dictatorship can work

[Angryjeff]

Boy this is gonna stur up some trouble but what the hell. I say dictatorship can work. People are stupid and shouldn't ahve to right to vote (last american election). The general public is breast feed but media like CNN to know what they need to know to make an "edcuated" choice thats best for them and the country which is utter crap so instead of beating around the bush i say someone comes to power and takes complete control. Now i'm gonna use a contvorsial example but i wanna make sure it's known I AM ANTI-RASICM TO THE CORE. But take hitler for example, he ended up gettin complete control, he wiped out crime in germany, made them a power house country, and got out of the deppression before american could even get started sucking ass. THe publicis already being dicated by something or another be it church or state. Might as well make it offical

[VasIndustries]

Hmmm... I like to think I'm sort of open-minded about things, but I can't see many pros to dictatorships. Political acts would be set much faster since there is only one body to enact them, but other than that, dictatorships just seem terrible. The state of the country under a dictator depends entirely on the morals and ideas of that one person. They decide everything, and if you get a leader with twisted thoughts, then most of the public will be screwed over. Of course a benevolent and fair dictator would work wonderfully, but such people are hard to find, especially since dictators need to instill fear into their citizens to keep their position.

This is a theory I've observed: The advancement in all sciences and humanities derived from a country is directly proportional to the amount of freedom given to that country's inhabitants. Do you think it is true? That's the way it seems to me.

[MarijuanaClock]

People like you should be drug out in the street and shot squarly between the eyes. A totalitarian state from the left or right is not a good thing. Just becuase you can't think for yourself, or you don't think people can think on there own doesn't mean we should all just follow some leader mindlessly. You see the people of Germany were willing to give up there rights for prosperity, and the people of russia were willing to give up there rights for hope, but how did those turn out? What makes me sick is you know the history behind the very idea of Fascism or Communism and you still think it has positive qualities.

When you seek to limit the essential rights of the people you are no better then hitler, mussolini, stalin, or mao.

[Angryjeff]

well VasIndustries in response to your alst comment i belive that jsut becuase a country becomes more technolgcly advanced doesn't nessiarly mean that they will have less freedoms, it's the goverment action to control this technology is what would take away there freedom, and majruiannaclock i listen to your argument without sayin you should be dragged out into the street and shot and I don't agree with a lot of what u say I'd appreciate you doing the same. Yes i do know the history behind communism and Fascim but thats not the kind of goverment i am suggesting. I am very agaisn't fascim in all forms (i am for true communism but i won't get into that) What i was suggesting was a goverment like we have now but the freedoms of the people are taking away yes but as long as they serve the state as best they can there lives do not change. And lets go a little farther back than WW2 since it seems u can't do that on your own. What about ancient rome?? bassicly rulled by one man with a senete represnte the people but in the end he gets the final say. Hmmm and wasn't rome one of the greatest civilastions of all time??? and what about Rennicance italy it was ruled by one family with one person head of the family (depending on where u lived) and it did fine. Or how about the unification of germany it was under a monarchy which is close enough to dictatorship and they did pretty damn well to. And how can i limit the essential rights of the people when people have no real rights. What right do u have, you have the right to worship but now adays more and more people are becoming atheist of just spritual and not a specific religion. You have the right to vote for your leaders when there all bassicly the exact same (it's even worse in canada). People are nothing more than apes wearing suits thinking there special, and in the animal kingdom it's the strogest survives

[RandomFreak]

Dictatorship is like every other form of government, you can make an argument for it working but in reality it never lives up to it. Dictatorships lend them selves to abuses of power far too easily. That's why we have not only elections but checks and balances. Does democracy work? Not as well as we'd like but at least we can shift things around every 4 years.

[Nightshadeplus]

At 12/9/02 12:16 PM, RandomFreak wrote: Dictatorship is like every other form of government, you can make an argument for it working but in reality it never lives up to it. Dictatorships lend them selves to abuses of power far too easily. That's why we have not only elections but checks and balances. Does democracy work? Not as well as we'd like but at least we can shift things around every 4 years.

Well actually in the US, you can shift things around every 2 years, since there is the President elections then you have the elections in Congress and so on. Margin of risk that the dictatorship will lead to ruin is far too great.

