World & Politics


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"Despite the constant negative press covfefe" - Donald Trump


Since everyone on facebook is annoyingly claiming that we're currently in a dictatorship...

Would you support a benevolent dictatorship? Why or why not? Would you live in one? Would you preferentially live in one? Would you fight to stop one from being established?

settingsOptions
There are 65 Replies

Someone asked me a similar question before, but more to the point: Would you prefer a democracy where the masses disagreed with you on all major policies, or would you prefer a dictatorship where the dictator agrees with you on all major policies?

The answer to me is simple: who am I to run the lives of everyone else and say what is best for everyone else? For me to be that arrogant would make me no different from my political opponents whom I say are messing with my rights.

Would you support a benevolent dictatorship?


Kinda hard to be benevolent and still a dictatorship, so logically I'd have to say, "no."

Why or why not?


Same reasons as stated above in the more direct question.

Would you live in one?


Typically, you don't get much choice in that.

Would you preferentially live in one?


Depends on what my other options are. Odds are, absolutely not.

Would you fight to stop one from being established?


This goes back to the original question asked of me. See, if it's forming out of force, absolutely. However, if in a republic government and a dictator is being voted in, and the election were to be fair, who am i to tell the rest of the land that, because of my own values, that mine are better than theirs? It's the decision of the majority, so the majority has to live with the consequences of their decision. Sure, opposition would exist, and surely there will be people who suffer who did not choose this, but such is life, and perhaps they should've done a better job of arguing against it before the elections.

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Would you support a benevolent dictatorship?

Quite possible. People say there is no such thing as one, but I think history shows some examples of working benevolent dictatorships. Not the charismatic kinds who spout words and promises that sound nice and they probably mean well in quite a bit of cases but end up turning the country into a shithole mind you.

Why or why not?

A lot of "democracies" now do just stagnate and don't fully represent the people in the first place.

Would you live in one?

Depends on how benevolent it is, and their current economic/living conditions.

Would you preferentially live in one?

Overall a good dictatorship is likely going to be better than a "democracy" that is only good sometimes (at the very least in my lifetime) so ya.

Would you fight to stop one from being established?

There's a decent chance of that yes, and what I'm about to say actually ties in with one of the main problems. You can't know if it's going to truly be benevolent or not from the beginning.

Edited October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

The answer to me is simple: who am I to run the lives of everyone else and say what is best for everyone else? For me to be that arrogant would make me no different from my political opponents whom I say are messing with my rights.

Exactly. This is what it comes down to. Who gets to define what counts as "benevolent"? Me? I don't know shit.

And what's benevolent for one person will always be malevolent to another. It is absolutely impossible to please everyone, irrespective of intentions.

In short, I don't believe a benevolent dictatorship is even possible, let alone desirable.

Posted October 13th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

Exactly. This is what it comes down to. Who gets to define what counts as "benevolent"? Me? I don't know shit.

And yet, the result of the systems we have now still enrage a great many people, and sometimes the results do not even take into account the majority, like with America's electoral college.

Who is to say they are not being oppressed and are not the victims of malevolence as well?

Posted October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

It's a little deeper than that: because, there's a certain level of arrogance of some people to say that they know better than the person subject to something. Which, i can understand, since they're seeing a mental issue that would cloud the judgement. The question to me is, who's mental issue is it? If you arrogantly believe that you know what's best for someone else, but can't guide them to your conclusion, then maybe you yourself is the one with the issue, and here you'd be trying to call the shots for everyone. It makes more sense to say that if we ever want a truly free society which works out for the benefit of everyone with no force, give everyone that agency, as agency is responsibility, which teaches us, over time, how to be trusted with it.

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

And yet, the result of the systems we have now still enrage a great many people, and sometimes the results do not even take into account the majority, like with America's electoral college.


I'm with you on getting rid of the electoral college. That idea is too nanny state for me, and nanny state means government control.

Who is to say they are not being oppressed and are not the victims of malevolence as well?


The more government, the less you can do about it. As far as i can see, it'll happen no matter what. But, as with capitalism, freedom is natural selection, and the best will eventually win out.

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

The problem is assuming that the majority is right though, or in quite a few cases the "majority". A lot of times, people do not get what they want regardless for a variety of reasons. Another problem is that people largely feel the need to settle for the "lesser of evils" of course I am guilty of that as well.

The question to me is, who's mental issue is it? If you arrogantly believe that you know what's best for someone else, but can't guide them to your conclusion, then maybe you yourself is the one with the issue, and here you'd be trying to call the shots for everyone.

And who is to say those elected into power are fit to do this either? By this logic you may as well go for anarchy tbh. Most elected officials do not truly represent the people and it's been obvious since forever. There are countless examples of elected official passing laws that the majority are showed to statistically disagree with.

It makes more sense to say that if we ever want a truly free society which works out for the benefit of everyone with no force, give everyone that agency, as agency is responsibility, which teaches us, over time, how to be trusted with it.

You're assuming that will ever happen. And that most "democracies" aren't just another complex form of the few lording over the many in the first place despite the illusion that the majority is getting their way. If the majority really is getting their way, why can it be that the majority is also more upset with their government than not while they are in office?

Posted October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

The problem is assuming that the majority is right though, or in quite a few cases the "majority". A lot of times, people do not get what they want regardless for a variety of reasons. Another problem is that people largely feel the need to settle for the "lesser of evils" of course I am guilty of that as well.


I make no such assumption. Rather, i believe that over time the majority will become right as nature forces them to be. After all the modern atrocities, I'd rather that if people were to suffer terrible outcomes, that it be of their own bad choices, as opposed to someone else's bad choices.

And who is to say those elected into power are fit to do this either? By this logic you may as well go for anarchy tbh. Most elected officials do not truly represent the people and it's been obvious since forever. There are countless examples of elected official passing laws that the majority are showed to statistically disagree with.


