Ever a case where dictatorship is favorable to democracy?

[Shinova]

Can there ever be such a case?

[Wicked Pilot]

Can there ever be such a case?

If a dictator rises to power, and puts the interest of his country and people above his own, and later when he has turned his country into something greater, relequenches power to a democratic regime, then yes.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Yes, where the citizenship is restricted to an elite aristocracy. Aka the ancient city states where citizens could vote and non-citizens could slave. Of course the Dictatorships of the time weren't much better, but Id rather be in a benevolent dicatorship, where there are no slaves, then be a slave in one of those democracies.

[Joe]

This thread just begs for the Duchess' commentary.

[Exonerate]

Only if the dictator knows what to do, and puts the welfare of his people above himself.

[weemadando]

Only if the dictator knows what to do, and puts the welfare of his people above himself.

*cue "Last Action Hero" moment*

Its been 30 minutes since this thread opened and Marina hasn't come in here spouting about Dictatorship being the way forward for the repressed proletariat.

IT IS THE REAL WORLD!

[kojikun]

In Ancient Rome a person could be given dictator status for a period of 6 months, afterwhich he was required to relinquish power. One of the dictators (whos name i forgot) did more for rome during his time in power then anyone else during that time. And he was a mere farmer, to boot.

Also, when Caesar was voted Dictator he gave food to all the people in Rome who could not afford food, and gave land to exmilitary officers who's land was bought up by the larger land owners leaving the exmils without home or income from farming. The people of Rome loved him and were about to vote him dictator for life when the Senate killed him. The Senators houses were then burned to the ground.

[Joe]

In Ancient Rome a person could be given dictator status for a period of 6 months, afterwhich he was required to relinquish power. One of the dictators (whos name i forgot) did more for rome during his time in power then anyone else during that time. And he was a mere farmer, to boot.

Also, when Caesar was voted Dictator he gave food to all the people in Rome who could not afford food, and gave land to exmilitary officers who's land was bought up by the larger land owners leaving the exmils without home or income from farming. The people of Rome loved him and were about to vote him dictator for life when the Senate killed him. The Senators houses were then burned to the ground.

Cincinattus. Rome was being attacked; he was called upon to lead the legions as dictator. He extinguished the threat, relinquished his power, and went back to his farm.

George Washington emulated him, fortunately for America.

[Queeb Salaron]

All these theories are all well and good, and they all seem to work on paper. The thing is this: When a supreme dictator comes into any kind of ultimate political sway, he is inundated with power. Man doesn't do too well when confronted with the fact that he is the most supreme power in any given area. Most men corrupt ultimately. Hitler, of course, comes readily to mind. But Bush is also creeping up in history as the sole power in our own country, and we cannot say that he is not abusing his powers independent of the interests of the preservation of deomcracy.

The idea of dictatorship flies in the face of the theories of nearly every political philosopher ever (save Machievelli and sadists like him). Rousseau, Marx and Engels, Donzinger... even Hampshire argued that Justice cannot be achieved without accurate popular representation.

It is my opinion that democracy is ultimately more powerful than any conceivable dictatorship. But I'm open to arguments.

[kojikun]

yes! him! thats how government should be -- none of this voting shit, the senate and house should cull its ranks from random (educated) citizens, not the gits in office now.

oh sure, they wont know much about economy, etc, but the prats in office now dont either.

[kojikun]

queeb; democracy isnt the solution, its just a means for the majority to opress the minority. it has nothing to do with justice but rather with injustice. Nazi Germany was a democracy, and the fast majority of germans were Nazi and didnt like jews. By all democratic reasoning, the mass murder of 6 million jews was "just" because the masses supported it.

[The Dark]

Find me a modern democracy, then ask that question again...the last true democracy I'm aware of was Athens, and even that was limited by their definition of citizenship.

[kojikun]

dark, whatchu mean?

[Queeb Salaron]

queeb; democracy isnt the solution, its just a means for the majority to opress the minority. it has nothing to do with justice but rather with injustice. Nazi Germany was a democracy, and the fast majority of germans were Nazi and didnt like jews. By all democratic reasoning, the mass murder of 6 million jews was "just" because the masses supported it.

I propose that there is a fundamental set of values that no human can deny. Among the rights granted by these values are the right to life, the right to posessions, the right to security, etc. Any society that defames these rights is necessarily evil. This precedes any idea of government whatsoever. I probably should have made that clear earlier.

With that in mind, I still think that democracy works best. It is impossible to please absolutely everyone. A minority in Norway and Sweden complains that their taxes are too high, but the majority rather likes the socialized transportation, health care, welfare, etc. Sacrificing money for human rights is necessarily good. I'm not saying that Norwegian democracy is better than any other democracy, nor am I saying that it's "true" democracy (such a thing does not exist in modern society). Rather, I am simply stating that there will ALWAYS be conflict in ANY society. The choice we are faced with on this thread is whether to make laws and decisions based on the will of the majority, or to make laws based on the whims and caprices of one man heedless of public opinion or outcry? I would rather the former than the latter.

[The Dark]

Well, all the nations we describe as democracies are more properly defined as republics.

By the political definition, a democracy consists of a political body whereby all citizens of the body have the right to vote on each law. While committees may be formed to determine which laws are worth being voted on, ultimately it is the consensus of individuals that determines what is passed and what is not. Ancient Athens is the only example I can think of off the top of my head (at 2 AM, it's surprising I remember Greece exists ).

On the other hand, America (for example) is a republic. Under the republican form of government (not Republican, but republican), the voters choose to surrender their ability to vote on each proposal, instead selecting a representative they believe will vote in their best interests. While the people may still vote on local laws, wide-spread laws will be voted on solely by the representatives, who may or may not act in the best interests of those they are representing. Ancient Rome and France under the Committee were both technically republics.

