Dictatorships

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Shin_Nikkolas
Would a kind and intelligent absolute dictator be preferable to any other form of government or rule?

You have a person who can act for the people but not through the people. He/she does not waste time with the proverbial red tape that hinders so many decisions in today's societies. You will have quick decisive action for all situations.

If you can trust and have faith in an absolute ruler, could a society not prosper better than any sort of Democracy or Republic?

This is just a question. I'm not taking any position.

chithappens
The people have always been the problem, not the system. Any political system could function given the people in power attempted to help the people, it never happens though

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shin_Nikkolas
Would a kind and intelligent absolute dictator be preferable to any other form of government or rule?


Yes.

Red tape is nothing but a speed bump, and I'm all for doing away with it.

DigiMark007
Nearly every program set up for the benefit of the people, by a democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, etc. ends up wasting excess manpower and money. Even without the "red tape" you're looking at beurocracy at the level of administration for the dictator's decisions. The money, largely, is better spent by the people who have it originally, rather than siphoning it off for supposedly helpful (but wasteful) gov't programs.

I'm speaking primarily to the writings and lectures of Milton Friedman. Friedman was a Nobel Prize Economist, whose work was mainly in the area of espousing a severely limited government. We should be happy that our gov't takes so long to accomplish anything useful, because overbearing gov't control would be far worse, even if it was mostly social programs set up to help citizens, and was run by someone compassionate and intelligent.

chithappens
I'm wondering the difference in governments though. In application, they all work the same way. In a democracy, an official can do as they please once in office and basically wait until elections to cater to the people.

In theory it should be way different though...

cococryspies
In the roman republic dictators were appointed during war, and then stripped of power after the war ended. And Plato and socrates both taught about the 'ideal' government, which would be run by one all-powerful leader.

But that just doesn't make sense to me. absolute power breeds corruption. And Dictators might have worked for the romans but i don't think in modern times that wartime dictators would work especially with international human rights laws. If democracies won't follow the rules of the geneava convention, why would a dictator.

DigiMark007
There's nothign wrong with the ideals of socialism, communism, maybe even dictatorships (at least in the idealized scenario the thread-starter specified). But the point is that they don't work in reality. Or they work to make things economically stable but deprive the people of any personal or economic freedoms, which is its own evil.

You could make hypothetical situations in which any system either succeeds or fails (and extreme scenarios like this are usually the last bastion of argument people try to use against me when I debate for free market economies over socialism), but it doesn't validate them unless they can be shown to work, either by repeated historical precedent or modern-day analysis.

Tptmanno1
Well, as I believe Aristotle puts it, for each main type of government there is an essentially a good kinda and a bad kinda.
A kind monarchy, and a dictatorship (which is what you are describing)
An Aristocracy and an Oligarchy (for rule by elite)
An Direct Democracy and Representational Republic ( With direct Democracy being the overall best.)

But the type of monarchy you are describing is something along the lines of what Hobbes would endorse . His concept is that a single ruler can have the absolute power that is necessary to keep humanity from killing each other, and as long as he keeps the good of the people in mind he really cannot go to astray.
Locke, from whom the American way of government is derived, believed the opposite, and the two published books, and debated and even fought several wars over their separate ideologies. (They were contemporaries.)

Yet more modernly it has come to be accepted that any sort of absolute power will corrupt enough to turn it to an unacceptable monarchy.

But to answer your question, personally, would a benevolent dictator be preferable to a completely corrupt oligarchy of even democracy.
I would hesitate to say yes to even this concept without understanding the sublties of the rule. Things like freedoms, and equalities and other concepts would be have to be analyzed on a micro scale for me to even to begin a judgment.

DigiMark007
Aristotle's groupings only cover forms of centralized power, and ignore the variables present with different economic systems.

In an ideal setting, anarchy is the best form of government (or lack thereof). But it would never work in a real setting. A dictatorship, by that estimation, would likely be preferable. But in the interests of personal, political, and economic freedoms (which are all interconnected) I believe that the aforementioned anarchy is closer to the least of all evils: that being the least amount of gov't necessary to ensure the protection of physical, personal, and economic freedoms, and not restricting anything else.

