Democracy always just ends up appointing a dictator anyway, so what are we arguing about?


(that was mostly not serious)

A prfect democracy has more flaws than a perfect dictatorship... But I'd rather have an imperfect democracy than an imperfect dictatorship.

Bah, don't mind me, I'll let someone who wishes to argue in greater detail -_-

However a good dictatorship is more achievable then a good democracy.

Definitely can't agree with you there.

Odds of finding an incorruptible intellect to take complete control over the country, and then finding more of them? hah.

Tbh, a democracy with strong foundations is much more sustainable, and better for the average person.

A dictatorship is easier to obtain, but not a good dictatorship.

Unless you define that as a government that can maintain its absolute power through any means... and then we simply disagree on definitions.

The answer is, I think, in the middle of the two

A complete democracy is extremely difficult to pull off, unless you have a very small, well educated group of people, like Athens did. They also had slaves... I'm not judging, it was perfectly fine to have them at the time, but it does make things easier.

A dictatorship is a terrible thing to have, no doubt about it. You can have a good, non-despotic dictator, but then, as Kingdroid pointed out, he dies and is very hard to replace. Again the athenian case, with Peisistratos, followed by his less able sons.

And the middle is were we're at. We appoint people to make decisions and to "dictate" for a limited period of time. Some of these modern democracies work better than others, of course, but it is by far the best way of organizing society that we've ever known.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Even the most benevolent dictator can (dare I say will) be corrupted, unless there is something to keep them in check. That is where the denocratic principles come in. Now, what should be done is elect the person to run the country, but then give him near absolute control with congress only stepping in for changes to the structure of the government (like constitutional changes). Get the congress out of how we run wars and which initiatives get implemented, etc. Senator and representative should be part time positions called together to handle constitutional crisis type issues only. The same thing should be done at the state level in the US. And supreme courts should be stripped of much of their power over the elected leader, requiring any judgment of constitutionality to be backed by congress. Otherwise their jobs are strictly as the final authority in *real* cases and they should be removable by the leader who could then appoint anyone he likes *without* congressional approval.

This would all be kept in check by the *direct* election of a new leader every so many years (4 may be enough with no congressional interference).

I think the question boils down to how you choose to define "good". Maybe you can find a dictator who will make good decisions, but that still means you think that it's OK for someone to have complete control over other people's lives, even if they use that power for good. And I just think that's wrong.

Draugnar: eliminating the power of supreme courts and the judiciary in general may serve the majority (through the powerful elected leader), but it squashes rights of the minority. Real checks and balances are important to discourage tyranny by majority, while majorities in Congress prevent tyrannies by minorities.

Also at the risk of offending some people, I often find that when people advocate in favour of appointing a benevolent dictator to run the country...they generally mean themselves.

Well I also happen to believe that only land owners should have the right to vote on land issues (property taxes and levies based on property values) and that issues regarding income taxes should be weighted based on the individual's income. I'm tired of section 8 welfare recipients determining my taxes on my home and on what I earn.

@Mafia - No thanks. I don't want that job. :-)

Democracy, because it's more likely that the one guy will be corrupt, then 51% of the citizenry.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

oh nice draug. lol didnt see that.

Mafia: At least in Fasces case, we've already determined this to be true... he's got a fairly amusing inferiority complex, which feeds into one of those very brittle attempts to show how superior he is.

I'd say western republicanism (lets call it what it is, please) has as its major selling point that it takes into account that people suck ass. The system is designed to leave a legal option to remove crappy leaders, instead of having to have more drastic actions. If we have a cruddy leader in a republic, we have options that don't involve civil war. You have a cruddy dictator, and that dictator isn't going to just give up the ghost without some serious sturm und drang.

also a dictatorship has one damnable problem: succession.

they will usually never give power up while theyre alive, so its always a guessing game: when is he gonna die?

and since the term limit ends with death, you'll see a lot more coups. not that democracy don't have their own kind of coups, but theyre different. you can't just assassinate the top dog and totally change the govt like you can in a dictatorship.

[insert churchill quote about democracy is worst govt cept for all the others thatve been tried]

my belief is actually that a new form of government could possibly emerge with the advancement of technology that may be better than even democracy.

we cant speculate as to what it is though.

also define perfect democracy, kingdroid.

is it a place where everyone agrees on everything? if so, the effect is the same as that of a perfect dictatorship.

"I'm tired of section 8 welfare recipients determining my taxes on my home and on what I earn."

Didn't you elsewhere say you were unemployed? Now you're a property owning plutocrat?

