Dictatorships

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 ( 😉 ).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.