Could there ever be a benevolent dictator?

[Quintus Ennius]

We are talking about Hobbes in my school and i'm just wondering if it is possible to even have a benevolent dictator?

[Darcy88]

Marcus Aurelius was a good guy if we are to judge from his Meditations. I am not up on my imperial Roman history too good, only in spots. As greedy and power-hungry as Julius Caesar was, he enacted some much-needed populist reforms. Sulla was a blood-thirsty man, but he also implemented some positive legislation as dictator and then simply handed over power. I don't see why a benevolent dictator wouldn't be possible. Nowadays though just for the simple fact that we are used to democratic freedoms, any dictator who arose would have to kill and confine an endless number of political activists, would have to put in place a merciless comprehensive police-state, and so "benevolence" wouldn't be possible for such a leader. I like democracy, it has so many great faults but its imperfection is a reflection of our imperfection. Idealism is for fools . Hobbes was no fool but his philosophy was a product of the time. Its been so long since I read it but I remember thinking how plainly wrong he was on this issue.

[Bad Grass]

In the sense of the term, of course there can be a benevolent dictator…in its own sense.
One man rule doesn’t mean there isn’t a just man.

But then comes the catch-22.

Since a dictator is not elected, the seating of such is enforced, typically by a form of para-military.

At this stage, show of force has been exercised, although confrontation is not necessarily present.

Good governance can still be had. Depending on the society under such a regime, the dictator may show concern for the people. If his efforts are for the further advancement of the state and seeks to be recognized as a sovereign nation then yes, he could indeed be popular. Which is the other part of the catch-22. If the interest is toward the people, then ultimately, some form of democracy will be sought.

Now, if it’s a religious state, then there will more likely be factions, and resistance will surely be inherited. Saddam Hussein was a prime example. He took command via a coup. But he inherited two factions against him. In such lays irony. To rule was to rule by iron fist, which is bloody – but it was rooted in religious belief.

Governance for the people tends to give way to democracy.

Governance which doesn’t embody the people leads to animosity.

So can there be a benevolent dictator? Yes. Will he stand true? Not likely.

[Paulclem]

I think think there's a dictator myth, just like there's the kingship myths - divine right of kings and all that.

[Bad Grass]

Excuse me Paul. A dictator myth? Okay.

Since no one is posting. Somalia is an awful regime. Something has to give with that country.

It’s funny how the U.S. can declare war on terrorism, but not drugs.

Oh, they take out Bin Laden. But not the Kingpin. Really?

[cacian]

No.
Benevolent is one word and
Dictator is another.
It is a bit like saying you cannot have beautiful and ugly at the same time and in one word.
The beauty and the beast?
Well that is a myth/ a fairy tale isn' it?

[Darcy88]

No.
Benevolent is one word and
Dictator is another.
It is a bit like saying you cannot have beautiful and ugly at the same time and in one word.
The beauty and the beast?
Well that is a myth/ a fairy tale isn' it?

The words "benevolent" and "dictator" are not contradictory. It is not an oxymoron. Marcus Camillus was a benevolent dictator in the Roman sense of the word dictator. There is absolutely no reason why it would be impossible for a dictator to be benevolent. A man wise and able as Solon could arise somewhere and be popularly proclaimed leader of the state for life. Why not? Its unlikely, very much so, but by no means is it impossible.

[cafolini]

The words "benevolent" and "dictator" are not contradictory. It is not an oxymoron. Marcus Camillus was a benevolent dictator in the Roman sense of the word dictator. There is absolutely no reason why it would be impossible for a dictator to be benevolent. A man wise and able as Solon could arise somewhere and be popularly proclaimed leader of the state for life. Why not? Its unlikely, very much so, but by no means is it impossible.

Obviously a dictator can be benevolent toward those he favors and protects with his rulings and policies.
He could be a nepotist whenever he wished to be so. History is full of them and today, history on the make is full of them.

[Darcy88]

Obviously a dictator can be benevolent toward those he favors and protects with his rulings and policies.
He could be a nepotist whenever he wished to be so. History is full of them and today, history on the make is full of them.

A benevolent dictator could actually favour the state and people as a whole. Be fair in adjudicating class conflicts and such matters. It sounds shocking and beyond reality and may never happen, but it could, however unlikely, in fact occur.

[FranzS]

There are entrenched power structures at the top of every society, and always have been. This is as true of democracies as of dictatorships. Anyone who wants to attain power has to either remove these power structures (usually very difficult) or compromise with them. Typically, both are required, because while you can cut the head off the monster, you can't establish your own power without winning over the people (civil servants, military etc.) who actually know about the day-to-day business of running a country. These people will typically have blood on their hands when you take over.

