'seems you get a kick out of that.'
maybe evil was the wrong word. But being racist, anti-social security, pro-eugenics, and pro-slavery, I think that evil ideology is about right.

'You believe in a high degree of economic and other such freedoms, and yet you identify yourself as a facist?

I'm sorry, but your given explaination of that logic isn't doing it for me...facism is akin to TOTALITARIANISM...how is that compatible with freedoms?'
Fascism is considered to be the most right-wing ideology on the chart. I am heavily right wing, and on top of that, am pro-dictatorship. Allthough I do side with the liberals in some issues, I am also very fascist is others. See above post.

@baumhauer:

First--yes, that's what I meant by my statement that people cannot be Nietzscheans, you read me right--mcbry, if my position still seems unclear to you on that, see his post.

Secondly, I think language has failed me in my "Dogma is going to far" quote; I see your objection, and that, I think, is due to how I worded the statement.

Let me ammend it, to see if that assuages the issue:

Dogma is going too far. You can believe whatever you want, and you can SUGGEST your way, your ideas to other people, but you cannot MAKE them believe it AND, if they choose NOT to adhere to your ideals, UNLESS there is some sort of mitigating circumstance in which they MUST adhere to your ideal--ie, your statement of a natural or logical law, such as the fact that $100-$90=$10, and so you are due your $10 change back, no matter what someone's "opinion" on that fact is, as that is a logical law and what would we would term something which would fall in the category of a "social contract deal," ie, you, by living in the US, must abide by its rules so long as you reap its benefits, such as military protection and public works, and so you must obey the laws, and so you must give correct change and not steal from people--then you CANNOT force your view uopn them OR hold them up to the standards of your view.

To give an example:

You may believe in the God of the Jews and the Christians.
I may believe in just the Old Testament and the Judaic faith.
Hume may belive in no God whatsoever.

So, obiwan, baumhauer, and David Hume walk into a bar (the opening to a great joke, I'm sure, lol) and let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're a Christian, I'm a Jew, and Hume's an atheist; what's more, though I don't think there's any real-world truth to it, for this one example, let's assume you, as a Christian, feel that drinking any kind of beer is wrong, and only wine is appropriate alcohol, I as a Jew feel that only Budweiser is acceptable to drink as a beer and all others are wrong and immoral to down, and David Hume has no such reservations.

You order red wine.
I order Bud Lite.
Davidn Hume orders three Budweisers, two Coors, a bottle of tequilla and a steak and potato meal. (Hey, the song DOES go "David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel...") ;)

We have our meals, and then it comes time to pay--but Hume can't pay, so he walks up to Descartes--who's having a drink and an argument with Pascal and Spinoza at a nearby table--and pounds Rene into the ground until he gets his money to cover the tab.

Now:

-NO ONE in thise scenario can harm anyone or do anyone wrong or infringe on their natural rights as a human being--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...or if you want to take Locke's version, the protection of property--based SOLELY on our moral beliefs of what is and is not OK to drink. You may say no beer is acceptable, but as I am from a different culture and a different ideology than you that says Budweiser is OK, and Hume is fine dowining anything, you have no basis and no right to IMPOSE your belief on us OR hold us accountable to your belief system, ie, you CANNOT have us arrested or beat us up because of our differing views. You may TELL US you feel drinking bea is wrong, but after we order our Buds and sit back to watch the Rose Bowl, you cannot IMPOSE your belief on us and cannot hold us up to your standards of morality, as we never accepted them, that is, you cannot call us or TREAT US as if we are wrongdoers.