[Slizor]

This is a theory I've observed: The advancement in all sciences and humanities derived from a country is directly proportional to the amount of freedom given to that country's inhabitants. Do you think it is true? That's the way it seems to me.

No, I would not say it was directly proportional, because that would mean that the most free places would be like the USA and we all know that's not true. It would have also meant that the USSR was one of the most free.

I would like to note, although I haven't included it in my last comment is the definition of "free" is subject to quite rigourous debate.

[Slizor]

People like you should be drug out in the street and shot squarly between the eyes.

What a democratic sentiment there.....seems you have a streak of totalitarianism in you.

A totalitarian state from the left or right is not a good thing. Just becuase you can't think for yourself, or you don't think people can think on there own doesn't mean we should all just follow some leader mindlessly. You see the people of Germany were willing to give up there rights for prosperity, and the people of russia were willing to give up there rights for hope, but how did those turn out?

How niave you are. The Russians didn't give up any rights for Communism, infact they probably got more.

What makes me sick is you know the history behind the very idea of Fascism or Communism and you still think it has positive qualities.

A) A totalitarian state need not be at the extremes of political opinion. B) You are mislabelling Stalinism as Communism.

When you seek to limit the essential rights of the people you are no better then hitler, mussolini, stalin, or mao.

Whether a vote is an essential right remains to be seen. I ask you this, if it is a person's essential right to vote, and until you are 18 you are not allowed to vote, are you not a person?

For those of you who can't see the advantage of a dictatorship, they are as such. Coherant policies(instead of the policies which change after every election) a powerful leader who can change a country quickly, no need for electionering, it can have intelligent leaders, instead of the most popular(or rich), etc etc. The problem with it is that no one has yet be able(or tried, for that matter) to make a system which also protects the rights of the indivual, and keeps the leader accountable.

[Nightshadeplus]

And what rights did the Russian people gain from being under Stalinist communistic gov't rule? The right to be forced off their homes by a secret police to work camps if under the slight suspicion of being called a traitor. Tell me what rights did the Russians gain from this type of government. Was it any better than being ruled by the czars?

[Raptorman]

Sure, a dictatorship could work. So could facism, communism, or any other kind of "ism" you could think of except for one thing. People being people. If people were always industrious, honest, generous and all that other boy scout stuff we wouldn't need any type of government whatsoever. Imagine capitalism without the greed, or communism without the laziness. Unfortunatly, this is not possible and and so the real world systems that we deal with are the ones that make people's baser insticts work for them.

I kind of like the one that we use in most of the western hemisphere. Sure it is brutal, sloppy, and inefficent but at least it attempts to give it's citizens "life, liberty, and the persuit of happinesss." and a resonable chance for most of us to achieve it.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 12/9/02 02:00 PM, Slizor wrote: How niave you are. The Russians didn't give up any rights for Communism, infact they probably got more.

What did they gain? They went from the Tzar controlling there lives to Stlain controling there loves.

A) A totalitarian state need not be at the extremes of political opinion. B) You are mislabelling Stalinism as Communism.

Really? Give me an example.

Whether a vote is an essential right remains to be seen. I ask you this, if it is a person's essential right to vote, and until you are 18 you are not allowed to vote, are you not a person?

When people are unable to to fully think and reason they should be allowed to vote? In Slizor's world 5 year olds vote?

For those of you who can't see the advantage of a dictatorship, they are as such. Coherant policies(instead of the policies which change after every election) a powerful leader who can change a country quickly, no need for electionering, it can have intelligent leaders, instead of the most popular(or rich), etc etc. The problem with it is that no one has yet be able(or tried, for that matter) to make a system which also protects the rights of the indivual, and keeps the leader accountable.

Yah just like mussolini stuck to one platform ... oh wait he didn't.

Yah just like how Hitler didn't appeal to the left wing only to purge the left wing from his party latter ... oh wait he did.

[reddeadrevolver]

Dictatorship isn't really a viable type of governmental system. An entire society running on the ideals and leadership of one person is too risky... There is too much of a possibility that the dictator is corrupt or unjust, which in turn would throw the entire system off balance. Granted, if there was a good and fair leader then it might work, but like stated earlier, a leader has to instill fear into their subjects in order to remain in control.