Then, once you're in power, from the very outset there will be people who want to take it away from you, because however decent your own intentions, there will always be others who seek power for its own sake. The only language these people will understand is force.

Hence, power compromises everybody who attains it.

One can theorise about the possibility of benevolent dictatorships all one likes, but one can't duck the issue of human nature.

[Jair]

I don't understand the logic of saying that at the moment an individual gets a certain job he is barred from being able to be benevolent.

If I can be benevolent, why can't he?

[Darcy88]

There are entrenched power structures at the top of every society, and always have been. This is as true of democracies as of dictatorships. Anyone who wants to attain power has to either remove these power structures (usually very difficult) or compromise with them. Typically, both are required, because while you can cut the head off the monster, you can't establish your own power without winning over the people (civil servants, military etc.) who actually know about the day-to-day business of running a country. These people will typically have blood on their hands when you take over.

Then, once you're in power, from the very outset there will be people who want to take it away from you, because however decent your own intentions, there will always be others who seek power for its own sake. The only language these people will understand is force.

Hence, power compromises everybody who attains it.

One can theorise about the possibility of benevolent dictatorships all one likes, but one can't duck the issue of human nature.

This is a great post. In the ideal a dictator can be benevolent though. If he or she governed with a very very strong mandate from the people then anyone who attempted to usurp the power of such a dictator would be attempting to usurp power from the people, from the majority of citizens, which, in modern democracies, is where power ought to lie.

[OrphanPip]

Hobbes meant a benevolent dictator not really in the sense of being compassionate or good, but in the sense of an aristocratic ideal of rule for the good of a nation or people rather than the individual.

Although, I tend to agree with Mill that there is a sort of violence inherent in the idea of dictatorship, that even ruling over others sincerely with their best interest at heart means that one must first reject the right of self-determination. Of course, democracy doesn't mean the individual is fully enfranchised in society, but they are at least insured a certain voice.

[Harlow58]

http://www.infoocean.info/avatar2.jpgIn the sense of the term, of course there can be a benevolent dictator…in its own sense.

[Lokasenna]

Not that I know much about the subject, but Mustafa Kemal Atatürk strikes me as a prominent and relatively recent real-world example of a benevolent dictator. He seized power through military means, and his hegemonic rule of Turkey was undisputed. But his actions deliberately laid the seeds of democracy, to come into effect upon his death. Also, Turkey's relative peace and prosperity, particularly compared to some of its neighbours, can be directly attributed to policies he laid down in the formation of the state.

[Ecurb]

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.

[RicMisc]

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.

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.

[Alexander III]

Marcus Aurelius was a good guy if we are to judge from his Meditations. I am not up on my imperial Roman history too good, only in spots. As greedy and power-hungry as Julius Caesar was, he enacted some much-needed populist reforms. Sulla was a blood-thirsty man, but he also implemented some positive legislation as dictator and then simply handed over power. I don't see why a benevolent dictator wouldn't be possible. Nowadays though just for the simple fact that we are used to democratic freedoms, any dictator who arose would have to kill and confine an endless number of political activists, would have to put in place a merciless comprehensive police-state, and so "benevolence" wouldn't be possible for such a leader. I like democracy, it has so many great faults but its imperfection is a reflection of our imperfection. Idealism is for fools . Hobbes was no fool but his philosophy was a product of the time. Its been so long since I read it but I remember thinking how plainly wrong he was on this issue.



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.

[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.


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.

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.

[JamCrackers]

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.

[Alexander III]

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.


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.

[Alexander III]

Is it really time for another reign of terror? Me thinks so. I'm gonna go sharpen my guillotine.

:banana::biggrinjester:

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.


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.

[Darcy88]

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.


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.

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.

[BienvenuJDC]

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.

[cafolini]

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.

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.

Indeed!!!!!!

[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.

[JuniperWoolf]

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!"

[Darcy88]

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!

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.

[OrphanPip]

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.

[Scheherazade]

~

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.

