Printable View
Some Greeks and Armenians might disagree about Kemal's benevolence. He kicked all of the Greeks out of the country.
God might qualify as a benevolent dictator. Some, like Lucifer, might question His authoroity. Others might question His benevolence. But many consider Him a benevolent king.
I don't think God qualifies as a benevolent dictator since there are a lot of people who question his existence. And even besides that he is not always that benevolent and he is not a dictator, even to religious people, since I don't believe he influences day-to-day life on this planet like a dictator would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
On the subject of actual dictators though, I think that in the eyes of the dicator himself he usualy considers himself benevolent or otherwise a necessity. Many dictators, although often not entirely benevolent, have achieved important things.
Hitler for example is responsible for the German Autobahns, the extensive railways, the recovery of Germany from WOI and Volkswagen. As said, Ataturk made Turkey into a secular state and after his dead left it as a democracy. In the past there have also been a lot of absolute kings (who might be considered dictators) that have achieved great things and that have coloured and influenced our world a great deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
And you and your belif in democracy are just as muchnborn as a product of our times as their beliefs were producs of their times. I dont know what it is like in America but here in italy your beliefs (among the sons and daughters of the bourgoise and upper class) would be considered atavistic. Faith in democracy has been lost and amongs those of my age it is universaly undestood that democracy is but the tryany of the ignorant masses.
Personaly i find my political views to be in harmony with baudelaires
"There is no form of rational and assured government save an aristocracy. A monarchy or a republic, based upon democracy, are equally absurd and feeble. The immense nausea of advertisements. There are but three beings worthy of respect: the priest, the warrior and the poet. To know, to kill and to create. The rest of mankind may be taxed and drudged, they are born for the stable, that is to say, to practise what they call professions."
Naturaly i know i am biased, but this opinion has become very popular amongst the sons and daughters of italian bourgoisee as well so it may just be esprit du temps and have nothing to do with my circumstance of birth.
Many express the opinion that therecan be no such thing as a benevolent dictator, but that is mereley the propaganda of you goverments and societies which have instilled such narrow minded and absolutist views. If we are to look soley at the XX century i would agree, that it seems that all dictarors are corrupt men, but are we children that we can only see what is infront of our noses, or are we intelligent creatures which can draw upon 3000 years of human history instead of not being able too see beyond a mere 100 years. The problem of the majority of dictators of the last century is that they were all comunist dictatorships or fascist ones, both sytems hostile to the cultured elite and drawing value andpower from theignorant masses. Hitory is full of benevolent dictators, Marcus aurelious, Alexander the first of russia, Ashoka the great, Shivaji, Scipio (for the brief period he was given absolute power), Augustus, Akhenaten, Lysander, Leonidas, Louis XIV - these are the ones I can come up with off the top of my head, but history is full of them, dictatorship for the most part can work very well if the power comes from a cultured elite and if there is a strata of culterd elite society which places checks on the power of the ruler.
Yeah but Alex, Italy is hardly a hot-bed of political theory. And why should you rule me? You are not smarter than me, you're no more imaginative, no more moral, no more hard-working. You are not better than me. Its possible that I'm better than you, and its a damn indubitability that someone out there with as humble a background as I have is markedly superior to you in every conceivable way. There is no more legitimacy to the notion of a ruling aristocracy. Its old thinkin. You think you're having dodo for dinner and are gonna unexpectedly go hungry my friend. Meritocracy is legitimate, aristocracy is not. But yeah Baudelaire knew what he was talking about. Take a lazy neurotic ineffectual vice-ridden decadent as your Lycurgus, your Numa. Good on ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Ack! My material poverty reflects the impoverishment of my spirit and ability! Rich people! You with the furs and gold watches, the swimming pools and mountain chateaus! I beg you come babysit me, rule me, lead me and my fellow sheep to greener pastures oh noble valiant shepherds! You are so much better. You have money. You must be better. Right?
Is it really time for another reign of terror? Me thinks so. I'm gonna go sharpen my guillotine.
:banana::biggrinjester:
Alex once you and your fellow hoarding loafers are in charge please be a kind sport and don't hoard all the loaves will ya. Toss a few over the walls of your estate to me and my fellow ignorant and bedraggled peasants. Or do one better and let us eat cake.