The media in the US is not the greatest... however, just imagine if that freedom were gone. Hitler and Mussolini both printed false information and propaganda in the media... which they used to control the civillians.

Hitler was able to take control of Germany, because after the treaty of versailles, Germany was much like France when Napoleon took over: They were hungry for leadership and were willing to listen to anyone who stepped up to the microphone. Hitler promised to get back at those who mistreated Germany, and the people were willing to do whatever it took...

Every instance of dictatorship that has gone on has ultimately failed... so that just goes to show how successful it is. The perfect government has yet to be discovered... and probably will never occur due to the nature of mankind... people are too greedy and self centered for the most part.

[Angryjeff]

At 12/9/02 06:49 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

What did they gain? They went from the Tzar controlling there lives to Stlain controling there loves.

They gained the change to further lives and for some to better them it wasn't a total all around betterment but for some it was (for the record i despise stalin)

Really? Give me an example.

Rome, Greece, Ancient China, Germany if u exlude the killing of jews, Ancient Japan, China now adays (it's getting better better)

When people are unable to to fully think and reason they should be allowed to vote? In Slizor's world 5 year olds vote?

He ment that why all of a sudden at 18 do u have the abilty to vote, who decided the age that you can understand the ideas of a politcal party and candiate. Your just being stupid by thinking that he ment it like that.

Yah just like mussolini stuck to one platform ... oh wait he didn't.

Yah just like how Hitler didn't appeal to the left wing only to purge the left wing from his party latter ... oh wait he did.

Yah like every politican says anything to get into office and to keep themselves there.

BTW Slizor excellent all around points

[Slizor]

How niave you are. The Russians didn't give up any rights for Communism, infact they probably got more.

What did they gain? They went from the Tzar controlling there lives to Stlain controling there loves.

Well they got out of World War 1, they industrialised, they got electricity, the peasants were freed from the mir system, and started to have nice lives. They became a great power, hell they became a superpower.

A) A totalitarian state need not be at the extremes of political opinion. B) You are mislabelling Stalinism as Communism.

Really? Give me an example.

Well, a monarch is much the same as a dictator. But you want modern ones don't you? Well, you could have most of the Middle East, some contraversal ones, which you'll try to dispute, etc, etc.

Whether a vote is an essential right remains to be seen. I ask you this, if it is a person's essential right to vote, and until you are 18 you are not allowed to vote, are you not a person?

When people are unable to to fully think and reason they should be allowed to vote?

Exactly my point, if people can not fully think and reason, why should they be allowed to vote? Obviously, the ability to think and reason can not be determined by someone's age, it would have to be determined by some kind of test. If they have to take a test to vote, it does not seem to be an essential freedom of everyone though, does it? So on one hand, you can have uninformed, illogical people voting(ending up with a stupid leader) and on the other you have to think that voting is not an essential freedom.

For those of you who can't see the advantage of a dictatorship, they are as such. Coherant policies(instead of the policies which change after every election) a powerful leader who can change a country quickly, no need for electionering, it can have intelligent leaders, instead of the most popular(or rich), etc etc. The problem with it is that no one has yet be able(or tried, for that matter) to make a system which also protects the rights of the indivual, and keeps the leader accountable.

Yah just like mussolini stuck to one platform ... oh wait he didn't.

Yah just like how Hitler didn't appeal to the left wing only to purge the left wing from his party latter ... oh wait he did.

Sorry, what point are you trying to attack?

[HarryFeltersnach]

if you want dictatership the answer is simple...MOVE TO IRAQ

[Angryjeff]

I said i wanted dictatorship, that doesn't mean i want ppl to die and suffer. Dictatorship has been givin a bad name because of dictators doing horrible things, jsut as communism has been givin a bad name eventhough true communism is supposed to create a eden of no greed. Instead of looking at examples of dicatorship look at what it can do for the people and for the state

[MarijuanaClock]

At 12/10/02 03:05 PM, Slizor wrote:
Well they got out of World War 1, they industrialised, they got electricity, the peasants were freed from the mir system, and started to have nice lives. They became a great power, hell they became a superpower.