~

[JamCrackers]

The nice thing about the anti-aristocrat crowd is that they cured the whole downside to ruling. Like how they 'fixed schools'. They took prayer out of school, and they fix bullying in school, and they fix that in school. Then you come up and say, "Your new school is ranked bottom on the planet. You have four times more kids dropping out than we did before. Do you feel bad? accountable? wrong? They answer, no. Accountable? They laugh. They can always blame someone else. That is the difference. A professional ruler measures the results of a decision. The Marxist 'I'm a peasant I can do it' would never get within a hundred kilometers of looking at their results. Example? How is America doing right this second under peasant rule? Well, if you ask them, it is going AWESOME! How is it going? Total disaster. Schools collapsed. Everything collapsed. Start more wars than ever. Kill more women and kids in God knows where. But as I said, blessed are the democratic peasants. No matter how bad you do, no matter how badly you utterly fail and ruin everything, you neither care nor notice. Just hurl some insults at that guy who mentioned your failure (insulting them instantly defeats everything they said) then dance right on like nothing happened. Principles are NOT better than results. The ends DO justify the means just as total failure does not justify your methods. That is like saying killing all your patients makes you a great doctor, if your treatments are politically correct and lacking in hate. For me, hate me and heal me, not love me to death with failure. Like, I would use tazers in school if it increased test scores by 70%? Would I have 100 annual tazer deaths in school to raise test scores by 70%. I love this example. This example really grasps the peasant ruling crowd, because they would say they would rather everyone flunked out of school than anyone have to bleed for success. I would tazer them into vegetables for a score improvement of 70%.

[Scheherazade]

Aren't parents just that? Benevolent dictators?

[OrphanPip]

Yes, democracy is doing so badly that in every measure of standard of living out there, from per capita income, to the HDI, to magazine surveys finds that every top performing country is a democracy. Really, which non-democracies are doing really well out there, Singapore maybe, but they rely on the economies of democratic trading partners. China does well for a developing country, certainly growing quickly, but most of its people still live in extreme poverty. And it is also dependent on a trade relationship with democratic nations, and it's political system actually involves a form of democratic law making and an internal democracy within the CCP.

Jam your tendency for bizarre hyperbolic strawmen is tiring.

@Sche, but of course the parent model is the same one used by 17th century political philosophers to justify monarchical rule, like Robert Filmer's Patriarcha. However, I don't think the analogy is appropriate. After all, we recognize that children need to be lead by parents because they lack the ability to be autonomous and to make rational decisions. I guess some might think, a la Old Testament, that children should obey by the magical authority of having been parented in the first place, but that's silly. Would we extend the same arguments we use to justify limiting the rights of children to limiting the rights of adults?

Also, would any of us actually go so far as to say children have no right to a say in how their life is lead. At some point, children obviously have their own developed individuality and sense of purpose. The law recognizes, perhaps also out of democratic principle, that parents do not have absolute authority over their children. They can not use them as slave labour after all.

Once again, I'd say return to the principle of responsibility, democracy is more than just voting, it is the principle of authority deriving from the approval of those who one rules over. Would we say a parent always has legitimate authority when they overrule completely the desires of a child, to the point that the child is deprived of individuality?

[Darcy88]

The nice thing about the anti-aristocrat crowd is that they cured the whole downside to ruling. Like how they 'fixed schools'. They took prayer out of school, and they fix bullying in school, and they fix that in school. Then you come up and say, "Your new school is ranked bottom on the planet. You have four times more kids dropping out than we did before. Do you feel bad? accountable? wrong? They answer, no. Accountable? They laugh. They can always blame someone else. That is the difference. A professional ruler measures the results of a decision. The Marxist 'I'm a peasant I can do it' would never get within a hundred kilometers of looking at their results. Example? How is America doing right this second under peasant rule? Well, if you ask them, it is going AWESOME! How is it going? Total disaster. Schools collapsed. Everything collapsed. Start more wars than ever. Kill more women and kids in God knows where. But as I said, blessed are the democratic peasants. No matter how bad you do, no matter how badly you utterly fail and ruin everything, you neither care nor notice. Just hurl some insults at that guy who mentioned your failure (insulting them instantly defeats everything they said) then dance right on like nothing happened. Principles are NOT better than results. The ends DO justify the means just as total failure does not justify your methods. That is like saying killing all your patients makes you a great doctor, if your treatments are politically correct and lacking in hate. For me, hate me and heal me, not love me to death with failure. Like, I would use tazers in school if it increased test scores by 70%? Would I have 100 annual tazer deaths in school to raise test scores by 70%. I love this example. This example really grasps the peasant ruling crowd, because they would say they would rather everyone flunked out of school than anyone have to bleed for success. I would tazer them into vegetables for a score improvement of 70%.

I did not "hurl" insults. I made some very valid well-reasoned points. A ruling aristocracy is a bogus concept these days for the plain and simple fact that peasants like me have access to education and can therefore rival and often surpass "aristocrats" in accomplishments related to intellect and ability.

And about prayer in schools....wow that was pretty random. I just think how many doctors and lawyers came out of my small country school where God was never at all in my 5 years there mentioned.