You seem to confuse democracy with republic. I'd sooner go for anarchy, yes, as that's closer to what I'd see as ideal, but, as i've explained to my anarchist comrades, that anarchy would end as soon as it began: because people would inevitably spawn some other type of government out of fear.

You're assuming that will ever happen. And that most "democracies" aren't just another complex form of the few lording over the many in the first place despite the illusion that the majority is getting their way. If the majority really is getting their way, why can it be that the majority is also more upset with their government than not while they are in office?


At risk of sounding like those who argue for communism, "We've never had a real democracy in this world." You're confusing democracy with republic. Republic is where you elect leaders to commit democratic principles on your behalf, since democracy is impractical. The inherent issue is exactly as you point out: however people will eventually rebound and learn to accept their responsibility. The problem is, no republic has ever gone down and remained a republic long enough to see any sort of rebound, since it always falls apart when the people vote for changes that take it further from being a republic. Republics seem to have a history of turning into other things.

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

The more government, the less you can do about it. As far as i can see, it'll happen no matter what. But, as with capitalism, freedom is natural selection, and the best will eventually win out.

Not everyone agrees, and this is exactly why even in here in America people are blatantly calling for more. Of course I get where you're coming from with that but I also get where these people are coming from, because they've been fucked over by a system that is even more complicated and harder to do much about or topple.

Posted October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

Not everyone agrees, and this is exactly why even in here in America people are blatantly calling for more. Of course I get where you're coming from with that but I also get where these people are coming from, because they've been fucked over by a system that is even more complicated and harder to do much about or topple.


So, in effect, you're saying that people are voting for more government because they've been beaten down by oppressive government, so they feel the only way to topple it is to vote more of it into power and hope it implodes on itself?

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Rather, i believe that over time the majority will become right as nature forces them to be.

I can see despite some of your posts, you have a rather optimistic outlook on humanity and how much potential it has.

After all the modern atrocities, I'd rather that if people were to suffer terrible outcomes, that it be of their own bad choices, as opposed to someone else's bad choices.

But once again, that happens anyway. A lot.

You seem to confuse democracy with republic.

I don't. But usually this is what people define as a democracy as well regardless of how accurate it is. Regardless, it is perhaps the closest form to actual democracy that we still have so it seems kind of fair if people are going to judge socialist/communist governments that aren't truly either.

I'd sooner go for anarchy, yes, as that's closer to what I'd see as ideal, but, as i've explained to my anarchist comrades, that anarchy would end as soon as it began: because people would inevitably spawn some other type of government out of fear.

Interesting. Have you ever considered the prospect of a dictatorship that is designed to prepare the country as much as possible for sustainable anarchy in the future? Or, just one of the anarcho-ideologies.

At risk of sounding like those who argue for communism, "We've never had a real democracy in this world." You're confusing democracy with republic. Republic is where you elect leaders to commit democratic principles on your behalf, since democracy is impractical.

Ah, but despite that you DO sound like them. And you both have a point. if so many people can get away with judging systems that are not truly communist, why can people not get away with calling a republic a democracy?

Posted October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

So, in effect, you're saying that people are voting for more government because they've been beaten down by oppressive government, so they feel the only way to topple it is to vote more of it into power and hope it implodes on itself?

That's oversimplifying it. What I'm saying is, some people would rather be ruled by fewer if their leadership actually represents them rather than ruled more people where it does not represent them. Some will even argue that that our *republics* are actually more oppressive in some regards because it effectively maintains a system and status quo that is truly hard to break, and I kind of see where they're coming from. Not entirely but I definitely agree that republics can be more effective at being oppressive in some regards.

Edited October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

I can see despite some of your posts, you have a rather optimistic outlook on humanity and how much potential it has.


I'm quite pessimistic, but I don't deny natural selection. It has proven that humanity can improve in these ways, just as they always have before. My pessimism manifests itself in realizing it'll be incredibly slow and painful, but the benefits outweight the costs.

But once again, that happens anyway. A lot.


The more government is behind it, the bigger the bang.

I don't. But usually this is what people define as a democracy as well regardless of how accurate it is. Regardless, it is perhaps the closest form to actual democracy that we still have so it seems kind of fair if people are going to judge socialist/communist governments that aren't truly either.


And for the same reason: it cannot happen in reality. Communism, inherently, must be a form of anarchy, otherwise it'll never be it's own definition. Then, go back to what happens to anarchy. The problem is, everything looks good on paper.

Interesting. Have you ever considered the prospect of a dictatorship that is designed to prepare the country as much as possible for sustainable anarchy in the future? Or, just one of the anarcho-ideologies.


From what i've seen, it's not even possible: the basis of america was to give people as much control over their lives as possible, but even they didn't trust people completely, which is why we had the bill of rights, which is now comming into question again. The issue is, no matter how cruel you make the dictatorship (a happy dictatorship would never be until it collapesed into a less than happy one), no one is going to go all the way in the opposite direction.

But if the idea were possible, sure. Mathematically, if it's the only means to the end, then it is the maximal end (the end that provides the best benefit for the longest period of time).

Ah, but despite that you DO sound like them. And you both have a point. if so many people can get away with judging systems that are not truly communist, why can people not get away with calling a republic a democracy?


Here comes the philosophical reason: from the practical standpoint, the paper always turns into reality, so there's not much point in discussing the theory, unless it is to point out to people who otherwise wouldn't get it that it's impossible. So, discuss what it actually becomes in reality, instead.

That's a oversimplifying it. What I'm saying is, some people would rather be ruled by fewer if their leadership actually represents them rather than ruled more people where it does not represent them. Some will even argue that that our *republics* are actually more oppressive in some regards because it effectively maintains a system and status quo that is truly hard to break, and I kind of see where they're coming from. Not entirely but I definitely agree that republics can be more effective at being oppressive in some regards.


