Before I forget, Blakut, are you from Bucharest, by any chance?
What do you prefer? (forms of government)
- Thread starter Blakut
- Start date
Benevolent Dictatorship > Corrupt Democracy
Why? Well, corruption turns democracy into uncontrolled oligarchy. That means in terms of who's in control, the two aren't too different. The only difference, then, is the consequences -- and a benevolent dictator is then preferable by definition.
Also, people are easier to manipulate than persons. Even a non-corrupt democracy suffers from the ignorance of its people -- it gets worse when those in charge don't refrain from making good use of that fact.
But of course autocracy doesn't sound very nice when everybody talks about all humans being equal (which, evidently, they are not -- while most intellectuals are aware of this, they are also aware that accepting this would contradict their libertarian views). Also there's the practical problem of finding a BENEVOLENT dictator. Nobody in their right mind would want Feudalism to make a comeback.
In lieu of a benevolent dictator, however, this shoddy republic is the best it can get, sad as that may be.
Why? Well, corruption turns democracy into uncontrolled oligarchy. That means in terms of who's in control, the two aren't too different. The only difference, then, is the consequences -- and a benevolent dictator is then preferable by definition.
Also, people are easier to manipulate than persons. Even a non-corrupt democracy suffers from the ignorance of its people -- it gets worse when those in charge don't refrain from making good use of that fact.
But of course autocracy doesn't sound very nice when everybody talks about all humans being equal (which, evidently, they are not -- while most intellectuals are aware of this, they are also aware that accepting this would contradict their libertarian views). Also there's the practical problem of finding a BENEVOLENT dictator. Nobody in their right mind would want Feudalism to make a comeback.
In lieu of a benevolent dictator, however, this shoddy republic is the best it can get, sad as that may be.
There's a bigger practical problem of successors.Ashmo said:
Also, your spiel about not all humans being equal is funny but stupid. No, not everyone has the same competencies. But there's a difference between everyone being equal and everyone being given the same rights and opportunities, which is what equality actually is about.
Yes i am.
It all depends on what price you put on freedom and on what price you put on social justice. The more freedom you have, the less social justice one can apply. More social justice means less individual freedom.
Not necessarily. Corrupt democracy MAY turn to oligarchy, but then we would be comparing oligarchy with a benevolent dictatorship. One can also state that benevolent dictatorship can VERY easily change into malevolent dictatorship.
Yeah, in a democracy everybody's got the same rights. In a dictatorship you may find an egalitarian society, not only the same rights, but also the same outcome for everyone.
I can give the example of my country: it's a corrupt democracy. Being corrupt, of course that some people take bribes, politicians vote more money for themselves etc. But it all happens in a 'democratic regime'. None of those affects me directly, for example i can go into the streets and denounce corruption and make accusations and nothing would happen to me. Maybe because a corrupt democratic system is also characterized by apathy. No one cares, so you are free.
Ashmo said:
I don't think it's possible. While uncontrolled corruption may turn an otherwise functional democracy into something approaching an oligarchy, dictatorships, sooner ot later, always evolve into reigns of terror.
Don't you think this particular issue has more to do with the absence of a correct public education system than with democracy itself? I can't see how a dictatorship would make a nation more intelligent, or for that matter, be of any importance to the already established governing body.
Blakut said:
Thought so. Was in Bucharest for a few days back in September, remembered me a lot of Warsaw during the nineties.
Another striking resemblance is what you're saying now, a lot of people at the end of the nineties/beginning of this decade were all for a 'stronger, moral regime'. That feeling gradually evolved into the Kaczynski brothers' government, which at one point made of a wacko president, his frustrated brother as prime minister, a neo-nazi and a populist party as coalition members.
Needless to say, it was a big mistake; all fueled by bullshit national pride and the sheep-like drive to find a single-minded person to 'lead the people'.
That said, some lessons are learnt the hard way.
Yamu said:
I know, I'm just constantly pissed off about this bs. However I wasn't trying to say democracy and the popular vote is wrong. More that we need leaders so that we have both majority and minority rights are seen to.
As for gay marriage, I don't think it's a republican problem. Many a democrat go "eewww fags" when the subject comes up. They just don't speak out because they'll be castrated and whipped. Kinda the same way a republican who is for gay rights is.