[Alexander III]

I had just written a 2 page answer and then something stange happned and it got cancelled. I could kill my computer right now. Anyways many of you misunderstood what i meant by a meritocratic aristocracy, that was my fault the term aristocracy is loaded with various connotations. I shall try and re-write my reply.

But I will make a few quick points, first darcy you assumed that by ignorant masses i would include you fellows on this site, all of you are individuals of a certain level of culture and intelligence and i do not consider you amongst the ignorant masses. By ignorant masses i was talking about that large and influential segment of the population that is able to name more big brother contestants than members of parlimant or senators or the equvalent in you various countries.

Ok i will try to defend my position:

Orphan pip, on principle I agree with you compleatly, (to continoue with the doctor patient analogy) the patient should have full right to pick the surgeon so instead of picking the charlatan he can pick the stellar one. The ideolgy of democacy like the ideolgy of comunism is a beautifull one, but we must be realists and understand that while on paper certain things are perfect in practise not so much. It is logical that the patient if given the ability to choose would pick the best doctor, but isitlikethin in practise? Did not the american population choose G.W Bush junior not once but twice? Did not the Italian public choose to keep Berlusconi in office for a total of almost two decades? In 1932 did not the German public elect a certain Adolf Hitler with the greatest majority the reichstag had ever seen?

What if the publc has proven to be easily manipulated, so that it does not pick the best surgeon but rather the best actor, even though he may be the charlatan aand the stellar surgeon may never even recive a vote becuase he is unable or ethicaly against the cheap manipulation if the masses to get into office.

Now i would talk about how even when the stellar doctor is chosen, such as with Obama, he has no real power to change anything because there is a cirporate ogligarchy which can dominate a Demcracy because in a Democracy the only absolute power is money, but due to forum rules I shall not expand upon this point.

In italy elecric and gas power is in the controll of a state monopoly which most if the prifits end up in various politititians pockets. In italy we have brought the question of weather to implement nuclear power to public referendum only twice. The first time was 1 month after the chernobyl explosion. The second time was more recently, a mere 3 weeks after the Fukoshima disaster. Do i need to state the results of the public referendum? Isthis the meritocracy and democracy which you value, or is that but a unachievable ideal and dream? What is modern democracy in practise if not a game were the best manipulator and actor wins the great roleof biwning diwn to the knees of corporate ogligarchies and Banks.


I have much moreto say on the subject of demcracy and what Imeant by a new system of aristocratic meritocracy, but I am late fora dinner, so I shall continoue tonight tomorow. Iknow thatmy views are unorthodox especialy to people who for 200 years have known nothing but Democracy, so much so that it has become a synonom for freedom and justice, much like to a religous man whos fmily have been deeply religious for many generations his religion is just and free amd good and to question his religion is to question his freedom and notion of lufe itself.


The nice thing about the anti-aristocrat crowd is that they cured the whole downside to ruling. Like how they 'fixed schools'. They took prayer out of school, and they fix bullying in school, and they fix that in school. Then you come up and say, "Your new school is ranked bottom on the planet. You have four times more kids dropping out than we did before. Do you feel bad? accountable? wrong? They answer, no. Accountable? They laugh. They can always blame someone else. That is the difference. A professional ruler measures the results of a decision. The Marxist 'I'm a peasant I can do it' would never get within a hundred kilometers of looking at their results. Example? How is America doing right this second under peasant rule? Well, if you ask them, it is going AWESOME! How is it going? Total disaster. Schools collapsed. Everything collapsed. Start more wars than ever. Kill more women and kids in God knows where. But as I said, blessed are the democratic peasants. No matter how bad you do, no matter how badly you utterly fail and ruin everything, you neither care nor notice. Just hurl some insults at that guy who mentioned your failure (insulting them instantly defeats everything they said) then dance right on like nothing happened. Principles are NOT better than results. The ends DO justify the means just as total failure does not justify your methods. That is like saying killing all your patients makes you a great doctor, if your treatments are politically correct and lacking in hate. For me, hate me and heal me, not love me to death with failure. Like, I would use tazers in school if it increased test scores by 70%? Would I have 100 annual tazer deaths in school to raise test scores by 70%. I love this example. This example really grasps the peasant ruling crowd, because they would say they would rather everyone flunked out of school than anyone have to bleed for success. I would tazer them into vegetables for a score improvement of 70%.