The collapse of dictatorships, communist regimes, and the utter stagnation of most socialist states, not to mention the scary amount of power centralized within such governments, means that even if this kind of very free system wasn't perfect, it would be preferable to the others.

Fishy
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Aristotle's groupings only cover forms of centralized power, and ignore the variables present with different economic systems.

In an ideal setting, anarchy is the best form of government (or lack thereof). But it would never work in a real setting. A dictatorship, by that estimation, would likely be preferable. But in the interests of personal, political, and economic freedoms (which are all interconnected) I believe that the aforementioned anarchy is closer to the least of all evils: that being the least amount of gov't necessary to ensure the protection of physical, personal, and economic freedoms, and not restricting anything else.

The collapse of dictatorships, communist regimes, and the utter stagnation of most socialist states, not to mention the scary amount of power centralized within such governments, means that even if this kind of very free system wasn't perfect, it would be preferable to the others.

I strongly disagree here. An Anarchy would never work as you said because of a thousand reasons. People would always search power and would always get it.

A government with the least amount of power possible would effectively be a government that does very little and could create very little. A government with absolute power would be destroyed by bureaucracy and even if that would not be a problem thousands of others would arrive.

The best way to create anything would be to form a strong government that does have some level of control over the people in way of taxes and laws but does not have to many where our free will is in anyway destroyed. They would still have to look at the economy as the driving factor and should consider it more important then anything else though and there comes the problem.

A socialist state or a form of socialism seems to cost a lot of money, but it also has a lot of benefits. Free health care for instance could provide for the people and make the poorer people in better health making sure they can continue working and making them make money for the economy.

At the same time however a totally free health care system would stop advances so either the government would have to invest a lot of money into the system, more then any kind of company ever would to reach the same results or you should accept a semi free semi paid health care system. Which seems unfair to the people paying.

The same goes for schooling, a completely free system would ensure that everybody receives education. You would however also be limited by what the government can offered, possibly reducing the effectiveness of the educational system, however making people pay for it would heavily lower the amount of (highly educated) people.

It's a thin line a government has to walk, but limiting it's power and it's influence as much as possible is not a good idea. It would hurt to many people and because of that the economy.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Fishy
I strongly disagree here. An Anarchy would never work as you said because of a thousand reasons. People would always search power and would always get it.

A government with the least amount of power possible would effectively be a government that does very little and could create very little. A government with absolute power would be destroyed by bureaucracy and even if that would not be a problem thousands of others would arrive.

The best way to create anything would be to form a strong government that does have some level of control over the people in way of taxes and laws but does not have to many where our free will is in anyway destroyed. They would still have to look at the economy as the driving factor and should consider it more important then anything else though and there comes the problem.

A socialist state or a form of socialism seems to cost a lot of money, but it also has a lot of benefits. Free health care for instance could provide for the people and make the poorer people in better health making sure they can continue working and making them make money for the economy.

At the same time however a totally free health care system would stop advances so either the government would have to invest a lot of money into the system, more then any kind of company ever would to reach the same results or you should accept a semi free semi paid health care system. Which seems unfair to the people paying.

The same goes for schooling, a completely free system would ensure that everybody receives education. You would however also be limited by what the government can offered, possibly reducing the effectiveness of the educational system, however making people pay for it would heavily lower the amount of (highly educated) people.

It's a thin line a government has to walk, but limiting it's power and it's influence as much as possible is not a good idea. It would hurt to many people and because of that the economy.

You're implying that all the "creating" needs to come from a centralized source. In a free market, the creation of wealth and opportunities is diffused throughout the population so that there isn't the chance for power to be localized too strongly, which can both be harmful to personal freedoms and inefficient because of beaurocratic waste.

And the creation is inherently more efficient and effective, both personally and economically, because it is in the interests of the people creating it, not a government whose interests and opinions vary.

Tptmanno1
Your a libertarian arn't you Digi?
Because your spouting off very libertarian ideals.