-HOWEVER, what Hume did, in pummeling Descartes into the ground, CAN be seen as a morally wrong action and CAN be a punishable one; in living in society with us and taking advantage of society's benefits, Hume must therefore adhere to natural, logical, and legal law SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT INFRINGE UPON HIS NATURAL RIGHTS. Hume doesn't have to listen to a law saying "All atheists must report to concetration camps to die," that's based only on belief AND violates his right to life and to freedom of thought. HOWEVER, as pummeling people for their money is assault and theft, and both of those are against the law as they infringe on another's natural rights, it's perfectly OK, to call the Philosophy Police to arrest and try David Hume for beating up and stealing from Rene Descartes. ;)

You may TELL people what to believe.
You cannot IMPOSE that belief upon them UNLESS your belief is either necessarily true--ie, a natural or logical law...opinion doesn't come into play where 2+2=4 is concerned--OR they have already agreed to follow this belief via social contract, ie, I live in the US and therefore must abide by its rules, therefore I must abid by its belief that murder is wrong and punishable as an offense.

Does that clarifiy my position?

@Fasces349:

Two things:

1. Are you in favor of a dictatorship in theory only (which I would tentatively agree with, as democracies are doomed to corruption) or in practice (which I do not, cannot, will not endorse, and frankly cannot see how you possibly can...it simply isn't feasible, its a can of worms, and a corrupted democracy is better than living under an Ivan the Terrible or a Nero or a Hitler.)

2. You said previously you were heavily right-wing, yes, but also very much in favor of freedoms--again, HOW is that compatible with a dictatorship, which by definition would limit power and therefore necessarily limit freedoms?

He favors a dictator who imposes a limited government. I fail to see the contradiction. It's essentially what the European monarchies or Oriental despots used to be. Government has grown in direct proportion to its democratization.

And again, in THEORY, that's all well in good.

In PRACTICE--generally dictators need a strong military grip or a claim of holiness in the blood or some other thing to keep the masses in line...

More government doesn't NECESSARILY mean less freedoms, and less government doesn't necessarily mean more.

I might have a government with one rule, you see:

THE ONE RULE: OBEY BIG BROTHER...AND IF YOU DON'T MY MEN WILL TAKE YOU TO BE TORTURED BY RATS...

Democracy is a rather recent development. Many a ruler governed without needing to deprive his or her subjects of any sense of liberty. All democracy entails is having popular elections of the rulers, but in most cases even that is limited. In the US we don't directly elect the President (initially we didn't even elect the electors). In parliamentary systems the most powerful position - Prime Minister - is not directly elected (in many cases coalition governments arise which contradict the will of the voters).

As a Marxist, I'd argue that all governments are dictatorships of one form or another anyway.

"Democracy is a rather recent development."

Athens' democracy and the Roman Republic...?

'1. Are you in favor of a dictatorship in theory only (which I would tentatively agree with, as democracies are doomed to corruption) or in practice (which I do not, cannot, will not endorse, and frankly cannot see how you possibly can...it simply isn't feasible, its a can of worms, and a corrupted democracy is better than living under an Ivan the Terrible or a Nero or a Hitler.)'

5 good emperors. It has worked in practice and it works in theory.

'2. You said previously you were heavily right-wing, yes, but also very much in favor of freedoms--again, HOW is that compatible with a dictatorship, which by definition would limit power and therefore necessarily limit freedoms?'
Dictator is just a term to symbolize an unelected ruler, who probably rules the nation for life. The best example of when it worked was Rome.
Following the assassination of Dominuis and Nero. Rome decided to change the emperor from being hereditary, to being appointed and could be fired by a 2/3 vote in the senate. This worked well, as this created the 5 good emperors.
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Pius and Aurelius. All 5 were considered to be benevolent dictators, and all, with the exception of Hadrian, did more good then bad to the empire.

It ended when Aurelius son, following his fathers death, took control of the senate with force with his fathers guards and became emperor despite not having the qualifications. After that Rome became an absolute monarch, rather then the benevolent dictator it had for 90 years. The point is, it worked in the past, so it can work in the present.