This is what a constitution is for.Ah-Teen said:
Sander said:
No, a constitution is for constraining the government and setting up how the government is to be run.
No, it is to set up the groundwork of a state, and create legislation that is only changeable through a supermajority. Such as the basic rights of the people.Ah-Teen said:
Or what, you don't think the right to bear arms or the right to free speech are part of the US constitution against all factual evidence?
Claude Frollo
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Aristocratic Socialism
Sander said:
Well, duh. If it's hard to find ONE to start with, that's a given.
No, not really. If you pay any attention to the media and politicians at all, they are being rather literal about equality. Hence why cripples are "differently abled", PC-ly.
Wooz said:
No, not really. It's true that democracy conceptionally requires the ideal of an informed citizenship. The problem is that the vast majority of people do NOT care. And those who DO care rarely care enough to create any changes because swimming against the stream takes effort and determination.
In a democracy, especially in a republic, the vast majority will never be able to make truly informed decisions, simply because they're not interested in getting informed.
The quality of public education is part of the problem, but even if the public education would work, you won't suddenly end up with schools full of Einsteins and Schoppenhauers. The problem isn't even that most people are too stupid (regardless of how you'd measure that), the problem is that most people are simply not interested.
Not everyone living in a system wants to figure out how the system works and improve that system. If that was the case, nobody would be buying iMacs or Windows OSes.
Heck, even those who are generally the type that is interested in how stuff works and how to improve it aren't guaranteed to care much about THAT system (i.e. politics) in particular.
I have to confess I'm playing tricks with definitions here. A benevolent dictatorship is by definition better than a corrupt democracy. Why? Because it says so right in the first part of the name: benevolent.
It doesn't have to be "more intelligent" than a corrupt democracy either. Because, again, by definition, a corrupt government is corrupt, which means it's selfish. A benevolent government OTOH is practically altruistic. Or destructive vs productive if you want to see it that way.
Also, a benevolent dictatorship doesn't have to mean there's no input from anybody else.
The only way the concept can be interpreted as something that's bad is when you interpret "benevolent" as "well-intentioned, but incompetent" -- but I'm talking about effects here, not intentions. Intentions don't help anyone.
Anyway. As I see it, the requirements for a working benevolent dictatorship are much more realistically fulfilled than those for a working benevolent democracy (the best we got so far is probably a self-preserving democracy).
I think the main problems for a benevolent dictatorship lie with the benevolent dictator, not the system or its citizens. The core problems I can see are objectivity (which would require some level of true altruism -- corruption breeds from self-caring), benevolence (actual willingness to change things for the better -- requires the former as a direct precondition to function properly) and immortality (because any mortal benevolent dictator is more than likely to take the system down with him, intentionally or not).
So, presupposing the existence of gods, organised religion makes a lot of sense, actually. The only flaw being that there is no god involved in the system (regardless of whether you believe in gods -- unless all realistic alternatives would have been a lot worse, the consequences of that system pretty much prove there was no benevolent deity at the head of it) and without that the whole system loses its purpose.
What I would therefore propose is a perfect, self-maintaining, self-correcting and self-improving machine, programmed to serve. Disregarding all the "ZOMG robots gonna enslave us" bullshit (that's why you define goals CAREFULLY -- "the common good" is foggy at best, so don't act surprised when someone figures out that the only guaranteed end to suffering lies in extermination of anyone and everyone capable of suffering) it's actually the only sensible solution there can be.
Actually, making everybody believe it's God and building a religion around it may make it even more stable.
The only reason anyone could disapprove of the notion of a benevolent dictatorship at all is a misunderstood emphasis on Freedom as the greatest good. And that, ironically, comes from religion as well (most religions being based on the notion of freedom of will) and can rather easily be taken apart (Freedom isn't the greatest good, Happiness is -- the only reason we think otherwise is that we think one cannot be happy without Freedom, with a capital F, which would necessitate realising one is un-Free in the first place; also lack of Freedom doesn't necessitate lack of any freedoms that matter -- lack of the freedom to kill other people being a lack of freedom certainly never seemed to be a problem to anyone; and if you want THAT level of freedom, you can't have a society in the first place).
I think the problems people have with the notion of dictatorships is that we care so much about the idea of being "Free". But we're not. And we don't care because we don't notice. Or if we notice, apparently we don't really care all that much. It's more of a question of ideology than practice. The notion of "taking away freedom" triggers a Pavlovian reflex in us much like "inequality". We don't consider it evil *rationally*, we consider it evil *emotionally*.