Libertarian ideals don't work, becuase they, just like any other real ideal require human generosity and basic goodness. You seem to not be taking to account the effects of an extreme unregulated free market, Total corporatism, which is something that I will never agree is a good thing.
Beurocracys exist for a reason, its to remove the emotion from decision making, without a beurocracy, laws and rules can be changed on any sort of emotional whim, (Moreso especially if a single dictatorial power is instated) So laws become constantly fluxuating and unpredictable, and since it would seem that the point of a society is to preserve stability, it becomes pointless.

Fishy
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're implying that all the "creating" needs to come from a centralized source. In a free market, the creation of wealth and opportunities is diffused throughout the population so that there isn't the chance for power to be localized too strongly, which can both be harmful to personal freedoms and inefficient because of beaurocratic waste.

And the creation is inherently more efficient and effective, both personally and economically, because it is in the interests of the people creating it, not a government whose interests and opinions vary.

That would only count if all the people would agree that schooling and health care for instance would be good things. Which is very unlikely. And it likely wouldn't work on a large enough scale because you would always have poorer area's, state's or city's then others. And what is the chance that somebody in New York will give money to schooling in San Francisco (just two randomly picked city's)

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Your a libertarian arn't you Digi?
Because your spouting off very libertarian ideals.

Libertarian ideals don't work, becuase they, just like any other real ideal require human generosity and basic goodness. You seem to not be taking to account the effects of an extreme unregulated free market, Total corporatism, which is something that I will never agree is a good thing.
Beurocracys exist for a reason, its to remove the emotion from decision making, without a beurocracy, laws and rules can be changed on any sort of emotional whim, (Moreso especially if a single dictatorial power is instated) So laws become constantly fluxuating and unpredictable, and since it would seem that the point of a society is to preserve stability, it becomes pointless.

Libertarianism requires none of those things. A free market is competitive capitalism, so the human generosity you speak of isn't an intrinsic part of the system, and leads me to believe you're not familiar with the actual premise of a free market economy.

And the general argument against free markets is that people think it comes with literally no government intervention, which is false. It is limited, certainly, but intervenes if something gets too powerful. The idea behind a free market is that power is not centralized too strongly in any location, government or business. So, for example, anti-trust laws to protect against monopolies (one of the potential evils of a free market) are certainly acceptable.

And yes, I'm economically libertarian. But I don't spout ( wink ).

Originally posted by Fishy
That would only count if all the people would agree that schooling and health care for instance would be good things. Which is very unlikely. And it likely wouldn't work on a large enough scale because you would always have poorer area's, state's or city's then others. And what is the chance that somebody in New York will give money to schooling in San Francisco (just two randomly picked city's)

Once again, you're misunderstanding the premise in much the same way that Tptmanno did. Remote altruism, such as your education example, would not exist. And there wouldn't be a total lack of government intervention, which may include the opportunity for basic education and health services. But the point is choice and freedom, and government welfare systems such as social security and welfare do not give people the choice, but rather force them to pay money into a system that they neither voluntarily agreed to nor is it an efficient system. And it certainly isn't a better alternative than allowing people the freedom to choose such programs, but also the freedom to forego them if they want and pursue other interests.

It is, quite simply, forced coersion by a government that is powerful enough to enforce such limitations without being questioned or challenged, which is an earmark of socialism.

Fishy
Why would anybody choose to invest in schools or a health care system when there own money makes them get more and better alternatives. The government needs to take money from everybody and invest it in what everybody needs. A selective list of what you want your money to be used in would cripple the government and the efficiency of the country. You would need sick people to pay for your health care system. You would need traffic jams to be able to afford new roads and god knows what else. Won't make things easier, it will just make things worse.

A government should however and I agree with you on that much, not concern itself with much else. Getting taxes and spending it on public services and things everybody uses. After that their role should be limited as much as possible.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Fishy
Why would anybody choose to invest in schools or a health care system when there own money makes them get more and better alternatives. The government needs to take money from everybody and invest it in what everybody needs. A selective list of what you want your money to be used in would cripple the government and the efficiency of the country. You would need sick people to pay for your health care system. You would need traffic jams to be able to afford new roads and god knows what else. Won't make things easier, it will just make things worse.

A government should however and I agree with you on that much, not concern itself with much else. Getting taxes and spending it on public services and things everybody uses. After that their role should be limited as much as possible.