'Democracy is a rather recent development. Many a ruler governed without needing to deprive his or her subjects of any sense of liberty. All democracy entails is having popular elections of the rulers, but in most cases even that is limited. In the US we don't directly elect the President (initially we didn't even elect the electors). In parliamentary systems the most powerful position - Prime Minister - is not directly elected (in many cases coalition governments arise which contradict the will of the voters).'

I agree, democracy is just an illusion that makes the people believe they are more free then they actually are. The elections are frequently fixed (even in America) and the people generally vote for who the media tells them to.

"Athens' democracy and the Roman Republic...?"

Both of which were rather exclusive, only a small percentage being able to vote or participate. In the Roman Republic, laws could only be passed which had the approval of the aristocrats - the Patricians. None-the-less you're right that in some sense democracy is ancient. But from about 25 BC to 1682 there were no democracies. So what I should have said is that it's widespread adoption is a new development, especially the industrial type we are now used to in which suffrage is universal and everybody can participate/vote.

"But from about 25 BC to 1682 there were no democracies."

Chartered towns and cities in the mid/late medieval period often had fairly democratic systems of government, and some (particularly in Northern Italy) were completely independent of non-democratic authorities.

"In the US we don't directly elect the President (initially we didn't even elect the electors)."

So, Putin33's American? I had always assumed he was some bitter former Soviet apparatchik.

@ Tolstoy - just like the guy King Arthur "repressed" in the Holy Grail. Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!

"Hence why I said, it should be the most qualified person gets the job."

I was merely correcting what I perceived to be zoological misconceptions.

"didn't say the death of alpha, I said the death of all alpha's. In a pack of wolves, there are normally more then one wolfs who has greater strength the all the other wolves, and it is those wolves that fight for the control of the pack. If you run out of strong leaders, it becomes much harder for the pack to sustain itself."

Oh I know, that's why I used this example. In most cases, if the alpha dies, there are always eager candidates ready to fight to take on the position. However, in this baboon troop, *all* of the more aggressive alpha candidates also died, leaving only passive males who did not have the ambition or power necessary to take on the alpha position. The troop carried on quite fine without alphas and even successfully rebuffed several attempts by intruding alpha males to subjugate them. I think you have a flawed view of nature, this is not my rebuttal to dictatorship, just to your conception of the natural world. I don't think a naturalistic argument of government holds any water at all, in the sense that just because something happens in nature does not mean that it is optimal or applicable to human civilization. Our human nature may be understood from a natural perspective, but the way government *should* be, has nothing to do with nature.

However, most of all, I take issue with your stance on eugenics. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that you have a warped understanding of evolution and genetics. I must ask you, what do you see as the role of government? When you say a dictator has done more good than bad, what do you mean by good and bad? Tell me, in your conception of eugenics, do you happen to be amongst the priveleged race? If not, or if it were found that your children would have a higher than average chance of inheriting Down Syndrome, would you voluntarily submit to sterilization?

i would note that plato's 'republic' imagines some kind of ruling class of philosopher kings (bred with a sense of duty to care for the state, think for themselves and be aware of the needs of their people and state... irrc)

Nietzsche on the other hands expects all people to awaken (at least from what i've read about him, especially here.) into this aware state that plato didn't think could be more than just a small percentage of the population (even while allowing for others to be educated and rise to this class without neccesarily being born into it).

However humans are inherently capable of lazyness. It is not that the will be lazy all the time (just as we are capable of greed, but also capable of charity) Sometimes this laziness manifests as invention - when you make your life a little bit easier by inventing a better/easier way of doing things. When it comes to voting (which i'm going to assume is an indicator of 'awareness' in a social context) most people are happy to be fairly lazy and fall back on ancient tribal style decision making (ie voting the same way your family does and identifying with your elected official as a member of your 'clan' )

The fact is people are being lazy because they can be, within a democratic system voter participation can drop to below about 40% of the eligible population without completely compromising the system.

So i can see the ideal of the anarchist that places the onus upon each individual and forces him/her to make their own decisions and to manage their own interactions and relationships.