Welfare recipients don't vote in high numbers, so this idea that they're deciding your tax rate is ludicrous. By that same token, rich assholes shouldn't have a right to have a say over welfare programs that don't affect them. People with no kids shouldn't be allowed to vote on school taxes, etc.

What labor goes into owning land? None. You simply have "wealth" by squatting on property, property that was initially seized with arbitrary land enclosure acts. Land ownership is theft. You have no right to own land.

You all have it wrong. We should have a goverment like in "Star Ship Troopers". Only those who put there own lives on the line for society may vote and serve in office.

"their own lives"

@Jack: I was writing the same post. If you don't like a president, you don't have to fight a war to get rid of him. That's a big plus.

in case you're serious: warsprite:

everyone has a stake in society, so everyone gets a vote.

i also think there is strong case to be made for giving parents of multiple children more than one vote for a few reasons:

-it offsets the votes of old people, who vote in higher frequency anyway and end up skewing the govt their direction (medicare....?)
-it gives these children a "vote," in the sense that although they are too young to vote, they ideally deserve to be able to vote. since their parents of all people are theoretically the one's with their best interest at heart, they should vote for them. not perfect, but better than an underclass of non-voting citizens as it is.

and also as the population grows older (like japan) this will really be necessary or the country will be an absolute shithole if you fastforward 50 years, since all the old people will just make policies that suit themselves, and they dont give a shit, cause theyll be dead.

anyway.

"The system is designed to leave a legal option to remove crappy leaders, instead of having to have more drastic actions. If we have a cruddy leader in a republic, we have options that don't involve civil war."

In a republic, at least a presidential one, you can't remove a leader without causing a constitutional crisis. Leaders served fixed terms. They can get elected and do nothing and you can't remove him. This idea that it's easy to remove leaders in a republic is bogus. This fact is why there have been so many military coups in presidential systems - especially throughout Asia and Latin America.

In a parliamentary democracy, sure. You can remove a leader with a vote of no confidence (some require a simultaneous election of a new leader).

"also a dictatorship has one damnable problem: succession.

they will usually never give power up while theyre alive, so its always a guessing game: when is he gonna die?"

Monarchy provides a constitutional means of getting around this issue. Which is why monarchy is the most stable form of government known to man. It's not like hereditary succession is a more messy process than say, counting millions of votes.

And we're confusing "dictatorship" or whatever with one-person rule. That's not necessarily the case - and in fact usually isn't. Under a party-state, the party can happily determine the "successor", and "leadership" is usually by committee anyway.

"I was writing the same post. If you don't like a president, you don't have to fight a war to get rid of him. That's a big plus."

How many Presidents have been impeached or removed from office?

"and also as the population grows older (like japan) this will really be necessary or the country will be an absolute shithole if you fastforward 50 years, since all the old people will just make policies that suit themselves, and they dont give a shit, cause theyll be dead."

Agism much?

"Democracy, because it's more likely that the one guy will be corrupt, then 51% of the citizenry.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

How many times can the same cliche be written in a single thread.
Few 'Presidents' or Prime Ministers have the support of 51% of the people. Most are elected with a slim plurality. And it is more likely that 'the people' in an electoral free for all will be consumed with their own interests than the whole country's. Are opposition parties more interested in governing or getting elected? The Republican Party did everything it could to sabotage the Obama government and make it look bad. In the height of economic crisis, opposition parties pile on to put tremendous pressure on already pressure-cooked governments. The emphasis is on winning office, not on making good policies. And seats in 'democracies' are frequently bought and sold to the highest bidder.

the thing is though: in a monarchy, although succession is spelled out, sometimes the heir is a shitty monarch, but lives for 50 years.

then what? your country goes to shit? yeah. that's what happens.

no, not ageism, anti-ageism. i'm the last person you'll catch discriminating against an old person.

what i am concerned about is discrimination against minors in the political sense. when i was under 18 i chafed at being denied the right to vote, and vowed to myself i would never forget that injustice. call me dramatic, but if we really want to live up to the ideals of democracy, children should be given a voice. they are treated as passive incapable being when in reality they are capable of much. sure, they needn't vote themselves, but they do need to be given a vote in an indirect way.

just as old people need to be given a vote. even if you implement what i'm talking about and see a 2:1 old to young ratio you wont catch me dead saying we should take old people's votes away. it's their right.

Putin, there is a method to get rid of bad leaders.... its called an election. I'll be the first to say that our electoral process isn't perfect, but we have a method of removing bad leaders.

If you want to get technical, every President except the current one has been removed from office at the end of their term.

And again, as I've said before, big bonus to democracy is that the people can't scapegoat an unelected leader for the stupid crap that happens. They might complain, but they elected him/her, so instead of a major uprising, we get political movements to remove that individual from office via election.