In a true competitive capitalism, there are choices for all at varying economic levels. The competition drives down prices based on need and profit. It isn't the government's responsibility to decide what everyone should have and give it to them (which is, at the very least, presumptuous to think a centralized body can act for all of its citizens better than they can for themselves), especially when their services waste unfathomably more money and resources than a competitive market would ever have.

It's like parents still breast-feeding their kids into adulthood, and having them fly across the country to receive the milk, rather than buying it from the store.

Bardock42
The dictator might be kind and benevolent in his or her opinion, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't **** up royally, so neither a general yes or no, in my opinion.

Democracy though is certainly not as great of a system as we praise it to be. If that is what you were aiming at. I'd have a decent dictator (imo) over a socialist democracy any day.

Fishy
Originally posted by DigiMark007
In a true competitive capitalism, there are choices for all at varying economic levels. The competition drives down prices based on need and profit. It isn't the government's responsibility to decide what everyone should have and give it to them (which is, at the very least, presumptuous to think a centralized body can act for all of its citizens better than they can for themselves), especially when their services waste unfathomably more money and resources than a competitive market would ever have.

It's like parents still breast-feeding their kids into adulthood, and having them fly across the country to receive the milk, rather than buying it from the store.

Difference is, the government can build roads everywhere they have more power then normal people and can thus decide that somebody will have to move because a road through their property would be easier and save millions. Individual people do not have that power. Nor they necessarily want to build the road.

So yes I do think the government is more capable of deciding where money should go then the people are. Not to mention that you could all of a sudden have way to many schools but not enough roads to bring kids there. You could have so much green on the streets that you have no place to build home's. Or you could have so many hospitals that you have twice as much doctors as patients. If people can spend their money on whatever they want then they will do. If they have to spend a certain amount of their money on certain projects you can bet your ass off that a lot of other things will be left behind. Perhaps equally important but far less notable things.

And if no set amount is mentioned then the government would have no money. And the people would pay only for what they need. Which makes it impossible to create a good and strong infrastructure or anything else for that matter.

Once they decide that the roads need to build it would be cheaper for them then the government that is very likely true. The government wastes a lot of money on stupid things. But that's more a plea for a more efficient government then a smaller one.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Fishy
Difference is, the government can build roads everywhere they have more power then normal people and can thus decide that somebody will have to move because a road through their property would be easier and save millions. Individual people do not have that power. Nor they necessarily want to build the road.

So yes I do think the government is more capable of deciding where money should go then the people are. Not to mention that you could all of a sudden have way to many schools but not enough roads to bring kids there. You could have so much green on the streets that you have no place to build home's. Or you could have so many hospitals that you have twice as much doctors as patients. If people can spend their money on whatever they want then they will do. If they have to spend a certain amount of their money on certain projects you can bet your ass off that a lot of other things will be left behind. Perhaps equally important but far less notable things.

And if no set amount is mentioned then the government would have no money. And the people would pay only for what they need. Which makes it impossible to create a good and strong infrastructure or anything else for that matter.

Once they decide that the roads need to build it would be cheaper for them then the government that is very likely true. The government wastes a lot of money on stupid things. But that's more a plea for a more efficient government then a smaller one.

You're ignoring the possibility that independent contractors could put up roads for a profit, at a lesser cost to the public (since it currently comes out of taxes) because there would be competing companies. Many already do, and are simply subsidized by the government. But take away the beurocratic middle-man and you'd have a more efficient system.

The same (or similar) could be said for any government-run institution.

It's natural for you to think this way, or for you to see no alternative, because it's the world we've been brought up in. And to most, it seems to work fine. I'm not saying it's horrible, just that it would be better both economically and individually in a free market.

Jack R. Crown
http://www.solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/animal_images/Camel_Jordanian_Desert.jpg

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're ignoring the possibility that independent contractors could put up roads for a profit, at a lesser cost to the public (since it currently comes out of taxes) because there would be competing companies. Many already do, and are simply subsidized by the government. But take away the beurocratic middle-man and you'd have a more efficient system.