There not being benevolent dictators is purely and entirely a product of your times and civilization. Of course they can and have existed. It would also be good to delve into the ‘alternative’. Let’s try democracy. I would never have a democratic decision in place of my general leading the war. I would never take a common person vote on how best to do my brain surgery. Personally, I have no doubt at all that dictatorship is far, far, and tens times farther the best form of leadership. As I see it, we currently exist in a human social period where our ‘enlightenment phases’ actually really did mass murder the brain trusts of aristocrats who had developed the arts of ruling for many generations. We replaced experts – deliberately replaced experts with amateurs. A general leading an army is an old man who spent an entire lifetime studying and perfecting his abilities. So did a surgeon. An American President did not, and their abilities show. I think people should be honest about things. Yes, this system of temporary amateurs did protect us from having an evil madman dictator. The price we paid was having amateur leadership. As I see it, you should be a dictator parent raising your child. That is my grand example. Some of you might say, you can’t be parent because that job would turn you evil so you would harm your child. Perhaps, that’s the risk you run. I think many people can take their dictator job seriously, care about the results they get, and devote their entire life to the challenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamCrackers
Well put, if i were to develop a cancer I would go for advice to a doctor who has studied medeicine for many years and devoted his life to his proffession, i would not go around my neigbourhood asking the old ladies and young men for advice. Yet it appears that modern common sense amongst the previous generation would demand the latter option, luckily the new generation is tired of askng round the neigbourhood and watching the cancr grow bigger and biger.
Was it not the ignornt plenians which created the rign of terror? Napoleon realized the dangers of a tyrany of the mases, and created a new aristocratic meritocracy to rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Darcy if you are hot wiling to read my post with an open mind, there is the same point of discussing this as discussing creationsm with Bien.
Read my post again with an open mind. You as an aristocrat are not one iota better than me. From what I can tell the only thing you have on me is fluency in multiple languages. And even if you were appreciably better than me as a man, I could go find examples of people better than you who came from humble beginnings. And yet you think you should rule me and them. That makes no sense. My points were valid. You ignore my valid points and then quote my short joking post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
Before it was aristocracy, now you're pushing aristocratic meritocracy. Hey Alex, I myself and most of the people on this website, people as smart and smarter than you, are members of those ignorant masses you think you have some God-given non-merit-based right to rule.
Its actually just funny.
Since my name was brought up, I'll chime in...
I believe there can and has been benevolent Kings/Queens. I'm not sure if the definition of dictator is an argument of semantics, but one can lead (even against the majority's wishes) with the good of the people in mind. I have recently seen politics and the media destroy the effectiveness that democracy can offer. If misinformed common people are voting, and if majority rules, then the leadership will be corrupt and it will fail to be what the whole needs.
Indeed!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
And that post about the guillotine was only half in jest. If the oligarchs, be their money old or new, seek to nakedly strip me and my brothers of our political freedoms, the blood will run knee high in the streets and I'll be there.
It's simply not possible for a class of people to "rule" based on their status at birth anymore, because the modern standard of living for the middle and lower class is high enough for people born into them to understand what's going on and to succeed within the system. That's called progress. Information is easily obtained, education is freely given to people in most developed countries up until adulthood, so people are able to thrive based on their own work ethic and inborn merits and they're not going to let themselves be limited by something as piddling as their imaginary status at birth. It's just not going to happen, people won't let themselves be ruled by "the upper class," the entire idea is almost comically outdated - people born into "lower classes" (which doesn't mean anything at all in my part of the world where an oil rigger can make three times more than a doctor) won't put aside their ambitions because of someone's ancestors' accomplishments. You'll never hear anyone say "oh he's right, his great-great-great-great grandfather was kighted, based on that alone he's much better suited to govern the country than that guy who graduated top of his class from Harvard Law and has twenty years experience in politics - why, his great-great-great-great grandfather was only a steel worker!"
Exactly. See that Alex? Double pwnage. Double epic pwnage of a truly nuclear, a truly bolt-of-lighting sort. Ouch. Aristocracy in this day and age? Bring back the horse and buggy while you're at it too!Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Ah but I only jest. Sort of. Yes, ceding my political freedom to a bunch of horse-riding fancy-pants gents who've never gotten their hands dirty sounds like a reasonable thing. I mean the democratization of education simply never happened. In Italy do children still in the majority begin working in the factories and mines 14 hours a day at the age of 9? We need a Canadian to be an alter-Columbus and go open up the rest of the world to you fellas over there.
After it being implied that I and everyone I know belong to the "ignorant masses" I feel neither shame nor guilt at prodding you thus.
I don't think people understand the principle of representative democracy when they attack the "idiotic masses" or what have you. The point of democracy is that those who are affected by decisions have an input into how those decisions are made. Sure, a brain surgeon is the best person to consult on the technicalities of brain surgery. Yet, the relevant analogy should be whether that brain surgeon has the right to impose surgery on you without your consent, or whether you should not have the right to choose between the brain surgeon with a history of malpractice accusations or one with a stellar record.
The intense irony of the military analogy presented above is that historically several armies have been lead by incompetent people who were given their position because of family. The concept of the modern professional army, where trained experts lead armies, comes out of a Modern expansion of meritocratic ideas. It's not really an argument against representative democracy because the meritocratic military model is, in essence, part of the same ideological framework as representative democracy. It all has to do with responsibility, we expect those in positions of authority to demonstrate their right to be in that position.
~
R e m i n d e r
Please do not personalise your arguments.
Posts containing personal and / or inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning.
~