Democracy or Dictatorship? [Archive]

Rossco

10-05-2009, 01:45 AM

Forewarning: Yes, yes this has been done before. Stop crying.

What is better, a Dictatorship ran be a just leader with the societies best interests in mind, or a Democracy with some corrupt influential people in the higher seats of power?

Actually, I'm not even going to bother making this a poll, as the answer should be fairly self-explanatory (No, you can't start changing the criteria or asking questions, as the question is outlined very clearly.)

For those of you who aren't really... 'all there', I'll do a slight rephrasing. Working Dictatorship or Greedy Democracy?

(By god, I hope you all manage to uncover the hidden message here, which actually has nothing to do with government types.)

Villageninja

10-05-2009, 01:50 AM

Dictatorships can be absolutely wonderful until the leader dies. Then it slowly all goes to shit.

Same goes for democracies really if you think on it, the only difference is that it can be saved and changed at any point and time.

Vessol

10-05-2009, 02:03 AM

Dictatorship.

jonyak

10-05-2009, 02:07 AM

a benevolent dictatorship.

Reckun

10-05-2009, 02:09 AM

a benevolent dictatorship.

which reminds me poland had one at one point if I can remember correctly

Vessol

10-05-2009, 02:20 AM

which reminds me poland had one at one point if I can remember correctly

Yeah, from 1939-1944

Reckun

10-05-2009, 02:58 AM

lol just before ww2

mrbubbles

10-05-2009, 03:12 AM

Dictatorship, if you looked to the roman empires they had some benevolent emperors that made the people love them and be happy, like the five good emperors, plus Ceaser and Augustas.

Silverhandorder

10-05-2009, 03:15 AM

Dictatorship by one man or by several man. Hmmm not much choice.

Rossco

10-05-2009, 03:24 AM

Dictatorship by one man or by several man. Hmmm not much choice.

That's not the point. Besides, choice is irrelevant to the question. I do believe I outlined, in the OP, that such statements that go beyond the core question are unwelcome, thus unnecessary.

Vessol

10-05-2009, 03:33 AM

Dictatorship, if you looked to the roman empires they had some benevolent emperors that made the people love them and be happy, like the five good emperors, plus Ceaser and Augustas.

I'd like to know what history you are reading.

Rossco

10-05-2009, 03:36 AM

I'd like to know what history you are reading.

By Benevolence he likely means, however misguided, the obvious advancement of Roman society, not their sociological/political state.

EDIT: After all, if the society is advancing under a specific ruler (by advancement, I don't mean making those who are underprivileged feel 'comfy') and it's not a tyrannical rule (which, by most accounts, the Roman Emperors weren't) then you should either keep on doing it, or work on finding a better system, not just dumping it altogether and starting over with a worse off system that doesn't better anything off in the long-term of the societies advancement.

Vessol

10-05-2009, 03:44 AM

By Benevolence he likely means, however misguided, the obvious advancement of Roman society, not their sociological/political state.

EDIT: After all, if the society is advancing under a specific ruler (by advancement, I don't mean making those who are underprivileged feel 'comfy') and it's not a tyrannical rule (which, by most accounts, the Roman Emperors weren't) then you should either keep on doing it, or work on finding a better system, not just dumping it altogether and starting over with a worse off system that doesn't better anything off in the long-term of the societies advancement.

Rather I'm more referring to the fact that most history from those times is from a bunch of eccentric "historians" who were about as credible as that weird-smelling uncle who keeps on trying to hug your sister at family reunions.

alfaroverall

10-05-2009, 03:46 AM

lol just before ww2
Truly epic fail has just been attained.

Rossco

10-05-2009, 03:55 AM

weird-smelling uncle who keeps on trying to hug your sister at family reunions.

What, Uncle Les? He's a Romanian Athlete, that's to be expected. At least in Canadeh, anyway.

Now, my next question to you all, is what is a better long-term goal for a society: Technological Advancement towards the ends of Space Colonization and indefinite ageless mortality, or furthering the ends of humanities faith in (whatever) religion so all our offspring may be brought into the world, reborn in the light, and sent off to Heaven/Valhalla/Atlantis/Wherever after showing what level of blind thoughtless faith they can attain?

(I'm not actually asking this question. Just saying something arbitrary so it doesn't seem like I'm purposely veering my own topic off-topic from the original topic.)

Vessol

10-05-2009, 03:57 AM

Space colonization? Lol.

Rossco

10-05-2009, 04:00 AM

Space colonization? Lol.

Just because our next (couple) generation(s) are going to be being fed on by worms before such is actually attainable doesn't mean it's not a respectable next goal for humanity to try attaining. Everything has to start somewhere, so it might aswell start now. Heck, who knows, maybe someone will invent cold fusion and space/time bending before we're dead (albeit unlikely.)