Unless they form a monopoly (that is the best option for them economically) which cannot be stopped by anything short of a government.

It would take time but without at least some sort of limited regulation the economy would factionalize into nothing but massive monopolies, which robs capitalism of it's very existence.

Fishy
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You're ignoring the possibility that independent contractors could put up roads for a profit, at a lesser cost to the public (since it currently comes out of taxes) because there would be competing companies. Many already do, and are simply subsidized by the government. But take away the beurocratic middle-man and you'd have a more efficient system.

The same (or similar) could be said for any government-run institution.

It's natural for you to think this way, or for you to see no alternative, because it's the world we've been brought up in. And to most, it seems to work fine. I'm not saying it's horrible, just that it would be better both economically and individually in a free market.

If not controlled by the government however what would stop them from increasing prices? Hugely without limit if they want to? A system without government control requires fair company's and people and people just aren't fair. Company's aren't fair, they want more money and more profit for themselves. And without government control that becomes a hell of a lot easier.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
If not controlled by the government however what would stop them from increasing prices? Hugely without limit if they want to? A system without government control requires fair company's and people and people just aren't fair. Company's aren't fair, they want more money and more profit for themselves. And without government control that becomes a hell of a lot easier. They provide a service that is worth a lot. You know you already pay an immense shitload for streets? A free market could create better and cheaper streets. As well as competition.

I am not saying it is bad that the government makes roads, it's just not the only option...as people would like us to believe.

Tptmanno1
I aplogize if I misunderstoos some of your beleifs and concepts earilier Digi, it seems that all of the Libertarians that I have had expericence with tout complete governmental non-intervention as the ultimate goal. Which I feel could not work over any span of time.

But economically, I still do believe that a (ideal) nationalized government is better efficiently and economically than an (ideal) series of privatized sectors. Now I realize that the actual concept of idealism means that the argument seems to be irrelevant, but what the hell.
But with all citizens pooling all of their resources for something that is not, ultimatly competing with the goal of profit, would be more effected. This is simply because wealth and economic health is not spread evenly throught a country, this way a government can, and should take its pooled resources and utilize them in such a way to create a more equal nation, in terms of public issues, roads, schools, power grids and what not.
With a privatized nation, I would make the logical assumption that while all the benifits of competition, (more inspired production, and cutting costs, etc.) would be benificial, they would only benificial to the areas where it is easier to turn a profit. Therefore the wealtheir and more economical sections of a nation would be better developed and continue to be so indefinitly while the less stable and poorer areas would have a hard time developing at all because it would be much more dificult for the privatized companies to turn a profit in those areas.

But if you are socially conservative this is not any sort of moral or governmental problem becuase then you accept the fact that there s going to be class divides simply becuase you allow people the freedom to choose what they want, and governmental social intervention is in essence a bad thing, and something you would want to minimize. So it would be up to the people in the poorer areas to increase their revenue in order to be able to hire the companies working in other areas. But this would get exponentially harder as, to paraphrase pretty much any left leaning politicial "The rich get richer as the poor get poorer."

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
They provide a service that is worth a lot. You know you already pay an immense shitload for streets? A free market could create better and cheaper streets. As well as competition.

I am not saying it is bad that the government makes roads, it's just not the only option...as people would like us to believe.

Yes we are paying a shit load of money, perhaps to much. The thing is the Government however can't just throw up prices as they wish. People would be upset and they would lose votes and next governments could turn it around. A company not controlled by anything, could easily make those roads more expensive. And how about remote roads that lead just a few people to their houses, what if those people can't afford to build a road, what company would set out and do it without the government forcing them to do so?

A free market economy is a utopia, a world without government control would be perfect at least if the company's use their power right and that is what makes everything impossible. Company's are created and run by humans, who always have greed in their hearts. Very few company's would be fair if given the power a completely free market would give them.

A monopoly position could be easily established. Perhaps not by controlling all roads or freeways. But just the roads leading to one town. Or the road leading to a house. There is a limited amount of space available for things like roads and there comes a time when no more roads can be build and you have to rely on the one's you have. If the one's you have are controlled by one company then you can be seriously ****ed.