While i agreed with your previous post , i cannot say i agree to much with this one or rather i do not understand it to well. Myself as a person of noble birth realize that a political sytem were a mans entire life is defined by the circumstance of his birth is not only unjust but a great waste of human potential. Howere neither do i believe that everyone simply beacuse he is birn deserves full political right, rather much like respect i belive political vote should be earned and only given to people who have shown to be cultured and experianced enough to hold a creditable opinion.


Yes, democracy is doing so badly that in every measure of standard of living out there, from per capita income, to the HDI, to magazine surveys finds that every top performing country is a democracy. Really, which non-democracies are doing really well out there, Singapore maybe, but they rely on the economies of democratic trading partners. China does well for a developing country, certainly growing quickly, but most of its people still live in extreme poverty. And it is also dependent on a trade relationship with democratic nations, and it's political system actually involves a form of democratic law making and an internal democracy within the CCP.



Yet you fail to mention that for hundreds of years while the west was monarchies and empires we colonized the rest of the world and plundered all their resources and due to strict racial segregation kept the majority of conquered nations under stromg opression, you fail to mention that the foundations of the great wealth of 20th century western democraies was stolen and pillaged by early modern western monarchies and empires from the restof the world which was bled dry and is still suffering from the effects.

"behinde every fact is a great bias" i forget who said it but it rings very true.

[Darcy88]

Yet you fail to mention that for hundreds of years while the west was monarchies and empires we colonized the rest of the world and plundered all their resources and due to strict racial segregation kept the majority of conquered nations under stromg opression, you fail to mention that the foundations of the great wealth of 20th century western democraies was stolen and pillaged by early modern western monarchies and empires from the restof the world which was bled dry and is still suffering from the effects.

"behinde every fact is a great bias" i forget who said it but it rings very true.

And yet Athens spanked Persia.

[OrphanPip]

Yet you fail to mention that for hundreds of years while the west was monarchies and empires we colonized the rest of the world and plundered all their resources and due to strict racial segregation kept the majority of conquered nations under stromg opression, you fail to mention that the foundations of the great wealth of 20th century western democraies was stolen and pillaged by early modern western monarchies and empires from the restof the world which was bled dry and is still suffering from the effects.

"behinde every fact is a great bias" i forget who said it but it rings very true.

Certainly, but my point wasn't that democracy was solely responsible for the prosperity of the West, but that it was silly to suggest that democracies were anarchistic hell holes, when they are the most prosperous nations internationally.

Political philosophers often make a distinction between the societal attitudes in old and new democracies. Old democracies like the USA or Britain have developed a cultural understanding which shields them from a breakdown of democratic values. New democracies are often incredibly unstable, which we see with the Weimar Republic, where the institutions of democracy never got a chance to be so entrenched that no one would dare bring up the possibility of removing them. Besides, it most democracies there are limits on what an elected official is allowed to do anyway, and those limits are taken more seriously than any single politician is.

There are other benefits to democracy as well, such as Democratic Peace Theory. There are only a handful of cases in history of a democracy declaring war on another democracy. Democracy in the West also goes hand in hand with the rise of Liberal economics, Adam Smith and the capitalist who followed him were all basing their economic models on the principles of Liberalism. It is more than an idealogical argument that supports Liberalism, it is the belief that debate, constant accountability, and freedom choice genuinely will produce better results in most cases.

Of course, there are issues with democracy as put in action, and it could always be improved. I personally think political campaigns should be funded by public taxes so that every candidate is playing on an even level economically. Corporate donations are illegal in Canada, which helps mediate the disproportionate influence a corporate entity can have in politics.

[JuniperWoolf]

...debate, constant accountability, and freedom choice genuinely will produce better results in most cases.

In a nutshell, this completely sums up my own beliefs on the subject.

[Alexander III]

And yet Athens spanked Persia.

Come now your not stupid, then why use stupid examples, we both know that in the modern sense of the word democracy, athensa was clearly not one, firstly in athens to have a vote you needed to be a citizen. To be a citizen meant that you were part of a landowning cultural elite who rareley had to work as they lived of of estates tened by slaves, slaves and merchants a large segment of the population were not considered citezens. The democracy of athens is very simllar in nature to my view of a better system, rather than the current one.

Now you may mention that many athenias such as socrates complained of their financial hardships, yes they were poor, but only in contrast the the other landowning citizens. Much like how chateabriand constantly complaigned of his poverty, yes he was poor but only in contrast to the rest of the nobility, he was still by the eefenition of a middle class merchant a rich man, abd by the defenition of a peasant a super rich man.

Also pip i never said that democracy was anarchic or hoorible, my belief and that of many of my young contempories at university is that it is founded upon an idealistic belief that much like comunism when put to practise s very deathed from how the ideal should be. My believe rests in the notion that tge power of vote should be earned not be a right of birth.

