Turn on thread page Beta

Are you so sure you're right you'd welcome an agreeable dictatorship? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I would prefer to live under an imperfect and frustrating democracy. The way we act on social media, and the protests against democractic results and freedom of speech, makes me worry that it isn't justice people seek, it's righteous anger.

    http://thesatedire.com/the-unironic-...stice-for-all/
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    So wait... would I rather want a really good government I can't remove or a crap government I might sometimes be able to swap for a marginally better government but there's a good chance I'll end up with one as bad or even worse based on other people's votes?

    ...what's the catch?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    So wait... would I rather want a really good government I can't remove or a crap government I might sometimes be able to swap for a marginally better government but there's a good chance I'll end up with one as bad or even worse based on other people's votes?

    ...what's the catch?
    Or to put in another way, are you so sure you're right that you would take away the rights of others to have a voice? Democracy will always be imperfect, the same can be said for your opinion.

    If you don't have the empathy to consider anothers opinion then consider your position should you change your mind on any given subject.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    Or to put in another way, are you so sure you're right that you would take away the rights of others to have a voice? Democracy will always be imperfect, the same can be said for your opinion.

    If you don't have the empathy to consider anothers opinion then consider your position should you change your mind on any given subject.
    See now it sounds like you're asking a different question altogether to the OP.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    See now it sounds like you're asking a different question altogether to the OP.
    I don't see how, explain and I'll be happy to clarify.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    I would prefer to live under an optimal system, and if that isn't a democracy, well that's just too bad.
    Yes, Hitler did make the trains run on time.

    It depends on what it is you are seeking to optimise. Democracy is a pin prick of light in a sea of darkness. We have ample evidence to suggest we need to hang on to it for dear life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    So wait... would I rather want a really good government I can't remove or a crap government I might sometimes be able to swap for a marginally better government but there's a good chance I'll end up with one as bad or even worse based on other people's votes?

    ...what's the catch?
    But how will you ensure that a good government, remains a good government? I would argue that without the ability to physically remove the bad political elements from government, then you can't, and that is the fatal flaw of dictatorships.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    Yes, Hitler did make the trains run on time.
    It was Mussolini who made the trains run on time. German trains always ran on time. The railway timetable was why the Kaiser's General Staff told him he couldn't suspend WWI mobilisation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    But how will you ensure that a good government, remains a good government? I would argue that without the ability to physically remove the bad political elements from government, then you can't, and that is the fatal flaw of dictatorships.
    That wasn't really being taken into account when the question was just "would you rather have a good government or nah".

    That said you could theoretically remove those bad elements but nobody seems to have a hard on for mass revolution in the west anymore.

    (Original post by Damien96)
    I don't see how, explain and I'll be happy to clarify.
    Seeing as you just said "agreeable" in the OP with no real expansion I took it to mean that it was objectively agreeable in that everybody thought it was pretty solid. Your next post was then "are you so sure your opinion is right" which is a subjective thing rather than an objective one.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    Seeing as you just said "agreeable" in the OP with no real expansion I took it to mean that it was objectively agreeable in that everybody thought it was pretty solid. Your next post was then "are you so sure your opinion is right" which is a subjective thing rather than an objective one.
    Given there's no such thing as objective agreeability, I thought it was quite obvious the OP was asking whether you'd rather live in a dictatorship in which you personally agreed with all of the policies, but people with other views were not given a voice, or a democracy in which you may disagree with a lot of the decisions.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DziNe)
    Given there's no such thing as objective agreeability, I thought it was quite obvious the OP was asking whether you'd rather live in a dictatorship in which you personally agreed with all of the policies, but people with other views were not given a voice, or a democracy in which you may disagree with a lot of the decisions.
    'objective' agreeability probably ain't the right word, I was taking it to mean a dictatorship that everybody was pleased with, seeing as it said "an agreeable dictatorship" rather than "a dictatorship you personally agree with"

    Answering the other one is too difficult, democracy as it is doesn't seem to work properly in that people tend to pick because they think x candidate isn't the worst one in the group of knobs rather than having any actual confidence in who's running. Dictatorship of course has the issue of only being changed by revolution which is a bit of a pain if a lot of people decide that the bloke in charge isn't good. Even if I liked the dictator it would become irrelevant once civil war started.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    Answering the other one is too difficult, democracy as it is doesn't seem to work properly in that people tend to pick because they think x candidate isn't the worst one in the group of knobs rather than having any actual confidence in who's running. Dictatorship of course has the issue of only being changed by revolution which is a bit of a pain if a lot of people decide that the bloke in charge isn't good. Even if I liked the dictator it would become irrelevant once civil war started.
    I think the basic premise is more "assume the dictator stays forever and basically does most of the things you'd want a government to do" vs "have a democracy in which the government changes a lot and you don't agree with a lot of policy"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    No, we have ample evidence to suggest democracy is not the system humanity needs; we just don't yet know what to replace it with.
    So you have evidence that democracy is not the best system, but no clue which system might work better? If there is not a better alternative then democracy is the best system to our knowledge, therefore let's stand up for it until we have this, as yet unknown, system.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It was Mussolini who made the trains run on time. German trains always ran on time. The railway timetable was why the Kaiser's General Staff told him he couldn't suspend WWI mobilisation.
    Well if we are getting pedantic, it's a myth that Mussolini made the trains run on time. I just chose Hitler because I couldnt' be bothered to check how to spell Mussolini
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather live under a meritocratic democracy - one where there's more focus on who can do the job best rather than party politics. That may be far too idealistic, though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    'objective' agreeability probably ain't the right word, I was taking it to mean a dictatorship that everybody was pleased with, seeing as it said "an agreeable dictatorship" rather than "a dictatorship you personally agree with"

    Answering the other one is too difficult, democracy as it is doesn't seem to work properly in that people tend to pick because they think x candidate isn't the worst one in the group of knobs rather than having any actual confidence in who's running. Dictatorship of course has the issue of only being changed by revolution which is a bit of a pain if a lot of people decide that the bloke in charge isn't good. Even if I liked the dictator it would become irrelevant once civil war started.
    How to be a pedant and turn what was a simple question into a pissing contest 101.

    Now you have kindly taken the question in the spirit it was asked, I would argue that an imperfect democracy, which democracy will always be, is the best we have, by some distance.

    Having no confidence in those in charge is not necessarily a comment on democracy, or even politics. Cynicism and a sense of entitlement have as much to do with the state of political discourse as incompetence and corruption.

    Dictatorship and revolution is a pain might be a little bit of an understatement.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    I'd rather live under a meritocratic democracy - one where there's more focus on who can do the job best rather than party politics. That may be far too idealistic, though.
    If democracy is functioning to its fullest potential then a meritocracy would be implicit. There is nothing wrong with reaching for an ideal though, as long as we don't become cynical and lazy when we inevitably don't reach it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    If democracy is functioning to its fullest potential then a meritocracy would be implicit. There is nothing wrong with reaching for an ideal though, as long as we don't become cynical and lazy when we inevitably don't reach it.
    Ah, but then how do we define democracy's potential? When it's completely unattached to monetary value (so there's no chance of an oligarchy)?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DziNe)
    I think the basic premise is more "assume the dictator stays forever and basically does most of the things you'd want a government to do" vs "have a democracy in which the government changes a lot and you don't agree with a lot of policy"
    Exactly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Ah, but then how do we define democracy's potential? When it's completely unattached to monetary value (so there's no chance of an oligarchy)?
    In this case I was simply using your expression of what an ideal is as potential. It isn't one I expect us to reach.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,012

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.