Now I would like to see a world where the government wouldn't this kind of power over us, but let's face it's the only system that can work on a large scale.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless they form a monopoly (that is the best option for them economically) which cannot be stopped by anything short of a government.

It would take time but without at least some sort of limited regulation the economy would factionalize into nothing but massive monopolies, which robs capitalism of it's very existence.

I already mentioned anti-trust laws as a way of protection against monopolies, a necessary action in a free market.

Originally posted by Fishy
If not controlled by the government however what would stop them from increasing prices? Hugely without limit if they want to? A system without government control requires fair company's and people and people just aren't fair. Company's aren't fair, they want more money and more profit for themselves. And without government control that becomes a hell of a lot easier.

Competition would drive the prices down and make them affordable, as with anything that exists in a competitive market.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
I aplogize if I misunderstoos some of your beleifs and concepts earilier Digi, it seems that all of the Libertarians that I have had expericence with tout complete governmental non-intervention as the ultimate goal. Which I feel could not work over any span of time.

But economically, I still do believe that a (ideal) nationalized government is better efficiently and economically than an (ideal) series of privatized sectors. Now I realize that the actual concept of idealism means that the argument seems to be irrelevant, but what the hell.
But with all citizens pooling all of their resources for something that is not, ultimatly competing with the goal of profit, would be more effected. This is simply because wealth and economic health is not spread evenly throught a country, this way a government can, and should take its pooled resources and utilize them in such a way to create a more equal nation, in terms of public issues, roads, schools, power grids and what not.
With a privatized nation, I would make the logical assumption that while all the benifits of competition, (more inspired production, and cutting costs, etc.) would be benificial, they would only benificial to the areas where it is easier to turn a profit. Therefore the wealtheir and more economical sections of a nation would be better developed and continue to be so indefinitly while the less stable and poorer areas would have a hard time developing at all because it would be much more dificult for the privatized companies to turn a profit in those areas.

But if you are socially conservative this is not any sort of moral or governmental problem becuase then you accept the fact that there s going to be class divides simply becuase you allow people the freedom to choose what they want, and governmental social intervention is in essence a bad thing, and something you would want to minimize. So it would be up to the people in the poorer areas to increase their revenue in order to be able to hire the companies working in other areas. But this would get exponentially harder as, to paraphrase pretty much any left leaning politicial "The rich get richer as the poor get poorer."

A common misconception is that the presence of rich people means there's vastly less wealth for the rest of us. Far from it, so long as the wealth is coming from and contributing to a competitive market.

But I can see where you're coming from. And no one short of an anarchist actually advocates no government intervention. But less is more, from my experience and research.

Tptmanno1
Well, it seems though, that in practice, the rich "trickle-down" economy really has not historically worked, at least in recent American times.

And my philosophy, and experience leads me to believe the opposite. But to each his own, and thats probably why I get along quite well with most of the ideas from people like Kant, and Rousseau, and a slightly lesser extent Locke and Marx.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
Yes we are paying a shit load of money, perhaps to much. The thing is the Government however can't just throw up prices as they wish. People would be upset and they would lose votes and next governments could turn it around. A company not controlled by anything, could easily make those roads more expensive. And how about remote roads that lead just a few people to their houses, what if those people can't afford to build a road, what company would set out and do it without the government forcing them to do so?


Why is it your duty to pay for them? And the governmetn hides the prices from the general citizen, do you know how much exactly you pay for the roads you use?

Originally posted by Fishy
A free market economy is a utopia, a world without government control would be perfect at least if the company's use their power right and that is what makes everything impossible. Company's are created and run by humans, who always have greed in their hearts. Very few company's would be fair if given the power a completely free market would give them.


A free market wouldn't be an anarchist market as most people seem to think. The government would still ensure fair trade, that contracts are upheld and that fraud is illegal.

Originally posted by Fishy
A monopoly position could be easily established. Perhaps not by controlling all roads or freeways. But just the roads leading to one town. Or the road leading to a house. There is a limited amount of space available for things like roads and there comes a time when no more roads can be build and you have to rely on the one's you have. If the one's you have are controlled by one company then you can be seriously ****ed.