Honestly, I'm not sure which type of society is least oppressive throughout history. I think america still is the great experiment of whether or not a republic can actually rebound or not. It's what america's been called from the beginning, and it's become crunch time. Outside of republics (because they're an unknown), ironically (despite all the analogies and such), the best arguments i've heard have been in favor of monarchy. The main reason is that the king has no fear of loosing power, in general, and tends to let things go. Capitalism seemed to thrive for the longest under monarchy, so that's even more evidence.

Which leads me to an ironic observation: the more we try to avoid oppression, the more oppression comes for us. It's like women, the more you want them, the fewer you get (and the ones you do get aren't reliable). The less you want women, the more they come around (which is why people note that you're more likely to be approached if you already have a girlfriend).

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

if i had the choice, i would refuse to live under a benevolent any-kind-of-government

Posted October 13th by poptart!
poptart!
 

I'm quite pessimistic, but I don't deny natural selection. It has proven that humanity can improve in these ways, just as they always have before.

Even so, believing it will simply sort every single thing out (which to be honest with you it never has. Only has in some regards and I suspect it will always be that way) does require some optimism imo.

The more government is behind it, the bigger the bang.

Perhaps. But even if that is the case and ignoring some of history's worst examples of oppression under republics and how the system contributed to it's sustainability, a republic is more likely to allow the bang to go on for much longer.

From what i've seen, it's not even possible

Disagree. I would simply say it's not very probable.

Here comes the philosophical reason: from the practical standpoint, the paper always turns into reality, so there's not much point in discussing the theory, unless it is to point out to people who otherwise wouldn't get it that it's impossible. So, discuss what it actually becomes in reality, instead.

Fair enough I suppose, but even still there are quite a bit of arguments to be made against what democracy often becomes in reality as I pointed out before.

Honestly, I'm not sure which type of society is least oppressive throughout history

Glad you can admit that.

Outside of republics (because they're an unknown), ironically (despite all the analogies and such), the best arguments i've heard have been in favor of monarchy.

There are some somewhat decent arguments to be made for monarchy specifically but I haven't even played devil's advocate for it in over a year I think. There would have to be a lot of improvements made though. A constitutional monarchy would really only be the beginning.

It's like women, the more you want them, the fewer you get

Ha! Can't say I relate. I could still want and get. Although I could understand that in the sense of like those guys who come off as rather creepy because they're desperate and thus it drives them away.

The less you want women, the more they come around (which is why people note that you're more likely to be approached if you already have a girlfriend).

And..... now this is starting to sound a bit like red pill type of arguments. There is some truth to that, but that's not really what it comes down to. It comes down to simply not acting undesirable to them tbh.

Edited October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

I dunno. Sounds like an oxy moron

Posted October 13th by ShadowFox08
ShadowFox08

I don't agree with you that anarchy is unsustainable. Well depending on your definition anyway. If you think of anarchy as "chaos" then yeah it has all the problems you describe. However it could just be a system where everyone agrees to the same set of rights and if a violation happens the people themselves will spontaneously form a means of punishment.

If so then there's an enormous amount of historical precedent for such an idea. Pre-agriculture there were not these consolidated "leaders" that dictated everything, there was instead a deep shared culture that fixed problems as they arose.

Posted October 13th by Xhin
Xhin
 

I would support and live in a benevolent dictatorship, if it was collectivly agreed upon that such a government would be best for the country.

Posted October 13th by Brandy
Brandy

Even so, believing it will simply sort every single thing out (which to be honest with you it never has. Only has in some regards and I suspect it will always be that way) does require some optimism imo.


It has, for the most part, actually. We came a long way from germs.

Perhaps. But even if that is the case and ignoring some of history's worst examples of oppression under republics and how the system contributed to it's sustainability, a republic is more likely to allow the bang to go on for much longer.


I wish i could agree, but regimes we call communist seem to have internal torture that last a very long time. The DPRK is a great example of this.

Fair enough I suppose, but even still there are quite a bit of arguments to be made against what democracy often becomes in reality as I pointed out before.


Oh, definitely. True communism is a utopia, and so is democracy. But which one's uglier off paper?

Glad you can admit that.


Without honesty, we'll get no where.

There are some somewhat decent arguments to be made for monarchy specifically but I haven't even played devil's advocate for it in over a year I think. There would have to be a lot of improvements made though. A constitutional monarchy would really only be the beginning.


I wouldn't mind trying for that direction, myself. But, as we see with republics, having a constitution doesn't mean the king cares about it. Executive orders, man.

Ha! Can't say I relate. I could still want and get. Although I could understand that in the sense of like those guys who come off as rather creepy because they're desperate and thus it drives them away.


Yeah, but why is it a big deal for them and not so much for us?

And..... now this is starting to sound a bit like red pill type of arguments. There is some truth to that, but that's not really what it comes down to. It comes down to simply not acting undesirable to them tbh.


I didn't delve into the reason, which actually is much, much more complicated than "not acting undesirable." If you can avoid acting undesirable, you'll have a chance of success, but you can actually do much better than that. This is not the place to get into that, though.

I don't agree with you that anarchy is unsustainable. Well depending on your definition anyway. If you think of anarchy as "chaos" then yeah it has all the problems you describe. However it could just be a system where everyone agrees to the same set of rights and if a violation happens the people themselves will spontaneously form a means of punishment.



Then it's democracy, not anarchy. The problem is, it is impractical on a large scale, because, often times, decisions must happen quickly. This is then where people say, teh next best thing is a republic, which is where we are today.

If so then there's an enormous amount of historical precedent for such an idea. Pre-agriculture there were not these consolidated "leaders" that dictated everything, there was instead a deep shared culture that fixed problems as they arose.