Meh. 'Nuff ranting.
a robot dictatorship? that would be the only benevolent dictatorship i can think of. and it *would* work.
however that would require that everyone that carries any kind of social privelege (money, power, whatever) be stripped of it. because if a person enjoyes privileges, there's no way they'd support a dictatorship that doesn't allow them to bend it's rules to maintain and expand their privileges.
machines are deterministic, therefore their rules don't bend by definition, whereas every human dictatorship i can think of would happily bend the rules to support it's sponsors.
and for that reason, no microsoft, no sun, no HP and no IBM will ever build such a machine. .
anyway i think there's no way to effectively govern a social system that's broken and outdated in it's core, which is the economical procedures of production and distribution of goods. if this isnt organized orthologically, there will always be corruption, mischief and ultimate failure.
and since you mentioned OSes; i installed the latest debian linux on a pentium2. kinda works, but it's still a crappy machine. know what i mean?
however that would require that everyone that carries any kind of social privelege (money, power, whatever) be stripped of it. because if a person enjoyes privileges, there's no way they'd support a dictatorship that doesn't allow them to bend it's rules to maintain and expand their privileges.
machines are deterministic, therefore their rules don't bend by definition, whereas every human dictatorship i can think of would happily bend the rules to support it's sponsors.
and for that reason, no microsoft, no sun, no HP and no IBM will ever build such a machine. .
anyway i think there's no way to effectively govern a social system that's broken and outdated in it's core, which is the economical procedures of production and distribution of goods. if this isnt organized orthologically, there will always be corruption, mischief and ultimate failure.
and since you mentioned OSes; i installed the latest debian linux on a pentium2. kinda works, but it's still a crappy machine. know what i mean?
That's why you need orbital lasers first. Revolt and you're dead.
Now all I need is a way to trick NASA into funding this project.
EDIT: Oh, and machines are as flexible as you make them. WTF do you think your brain is if not a natural machine?
Now all I need is a way to trick NASA into funding this project.
EDIT: Oh, and machines are as flexible as you make them. WTF do you think your brain is if not a natural machine?
my brain's flexibility is approaching that of alcohol based jelly. definately unfit for a dictator. can i at least be president?
and anyway "a perfect, self-maintaining, self-correcting and self-improving machine", however flexible, doesnt go well with "Kan i haz teh rainforest to build my golf court plz?" that's the kind of thing i was talking about and that you mistook for "revolt". that's why they're not going to build the machine in the first place.
and anyway "a perfect, self-maintaining, self-correcting and self-improving machine", however flexible, doesnt go well with "Kan i haz teh rainforest to build my golf court plz?" that's the kind of thing i was talking about and that you mistook for "revolt". that's why they're not going to build the machine in the first place.
Sander said:
The second paragraph makes little sense to me because they are. Saying that we have the right to bear arms and the right to free speech is not giving us rights. We already have those rights. BUT in fact it says that the government cannot take away those rights.
The government cannot restrict what you say.
The government cannot restrict your ability to bear of arms.
The government cannot tell you to quarter soldiers unless in a time of war.
Ect.
We started in anarchy, in which we have total freedom. We have the right to kill our neighbor. We have the right to pillage and rape and steal.
Government takes away certain rights in order for us to better able ourselves to survive as a society and species.
Government can take away all your rights. In fact through most of history thats how government worked. You the commoner were at the mercy of the ruler. The ruler could decide to take away your right to speak out against him and thus threaten you with death.
What a constitution does is it lays out laws that limit the power of a ruler/ruling body/government.
A constitution does not give you rights. It rather says what rights you cannot have taken away.
You could point to prohibition amendments(18 and 21) as a counter point. But I feel that those amendments have no place in a constitution for the above reasons. There is a better place to put laws governing the populace. Same with that ass tarded marriage amendment Bubba put forth(and Obama voted for)
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
Ashmo and Sander got the actual answer figured out. Coming from a country that had both a benevolent dictator and shitty successors one can see where the argument against dictatorships has root.