A free market would deal with it. Probably much cheaper than a government. Though, now that we do have roads I would say the government can take care of those, though a more efficient way needs to be found. I am just saying it is unfair and untrue to say that roads can only come about at a reasonable price through governments.

Originally posted by Fishy
Now I would like to see a world where the government wouldn't this kind of power over us, but let's face it's the only system that can work on a large scale.

Nah, it certainly, very, very certainly isn't. It isn't even a particularly good system..especially when it is so big.

Fishy
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why is it your duty to pay for them? And the governmetn hides the prices from the general citizen, do you know how much exactly you pay for the roads you use?

For the roads exactly? No. I do know how that I pay four times more for my car and everything that comes with it then the government invests in things related to cars. Not a real good argument for the government but still.

And why should I pay for them, because I use them. And if I don't people who keep this country working might, and if they don't the police fire departments and ambulances might. Now unless public services get a list of people who they can help and who they can't then things that public services should just be paid for with public money.



Take that road for example, not take a town with enough room for only one road leading towards it. What would the government do then? If the government forces prices to be lower then a certain amount then you would get towns that have no roads or bad roads because it's not worth it for company's to build those roads. Not to mention a lot of bureaucratic controlling from the government.



Well they might come at a reasonable price, I'm just saying I don't trust company's to make sure they always come at a reasonable price and I don't trust them to keep that price reasonable. I don't trust the government either but at least with the government you can sometimes do something about it.



True, but I can't think of a better one that would actually work.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Fishy
For the roads exactly? No. I do know how that I pay four times more for my car and everything that comes with it then the government invests in things related to cars. Not a real good argument for the government but still.

I don't even get the argument. Is it kinda like saying Pineapples are sold at a reasonable price, cause airplanes are more expensive?

Originally posted by Fishy
And why should I pay for them, because I use them. And if I don't people who keep this country working might, and if they don't the police fire departments and ambulances might. Now unless public services get a list of people who they can help and who they can't then things that public services should just be paid for with public money.

I meant for the streets you don't use. The streets just one person needs. Why is it your duty to pay for those?

Besides, not everyone uses roads. And there are certainly some that use them much more than others. Again, I support the government taking care of that, but I think it is unfair to say the free market couldn't give a better alternative from scratch. Certainly more fair, but maybe not as cheap for everyone, on average probably cheaper though.


Originally posted by Fishy
Take that road for example, not take a town with enough room for only one road leading towards it. What would the government do then? If the government forces prices to be lower then a certain amount then you would get towns that have no roads or bad roads because it's not worth it for company's to build those roads. Not to mention a lot of bureaucratic controlling from the government.

Why should the government force anything? If the town can't be supported by a free market that town will likely have to go. No one forces the people to live in that town. Roads are not a human right. And you don't really have a duty to pay for everyone's infrastructure. I believe it is beneficial for all people


Originally posted by Fishy
Well they might come at a reasonable price, I'm just saying I don't trust company's to make sure they always come at a reasonable price and I don't trust them to keep that price reasonable. I don't trust the government either but at least with the government you can sometimes do something about it.

You don't have to trust companies. They have no duty to provide anything. It comes at the price it is worth. Competition would take care of that. And I do trust the government, I trust it that it takes more than half of every buck I earn to throw it at shitty service or just burn it for the heck of it. I mean, the government is the ultimate monopoly, it has us all fooled that it is for our good and we can't see alternatives. Quite genius.


Originally posted by Fishy
True, but I can't think of a better one that would actually work.

I can.

Fishy

Devil King
Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd have a decent dictator (imo) over a socialist democracy any day.

On this, we agree.

Robtard
Has there ever been a "decent dictator?"

I can only think of one, Augustus Caesar, simply because his rule was known as a time of Roman-peace.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Has there ever been a "decent dictator?" Yeah.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah.

I edited, once I thought of Augustus... any come to mind for you, preferably one that's not been dead for almost two thousand years?

Deja~vu
They always fail after time because power goes to their heads.

Tptmanno1
Originally posted by Devil King
On this, we agree.

