thing, was not meant in the large meaning of mass, but in the meaning of a mass attending a speech, in other words, a real mass. Anyone who ever attended a speech of Hitler will have told you that they got swept away, no matter how anti-Hitler they were. That's the effect of a crowd, the effect of the dumbest member dictating the general intelligence of the mass.

But besides that, I agree with you.

Actually, again, here there is a problem. Even in the last US election, there were a lot of folks who came off thinking that Bush was ducking debates because he didn't come off so well (likeable but dopey), while Gore seemed to be arrogant but smart. Bush has still had problems getting over that image.

Ironically, this is one of those areas where culture does seem to matter. The ability of the president to be accepted by the people does relate to them seeing him as a representative of their values.

 

[Sander]

Sorry, welsh, but I don't see the relevance of that to what I just said. If that happened in crowds, even the dumbest person has to admit that Gore came over as smarter.

 

[welsh]

What I was getting at was that the president is often chosen because he "fits" the values. Gore came off as a technocratic but impersonal geek who thought he was a know it all. Given that, the people would prefer a more uncomplicated populist leader that represents their basic values (even if he is really being less than transparent, is supported by special interests and wins because he spends more). Thus, culture does matter in this case.

As for the dumbest and smartest being swept away, I think that the answer has more to do with the differences between individual behavior and group behavior. It has been widely studied that people will do things they wouldn't otherwise do because of how their peers act or think. In a sense this is response to environment. But its not the dumbest data nod rules, but rather how individuals respond in groups- which may lead to less than optimal outcomes.

2) Hobgoblins are part of the Orcs and Goblins Army, they are basically the "Me smash" type of army, which can have difficulty because their troops are completely stupid and can just stand there doing nothing for several rounds. I prefer Vampire COunts, there's nothing like ending with an army bigger than the one you started out with....

This is going way past me, never having played Warhammer. I always felt the Orcs and Goblins get a raw deal- the victims of discrimination! For once, it would be nice to see the Orcs be the good guys, or at least win.
Instead, when I want mass carnage and violence, I play Age of Empires 2 - Conquerors Ed. Been having great fun playing the Spanish Empire. Armies of Conquistadors, Paladins and Missionaries rule!

 

[Sander]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up, but that wasn't at all what I was getting at(I know about the culture difference and way of electing stuff.). Meh, I suppose you're right about the group stuff, though.


As for Warhammer, Orcs and Goblins aren't bad, in fact, they win quite a lot, if played by the right person and not the guy with absolutely no tactical insight who is the only friend I know who plays O&G. As for mass slaughter, Civilization 3 currently has taken over my mind, I'm eagerly awaiting the next expansion, and in the mean while I'm slowly but steadily taking over the world as the Germans(Random race, Germans came out of it).

 

[welsh]

ACtually I have heard that a new game- Real War Medieval, is quite cool.

 

[Ancient Oldie]

Again: If the right man stands up, he will instate the following:
1. freedom for people, and no bullshit political oppression, one of the few lessons learnt from past dictators should be that political oppression leads to being overthrown.
2. Good, just and fair leadership, in fact, it is very well probable that he would just get the same or better effects than a democracy, but faster and thus more effectively.

As I said before, these leadership virtues are impossible in a dictatorship. How can the people be politically free if they really can't have a say in who their leader is going to be and when it is time that he should step down. All leaders, no matter how great, will eventually make a blunder (unless he is something like that perfect "god" machine, in which case we should keep the brain cryogenically frozen after death for future use ). This is going to lead to discontent, which is going to lead people to think that their might be a better leader out there, and it will lead other people to believe that they are that better leader. This therefore leads to making point two ineffective, because political freedom in a dictatorship will either lead to a democracy or to brutality.

If you would have made this same argument 100 years in the past, I would agree with you. But nowadays, the majority of all people are educated and the literacy rate in most developed countries are in the high 90's. People will never accept and defer all their political power to one supposed super-leader. Laws are often based on variables like opinion, morality, ethics, and religion and everyone nowadays has an opposing view on these subjects. Unless a dictator is brutal enough to impose what he believes to be the best laws, people will eventually disagree and form their own parties.

Factoring what I said above, It comes as no surprise that probably the most succesful dictator of modern times was Stalin.

PS: If they wallow in shit they aren't happy, they may be free but that doesn't mean that they're happy with wallowing in shit.

Actually, what I meant was that people will probably be happier in a democracy that isn't as succesful as a brutal dictatorship.

 

[Sander]

the right man

Could you please read those three words over and over and over again? Thank you...

Because there are that many different opinions, there won't be a real rebellion. Why? Because there will too many splinter groups, OR because the main populace is happy, and the main populace doesn't really care about ideologies, political decisions and what not as long as they are happy.

 

[welsh]

the right man

Could you please read those three words over and over and over again? Thank you...

Because there are that many different opinions, there won't be a real rebellion. Why? Because there will too many splinter groups, OR because the main populace is happy, and the main populace doesn't really care about ideologies, political decisions and what not as long as they are happy.

Well Ancient- Sander has a good point. Dictators often rule not because they have the power to dominate or repress an entire society, but because they can manage their collective action problems better. Keeping society divided is the best way to keeping the dictator in power. A very divided society only needs enough power that he can counter any potential coalitions, not the entire society.

On the other hand, Sander- "The right man?" Please- what kind of crap are shovelling? What the hell does that mean? If you are a dictator, and you have the power to keep society under control, than why would you care if someone thinks you are the right man at all? I mean, fuck everyone else's expectations, you're the king.

Remember this line from History of The World, "It's good to be the king."

It's good because you can do anything you want, whenever you want. You are subject to no one's moral perogatives or expectations. You rule. The smart ruler rules as Machiavelli told us. Is it better to be a loved benevolent prince or feared as a powerful king- better to be feared than loved.

Ok, even accepting that, what makes one king "the right man" vis-a-vis another? I think Ancient's point is a good one. There are really no "right men" only men subject to error.

In that sense you (as a member of society) are better off with a democracy than a dictatorship for the points I raised earlier.

And I never played Civ 3- is it that good?