It requries that everyone spend some time wondering about who they can/should trust; what policies are desirable to pursue...

This does not mean they will fail to invent something which makes social interactions easier like a local police force and independent court system to judge people...

Democracy has the advantage that removing the current sitting power does not necessarily require violence, but in it's stead requires words...

i am given to understand that the idea of 'race' as genetically defined has fallen out of favour among biologists. That humans have more differences within a 'race' than between different 'races'. Hence you could be more closely genetically related to someone from a different race than you are related to someone from your own.

Though interestingly there is more genetic variability in Africa than in most of the rest of the world (because the rest of the world descended from humans in one small corner of africa, while the rest had a chance to develop longer separately...)

And nature is great at providing examples of systems we could try - though not what is best, just what works on some level.

"However, most of all, I take issue with your stance on eugenics. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that you have a warped understanding of evolution and genetics. I must ask you, what do you see as the role of government? When you say a dictator has done more good than bad, what do you mean by good and bad? Tell me, in your conception of eugenics, do you happen to be amongst the priveleged race? If not, or if it were found that your children would have a higher than average chance of inheriting Down Syndrome, would you voluntarily submit to sterilization?"
I would voluntarily submit my off-spring. Evolution is a painfully slow process, Eugenics speeds that process along. My opinion on Eugenics is probably the only true fascist ideology I have. I don't believe in killing the other races, black people can be just as smart as whites or asians. What I do care about is making sure that those who are mentally and physically handicapped to the extent that they can produce very little for society have no right on this planet.

"Hence you could be more closely genetically related to someone from a different race than you are related to someone from your own."

That's not the logical conclusion, in fact, that would be fairly unlikely. That there is greater variation between individuals than races isn't meant to show that you might be more genetically similar to someone of a different race than your own, but more that the concept of race is not meaningful as it is less a source of variation amongst individual capabilities than is individual variation. To me, this doesn't necessarily mean that race is a meaningless concept, but it does mean that it is more important to consider a person on an individual basis rather than on a racial basis. People don't have to be the same to warrant equitable treatment.

"I would voluntarily submit my off-spring. Evolution is a painfully slow process, Eugenics speeds that process along. My opinion on Eugenics is probably the only true fascist ideology I have. I don't believe in killing the other races, black people can be just as smart as whites or asians. What I do care about is making sure that those who are mentally and physically handicapped to the extent that they can produce very little for society have no right on this planet."

Evolution is based upon natural selection, not artificial selection. You're not speeding evolution up any more than breeding chihuahuas is speeding up the evolution of the dog. You're simply superseding nature's judgement with your own, which do not at all necessarily represent what is "good" or "superior". Most adaptations due to evolution are both beneficial and detrimental, but the good outweighs the bad, and this is tried and tested by natural law. What traits would you select for, and are these traits in and of themselves a worthwhile goal? Perhaps more importantly, not even including the political difficulty of implementing a eugenic policy, do you believe that you can practically alter the human gene pool within a small number of generations, and if so, without obscene human rights violations?

"I don't believe in killing the other races, black people can be just as smart as whites or asians. What I do care about is making sure that those who are mentally and physically handicapped to the extent that they can produce very little for society have no right on this planet."

So in what sense do you consider yourself a racist? When you say you would submit your offspring, are you referring to some sort of euthanasia? If you yourself were victim to some tragic accident where you found yourself paralyzed below the waist, or perhaps you suffered some brain damage resulting in aphasia, or whatever mental or physical detriment that might prevent you from producing anywhere near the level you might produce now, would you voluntarily submit yourself?