That said, either one can have problems. A true democracy is simply rule of the majority, or a "mobocracy," rule by the masses. It does not have the means to safeguard the minorities within the political body, and their oppression is much easier than in a democracy. Republic are more easily corrupted, however, since more power is given to fewer people. It is all too easy for representatives to act merely in their own best interest, rather than in the interests of their people.



I actually feel a monarchy/dictatorship can be a good way to run a nation if the dictator is an altruist at heart, as opposed to the current breed that seem to be cropping up. No current political system seems to work as advertised, and I would not oppose a dictatorship merely on the grounds that it is a dictatorship. If the people are happy with their government (and aware of other possibilities), and are given the chance to go elsewhere if they so desire, then a government is just. The form the government takes is ultimately less important than the condition of its people.

[Joe]

Is it clear now that Queeb is not the troll we initially though him to be?

[Joe]

I actually feel a monarchy/dictatorship can be a good way to run a nation if the dictator is an altruist at heart, as opposed to the current breed that seem to be cropping up. No current political system seems to work as advertised, and I would not oppose a dictatorship merely on the grounds that it is a dictatorship. If the people are happy with their government (and aware of other possibilities), and are given the chance to go elsewhere if they so desire, then a government is just. The form the government takes is ultimately less important than the condition of its people.

That's pie-in-the-sky, though. Dictatorship grants such power to a lone individual that the likelihood that corruption will not inevitably follow is minimal to nonexistent.

[kojikun]

dark, well said. but korr is correct. perhaps the possibility of a rotating dictatorship where noone stays in power for more then, say, 6 months, is preferable?

and the person is not chosen from the elites, but from the educated masses who are actual laborers not executives and shit.

not that execs are bad, but they tend to be more money grubbing.

[The Dark]

Is it clear now that Queeb is not the troll we initially though him to be?

Actually, in the two threads I've sene Queeb in, the arguments have been good ones. I may tend to be on the other side, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good wall to test ideas on

Although I'm not sure we really have a "right" to possessions...and even security I'm a bit iffy about. That's what I get for trying to read Leviathan. As far as I'm concerned, governments exist because we don't have the natural right to life, liberty, and all that other warm fuzzy stuff. If you go out wandering the Serengeti at night without a rifle, it's quite possible that you will get eaten. If you had a natural right to life, the animals would avoid you and not eat you; nature would not act to remove your natural right. Governments exist because people are willing to surrender some of their personal freedoms in exchange for security. How many freedoms for how much security is the give-and-take battle being fought in governments.

And if this doesn't make sense, it's just more proof I need to stop doing political philosophy at "oh dark hundred hours," to quote Robin Williams.

[Joe]

I think, when dealing with the Lockean core of natural rights, you have to realize what Locke really had in mind. Locke believed that nature having created man, it prescribed a natural set of laws by which man ought to live. He never says anything about nature PROTECTING those rights; he sees them as self-evident truths that are necessary for man to act in accord with for the continued existence of man.

[kojikun]

please link to relevant sites and info

[Queeb Salaron]

Actually, in the two threads I've sene Queeb in, the arguments have been good ones. I may tend to be on the other side, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good wall to test ideas on

...Isn't there a rule against complimenting n00bs? (Thanks, guys.)

Although I'm not sure we really have a "right" to possessions...and even security I'm a bit iffy about. That's what I get for trying to read Leviathan. As far as I'm concerned, governments exist because we don't have the natural right to life, liberty, and all that other warm fuzzy stuff. If you go out wandering the Serengeti at night without a rifle, it's quite possible that you will get eaten. If you had a natural right to life, the animals would avoid you and not eat you; nature would not act to remove your natural right. Governments exist because people are willing to surrender some of their personal freedoms in exchange for security. How many freedoms for how much security is the give-and-take battle being fought in governments.

By "right to posessions" I simply mean that people shouldn't steal shit.

As for the Serengeti scenerio, I agree. The right to life is a humanistic right, not a natural right. There are no natural rights... At least none that I can think of off the top of my head. But that's all that I was arguing: In order for a society to consider itself legitimate, it must reinforce certain rights that, on a very base level, are the foundations of humanism. Don't steal, rape, murder, plunder, terrorize, manipulate, have sex with animals... All of these things (except maybe the last one) are values that we can all agree are beneficial to society, provided EVERYONE obeys them.

It's Utopian, I know. Gimme a break, it's 2:30 AM.

[The Dark]

By "right to posessions" I simply mean that people shouldn't steal shit.

As for the Serengeti scenerio, I agree. The right to life is a humanistic right, not a natural right. There are no natural rights... At least none that I can think of off the top of my head. But that's all that I was arguing: In order for a society to consider itself legitimate, it must reinforce certain rights that, on a very base level, are the foundations of humanism. Don't steal, rape, murder, plunder, terrorize, manipulate, have sex with animals... All of these things (except maybe the last one) are values that we can all agree are beneficial to society, provided EVERYONE obeys them.

It's Utopian, I know. Gimme a break, it's 2:30 AM.

Works for me. If they're considered basic societal rights, I can definitely dig that. It's when they start being referred to as natural rights, as if we inherently have them and they cannot be taken away that I start having problems with it. Of course, manipulation is at the core of most political systems, so we may have to nix that one .

[kojikun]

damnit, explain your Lockean stuff >|

[Oddity]

Can there ever be such a case?

If a dictator rises to power, and puts the interest of his country and people above his own, and later when he has turned his country into something greater, relequenches power to a democratic regime, then yes.

That was roughly Lenin's plan. It didn't work.

While someone with absolute power could run a country far more efficiently in an emergency, he'd be hard pressed to give all the power back - unless he's an idealist. In short, while the theory is good, it's far to risky practically speaking.