Vessol

10-05-2009, 04:08 AM

Just because our next (couple) generation(s) are going to be being fed on by worms before such is actually attainable doesn't mean it's not a respectable next goal for humanity to try attaining. Everything has to start somewhere, so it might aswell start now. Heck, who knows, maybe someone will invent cold fusion and space/time bending before we're dead (albeit unlikely.)

Space Colonization=Those who can afford it eventually leaving Earth, those who cannot afford it(us) being left behind on a polluted and resource-drained world.

Reckun

10-05-2009, 04:11 AM

Space Colonization=Those who can afford it eventually leaving Earth, those who cannot afford it(us) being left behind on a polluted and resource-drained world.

probably yeah

Rossco

10-05-2009, 05:07 AM

Space Colonization=Those who can afford it eventually leaving Earth, those who cannot afford it(us) being left behind on a polluted and resource-drained world.

You do realize that that's not a bad thing in comparison to everybody remaining on the planet and living miserable low-quality lives, correct? Short of somebody ascending to a level of existence where they are free of physical laws and could terraform the planet so as to have infinite resources with which to sustain an exponentially growing population, our only alternative is to leave the planet when the time comes.

Vessol

10-05-2009, 05:46 AM

You do realize that that's not a bad thing in comparison to everybody remaining on the planet and living miserable low-quality lives, correct? Short of somebody ascending to a level of existence where they are free of physical laws and could terraform the planet so as to have infinite resources with which to sustain an exponentially growing population, our only alternative is to leave the planet when the time comes.

Read most science fiction and those who are left behind pretty much become slaves and live shittier and shittier lives until Earth dies off.

alfaroverall

10-05-2009, 06:13 AM

Read most science fiction and those who are left behind pretty much become slaves and live shittier and shittier lives until Earth dies off.
Doesn't that just make for good drama?

Also, "exponentially growing population" doesn't match the UN projections, though it does match the data of the 20th century. The UN projects population will level off, reaching around 9 billion around 2050 and then 10 billion around 2200 and staying around there for the reasonably foreseeable future. I'll get a citation if wanted...

Jedicake

10-05-2009, 07:11 AM

I thought dictatorship was bad! :eek:

palo god

10-05-2009, 09:09 AM

It depends on what you mean by societies best interest. That can mean a lot of different things for a lot of people. Ill answer the question on the basis of reality since one of the options you provided exists and the other doesn’t. I choose “Greedy Democracy”.

Your second question is just plain retarded.

Lord Bulleteus

10-05-2009, 09:19 AM

monarchy

MortalZero

10-05-2009, 02:22 PM

The best of all not even mentioned ?

Anarchy

Bissen

10-05-2009, 02:28 PM

The best of all not even mentioned ?

Anarchy

Most people don't know the meaning and immediately associate it with with douchy communists rioting.

However, you're right.

Rimayven

10-05-2009, 02:48 PM

Meritocracy, by all means.

Larocco

10-05-2009, 04:41 PM

dictatorship with the freedom of expression that is not led by some dumbass. but since i see a dumbass in everyone even myself i dont think itd work out perfectly.

jonyak

10-05-2009, 04:56 PM

The best of all not even mentioned ?

Anarchy

how would anyone know?

StainlessSteelRat

10-05-2009, 08:40 PM

lol just before ww2

Eh?

Drool111

10-06-2009, 01:11 AM

forewarning: Yes, yes this has been done before. Stop crying.

What is better, a dictatorship ran be a just leader with the societies best interests in mind, or a democracy with some corrupt influential people in the higher seats of power?

Actually, i'm not even going to bother making this a poll, as the answer should be fairly self-explanatory (no, you can't start changing the criteria or asking questions, as the question is outlined very clearly.)

for those of you who aren't really... 'all there', i'll do a slight rephrasing. Working dictatorship or greedy democracy?

(by god, i hope you all manage to uncover the hidden message here, which actually has nothing to do with government types.)

aDEMOCRACY BABY!

Attau

10-06-2009, 12:12 PM

Fail of a question because democracy is generally a dictatorship of the stupid over the minorities through means of propaganda from the elite.

So if your quest is dictatorship of the good or dictatorship of the deceitful through manipulation of the masses.... then obviously dictatorship of the deceitful because it's funnier to watch.

Lulz at you guys.

Neramis

10-06-2009, 01:24 PM

Neither, I choose Anarchy, the only form of government that isn't inherently corrupt (because there is no government!)

Badem

10-06-2009, 01:29 PM

Neither, I choose Anarchy, the only form of government that isn't inherently corrupt (because there is no government!)

True

we should abolish governments, arm the plebs and see who is the last man standing (once they have mostly starved to death)

Farmers would become all powerful

Neramis

10-06-2009, 01:41 PM

True

we should abolish governments, arm the plebs and see who is the last man standing (once they have mostly starved to death)

Farmers would become all powerful

Ahhh the kind of person that thinks the state is the only way to get things done eh?