'Evolution is based upon natural selection, not artificial selection. You're not speeding evolution up any more than breeding chihuahuas is speeding up the evolution of the dog. You're simply superseding nature's judgement with your own, which do not at all necessarily represent what is "good" or "superior". Most adaptations due to evolution are both beneficial and detrimental, but the good outweighs the bad, and this is tried and tested by natural law. What traits would you select for, and are these traits in and of themselves a worthwhile goal? Perhaps more importantly, not even including the political difficulty of implementing a eugenic policy, do you believe that you can practically alter the human gene pool within a small number of generations, and if so, without obscene human rights violations?'
It would take generations, but it keeps the productivity of the working class high, and it reduces the strain on society. Those are the main reasons. Anyway as soon as genetic engineering is achieved, this wont be necessary.

"So in what sense do you consider yourself a racist?"
I believe that the oriental and whites are, on average smarter then blacks. This is considered racist at my school. I also believe that there are many difference between the races.
Orientals are generally harder workers then whites or blacks. This can be explained from the conditions in Asia. A rice crop requires 3 times the man hours to produce the same amount of food in the same amount of time. In order to achieve the same crop, they needed to work harder, and in some senses evolved to do so.
When I gave that arguement at school, I was branded a racist just for saying that the races are different. None necessarily better.

"When you say you would submit your offspring, are you referring to some sort of euthanasia?"
I'm just saying, I would gladly kill me baby son for the purpose of eugenics.

"If you yourself were victim to some tragic accident where you found yourself paralyzed below the waist, or perhaps you suffered some brain damage resulting in aphasia, or whatever mental or physical detriment that might prevent you from producing anywhere near the level you might produce now, would you voluntarily submit yourself?"
Yes. I would.

I would like everyone to know that I, being Lutheran, have no issues with beer, aka "The Lutheran Beverage" or "Lutheran Lemonade." lol

anyway...

@mcbry: my point was more about that one can always be partially Nietzschian, just rejecting the point that people should not follow his teaching but instead come up with something of their own. Not retarded at all, if there happens to be some good stuff in there.

@obi:
You might say that clarifies your view, but it doesn't really help the gap I pointed out. Your universal absolute in your argument is fundamental rights, not right and wrong, you say.

???

How are those two, fundamental rights and fundamental morality, different?
Isn't a right enforced by morality? Isn't morality a system of rights?
Descartes has a right not to be mugged for beer money. Descartes ALWAYS has that right. To mug Descartes for beer money, then, is ALWAYS to violate his right not to be mugged for beer money.
The reason why any of this matters is that a violation of Descartes' right is always wrong. In orther words, it is wrong to mug Descartes for beer money.
That is my assertion: rights' violation IS wrongness.
Rights and Morality are two different ways of stating the same thing.

So, my problem is that you assert a fundamental right to be free of being told what to believe in religious matters (let alone being literally FORCED to believe it, which I would say is impossible). Yet, the only way to have a fundamental, absolute right is to have a religion that is fundamentally, absolutely true.

That is my primary objection to what you've been saying: rights cannot exist without morality, and both need a God to exist at all.

So, I guess I'm asking you to explain how fundamental rights are independant of morals and how fundamental rights can exist without a divine granter.

PS
Since you're very wary of anything religious being pushed, I supose should clarify my position with the Lutheran dogma of Sola Gratia: "Grace Alone." It states that only God can bring people to faith in Himself. People canNOT bring other people to faith in Him. As a result, we Lutherans don't do forced Baptisms or stand in the middle of the street, yelling at other people about the fires of Hell and whatnot.

"That is my primary objection to what you've been saying: rights cannot exist without morality, and both need a God to exist at all."

So there was no morality prior to the dawn of Lutheranism? (really: Evangelism, Lutheranism was an epithet that the Lutherans, strangely, adopted as their own label - like the Tories). Or there was no morality prior to the dawn of Christianity? Or will any god do? Or do we behave morally anyway simply because a god exists, whether we believe or not?

5 good emperors...

And PLENTY of poor ones.

Fasces, let's be as generous as possible.

Let's say that we ahve a 50/50 split, half great, benevolent, incredibly good rules, and half all Hitleresques.