Also i dont get the thing about democrasies not declaring war upon other dmocrasies. Considering that the whole west is democratic, does that not merley show that we are uncomfortable bombing white people but brown and black people boms away!

The fact that you geoive that democracy is the best system is fine, i can respect that, te thing which deeply annoys me is that supercilious attitude that some take wereby anyone who questions democracy is automaticaly a fool and an idiot, have i not in my previous post provided valid points for discussion, and yet while everyone was quite easily able to mock my aristocratic prposal before no one has yet deigned to even offer a reply to any of the points which i think i calmly stated.

Look nothing would please me more than to have an actual debate on this subject, but as can be seen from my last post i do not simply spout out propaganda, nor do I state my belifs whith the same conviction of a mediaval pope defendind the divine right of kings. So it does not seem unreasonable that i ask of you guys to do the same. In my previous post i explained to you various reasons on which have caused me and many of my university companions to loose faith in democracy. If anyone could adress those as a start that would bea good start.


In a nutshell, this completely sums up my own beliefs on the subject.

These sum up my beliefs too, only i vove the people debating should ge cultured and have proven to hold a valuable opinion, i think it unfair that a truck driver who has ever read a book in his life has as much political power as a man who has spent his entire life studying politics. I am not an egalitarian, we are not all eqall, some of us are stronger and some of us are smarter.

[JuniperWoolf]

That sounds like one of those systems that would be really nice in theory, but either impossible to carry out or completely corrupt in practice. For example, how would we be able to decide who's smart enough to vote? Who would have the power to decide? Do we judge it by who has a university degree? If so, wouldn't that discriminate against autodidacts and low-income people? We can't even decide a proper measure of intelligence, how are we going to use intelligence as a measure to decide who gets a vote? Also, it would be so easy to use a system like that to push a political agenda (many people argue that universities already push a political agenda) or suppress opposition. It sounds nice, I've met a lot of stupid people who really shouldn't breed let alone vote (you have no idea, I work in a redneck town beside a bar), but it's just not feasible.

[Darcy88]

Come now your not stupid, then why use stupid examples, we both know that in the modern sense of the word democracy, athensa was clearly not one, firstly in athens to have a vote you needed to be a citizen. To be a citizen meant that you were part of a landowning cultural elite who rareley had to work as they lived of of estates tened by slaves, slaves and merchants a large segment of the population were not considered citezens. The democracy of athens is very simllar in nature to my view of a better system, rather than the current one.

Now you may mention that many athenias such as socrates complained of their financial hardships, yes they were poor, but only in contrast the the other landowning citizens. Much like how chateabriand constantly complaigned of his poverty, yes he was poor but only in contrast to the rest of the nobility, he was still by the eefenition of a middle class merchant a rich man, abd by the defenition of a peasant a super rich man.

Also pip i never said that democracy was anarchic or hoorible, my belief and that of many of my young contempories at university is that it is founded upon an idealistic belief that much like comunism when put to practise s very deathed from how the ideal should be. My believe rests in the notion that tge power of vote should be earned not be a right of birth.

Also i dont get the thing about democrasies not declaring war upon other dmocrasies. Considering that the whole west is democratic, does that not merley show that we are uncomfortable bombing white people but brown and black people boms away!

The fact that you geoive that democracy is the best system is fine, i can respect that, te thing which deeply annoys me is that supercilious attitude that some take wereby anyone who questions democracy is automaticaly a fool and an idiot, have i not in my previous post provided valid points for discussion, and yet while everyone was quite easily able to mock my aristocratic prposal before no one has yet deigned to even offer a reply to any of the points which i think i calmly stated.

Look nothing would please me more than to have an actual debate on this subject, but as can be seen from my last post i do not simply spout out propaganda, nor do I state my belifs whith the same conviction of a mediaval pope defendind the divine right of kings. So it does not seem unreasonable that i ask of you guys to do the same. In my previous post i explained to you various reasons on which have caused me and many of my university companions to loose faith in democracy. If anyone could adress those as a start that would bea good start.



These sum up my beliefs too, only i vove the people debating should ge cultured and have proven to hold a valuable opinion, i think it unfair that a truck driver who has ever read a book in his life has as much political power as a man who has spent his entire life studying politics. I am not an egalitarian, we are not all eqall, some of us are stronger and some of us are smarter.