While Omar Torrijos and Arnulfo Arias (two politically antagonist leaders) that became dictators in their own right did good when they stuck to social and economical development. What fucked up their legacies was that Omar Torrijos' followers became deeply embroiled with the Colombian drug cartels and that Arnulfo Arias was an Axis sympathizer on WWII (it is rumored that he instituted a racist "policy") on our social security system. If a black or dark woman went to receive surgery related to their reproductive organs, they were sterilized. The same happened to men as well.
Living in uncontrolled oligarchy (most modern democracies) sucks almost as much as living under a dictatorship. Sure you have "freedom" under a democracy but you can't do shit with it. You don't have the money or political power to have any influence on the running of the country, you enjoy your freedom as far as your pocket permits while you watch the same people enjoying the best. In my country, the Panama Canal Zone reverted back in the 70s and was under our control on 2000. If people thought that those well groomed lots and buildings were going to the public...they got the nasty surprise that the only people who can afford to buy such homes and lots are the rich assholes that have always ruled the country.
With a democracy, you can't enforce controls on the bureaucracy and corruption. In a dictatorship, you can at least terrorize people into obedience. Just like Trujillo did in the Dominican Republic.
With a democracy, rich people do what they want. In a dictatorship, they better follow the program or they are fit for pine boxes pretty quickly.
In a democracy, the ignorant masses can't make the best choices and they are taken advantage of. In a dictatorship, you remove that burden from them.
TLDR - Democracy is a well conceived lie. Dictatorships lie too but they are pretty upfront about it.
While Omar Torrijos and Arnulfo Arias (two politically antagonist leaders) that became dictators in their own right did good when they stuck to social and economical development. What fucked up their legacies was that Omar Torrijos' followers became deeply embroiled with the Colombian drug cartels and that Arnulfo Arias was an Axis sympathizer on WWII (it is rumored that he instituted a racist "policy") on our social security system. If a black or dark woman went to receive surgery related to their reproductive organs, they were sterilized. The same happened to men as well.
Living in uncontrolled oligarchy (most modern democracies) sucks almost as much as living under a dictatorship. Sure you have "freedom" under a democracy but you can't do shit with it. You don't have the money or political power to have any influence on the running of the country, you enjoy your freedom as far as your pocket permits while you watch the same people enjoying the best. In my country, the Panama Canal Zone reverted back in the 70s and was under our control on 2000. If people thought that those well groomed lots and buildings were going to the public...they got the nasty surprise that the only people who can afford to buy such homes and lots are the rich assholes that have always ruled the country.
With a democracy, you can't enforce controls on the bureaucracy and corruption. In a dictatorship, you can at least terrorize people into obedience. Just like Trujillo did in the Dominican Republic.
With a democracy, rich people do what they want. In a dictatorship, they better follow the program or they are fit for pine boxes pretty quickly.
In a democracy, the ignorant masses can't make the best choices and they are taken advantage of. In a dictatorship, you remove that burden from them.
TLDR - Democracy is a well conceived lie. Dictatorships lie too but they are pretty upfront about it.
Just because I'm feeling argumentative:
A benevolent dictatorship would need one person who is capable and willing to make decisions in the best interest of the people.
An ideal democracy would need an entire citizenship of people who are capable and willing to make decisions in their best interest.
Neither form of government could easily be achieved (for the same reasons, really: people who hold power they wouldn't hold in such a system being unwilling to let go). Both forms of government need the same conditions to be fulfilled in order to be stable (i.e. stable succession (of the one dictator or of the smart masses), monopoly of power, safeguards against disruptive influences, etc).
To me, a benevolent dictatorship sounds more realistic. Not only would it only require ONE "smart" person (and a line of succession), but everybody else could be just as "stupid" as they want -- in fact, higher overall "stupidity" would most likely even increase stability as nobody would try to disrupt the system.
A benevolent dictatorship would need one person who is capable and willing to make decisions in the best interest of the people.
An ideal democracy would need an entire citizenship of people who are capable and willing to make decisions in their best interest.
Neither form of government could easily be achieved (for the same reasons, really: people who hold power they wouldn't hold in such a system being unwilling to let go). Both forms of government need the same conditions to be fulfilled in order to be stable (i.e. stable succession (of the one dictator or of the smart masses), monopoly of power, safeguards against disruptive influences, etc).
To me, a benevolent dictatorship sounds more realistic. Not only would it only require ONE "smart" person (and a line of succession), but everybody else could be just as "stupid" as they want -- in fact, higher overall "stupidity" would most likely even increase stability as nobody would try to disrupt the system.
