What do you prefer? (forms of government)
- Thread starter Blakut
- Start date
No offense, but the way you've phrased the question, it's subject to far too many undefined variables to give a proper answer, IMO.
At the heart of it, I'd have to say a corrupt Democracy (as you've defined it) would be my preferred method of governance. You don't control who's making the rules either way, but in the Democracy, you aren't bound to pay heed to whoever that may happen to be, and you've also got (theoretically) a far greater recourse (legal or "improvised") against the powers that be.
Unless the degree of corruption is such as to make the system practically unworkable (far greater than modern America, even-- something approaching 1990's Russia or worse), it's not a tough choice. Unless you're one of those mooks who's got unshakable faith in "the system."
At the heart of it, I'd have to say a corrupt Democracy (as you've defined it) would be my preferred method of governance. You don't control who's making the rules either way, but in the Democracy, you aren't bound to pay heed to whoever that may happen to be, and you've also got (theoretically) a far greater recourse (legal or "improvised") against the powers that be.
Unless the degree of corruption is such as to make the system practically unworkable (far greater than modern America, even-- something approaching 1990's Russia or worse), it's not a tough choice. Unless you're one of those mooks who's got unshakable faith in "the system."
I'm asking this because my country has made a transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic one. Every now and then comes someone, especially old people, who is dissatisfied with the "new democracy" and remembers the good old communist days with glee.
When explaining about the lack of civil liberties they respond with the present state of the economy, the widespread corruption and the lack of morals in today's society. Although the same problem existed under the old regime, it was not seen because it was kept hidden by the authorities. So there are people who believe that a state that takes care of you and guides you like some parent is preferable to a state that leaves you to take care of yourself and allows some to be very rich and some to be poor and unemployed, forcing you to make decisions for yourself.
Sorry i didn't explain it better.
When explaining about the lack of civil liberties they respond with the present state of the economy, the widespread corruption and the lack of morals in today's society. Although the same problem existed under the old regime, it was not seen because it was kept hidden by the authorities. So there are people who believe that a state that takes care of you and guides you like some parent is preferable to a state that leaves you to take care of yourself and allows some to be very rich and some to be poor and unemployed, forcing you to make decisions for yourself.
Sorry i didn't explain it better.
I thought a lot before answering. Because, well, in both of them, you're not free. A totalitarian government is at least more honest in this point: everyone knows that in a dictatorship, you don't have freedom of speech, or freedom of ideology. In democracy, most part of the people think they're free, but they are imprisoned by the taxes, the laws, and whatever. Although you can (theoretically) speak what you think in a democracy, this don't really change the way the things are. And if the government does hear you and make some changes, well, probably it was not in name of democracy, but to show you how you live in a democratic country and you're respected as a citizen.
Whatever, I'd prefer the democracy anyway. In a dictatorship, if the government does something wrong, and you complain about, and make a rally about it or something, they'll probably shoot or arrest you, while in democracy, you're supposed to not be arrested or get some kicks in the face when you're complaining about something. So, if they does arrest you or anything like that, they're proving they they are no more a democracy.
Well, just to end this post before I get any other ideas, yes, a corrupt democracy is prefered, but, just if REALLY is a democracy, not the Venezuela kind of democracy.
Whatever, I'd prefer the democracy anyway. In a dictatorship, if the government does something wrong, and you complain about, and make a rally about it or something, they'll probably shoot or arrest you, while in democracy, you're supposed to not be arrested or get some kicks in the face when you're complaining about something. So, if they does arrest you or anything like that, they're proving they they are no more a democracy.
Well, just to end this post before I get any other ideas, yes, a corrupt democracy is prefered, but, just if REALLY is a democracy, not the Venezuela kind of democracy.
Corrupt Democracy. Duh.
Chavez's Venezuela isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship. Same as Belarus, same as Cuba, same as every shithole in Africa named "Democratic republic of something".
Chavez's Venezuela isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship. Same as Belarus, same as Cuba, same as every shithole in Africa named "Democratic republic of something".
Wooz said:
I don't want to start a fight or anything, but Chavez is democratically elected president of Venezuela, he wanted to institute socialism through nationwide referendum, that in the end failed.I am not Chavez's fan, I personally think he is turning into a little Stalin but all in all he still respects the will of the people.
Well at the moment I am living in a federalistic republic, so that is the system of preference. But personaly I would love a more democratic system or at least more democracy in general.
Ah, come on. This thread is kinda moot if it doesn't provoke some kind of debate. Which leads us to the next point:
What?
Two things:
1) This guy is at most a wannabe Castro. Stalin has absolutely nothing to do with anything Chavez does.
2) "Respects the will of the people"?
Asdfsdasf. No. Latin American politics are less candy-coated than that. Dude's sitting on South America's biggest oil reserves, wants to stay rich and powerful the rest of his life, but his party lacks the structure for him to retire and install a friend or puppet in his place.
alec said:
there. fixed it for you.
DICTATORSHIP:
Wolf: Hey sheep, tonight we have lamb stew, ok?
Sheep: Yayy!
DEMOCRACY:
Wolf: Hey sheep, Lamb stew or Lamb chops?
Sheep:
41% Stew.
39% Chops.
19% I dunno.
1% Fuck yuo.
Democracy sounds a little better. you still get eaten though.
The problem with a perfect dictator isn't the perfect dictator, but rather his successors.
Not very socialist, is it?
i prefer a good dictatorship headed by someone likeminded with my own ideas.
runner up would be a dictatorship run by myself.
but the only practical option is probably a form of democracy. but sadly, it's such a fucking bad alternative...
runner up would be a dictatorship run by myself.
but the only practical option is probably a form of democracy. but sadly, it's such a fucking bad alternative...
A better question. Why is it "rightfully" ?mulaalia said:
Well, there are forms of governent that can be so twisted that bypass leaders all together. It doesn't matter who's in charge, the machine goes on.
Also, there can be democracies where one leader cannot be the system anymore. It stops potential abuses of power but also diminishes the impact a great leader can have on a nation.
Also, there can be democracies where one leader cannot be the system anymore. It stops potential abuses of power but also diminishes the impact a great leader can have on a nation.
Blakut said:
No, that leads to mob rule. I point to california for example. The government gave gays the right to marry. But the mob(and several large churches) said, "Fucking fags is WORNG! BAAAAANNNNN" without any real reason.
Leaders and people with wealth can be convinced far more easily to change bad laws than the mob. Also instead of having raging dolts you have raging dolts with a purpose.
I'd rather have a liberal welfare state capitalist democracy. For you Americans I mean liberal in the definition held by the rest of the world.
Fascist anarchism FTW.
Ah-Teen said:
In all fairness, it was local government actions that granted that right and higher, State actions that revoked them; I may not agree with the decision, but it wasn't mob rule, it was the popular vote. That may be splitting hairs, I know, but it's how a republic works: if it wasn't for the "mob rule" aspect of a democratic republic, San Francisco (et al.) would've been taking their directives from a more central authority all along and gay marriage never would've been voted in in the first place.
Even though my beloved home state is Blue overall, there's a considerble Red bloc in the northern communities and the central farmland, and since you always find Republicans where there's a shitload of money, there are a fair contingent in Hollywood as well (believe it or not. How do you think we keep ending up with Republican governors?). We're a progressive lot, Californians, but when it comes to something like "the sanctity of marriage," plenty of otherwise rational folks just can't give it up and move on.