No it was, and I'm quoting you here, "Stalinism."
All of those policies were a result of "Stalinism," not communism with the exception of getting "out of World War 1."

I would say they started to live happier lives becuas of communism but they didn't. The peasents were unhappy with Lenin and Trotsky's War Communism so Lenin introduced the NEP. The NEP made the people happy, but it was not communist. The NEP allowed private ownership of land and the selling of surpluses. This was limited capitalism, not communism. Later Stalin crushed Lenin's NEP and killed many of the people it made happy, so it can't be used as one of your examples.

Well, a monarch is much the same as a dictator. But you want modern ones don't you? Well, you could have most of the Middle East, some contraversal ones, which you'll try to dispute, etc, etc.

So now your stretching out to monarchies just to try and validate your point? hahaha.

Exactly my point, if people can not fully think and reason, why should they be allowed to vote? Obviously, the ability to think and reason can not be determined by someone's age, it would have to be determined by some kind of test. If they have to take a test to vote, it does not seem to be an essential freedom of everyone though, does it? So on one hand, you can have uninformed, illogical people voting(ending up with a stupid leader) and on the other you have to think that voting is not an essential freedom.

If you don't think it's an essential freedom you don't deserve the right to vote. Let's make that the test eh?

Sorry, what point are you trying to attack?

You stated Dictators have clear and consistant platforms, which is an out right lie.

[The-Raven]

At 12/10/02 03:43 PM, Jonny_Fingerfuck wrote: if you want dictatership the answer is simple...MOVE TO IRAQ

or Lybia...

[Slizor]

Well they got out of World War 1, they industrialised, they got electricity, the peasants were freed from the mir system, and started to have nice lives. They became a great power, hell they became a superpower.

No it was, and I'm quoting you here, "Stalinism."
All of those policies were a result of "Stalinism," not communism with the exception of getting "out of World War 1."

Well Leninism couldn't have been Communism. Communism must spring up in an industrialised country, one that actually has a proletariat and they didn't have that under Lenin. We would have to be talking about Stalin. Plus, that is what you were doing, and I quote "What did they gain? They went from the Tzar controlling there lives to Stlain controling there loves.".

Also, the peasants were freed from the Mir system under Lenin, Stalin collectivised them and gave them better lives(after killing a load.) And the electrification and Industrialisation were eginning in the time of Lenin.

I would say they started to live happier lives becuas of communism but they didn't. The peasents were unhappy with Lenin and Trotsky's War Communism so Lenin introduced the NEP. The NEP made the people happy, but it was not communist. The NEP allowed private ownership of land and the selling of surpluses. This was limited capitalism, not communism. Later Stalin crushed Lenin's NEP and killed many of the people it made happy, so it can't be used as one of your examples.

It didn't allow private ownership of land, Lenin had said that people were allowed to look after land, which peasant people interpreted as ownership. But it wasn't, giving them a lawful reason to "take it back".

Well, a monarch is much the same as a dictator. But you want modern ones don't you? Well, you could have most of the Middle East, some contraversal ones, which you'll try to dispute, etc, etc.

So now your stretching out to monarchies just to try and validate your point? hahaha.

And what about the Middle East?

Exactly my point, if people can not fully think and reason, why should they be allowed to vote? Obviously, the ability to think and reason can not be determined by someone's age, it would have to be determined by some kind of test. If they have to take a test to vote, it does not seem to be an essential freedom of everyone though, does it? So on one hand, you can have uninformed, illogical people voting(ending up with a stupid leader) and on the other you have to think that voting is not an essential freedom.

If you don't think it's an essential freedom you don't deserve the right to vote. Let's make that the test eh?

Are you going to refute my point, or be glib?

Sorry, what point are you trying to attack?

You stated Dictators have clear and consistant platforms, which is an out right lie.

No, I stated an advantage is that they don't change policy(drastically) every election or two. It is a valid point that they can change their mind, but they can change their mind as much as say the President can go against his election campaign. The point I was making is that there is not this continual yo-yo which goes on in most modern democracies. One party raises taxes, the net party lowers them, etc, etc.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 12/11/02 07:57 AM, Slizor wrote:
No, I stated an advantage is that they don't change policy(drastically) every election or two. It is a valid point that they can change their mind, but they can change their mind as much as say the President can go against his election campaign. The point I was making is that there is not this continual yo-yo which goes on in most modern democracies. One party raises taxes, the net party lowers them, etc, etc.

