Is dictatorship bad because a man with absolute power is likely to be corrupted by it, or is the concept of a man with that absolute power inherently bad, no matter how virtuous he may be in his soul and his actions?
>>384022
The former.
>>384022
it's bad because everyone's different and one man can not please everyone so its easy to place the blame when things go wrong.
whereas in democracy it's hard because "The people voted for these laws"
>>384022
The latter.
If you have a system where one man at the top weilds absolute political power, any given subject has no recourse to any decisions which might affect him badly (even if done with the best of intentions) other than armed insurrection.
Armed insurrections, whether successful or failures, are expensive, bloody, and just bad news all around.
A more inclusive political system allows people to become politically involved without resorting to violence.
>>384022
Dictatorship may not be injerently bad, depnding on what you mean by that, bjt it is inherently illegitimate.
>>384022
absolute power corrupts absolutely
>>384049
No!
Fear corrupts absolutely!
>>384022
Are you implying Dom Pedro the second was a despot?
>>384022
it is bad because it isn't me with all the power
Supreme executive authority comes from the masses!
>>384049
There aren't seriously people over 10 years old who believe this, right? It's in the same vein as saying ignorance is good.
The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.
Dictatorship is what we need
>>384022
Usually, yes, but the Metaxas dictatorship in Greece was actually pretty beneficial, the only problem was that he did not kick the filthy dane "king" out. But for the years he acted as the leader, Greece was free of filthy commies, no nazis had occupied Greece, we kicked Italian ass and all the masonic lodges were closed down (that's why he was killed, and his corpse was charred before an autopsy was performed).
>>384022
The first. There have been good dictators and imo it's an ideal government if the leader is competent
Dictatorship is bad because no matter how good or competent a particular leader is, the mechanisms in place to allow him to enact his will are easily hijacked by others, and there is no guarantee his successors will be anywhere near as good or competent. Diffusing power may limit the amount of good an individual leader may do, but more importantly it decreases the amount of harm an individual leader may do
>>385567
>no guarantee he has a good successor
Same with democracy desu
>>385576
Of course. But a bad successor in a democracy is inherently less dangerous than a bad successor in a dictatorship, because of the amount of power they have.
>>384022
In my view it's about sustainability. More centralized power relies more on great individuals. For ever great ruler you'll get five crappy ones. You also probably don't want one person to be able to influence any thing on personal whim. I'd rather opt for a strong presidential system.
Dictatorships are technically the best forms of government possible, assuming the leader is uncorrupt and gives a damn about his country and his countrymen
>>385328
Thousands of years of recorded human history, the vast majority of it with despots as the standard form of government, and how many of them could you say to be uncorrupt and pure? Cincinnatus and a few monarchs?
>>384022
freedom is inherently good
a certain cost to standards of living incurred by allowing people a measure of freedom is justified
dictatorship is good because most people are idiots and shouldn't be allowed any say in politics
Dictatorship is good if your system is so broken, only absolute executive action can fix things.
>>386740
How do you determine that the dictator is not one of those idiots?
>>384022
>is dictatorship bad?
posts a picture of Pedro de Alcântara João Carlos Leopoldo Salvador Bibiano Francisco Xavier de Paula Leocádio Miguel Gabriel Rafael Gonzaga, greatest brazilian ever born
>>386740
people are idiots but not completely incompetent, they will represent the interests of a citizen to a degree, as opposed to a dictator who only represents the interests of a dictator
sooner or later he gets detached from reality and with it his ability to lead the right way
>>384022
Autocracy is actually good
Two things that make democracy good:
-it gets legitimacy from the people
-there is a way of peacefully replacing your rulers
That said, in order for a democracy to actually be good, it has to:
-not be terribly corrupted
-have a constitution and follow it (a requirement for being considered a liberal democracy)
-not have the main party persecute political opponents
All of those things just make it into a shitty, fake form of democracy. If the conditions for a proper democracy are fulfilled, it is inheretly better than dictatorship in my opinion.
>>384022
Very few people are capable of holding onto power without it turning into an end in itself for them, least of all those who wish to have it no matter how noble they think their initial goals. Reformers and conservers alike both turn into reactionary tyrants as soon as they receive the means to force their idea of progress upon people or stop societal changes from happening.
>>386943
Even without those things democracies move incredibly slowly and take forever to get anything done.
It just seems to be the least shit of the currently available forms of government.
>>386685
The fact that there are examples means it's not absolute.
>>385567
> there is no guarantee his successors will be anywhere near as good or competent.
There's no reason to assume they should be dictators as well.
>>386710
equality is inherently good
a certain cost to potential for wealth incurred by allowing people a measure of equality is justified
>>385567
>What is elective monarchy
If, given absolue power as head of state, do you believe you could resist corruption and rule justly? Could you identify corruption? Would your idea of ruling justly differ from those you rule? Would you be remembered as a reformer? A preserver? A benevolent but otherwise ineffectual ruler? A figurehead for ideology? A craven and power-hungry despot? An idealist who damned his nation?
>>387756
The elective monarchy paralyzed Poland senpai
Autocracy is unreliable. It has the highest highs and the lowest lows. Democracy is the opposite. It is steady it'll never waver too far into either spectrum as a direct result of the leadership because power is to diffused.
