from purely efficient point of view, dictatorship is obviously more efficient because only one person (ok maybe a small group of people) make all the decisions, eliminating all the problems and delays associated with allowing the citizens to cast ballots. And that is one of the reasons why we in USA do not have a democracy ("mob rule")

I think an oligarchy is the best balance of efficiency and intelligence. If America had an oligarchy campaign ads would be unnecessary, and all people of merit could be elected. (not just white male millionaires)

Yeah... but which one do you think is better, democracy or dictatorship?

Better at what? Better for whom?

If you're purely concerned with effeciency, a dictatorship is better. No mess about 'elections' or 'voting on the issues' or anything like that, just 'Because I, Dictator N, said DO IT!'.

If you're concerned about value of life, that depends on a couple of factors. The value of life for the dictator's friends and lackeys would be a lot better than that of the average peon under his/her sway; I'd say the value of life that a democratic society can provide to its inhabitants falls somewhere inbetween the two.

>Yeah... but which one do you think is better, democracy or dictatorship?

A dictatorship all the way. I much rather have a bad government than a weak, fickle, or non-existent one. So a dictatorship is a win-win situation.

With a dictatorship they can control almost every part of your life. I would rather have a democracy so that I have more control.

A dictatorship is only win-win if you're the dictator, or one of those he favors. Otherwise, you'll have serious problems, with no recourse except for revolution (which'll have problems of its own).

You could have a good dictator.

Power corrupts. Humankind is inherently corrupt by nature, giving someone the kind of power a dictator would wield would mean that they would eventually turn it to their own self-service, at the expense of those under them.