CriticalCheck
First time out of the vault
The federal government shouldn't HAVE to make so many decisions on how to rule the entire country. The way people look at government right now is "I must follow federal government activities" and "Huh? Town meeting? So?". That is completely backwards. The United States of America is a republic of states. The Federal government is giant compared to what it SHOULD be doing. It should take care of foreign affairs.. importation taxes.. freeways.. things that are large like that.
The state level should take care of highways connect one end of the state to the other, or covering hundreds of miles of farm land. The state should be concerned with working on the states infrastructure. Then the cities and towns should do more to take care of their town. They should spend more on raising the money for their individual town instead of relying on state tax money to do the work.
If Social Security was privatized it would mean that first off we wouldn't be paying into social security all our lives. If I could opt out of social security and just save the money that I'm pumping into it I would be able to retire without government help. My nest egg would be freaking massive because I'd be pumping another 40 bucks a week into the bank. That would be $2240 dollars a year before figuring compound interest.
Government, especially liberal government, is given to much power. With great power comes great responsibility. The Federal government doesn't need great responsibility. Problem solving is done for the situation. Why not put the ability to solve the problem into the hands of the people who face the situation? Make sure people are accountable for their actions. Run government like a business is ran. If a person isn't doing what they should be doing, they aren't having positive results that meet standards, get rid of them. Find someone who can do the job better.
The Federal government should take care of things that are wide spread. Things that the state or city level governments can't handle. Large things that the entire nation needs a guideline for. Such as free speech.
The federal governments current way of running the country is to give a man a fish every time he needs a fish. Why not do it right and teach him to fish? While a group may be very strong the Spartans legacy says it best. An army of a million half trained soldiers has nothing against a handful of well trained, well equipped, and smart soldiers. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but the United States tries to function as 300,000,000 individual weaklings. Why not have a revolution of thought? If you started to show the population the light eventually they would be interested on their own. Eventually we would function as 300,000,000 individuals with the will to be one.
Can't we all agree it would be better to be 300,000,000 as one instead of being one part of 300,000,000?
The deceleration of independence says that each person has a right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. The opportunity is there. Take advantage of it.
The state level should take care of highways connect one end of the state to the other, or covering hundreds of miles of farm land. The state should be concerned with working on the states infrastructure. Then the cities and towns should do more to take care of their town. They should spend more on raising the money for their individual town instead of relying on state tax money to do the work.
If Social Security was privatized it would mean that first off we wouldn't be paying into social security all our lives. If I could opt out of social security and just save the money that I'm pumping into it I would be able to retire without government help. My nest egg would be freaking massive because I'd be pumping another 40 bucks a week into the bank. That would be $2240 dollars a year before figuring compound interest.
Government, especially liberal government, is given to much power. With great power comes great responsibility. The Federal government doesn't need great responsibility. Problem solving is done for the situation. Why not put the ability to solve the problem into the hands of the people who face the situation? Make sure people are accountable for their actions. Run government like a business is ran. If a person isn't doing what they should be doing, they aren't having positive results that meet standards, get rid of them. Find someone who can do the job better.
The Federal government should take care of things that are wide spread. Things that the state or city level governments can't handle. Large things that the entire nation needs a guideline for. Such as free speech.
The federal governments current way of running the country is to give a man a fish every time he needs a fish. Why not do it right and teach him to fish? While a group may be very strong the Spartans legacy says it best. An army of a million half trained soldiers has nothing against a handful of well trained, well equipped, and smart soldiers. I'm not sure about the rest of the world but the United States tries to function as 300,000,000 individual weaklings. Why not have a revolution of thought? If you started to show the population the light eventually they would be interested on their own. Eventually we would function as 300,000,000 individuals with the will to be one.
Can't we all agree it would be better to be 300,000,000 as one instead of being one part of 300,000,000?
The deceleration of independence says that each person has a right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. The opportunity is there. Take advantage of it.
Ah-Teen said:
Maybe you'll listen to a person who actually studies the subject:
Sander is correct. The constitution is the basis of the country, always were, always will be.
And Ah-Teen, don't make me laugh. I like you, but your "laws can't be taken away" stance is naive. There is only one right that cannot be removed - human dignity. Everything else can be taken away.
Speaking of taking freedoms away, remember the PATRIOT act?