>>385366
>never Marcus Aurelius
I don't know, Eisenhower was pretty cool.
>>386685
Do you think those people were good before they became dictators?
>>384022
>dictatorship is bad, but for which reason?
It's not bad by necessity. Why would you make an absolute statement like that?
It's like assuming that democracy is bad no matter what.
>>388583
He was also a ruler, not the public
>>384049
>power corrupts
No it doesn't.
>>384049
Power corrupts the weak
>>385633
>For every great ruler you'll get five crappy ones.
Well I can just assert that for every great ruler you'll get one crappy one, and three middling ones such that the average is also the median of their skill.
But now we're just saying things without backing it up.
>>384022
Dictatorship is bad because it implies no institutions, which means the dictator is the absolute authority, which also means chaos after his death.
Kadhafi knew that and managed to change his government and his institutions everytime he felt the need to, same goes for Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot, thats why their regime collapsed.
When institutions are built, dictatorship is over.
>>386710
>freedom is inherently good
freedom is inherently bad
>equality is inherently good
equality is inherently bad
>>386747
The Mandate of Heaven, Divine Right.
>>387805
>given absolue power as head of state, do you believe you could resist corruption and rule justly
desu I'd probably swing as much tail as possible, but aside from that of course I'd try to be a good ruler for the betterment of my people.
>idea of ruling justly differ from those you rule
Thankfully, the truth is not decided by vote or majority consensus.
>Would you be remembered
Who cares?
>>388526
>It has the highest highs and the lowest lows. Democracy is the opposite.
Prove it. That's a weird kind of assumption.
Also, what is being qualified here by "high" and "low"?
>>389576
>The Mandate of Heaven, Divine Right.
>I'm not an idiot because my religion says so guys
>>389584
>I don't what what the Mandate of Heaven is.
>>389592
Did you forget the other half of your post is divine right?
>>389595
In both systems legitimacy is derived from the divine.
You know dictatorships and monarchies can have vastly different processes, right? It's not all hereditary absolute power, which is pretty bad.
I'd say the former, but also the fact that man is fallible, so with a dictatorship you run a large risk of ruining your country by putting the whole thing into the hands of one man rather than a group who can talk things out.
>>389630
The difference is that in the Mandate of Heaven system, the king has to not fuck up or else he becomes illegitimate.
Divine right in most of the rest of the world is not the same, the monarch gets his/her authority from God and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>389630
>you don't know what the mandate if heaven is do you?
>>389642
>the king has to not fuck up
It's not that the king is fucking up himself such as instead that the divine mandate has left him.
>there's nothing you can do about it
well I believe that in the UK the divine will was manifest through Parliament, so I'm not so sure there's as big a difference as our education system leads us to believe.
Besides, the European Divine Right stipulates only that the king is subject to judgment by God alone, not the right of the citizens to revolt or remove a despot by necessity of circumstance.
Likewise, I don't believe that Divine Right protects individuals holding the position of kingship so much as it protects the position itself.
>>389687
>well I believe that in the UK the divine will was manifest through Parliament, so I'm not so sure there's as big a difference as our education system leads us to believe.
If there's a parliament it's not a dictatorship, is it?
>>389696
Not necessarily.
But the thread has moved on from strictly talking about dictators to autocrats and monarchs anyways cause OP is a fag that doesn't get the difference so it doesn't really matter.
>>384022
That is a loaded question.
>>384022
Dictatorship is bad because the managing the affairs of a complex economy is a task that exceeds human ability. Even the best dictator could not possibly deliver modern quality of life to a population of any substantial size.
>>389932
A dictator does not necessarily have to actively manage the economy.
A dictator isn't required to micro-manage everything, he can do whatever he wants when he feels it's necessary to do something quickly and definitively, including not doing anything.
>>384022
A mix of both. Dictators often get paranoid and extravagant while the system ensures social change of any kind is rooted in violent force
Unless you have some kind of obsessive like Joseph "Grey Blur" Djugashvili, one man doesn't rule directly but is dependent on a wider administrative apparatus. They all derive their authority from that one ruler, so their own corruption and malfeasance can only be halted by further layers of administrators and secret police (which had the same problem) or appeal to the dictator which is limited by their time and various "gatekeepers" who control what the dictator reads and who he meets.
I can't remember the exact link, but I recently saw a paper arguing that Imperial China's biggest problem was that it effectively had a regressive tax rate as local officials would defraud and rob the poor, while the gentry and educated classes could avoid this, and so Imperial revenues were limited as increases in tax rate could easily reduce populations to starvation and rebellion.
Similarly the need to prevent other people from gaining power causes problems, as in China where the rotation of governors and officials among provinces to avoid provincial political cliques from forming meant everyone saw their position as an opportunity to grab as much cash as they could before they had to move on, and if it caused long term problems that wasn't their problem. This is the same thing that happened with Roman governors.
>>389508
Thats not what he said
He said; absolute power corrupts.
>>390467
Couldn't that last problem have been resolved by a European feudal system of hereditary demesnes, where the ruler's personal wealth and the wealth of his family are intimately bound to the prosperity of his holdings?