Which is where we realized the societies could work. The biggest problem comes from external threats. How would you prevent people from getting together and forming a big government elsewhere, getting cocky, and coming for you?



Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

It has, for the most part, actually. We came a long way from germs.

And we have regressed plenty simultaneously.

I wish i could agree, but regimes we call communist seem to have internal torture that last a very long time. The DPRK is a great example of this.

But do you really think their regime is meant to last in comparison to a republic in our current political climate?


Oh, definitely. True communism is a utopia, and so is democracy. But which one's uglier off paper?

I can't say for sure tbh.

Yeah, but why is it a big deal for them and not so much for us?

It certainly can be. I've had a few situations where that was the case. I can still almost hear the screaming in my ear just because I refused to kiss someone.

I didn't delve into the reason, which actually is much, much more complicated than "not acting undesirable." If you can avoid acting undesirable, you'll have a chance of success, but you can actually do much better than that. This is not the place to get into that, though.

Course it is more complicated than that, was just saying what it is in basic terms. I just don't see much good coming from people who argue things like that usually. I mean, the idea of interactions with women being like a game that you have to fully understand the rules to and abide by them but it's not really the case. And that's the sort of mentality I usually see people who say things like that with.

Posted October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

"Then it's democracy, not anarchy"

read the bread book; when people talk about anarchy as a political philosophy, it doesn't mean what you think it means

Posted October 13th by poptart!
poptart!
 

read the bread book; when people talk about anarchy as a political philosophy, it doesn't mean what you think it means

This

Posted October 13th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

I have to say, after seeing what America has become, yes, I would like a benevolent dictatorship. But it needs to STAY benevolent, and whoever supersedes the dictator needs to be even better. It's when the people and their leaders disagree that you get riots and revolutions. I want a government that functions well, and right now we need that.

What would be better, though, is if we had REAL democracy, not closed primaries and super-delegates and shit like that.

Posted October 13th by mariomguy
mariomguy

And we have regressed plenty simultaneously.


We've had regressions, but we never regressed back to germs, so, line of best fit says we're progressing.

But do you really think their regime is meant to last in comparison to a republic in our current political climate?


They haven't given up, yet.

I can't say for sure tbh.


Face value, communism. To add to this question is to ask whether there are things worse than death, and if republics have committed these.

It certainly can be. I've had a few situations where that was the case. I can still almost hear the screaming in my ear just because I refused to kiss someone.


Right, but why do we generally deal with creepers?

A better question is why Twilight was so popular when the lead character was the creepiest man i've ever seen. Then there's fifty shades. Thing is, i know the answer, but it's more helpful if other people come to the conclusion without me telling them. Though, back when i was going to old GT, i definitely would've been happier if someone pointed out that there really is a reason, and that it's braindead simple. I would've saved myself alot of heartache.

Course it is more complicated than that, was just saying what it is in basic terms. I just don't see much good coming from people who argue things like that usually. I mean, the idea of interactions with women being like a game that you have to fully understand the rules to and abide by them but it's not really the case. And that's the sort of mentality I usually see people who say things like that with.


It's like fighting. Some people manage to figure it out automatically on their own. Most people need a little extra help. I, definitely, needed help. XD

read the bread book; when people talk about anarchy as a political philosophy, it doesn't mean what you think it means


Well, this goes back to "what is it on paper vs what does it become?" In reality, anarchy becomes something else. If you keep the original desires that lead to anarchy, it becomes democracy.

I have to say, after seeing what America has become, yes, I would like a benevolent dictatorship. But it needs to STAY benevolent, and whoever supersedes the dictator needs to be even better. It's when the people and their leaders disagree that you get riots and revolutions. I want a government that functions well, and right now we need that.


Here is where the monarchy argument comes in. A monarch is a dictator that has the added benefit of being invested in the future of their country, while a normal dictator does not imply that the future leader will have kids. Technically, the DPRK is a monarchy, but they don't call it that for their own reasons, and we won't call it that because we're uncertain if it'll actually stay that way.

What would be better, though, is if we had REAL democracy, not closed primaries and super-delegates and shit like that.


The age old debate in america is, how much power can we trust to mob mentality. Honestly, my answer is that we cannot judge that objectively, so it's smarter to let the mob deal with the consequences of their actions. With power comes responsibility: agency is everything, which is why i say alot of the white left today is racist against non-whites because they feel the need to coddle them, yet we're held to a different standard. Just because the other races benefit from the coddling (superficially only, i argue) doesn't mean that we're not looking down upon them. We're the exact same way with children, and why did they often call black men? Right, "boy."

Anyway, tah tah for a few days.

Posted October 13th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

"Thing is, i know the answer, but it's more helpful if other people come to the conclusion without me telling them."

lol just say what you think, i'd LOVE to hear this.

"Well, this goes back to 'what is it on paper vs what does it become?' In reality, anarchy becomes something else. If you keep the original desires that lead to anarchy, it becomes democracy."

what do you think anarchy is?

that argument works for communism, but it's not as convincing wrt anarchy (and at some point it becomes eye-rolling; people who parrot that line generally aren't well-informed on the topic). christiania is doing great, the remaining hunter-gatherers are doing fine, there are plenty of anarchist communes that work, one of the most successful businesses in my college town was an anarchist co-op, and then there's, you know, that giant chunk of human history during which we were anarchist. before tribes, chiefdoms and states, people lived in small, non-hierarchical, egalitarian bands - government and business are relatively new. if anything, we should be asking "will our system last as long as anarchy did?"

unfortunately, we can't know for sure if anarchy would work on a large scale because the anarchists were beaten in spain and ukraine.

Edited October 13th by poptart!
poptart!
 

The age old debate in america is, how much power can we trust to mob mentality.