Its still simple arrogance for any one to think along these lines. I don't see much here that would lead one to make a surer better choice than those made by the simple partisan instincts of half the plaid and trucker hat wearing half-wits I see drinking themelves silly at the bar here every busy night I go. My mother is not an intellectual person but she is a moral person and her morality guides clearly and certainly her decisions inside the polling booth.

And by the way - Athens was still more democratic than any modern democracy today is. What we call democracy nowadays is not true democracy. The oligarchs saturate the common man with deceitful ads in order to elect a soulless ideological minion President or Prime Minister every four years. That's all we have. People don't actually make real meaningful political choices very often. Leaders almost invariably govern otherwise than they campaigned. Making a meaningless decision every four years is not more democratic than ten percent of a city's citizenry chosen at random actually voting as a body on measures up or down.

[OrphanPip]

That sounds like one of those systems that would be really nice in theory, but either impossible to carry out or completely corrupt in practice. For example, how would we be able to decide who's smart enough to vote? Who would have the power to decide? Do we judge it by who has a university degree? If so, wouldn't that discriminate against autodidacts and low-income people? We can't even decide a proper measure of intelligence, how are we going to use intelligence as a measure to decide who gets a vote? Also, it would be so easy to use a system like that to push a political agenda (many people argue that universities already push a political agenda) or suppress opposition. It sounds nice, I've met a lot of stupid people who really shouldn't breed let alone vote (you have no idea, I work in a redneck town beside a bar), but it's just not feasible.

Not to mention the issue of personal interest. Who is more likely to speak for the interest of a trucker? What about the issue of divergent regional interests? These are issues that even our current models of democracy have problems dealing with. The Americans deal with regionalism through their senate. Canada deals with it by having largely autonomous provincial governments and a limited federal authority. Minority interests are protected by the judiciary and the constitutional framework, to a minimum extent at least. Holland deals with the issue of silenced minority votes by having a proportional system of representation.

The problem with limiting franchise is that it was tried in the past and it failed, because people don't tolerate it, they get angry and burn things when they don't get their fair say. In the US they tried to exclude blacks from voting in the south by having certain literacy requirements to vote. Women were denied the vote by being considered unfit to vote.

Of course, we're not above this problem ourselves, certain people remain excluded. Children are the most obvious category. In the US they exclude those guilty of a federal crime. Different nations will settle on different acceptable boundaries of franchise.

However, it is unlikely that any rational adult, even if you think they happen to be an idiot, does not have the capacity and the right to make decisions on issues that effect them, they pay taxes and they contribute to the society, thus they have a say in that society. In practice, rights should always be expanded rather than constrained.

The best way to deal with the issue of keeping a population informed is to increase the power of lower levels of government. Municipal and sub-federal governments are able to present more specific issues to their electorate. The UK has increasingly decentralized its government over the last few decades, in part because of this reason and to deal with regional nationalism.

Although, this is all coming from Canada where the federal election debates usually involve detailed publications of budgets and expected cuts and program expenditures. We're, for whatever reason, an accounting obsessed nation when it comes to federal elections.

[MarkBastable]

Just so you know - when you've figured out the theoretical aspects of the thing, I'm willing to give the job a practical shot.

[Heteronym]

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.

The world economy is in the hands of economy experts with PhDs from Harvard and Chicago, and we're all staring in the abyss right now. Austerity measures sweeping Europe are only widening the problem, and yet these experts continue to put their complete faith on measures and doctrines that have failed every time they were put to practice, in South America, Asia and former Eastern Bloc countries. And although the economically-ignorant masses understand this is not the way to go, and they protest daily against the measures, the experts remain adamant, and the world continues to sink deeper into another crisis.

I'll take the dumb masses who, on miserable wages, manage to make incredible mathematical gymnastics to stretch their meager budget for the whole of the month, and so prove that they actually understand money and economics, than so-called experts who think that firing people, over-taxing them even more, and privatising resources for the price of peanuts, is going to save the economy. More insane is to think that these men, who work in the world of the stock markets, are actually impartial and that their actions serve no hidden interests for the companies they work for.

[russellb]

Democracy is simple. People should live in very small societies, perhaps of about 20 people, and everyone gets to have an equal say in running the society. Mass societies must employ so called 'indirect democracy' which is liable to be appropriated by elites. But going back to the twenty people are all of them going to be interested in having a say? Will it be left to the few who can be bothered? Of those will someone who conveys 'authority' in, say, a charismatic sense effectively take over? A pure idea of equality breaks down because actually we are not all the same. Going back to mass society which is what the world is largely stuck with, while 'democracy' may stink I can't help thinking the world would smell a lot worse without it. I m a reactionary socialist who believes in the democratic process.