Would you HONESTLY say that's worth it? Think about it, what's easier--for good emperors to build up a society or bad emperors to poison it completely? After all, if you poison a society with a bad emperor, even if you DO get a nice one next who wants to change things and make things good again, he'll have to deal with a poisoned populace...

You could have a post-Hitler Fuhrer who want's to stop the Holocaust, but because Hitler engrained that Anti-Semetism in so much...

Hitler became Reichskanzler democratically. At any rate the idea that 50% of all rulers would be Hitlers is absurd.

@baumhauer:

"So, my problem is that you assert a fundamental right to be free of being told what to believe in religious matters (let alone being literally FORCED to believe it, which I would say is impossible). Yet, the only way to have a fundamental, absolute right is to have a religion that is fundamentally, absolutely true."

Not true--absolute rights do not need religions to make them fundamentally true.

Again, what did I say were the areas one could not argue, where opinion is irrelevant?

Natural laws, ie, "The earth orbits the sun."
Logical laws, ie, "2+2=4."
Social Contract Laws, ie, "I live in society and reap its benefits, therefore I should not break the law, ie, steal."

How are ANY of those in need of a religion or a dogma to make them absolute?

They are absolute INHERENTLY.

2+2=4 INHERENTLY...

@ Tolstoy

I would check your information on how "democratic" the cities of northern italy were during that time. As far as I know, there were many restrictions on who could get elected and who could vote. In Venice, I believe, the Doge was elected by a council of 10. these 10 were appointed by a larger council, who's members were appointed by the council of 10. I may be wrong, but that doesn't sound very much like the republic venice claimed to be.

"5 good emperors...

And PLENTY of poor ones."
I'm talking about a specific era in Rome, when the were laws restricting what the emperor could do. From when the Empire began, until the time it fell, there was only 1 90 year period where the Emperor was not an absolute monarch. And those 90 years had 5 emperors. Is it a coincidence that they are the 5 good emperors?

"Would you HONESTLY say that's worth it? Think about it, what's easier--for good emperors to build up a society or bad emperors to poison it completely? After all, if you poison a society with a bad emperor, even if you DO get a nice one next who wants to change things and make things good again, he'll have to deal with a poisoned populace...

You could have a post-Hitler Fuhrer who want's to stop the Holocaust, but because Hitler engrained that Anti-Semetism in so much..."
Your missing the point. The dictator doesn't yield absolute power like Hitler. He would have the same power as the president with one exception. He isn't elected.

Also your forgetting the fact.
From 25 BC to 1500 CE there were no democracy's. Out of the thousands of emperors, kings dictators etc etc over the years. How many can you name that were devastating to the country? Maybe 50-100 tops?
Lets say to be very conservative, 75 bad leaders, 1000 leaders. So 1 in 20. Now lets look at democracy's track record. 44 presidents, naming 4 bad ones would put Democracy at a lower level then Dictatorship :
Nixon, Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Carter.
Democracy is young, but the fact is Hitler was democratically elected, and even in 1940 he still held the popular vote. Mussolini was elected.

The fact is your democracy has caused all the so called bad dictators even furthers my point that the people can't be trusted.

Also modern democracy wasn't form till the 1920's, as in the 19th century only males could vote, and in the 18th century only the upper class could vote etc etc. So effectively you have 100 years, and you already voted in 2 Hitlers, 2 Bushes etc.

I would take my chances with Dictatorship for a few simple facts.
1. Dictatorship has worked in the past, and will continue to work, while democracy always ends up failing.
2. People are idiots.
3. People don't know, A majority of citizens don't know everything about every candidate, but still get a vote.
4. People are idiots.
5. 'Any society that would give up a little security to gain a little liberty will deserve neither and lose both". The fact is, if you look in the more free countries crime is higher, the country collapses quicker (With most democracy's failing within 20 years of being established and quickly enter either civil war or totalitarian regime).
6. People are idiots.