Most of the population supported Bernie. If Bernie was elected, there's a damn good chance we'd have single payer healthcare on the table right now, and we would never have to worry about tax cuts for the rich. We don't have a problem with mob mentality, we have a problem with deliberate rigging, corruption, social insecurity, and false dichotomy. All of it fuels income inequality. That's the end goal.

Posted October 13th by mariomguy
mariomguy

Would you support a benevolent dictatorship?

There haven't been many of these throughout history. Though there have been a few. Rome had an era of 4 good emperors concluding with Marcus Aurelius and during this time could be called a benevolent dictatorship.

But no I would not. Because as benevolent as the dictator may be it's only a matter of time before one of his successors ISN'T so benevolent. You don't usually have that kind of problem with democratic institutions.

Plus there is the old adage that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is not just a proverb. It is an actual phenomenon and it takes a special kind of constitution to defy it.

Would you live in one? Would you preferentially live in one?

Absolutely.

Would you fight to stop one from being established?

Again absolutely. For the same reasons as I mentioned above. Benevolent dictatorships are a short term joy and a long term terror.

Edited October 13th by Louis De Pointe du Lac
Louis De Pointe du Lac
No love = No future

Most of the population supported Bernie. 

[Citation needed]

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

If an asteroid was going to hit America, Trump called it fake news, I'd probably support him being taken out and dictatorship powers enacted for such an emergency.

So yeah, I think you have to look at this question as in, is whether or not there is any situation where you would support such a dictatorship.

Democracy and its values are all very nice things, but they really don't outweigh nuclear or other forms of catastrophic destruction. That's the realism that got us through the Cold War.

Posted October 14th by Agis
Agis
 

To answer the OP it would depend. If it was Trump? Absolutely.

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

Then it's democracy, not anarchy.

No it's not. Under democracy you have a government that makes arbitrary rules, under various anarcho- systems you set the rules up beforehand and they're based on preserving liberty rather than being arbitrary. There is no government at all.

Posted October 14th by Xhin
Xhin
 

How would you prevent people from getting together and forming a big government elsewhere, getting cocky, and coming for you?

There's no functional difference between an anarcho- society and a government-based society. I'd actually argue that an anarcho- society would respond to external threats *faster* because there's no command hierarchy and no standing military.

It's a bit like why Japan refused to invade us during ww2: "a gun behind every blade of grass"

Posted October 14th by Xhin
Xhin
 

What would be better, though, is if we had REAL democracy, not closed primaries and super-delegates and shit like that.

Bigger issue imo is the stifling nature of our two-party system. If you don't like either party's candidate or their rulesystem for primaries you're pretty much unable to vote. And yet there's nothing in the Constitution about parties being mandatory at all.

Posted October 14th by Xhin
Xhin
 

Also THIS @ everything poptart said regarding anarchy.

Posted October 14th by Xhin
Xhin
 

Good points, Poptart.

And a Trump dictatorship would be horrible for the citizens.

Posted October 14th by Blazer72
Blazer72
 

And a Trump dictatorship would be horrible for the citizens.

Obviously. I'm surprised #85 isn't propping someone who is probably more suited to his beliefs.

Posted October 14th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

Dylan Roof?

Posted October 14th by Agis
Agis
 

To answer the OP it would depend. If it was Trump? Absolutely.


The ideological consistency of a guy who was just shitting on Federalists by condescendingly claiming they were scumbags who just worshiped the British Crown.


Most of the population supported Bernie.

[Citation needed]


And yet, I'm inclined to agree with this response to the Bernie claim as well. I will never understand why Bernie supporters are so adamant the system is unfair because parties hold closed primaries in some states, which hurt Bernie Sanders, but don't have shit to say about the states that hold caucuses. So it's a problem that was unfair to Bernie in systems where members of the Democratic party could vote for their preferred candidates, but the somehow the caucus system is not unfair (which were largely the states Bernie won in the first place). Gun to my head: I'd probably argue that a system wherein members of a particular party got to just vote directly for the candidate they want representing said party is probably a more fair system, all things considered.


Bigger issue imo is the stifling nature of our two-party system.


I agree, but this is admittedly a strange argument to hear from someone who's response to one party going nuts with re-districting to keep a stranglehold on political power is for the other party to do the exact same thing - rather than having an independent, non-party-driven institution come up with thoroughly researched ways to come up with districts. If it is indeed a bigger issue to stiffle the nature of our two-party system, I don't really understand the blase attitude towards both parties being able to control the districting when in political power.


And yet there's nothing in the Constitution about parties being mandatory at all.


Nothing in it banning political parties either, though. It was naivete on the part of Washington (and, eventually Jefferson, once his faction had firmly established popularity) to think the nation - never mind a fast growing one - would be able to avoid the rise of political parties. They evolved because it proved a substantially more efficient way to gain power and control policy. Easier to have a "party" you can just jump behind than an ideology you have to constantly try to reconcile with imperfect candidates. (There's also nothing in the Constitution about Presidents being able to decree executive orders, but that's been the norm for the past 150 years as well. Nothing explicitly banning them either.)

Posted October 14th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

To answer the OP it would depend. If it was Trump? Absolutely

Sheep confirmed.

Posted October 14th by Jahoy Hoy
Jahoy Hoy

The ideological consistency of a guy who was just shitting on Federalists by condescendingly claiming they were scumbags who just worshiped the British Crown.

Certainly more than one form of government is viable?

And yet, I'm inclined to agree with this response to the Bernie claim as well. I will never understand why Bernie supporters are so adamant the system is unfair because parties hold closed primaries in some states, which hurt Bernie Sanders, but don't have shit to say about the states that hold caucuses. So it's a problem that was unfair to Bernie in systems where members of the Democratic party could vote for their preferred candidates, but the somehow the caucus system is not unfair (which were largely the states Bernie won in the first place). Gun to my head: I'd probably argue that a system wherein members of a particular party got to just vote directly for the candidate they want representing said party is probably a more fair system, all things considered.