Badem

10-06-2009, 01:52 PM

Ahhh the kind of person that thinks the state is the only way to get things done eh?

erm, how does arming the plebs, letting them fight it out and the strongest taking all make it 'The State'?

alfaroverall

10-06-2009, 01:58 PM

erm, how does arming the plebs, letting them fight it out and the strongest taking all make it 'The State'?
I was confused too...sarcasm maybe? If so it sure didn't convey well.

Badem

10-06-2009, 02:37 PM

well Neramis is an 03'er so possibly his mental faculties left him a long time ago

Sqarak

10-06-2009, 02:41 PM

Neither, I choose Anarchy, the only form of government that isn't inherently corrupt (because there is no government!)

Go learn social psychology. Anarchy does not perpetually sustain itself, it's against our social behaviour patterns. FF has been through this discussion plenty of times.

jonyak

10-06-2009, 02:57 PM

Go learn social psychology. Anarchy does not perpetually sustain itself, it's against our social behaviour patterns. FF has been through this discussion plenty of times.

eventualy one fation would rise to power.

Silverhandorder

10-06-2009, 05:29 PM

Go learn social psychology. Anarchy does not perpetually sustain itself, it's against our social behaviour patterns. FF has been through this discussion plenty of times.
It depends what advancements we have overcome. Today anarchy is entirely possible.
eventualy one fation would rise to power.
It's not profitable for one faction to dominate other factions in anarchy. First it cost less money by using arbitration instead of force.

Second there is little a big faction can promise to attract more to it's cause. If they advertise by loot and plunder I assure you there is not much to have because the conquered will use scorched earth. If they advertise by better standard of living they can hardly compete with numerous small factions specialized in their own areas.

jonyak

10-06-2009, 05:31 PM

It's not profitable for one faction to dominate other factions in anarchy. First it cost less money by using arbitration instead of force.

Second there is little a big faction can promise to attract more to it's cause. If they advertise by loot and plunder I assure you there is not much to have because the conquered will use scorched earth. If they advertise by better standard of living they can hardly compete with numerous small factions specialized in their own areas.

I think you fail to understand mans lust for power and greed.

Bissen

10-06-2009, 05:33 PM

I think you fail to understand mans lust for power and greed.

Anarchy is like pure communism or pure capitalism. None of them will never, NOT FUCKING EVER, happen.

jonyak

10-06-2009, 05:42 PM

Anarchy is like pure communism or pure capitalism. None of them will never, NOT FUCKING EVER, happen.

I Agree.

Eyrothath

10-06-2009, 06:24 PM

How about confederacy?

Bissen

10-06-2009, 06:30 PM

How about confederacy?

Rather dead, than fed!

And besides. It's just yet another word for "Hi, let's make a super-state bitches"

Rossco

10-07-2009, 08:01 AM

Well, some people think they're cool because they decided to disregard the question at all.

However, my own personal preference, would be a confederacy of separated 'colonies' or 'states', preferably in space (because that'd be awesome), where each colony is ultimately 'dictated' by a single benevolent overlord allowing each colony to develop it's own unique 'culture', while not breaking any of the predefined Confederate Laws. Such a system would, hopefully, allow the populous to choose which colony they would prefer to live at, and live there (FTL space travel FTW).

Actually, Anarchy would probbably work better, if done properly (genetically remove greed/power lust? :P)

Neramis

10-07-2009, 01:39 PM

Greed and power isnt the problem greed has its place in an anarcho-capitalist society. The right amount of greed in the free market is good. The only issue i see is people need to shake the idea that they need the state for certain things, and they need to learn to live there life without being told what to do on every issue.

The only truly free state is no state.

jonyak

10-07-2009, 01:47 PM

Sqarak

10-07-2009, 01:55 PM

It depends what advancements we have overcome. Today anarchy is entirely possible.

What exactly have we overcome as a species? We still tend to group together, some people still tend to have leadership skills, we are still hostile or at least suspicious for outsiders...what exactly have we overcome that we didn't 400 years ago?

jonyak

10-07-2009, 02:00 PM

What exactly have we overcome as a species? We still tend to group together, some people still tend to have leadership skills, we are still hostile or at least suspicious for outsiders...what exactly have we overcome that we didn't 400 years ago?

nothing.

he is just very naive and idealistic.

Badem

10-07-2009, 02:02 PM

I will go for whichever allows me to run through the streets in my underpants with a bra on my head shouting AROOGA AROOGA, OGI OGI OGI, OI OI OI, AROOOOGA

Sqarak

10-07-2009, 02:05 PM

I will go for whichever allows me to run through the streets in my underpants with a bra on my head shouting AROOGA AROOGA, OGI OGI OGI, OI OI OI, AROOOOGA

Lloret De Mar, Salou, Newcastle...