I really don't
I'd much rather have a "Socialist Democracy"
Seems something like how they run France.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
I edited, once I thought of Augustus... any come to mind for you, preferably one that's not been dead for almost two thousand years? Well Rome hada few good after. There are a few before. Now as for more recent I'd say a few in Prussia and Germany were quite good. Frederick I. Frederick the Second of Prussia. There are a few examples.

I suppose you could argue they were kings, but they were mostly absolute and if there hadn't been heredity you'd call them dictators.

Tptmanno1
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well Rome hada few good after. There are a few before. Now as for more recent I'd say a few in Prussia and Germany were quite good. Frederick I. Frederick the Second of Prussia. There are a few examples.

I suppose you could argue they were kings, but they were mostly absolute and if there hadn't been heredity you'd call them dictators.
But the alternative is still historically more beneficial.
How many good monarchs were there? A handful at most, Democracy and other forms of representational government have had a much longer history of success, from ancient Greece to the multitude of governments that utilize it now?
I'm not a blind supporter of "the american way" or any of that bullshit, I just know that a form of representation is better than the alternatives.

Bardock42
Libertarian governments didn't really get any chances now did they?

Fishy
Originally posted by Tptmanno1
But the alternative is still historically more beneficial.
How many good monarchs were there? A handful at most, Democracy and other forms of representational government have had a much longer history of success, from ancient Greece to the multitude of governments that utilize it now?
I'm not a blind supporter of "the american way" or any of that bullshit, I just know that a form of representation is better than the alternatives.

Not true, if you look at the Dutch history, with whose Royal family I am most familiar, you would see that when they were still the most powerful people in the country (technically not kings but as good as) most of them were loved. In 300 years, only 3 were not loved and removed from office. Seeing as they weren't kings this was quite a bit easier. The state could choose not to recognize their power any longer. Three times in 300 years isn't really that often. And there descendants were always called back because they were important enough.

Our first real king wasn't a mediocre king in popularity, but form that moment on most if not all have been popular. Of course sing our first real king we have been somewhat of a democracy but still.

Other kings have been popular in almost every nation in the world. However sometimes one of them ****s up and it usually ends up putting a bad name on the entire line, but if you see how long certain lines of English/German/French/Spanish royalty lasted you would see that many of them were indeed quite popular or at least good leaders who managed to do things with their country that no leader today could.

And that's the weakness of a democracy, it's limited in form time and power and thus no big chances can happen. Not for good or for the better. A king or a dictator can do those things, downside is that if they want to do bad things they are a bit harder to stop then a democratic government.

Darth Exodus
Absolutely.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Libertarian governments didn't really get any chances now did they? I don't think they will. In a democracy we lend a government the power to look after the citizens, libertarian governments use hardly any power. So why vote for a government that isn't going to help you?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
I don't think they will. In a democracy we lend a government the power to look after the citizens, libertarian governments use hardly any power. So why vote for a government that isn't going to help you? Because it would be a government that doesn't oppress you.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because it would be a government that doesn't oppress you. Why can't it help you as well?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Why can't it help you as well? How would it be possible?

lord xyz
Government being very socialis in that it has lots of services, but also libertarian in that those who do not wish to be a part of certain services, don't have to be. So if you would rather not pay health tax and pay when you get sick, you can. It would also be a way of not people voting about whether gays should marry, instead, those who are for gay marriage should have it legalised, and those who oppose should keep it illegal (within a district or constituency).

I believe this is similar to that of neo-liberalism and social democracy.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lord xyz
Government being very socialis in that it has lots of services, but also libertarian in that those who do not wish to be a part of certain services, don't have to be. So if you would rather not pay health tax and pay when you get sick, you can. It would also be a way of not people voting about whether gays should marry, instead, those who are for gay marriage should have it legalised, and those who oppose should keep it illegal (within a district or constituency).

I believe this is similar to that of neo-liberalism and social democracy. How would it be a government then though? It's basically libertarian then, people in a libertarian country can choose to get together and pay for health care if they want.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
How would it be a government then though? It's basically libertarian then, people in a libertarian country can choose to get together and pay for health care if they want. Yes, I keep forgetting that that's not government.

Quark_666
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, I keep forgetting that that's not government. I sincerely hope you aren't being sarcastic.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.