Hahaha, alright then. Please describe mussolini's policy, apprently it changed but was still fairly consistant ..... according to you.

[MarijuanaClock]

And Slizor, Lenin's NEP did allow private ownership of the land. Thus the Kulaks. Look it up. During the revolution the peasents took the land anyway.

[Slizor]

No, I stated an advantage is that they don't change policy(drastically) every election or two. It is a valid point that they can change their mind, but they can change their mind as much as say the President can go against his election campaign. The point I was making is that there is not this continual yo-yo which goes on in most modern democracies. One party raises taxes, the net party lowers them, etc, etc.

Hahaha, alright then. Please describe mussolini's policy, apprently it changed but was still fairly consistant ..... according to you.

No, I never said that. Actually read what I just posted. And I quote "they can change their mind". Plus, I never said that his policies were not consistant, you did, I've never studied Mussolini so I wouldn't know.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0192834983/qid=1039640416/sr=2-1/ref =sr_2_1/103-0097916-8021426

Read this book. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. It's kind of like this topic, except the person who writes the words in the book is smart.

[random-scribble]

depressing thing is, litterally no form of government will ever turn out exactly as intended, and will always warp into something that people will then laugh at and say how convoluted and pointless its become. even anarchy slowly becomes re-organised, there'll always be a few people who see the chance to make some power for themselves, and so take the opportunity. cause nothings ever perfect, but people will always try for a perfect world, this always gives someone the opportunity to take advantage over the hopeful people out there and make power for themselves. hence, all forms of government will be exploited.

[Slizor]

And Slizor, Lenin's NEP did allow private ownership of the land. Thus the Kulaks. Look it up. During the revolution the peasents took the land anyway.

No, it didn't. The peasants were allowed to keep the land they had seized after the revolution, but they didn't own it. I believe Lenin said it belonged to the people, which the peasants interpretted as themselves.
Ahem, where is the rest of your response?

[reddeadrevolver]

At 12/11/02 04:02 PM, random_scribble wrote: depressing thing is, litterally no form of government will ever turn out exactly as intended, and will always warp into something that people will then laugh at and say how convoluted and pointless its become. even anarchy slowly becomes re-organised, there'll always be a few people who see the chance to make some power for themselves, and so take the opportunity. cause nothings ever perfect, but people will always try for a perfect world, this always gives someone the opportunity to take advantage over the hopeful people out there and make power for themselves. hence, all forms of government will be exploited.

sadly enough, you are correct. The United States was intended to be a certain way and has strayed from what it was... and so has practically ever government that has existed.

Dictatorship, like any other government, can work... the real question is, for how long?

[Angryjeff]

thx Anarchy_Penguin i've been trying to remember the name of the book to post it.

But when u say that all dictators platforms change that isn't atacking dictatorship it's attacking all goverments. All political leaders change there platforms to get what they want. It's the way of teh world. And saying monarchy is a dictatorship is not a stretch at all. And yes it does validate all the points i've been trying to make

[HarryFeltersnach]

fuck you and your dictatership. It takes away all your basic freedoms. It probobly could work . who knows? Who cares? The thing wrong with it is it takes away the voice of the people> And that should be the only voice> the government should not be the boss, the people should.

[Angryjeff]

why should people be the boss?? people in general are ignorant and fools and if u don't belive maybe u should look at the last american election. You think ahve a voice now anyways if u don't like something u really think your goverment listens or jsut it throw u a bone to make u forget about the real problems. Sure people should have to right to vote esspecially the ones in florida. Sure the goverment should listen to what the people want so then the entire country would jsut become a drug haven for fools. Why do people even have this freedom to vote u wanna know why because american land owners were greedy and no longer wanted to be taxed so they used the idea of democracy (they did not invent it) to make the masses think that what they were doing was in there best intrest well u know what nothing has changed.

[HarryFeltersnach]

i never defende the american government. the system in this country is screwed. the american government pretty much is a dictatership because the people dont elect the prsedent. the u.s. is not a real democracy