I can do nothing but laugh at the claim an admitted socialist would win the biggest election in a capitalist country.

And since you agree with marioms bold claim I will give the same response

[citation needed]

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

If it was a Trump dictatorship, his agendas would actually be able to be carried out instead of being obstructed by the Neo Marxist Democrat Party or the Establishment Country Club Republicans. This would mean things like illegals would be sent back to where they belong, terrorists from the Middle East wouldn't be flooding in, etc. All extremely beneficial to the nation.

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

Well, ok, as an aside:

It's a bit like why Japan refused to invade us during ww2: "a gun behind every blade of grass"


Just going to take a moment to point out that no one knows where this quotation actually came from. It's attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto, but there's no evidence he ever said such a thing. (He's easy to attribute anything with, since he was one of the few Japanese military leaders who actually understood the potential of the United States as a military power. He also likely never said, "I fear we have awoken a sleeping giant." He gets credited for that because he did warn the Emperor - in a less quotable fashion - of the threat of a full scale war with the US.)

I don't know that I'd use Japan invading the US here as a means to exemplify the argument, though, given that that actually was not the reason they "refused to invade." Their goal in attacking Pearl Harbor was to prevent full scale war with the US, to leave them unimpeded in their conquest of Asia and the Pacific - not because they had grand ambitions of conquest of the United States. The primary reason there was no invasion of the United States was that the Japanese military resources were already stretched across the Pacific and Asia. This is a country that went to war with China and prepared to add Russia to that list. They controlled, geographically, one of the most expansive empires in history. There is no pragmatic or military reason for them to try to invade mainland USA. They *did* send some submarines off the west coast, and they did land some troops in the Aleutian islands after war had broken out in earnest. They also had some plans for bombing raids in California (and other US-held territories like Panama). But there just never was ambition to invade the US, and they certainly never actually possessed the resources necessary to do so, even if the population weren't armed.

Of course, *well actually* aside, the point of course is still relevant, and all you have to do is flip it to see a perfect example of it. Rather than using "why Japan didn't invade the US" to exemplify it, you can use why the US didn't invade mainland Japan (or rather, did everything it could to avoid it). We spent months bombing Japan trying to "break the will" of the people, culminating in the atomic bombs. Not because we didn't think we *could* invade mainland Japan, but the argument goes that it would have been more difficult. By no means was the Japanese public well trained or at all well armed. The concern was the "fighting spirit" of the people, and the problems that arise with trying to invade and occupy.

(This is probably just semantics, I know. Just feels like to use "Japan didn't invade the US" to highlight the merits of a society that lacks hierarchy and a standing military isn't quite the best example, since it was the United States standing military and speed of which the government mobilized that really took it to Japan and helped end even the threat of possible Japanese attacks on continental America.)

Posted October 14th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

Their goal in attacking Pearl Harbor was to prevent full scale war with the US

Really? I read elsewhere the ultimate goal was to achieve "the empire on which the sun never sets" which is waht their flag alluded .I think ultimate goal of Imperial Japan was to expand their terrority like the British empier did and take over u.s terrority

Posted October 14th by Brandy
Brandy

Their goal in attacking Pearl Harbor was to prevent full scale war with the US, to leave them unimpeded in their conquest of Asia and the Pacific - not because they had grand ambitions of conquest of the United States


This must be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said. There is nothing that suggests wanting war more than launching a military attack.

As if we were going to be taken out of the fight by their one strike.


Edited October 14th by #85
#85

No sorry jet presto is right to a degree. The japanese knew war with the U.S. was inevitable so they decided to strike as a means to cripple the U.S. long enough for them to secure more areas of the Pacific with out having to worry too much about them.

And we were taking out of the fight by that one strike for a good while.

I do agree that out side of the Pacific the Japs weren't seeking a war of conquest with the U.S.

I've also been told had they invaded they would have made it all the way to the Midwest before they could have been stopped. Is that true? I doubt it but I'm sure they could have secured the west coast to a degree if they weren't already spread thin in the Pacific.

I wonder how history would be if we had staged an invasion of Japan.

Edited October 14th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

The japanese knew war with the U.S. was inevitable so they decided to strike

Supports the argument that they desired war.

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

This would mean things like illegals would be sent back to where they belong

I don't think a police state is the answer.

terrorists from the Middle East wouldn't be flooding in, etc.

What about the homegrown terrorists of largely European descent without criminal backgrounds? They're a bigger threat right now than foreign extremists.

Posted October 14th by Blazer72
Blazer72
 

I don't think a police state is the answer. 

Enforcing the law is hardly a police state.

What about the homegrown terrorists of largely European descent without criminal backgrounds? They're a bigger threat right now than foreign extremists

Is this in reference to the white leftist that shot Vegas up? Isnt that an average day in the hood?

Posted October 14th by #85
#85

upports the argument that they desired war

Never said they didn't. I'd argue the u.s. was the one who wanted war as they cut off Japan from oil and other goods that they needed. If they hadn't Pearl harbor wouldn't have happened.

Posted October 14th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

He's talking about your cousin who shot up the church full of black people fam.

Posted October 14th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

[Citation needed]
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
Bernie would've crushed Trump. According to every poll in existence, including polls conducted by Fox News.

Posted October 14th by mariomguy
mariomguy

Same polls that said Hillary would win. Same polls that said Brexit wouldnt pass. This is your reality .

Posted October 15th by #85
#85

What about the far right terrorists? We're discussing terrorism so....

Posted October 15th by Blazer72
Blazer72
 

Which ones? Its proven those who lean more conservative are more law abiding.