[RetsixArp]

...Napoleon realized the dangers of a tyrany of the mases, and created a new aristocratic meritocracy to rule. ...Because he had so much to rule; most of Continental Europe, in fact.

But I'd suppose there is some benevolence in the fact that Napoleon promoted industrialization @a time when there was little outside England & France. What we quaintly consumer products were made in Germany under the auspices of corporate guilds (artisans, crofters, weavers). Napoleon was eager to subsidize new factories (or manufactories, as they were called). As an old warrior, maybe he saw the efficacy of mass-produced war materiel.

[Clopin]

Alex is right. Democracy is just as bad for the common people as a dictatorship.

[Clopin]

If anyone's interested there is a very long (something like one hundred and fourteen episodes) Japanese OVA that deals almost exclusively with the idea of an autocracy run by a benevolent but clearly military dictator and a failing democracy that ends up harming it's people. It's more complex than that, as the series is a space opera that pretty much consists entirely of poorly drawn heads speaking to each other, with some battle scenes that aren't much more than poor drawn space ships exploding to a classical score.

Check it out. Legend of the Galactic heroes. Democracy and autocracy are given a fair and unbiased look and the end, and series in general is very morally ambiguous.

The autocratic imperials -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rxN2iYYCPU

The democratic free planets alliance -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMKVGzofqYM

[Phocion]

There are entrenched power structures at the top of every society, and always have been. This is as true of democracies as of dictatorships. Anyone who wants to attain power has to either remove these power structures (usually very difficult) or compromise with them. Typically, both are required, because while you can cut the head off the monster, you can't establish your own power without winning over the people (civil servants, military etc.) who actually know about the day-to-day business of running a country. These people will typically have blood on their hands when you take over.

Then, once you're in power, from the very outset there will be people who want to take it away from you, because however decent your own intentions, there will always be others who seek power for its own sake. The only language these people will understand is force.

Hence, power compromises everybody who attains it.

One can theorise about the possibility of benevolent dictatorships all one likes, but one can't duck the issue of human nature.Fair enough on the taking power point, it is unlikely anyone is going to be capable of taking autocratic power while remaining 'benevolent'. But that certainly doesn't cover all the possibilities: as a dictator could be delegated power, it does not have to be assumed. Your second point is a trifle ridiculous though: you could solve those problems with a non-tyrannical justice system, an iron fist is not the only means of controlling a population.

The largest problem with this isn't that power corrupts: its that the type of individual that could be a benevolent dictator, would not want to become a dictator.

Its not that power corrupts, its that power entices the corrupt.


The world economy is in the hands of economy experts with PhDs from Harvard and Chicago, and we're all staring in the abyss right now. Austerity measures sweeping Europe are only widening the problem, and yet these experts continue to put their complete faith on measures and doctrines that have failed every time they were put to practice, in South America, Asia and former Eastern Bloc countries. And although the economically-ignorant masses understand this is not the way to go, and they protest daily against the measures, the experts remain adamant, and the world continues to sink deeper into another crisis.

I'll take the dumb masses who, on miserable wages, manage to make incredible mathematical gymnastics to stretch their meager budget for the whole of the month, and so prove that they actually understand money and economics, than so-called experts who think that firing people, over-taxing them even more, and privatising resources for the price of peanuts, is going to save the economy. More insane is to think that these men, who work in the world of the stock markets, are actually impartial and that their actions serve no hidden interests for the companies they work for.There is a false consensus in economics at the moment, and it has to do with how it is taught. It is no longer taught as a set of competing ideas, but rather with a 'this is how it is, and you must learn it like this' attitude, and that is extremely limited. Economists have lost complete touch with reality in their adherence to abstract models that make false assumptions and are therefore never going to be accurate. This is probably why we're not seeing any new ideas like we usually do in times of significant crises

This kind of consensus building has been a staple of the modern democratic society, and with the state arrogating more and more power to itself, while the average citizen sits content, playing with his nano-technology or whatever, it is easy to see how it could fall apart. Your understanding of economics appears to be fairly warped and limited also: the modern economy is so complex that it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint what causes what because of the growing impact of externalities. There are so many artificial factors influencing the market in various ways that your simplistic analysis and comparison to S. America, Asia, and the Eastern Bloc just looks silly.

The West has overconsumed. Government and its citizens have been equally guilty of this; and there are consequences for it.

There is no money left to spend in Europe, you can not avoid this fact. If governments want to spend money, they will have to print money - which is just an indirect tax anyway, and doesn't help anything. Austerity is the only option if you do not wish to be downgraded and take-on all the problems that brings.