"It would take generations, but it keeps the productivity of the working class high, and it reduces the strain on society. Those are the main reasons." - how are these things good/useful? Strain on society is what pushes it to succeed, less strain means less work.

People who get used to doing less work to get what they want will be less productive.

In evolutionary terms strain is a force pushing the system to a more efficient... more strain equals stronger system.

@Obi - you claim there is a 'fundamental' right not to be mugged while claiming it is wrong to insist that others follow your 'dogma' about what is wrong/right.

So this idea of a social contract is the modern secular equivalent of a religious taboo which can't be broken.

Now the fact that this level of morality doesn't require the existence or any acknowledgement of 'god' is something which baumhaeuer claims is required is where he falls down.

However you must put forward a reason for these 'logical/natural' laws to be.

I would especially point to the fact that people who are born in america is indoctorinated into this 'social contract' from a very early stage. They made no choice to live in the US (say) and have very little say in changes to what is acceptable (in any smaller state the say of an individual of what is illegal or not is greater... down to the anarchist's individual freedom...)

"It would take generations, but it keeps the productivity of the working class high, and it reduces the strain on society. Those are the main reasons. Anyway as soon as genetic engineering is achieved, this wont be necessary. "

Is productivity in and of itself desirable? Or are you more looking at the products and benefits of of high productivity? I mean, what are you going for here, a higher standard of living for the working class? If so, how do you reconcile that fact when you would euthanize their unproductive family members or the workers themselves should they get injured on the job. How do you deal with morbidity? If someone is sick and you have a doctor's estimate for how long it will take for them to recover, how long is too long in your productivity oriented approach?

"I believe that the oriental and whites are, on average smarter then blacks. This is considered racist at my school. I also believe that there are many difference between the races.
Orientals are generally harder workers then whites or blacks. This can be explained from the conditions in Asia. A rice crop requires 3 times the man hours to produce the same amount of food in the same amount of time. In order to achieve the same crop, they needed to work harder, and in some senses evolved to do so.
When I gave that arguement at school, I was branded a racist just for saying that the races are different. None necessarily better."

I don't buy your rice argument. For one, rice was only domesticated roughly 10,000 years ago and only farmed in mass a few thousand years after that. Are you saying that the gene pool noticeably changed in such a short time period that you can say that East Asians are *naturally* harder workers?

"Yes. I would. "

Well at least you're being morally consistent, though I somewhat doubt that if it actually came to it, you would go without a fight. It strikes me that people's favoured forms of government are often in line with their moral views, such that if everyone shared them, maybe it could work. It's just that this is never really the case, is it.

I'm interested though, dictators are not elected, that's a given. How do you envision that dictators would be chosen?

"From 25 BC to 1500 CE there were no democracy's. Out of the thousands of emperors, kings dictators etc etc over the years. How many can you name that were devastating to the country? Maybe 50-100 tops?
Lets say to be very conservative, 75 bad leaders, 1000 leaders. So 1 in 20. Now lets look at democracy's track record. 44 presidents, naming 4 bad ones would put Democracy at a lower level then Dictatorship :
Nixon, Bush Jr, Bush Sr, Carter."

Haha, this is some ridiculous math. Just because someone can't name more than 50 despots they know to have resulted in bad outcomes for their nation, does not mean that those were the only ones. Neither of us really have data, but 75 out of 1000 is absurd.

I would say that the proportion of good to bad leaders that are elected and not elected are probably not that different from each other, I think a lot of the skills and motivations that apply to an aspiring despot also apply to an aspiring President, though the way they go about getting there is different. I might even agree that good dictators do more good than do good presidents, but I would also say that bad dictators do much more harm than do bad presidents. I'm not a huge fan of democracy, certainly not of direct democracy, but I can at least say that there is an advantage in that a bad president can be ousted much more easily than a bad dictator can.