Posted October 15th by #85
#85

Bernie would've crushed Trump. According to every poll in existence, including polls conducted by Fox News

No bernie would of lost as well. did you see trumps crowds? compare them to bernie's crowds. bernie would of lost worst than hillary in my opinon. btw hillary won the popular vote

Posted October 15th by Brandy
Brandy

This topic has been too hot during my hiatus to bother investing responses to everything, so i'll pick apart the highlights. XD

lol just say what you think, i'd LOVE to hear this.


Defeat the purpose, so no.

what do you think anarchy is?

that argument works for communism, but it's not as convincing wrt anarchy (and at some point it becomes eye-rolling; people who parrot that line generally aren't well-informed on the topic). christiania is doing great, the remaining hunter-gatherers are doing fine, there are plenty of anarchist communes that work, one of the most successful businesses in my college town was an anarchist co-op, and then there's, you know, that giant chunk of human history during which we were anarchist. before tribes, chiefdoms and states, people lived in small, non-hierarchical, egalitarian bands - government and business are relatively new. if anything, we should be asking "will our system last as long as anarchy did?"

unfortunately, we can't know for sure if anarchy would work on a large scale because the anarchists were beaten in spain and ukraine.


We do know: how many civilizations left anarchy? It inevitably leaves anarchy, despite that it really is the most intuitive system (or anti-system, rather).

No it's not. Under democracy you have a government that makes arbitrary rules, under various anarcho- systems you set the rules up beforehand and they're based on preserving liberty rather than being arbitrary. There is no government at all.


That's a republic, not a democracy. The idea of democracy is all parties directly vote on policies, as opposed to indirectly as with republics.

There's no functional difference between an anarcho- society and a government-based society. I'd actually argue that an anarcho- society would respond to external threats *faster* because there's no command hierarchy and no standing military.


Sounds good on paper, but in reality, people are non-confrontational. People don't like to engage in potentially loosing contests. If i were on the front of an anarchist society, the belief in the invading force that they were only taking my land, would prevent my neighbors coming to my aide, most likely. This is what we saw on the macro-level just before WWII. There's been alot of experiments suggesting this at the microlevel. The most spooky of which was the Milgrim Experiment, which also shows anarcho-society and government-based societies are totally different to humans, even if they should be functionally the same.

It's a bit like why Japan refused to invade us during ww2: "a gun behind every blade of grass"


I suspect this with switzerland, as well, and also this explains why gun crime goes down where guns are legal, but rises in places like chicago.

Bigger issue imo is the stifling nature of our two-party system. If you don't like either party's candidate or their rulesystem for primaries you're pretty much unable to vote. And yet there's nothing in the Constitution about parties being mandatory at all.


Washington came out and warned us of this very thing, yet we still have people trying to argue which party Washington was. This is definitely where America started falling apart.


And yet, I'm inclined to agree with this response to the Bernie claim as well. I will never understand why Bernie supporters are so adamant the system is unfair because parties hold closed primaries in some states, which hurt Bernie Sanders, but don't have shit to say about the states that hold caucuses. So it's a problem that was unfair to Bernie in systems where members of the Democratic party could vote for their preferred candidates, but the somehow the caucus system is not unfair (which were largely the states Bernie won in the first place). Gun to my head: I'd probably argue that a system wherein members of a particular party got to just vote directly for the candidate they want representing said party is probably a more fair system, all things considered.


I think you're over analyzing it, rather than just accepting that some people argue something is unfair just because it's why they lost. Honestly, i think this is why republicans and democrats go back and forth talking about how the electoral college is unfair whenever they loose, but then shut up when they win.

I agree, but this is admittedly a strange argument to hear from someone who's response to one party going nuts with re-districting to keep a stranglehold on political power is for the other party to do the exact same thing - rather than having an independent, non-party-driven institution come up with thoroughly researched ways to come up with districts. If it is indeed a bigger issue to stiffle the nature of our two-party system, I don't really understand the blase attitude towards both parties being able to control the districting when in political power.


We've been suspecting for a long time that democrats and republicans have been shaking hands after the cameras stop rolling. I've learned from PCN that they don't even wait for the cameras to stop, since they know the news will take political snippets out of context and make it look like they disagree the majority of the time, when, in reality, they are only bitter when talking about the issues they plan on running on.

Nothing in it banning political parties either, though. It was naivete on the part of Washington (and, eventually Jefferson, once his faction had firmly established popularity) to think the nation - never mind a fast growing one - would be able to avoid the rise of political parties. They evolved because it proved a substantially more efficient way to gain power and control policy. Easier to have a "party" you can just jump behind than an ideology you have to constantly try to reconcile with imperfect candidates.


And didn't Jefferson end up joining one?

(There's also nothing in the Constitution about Presidents being able to decree executive orders, but that's been the norm for the past 150 years as well. Nothing explicitly banning them either.)


This has always been the debate from the beginning: are we to see the constitution as saying what the government can do, or should we view it as what the government cannot do? The nuance is small, but it is also everything. Now, we just say it's living and breathing, so we don't even have to answer that age-old question.

I can do nothing but laugh at the claim an admitted socialist would win the biggest election in a capitalist country.


We're hardly capitalist, anymore. You have so many barriers to entry that you can't really start a business or get employment without towing the line.

Supports the argument that they desired war.


If I was going to try to kill you, would you say that trying to kill me first was because you wanted to kill me, or because you were afraid i was going to succeed?

Same polls that said Hillary would win. Same polls that said Brexit wouldnt pass. This is your reality .


This, right here, is the only reason Alex Jones is taken seriously. If you can't trust the established media, you're going to go to alternative media, and that doesn't mean that you'll go to reliable media, but instead what you like to hear.

Which ones? Its proven those who lean more conservative are more law abiding.


If he's talking about people from the middle-east, then he has a point. I wouldn't exactly consider the middle-eastern organizations very liberal. The leftist terrorists of those like antifa have been in hiding for a while.

Posted October 15th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

"Defeat the purpose, so no."

why bring it up if you don't want to say it? i'm happily engaged, so i obviously don't need the advice or have to "figure it out," but i'm curious about your thoughts

"We do know: how many civilizations left anarchy? It inevitably leaves anarchy, despite that it really is the most intuitive system (or anti-system, rather)."

again, people were anarchist for most of human history as hunter-gatherer bands (and after agriculture developed, quality of life plummeted). other systems are the aberration.

that shift also isn't quite what i'm talking about. there has never been an anarchist civilization (in the way that people like kropotkin and proudhon were writing about).

"That's a republic, not a democracy. The idea of democracy is all parties directly vote on policies, as opposed to indirectly as with republics."

he wasn't talking about a republic, either (he didn't mention anything about electing representatives).

the "rules" that are set up beforehand are more philosophical, like the idea that property is theft or the libertarians' NAP

"Sounds good on paper, but in reality, people are non-confrontational. People don't like to engage in potentially loosing contests. If i were on the front of an anarchist society, the belief in the invading force that they were only taking my land, would prevent my neighbors coming to my aide, most likely."

i think you're underestimating humans' capacity for violence

nestor makhno lost, but he does prove that an anarchist army is viable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

Posted October 17th by poptart!
poptart!
 

again, people were anarchist for most of human history as hunter-gatherer bands (and after agriculture developed, quality of life plummeted). other systems are the aberration.


Technically, that is also not anarchy, either, but that goes into, where does anarchy end and government begin?

that shift also isn't quite what i'm talking about. there has never been an anarchist civilization (in the way that people like kropotkin and proudhon were writing about).


You really can't have one. As soon as you got 2 or more people coming to agreement and working together, especially against another, you have a form of government, albeit very small.

he wasn't talking about a republic, either (he didn't mention anything about electing representatives).


No it's not. Under democracy you have a government that makes arbitrary rules, under various anarcho- systems you set the rules up beforehand and they're based on preserving liberty rather than being arbitrary. There is no government at all.


A government making rules, rather than people directly making rules. Or did i misunderstand?

i think you're underestimating humans' capacity for violence


Just because we have capacity for it doesn't mean we can rely on it.

nestor makhno lost, but he does prove that an anarchist army is viable


The structure of the RIAU was not that of a traditional army. Instead, the RIAU was a democratic militia based on soldier committees and general assemblies. Officers in the ordinary sense were abolished; instead, all commanders were elected and recallable. In theory, the RIAU relied on voluntary enlistment instead of conscription, however in practice conscription was used. Regular mass assemblies were held to discuss policy. The army was based on self-discipline, and all of the army’s disciplinary rules were approved by soldier assemblies.


I'd read the rest, but I don't see the point to, giving that underlined bit. This even worse than i imagined, because i was more worried about a silver tongued liar slowly creeping into the society taking advantage of disagreements within the community.

Edited October 17th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

"Technically, that is also not anarchy, either, but that goes into, where does anarchy end and government begin? "

bands were generally non-hierarchical. that's really the main requirement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
"You really can't have one. As soon as you got 2 or more people coming to agreement and working together, especially against another, you have a form of government, albeit very small."

like i said in my original post, anarchism as a political philosophy doesn't mean what you think it means. also, "working together" isn't the same thing as a government - or do you consider businesses, unions and groups of children making a science fair project to be mini-governments?

"A government making rules, rather than people directly making rules. Or did i misunderstand?"

no, my bad, i misunderstood which part of his post you were referring to

"Just because we have capacity for it doesn't mean we can rely on it."

uh, when it comes to defending your civilization from attack, you kinda have to

"I'd read the rest, but I don't see the point to, giving that underlined bit. This even worse than i imagined, because i was more worried about a silver tongued liar slowly creeping into the society taking advantage of disagreements within the community."

still better than the whites and the reds

Posted October 17th by poptart!
poptart!
 

also, for the record, i don't think i would consider myself an anarchist - i'm definitely for less government and more worker control, but i'm not willing to risk making that plunge. i've been reading up on kropotkin a lot lately, so maybe that'll change, but it still doesn't seem like a good idea to risk it all on something that's never been attempted on a large scale

Posted October 17th by poptart!
poptart!
 

I'm in a similar boat. I find anarchist ideology interesting and ideal (assuming it could work) but I also can't fool myself into believing that it wouldn't be a major risk.

Edited October 17th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

bands were generally non-hierarchical. that's really the main requirement.


By that standard emocracy is a form of anarchy, as well. The separation between democracy and republic is a hierarchy.

like i said in my original post, anarchism as a political philosophy doesn't mean what you think it means. also, "working together" isn't the same thing as a government - or do you consider businesses, unions and groups of children making a science fair project to be mini-governments?


I do, actually, otherwise how do we define how much organization is necessary for government? It's like asking when a fetus becomes human: the only reasonably reliable measure is conception.

uh, when it comes to defending your civilization from attack, you kinda have to


That's why i don't want to rely on it, because you can't, even if you do.

still better than the whites and the reds


Sorry, i don't get that reference.

also, for the record, i don't think i would consider myself an anarchist - i'm definitely for less government and more worker control, but i'm not willing to risk making that plunge. i've been reading up on kropotkin a lot lately, so maybe that'll change, but it still doesn't seem like a good idea to risk it all on something that's never been attempted on a large scale


It's nice on paper, it really is. I'd love it, but I understand the practical implications of it. It's grand to reach for utopia, but only if we understand that it is impossible. The reach for utopia without this understanding leads to disaster, for similar reasons in the psychological posts: you get way too invested.

Posted October 17th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

Lol I said would instead of wouldn't before I edited my last post. I still have no idea how I do that

Posted October 17th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

phonetic typing?

Posted October 17th by Kohlrak
Kohlrak

No. I see the joke though.

Edited October 17th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium
Reply to: Would you support a benevolent dictatorship?

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on