30
Contributors
215
Replies
216
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Future_Dictator
Featured Replies
  • The last thing I want in a government is efficiency. What we need are limitations on what government is allowed to do: Government must be absolutely be prohibited from doing any of the following: - Spending ANY tax money on sports, the arts, entertainment, recreation, parks, land banks, monuments, museums, … Read More

0

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")

0

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)

0

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.

0

>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.

0

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

0

>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.

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).

0

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.

0

So most say that dictatorship is more efficient than democracy...

Efficiency doesn't equate to better. Hitler was probably an efficient dictator but I very few, if anyone, will claim he was better. Sadaam Husane had a very efficient dictatorship, but hardly one that anyone could willingly choose to live under. The dictatorships I hear about in Africa are certainly not better than other forms of government.

0

I want to breath some fresh air without having anyone to control my nostrils.

So for me Democracy is the only option.

0

So most say that dictatorship is more efficient than democracy...

Your questions seem like a homework assignment. For that I would refer you to Wikipedia, generally.

If you care to be digging deeper, present a more focused question.

(I claim a pass because I have presented a history of doing such already.)

0

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.

I disagree, look at vladamir putin. He practically has absolute power and yet he is such a nice guy...lol

0

Your questions seem like a homework assignment. For that I would refer you to Wikipedia, generally.

If you care to be digging deeper, present a more focused question.

You are very close, it wasn't a homework assignment, but the question was asked by my teacher in my Civics class... she asked what we thought about it and then she told us what she thought. She said that democracy isn't the best form of government, but it is better than most. And some said that dictatorships were more efficient. I tended to agree that democracy was the best form, with a federal government. Like Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

0

Is democracy more or less efficient as a form of government than dictatorship?

What are your thoughts?

Dictatorship is best but at a high cost. E.g stalin baught russia 100 years forward in terms of technology but at a huge human cost.


You are very close, it wasn't a homework assignment, but the question was asked by my teacher in my Civics class... she asked what we thought about it and then she told us what she thought. She said that democracy isn't the best form of government, but it is better than most. And some said that dictatorships were more efficient. I tended to agree that democracy was the best form, with a federal government.

I ageee


Like Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

America is techinally a republic


A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good).

0

Dictatorship is best but at a high cost. E.g stalin baught russia 100 years forward in terms of technology but at a huge human cost.

I ageee

America is techinally a republic

That's very true, the same could be said of Adolf Hitler.

0

Exactly. He led germany out of a depression and managed to create many modern marvels e.g space flight, jet planes

but he was still a bad man

But then again some dictatrships are useless (parts of middle east and africa for example) but then again i suppose some democracies are useless too (e.g iraq - aka crap hole)

so the moral is, dictatorship may be better in some cases but on the whole democracy is a better bet

0

You are very close, it wasn't a homework assignment, but the question was asked by my teacher in my Civics class... she asked what we thought about it and then she told us what she thought. She said that democracy isn't the best form of government, but it is better than most. And some said that dictatorships were more efficient. I tended to agree that democracy was the best form, with a federal government.

You keep throwing "best" and "most efficient" around interchangeably, but they are not the same at all. Your question asked about efficiency.

0

I tended to agree that democracy was the best form, with a federal government. Like Lincoln said in the Gettysburg Address: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Seeing as the united states would have one of the best governments in the world if it was run properly and not corrupted, and it is not a democracy. The united states is a mix of republic and capitalist, also some argue it is actually a plutocracy because of the large amount of lobbying that happens. Democracies never work because a large amount of people cannot run a government.

0

Seeing as the united states would have one of the best governments in the world if it was run properly and not corrupted, and it is not a democracy.

Check post #21 i made. Said that earlier

0

. Democracies never work because a large amount of people cannot run a government.

What about Switzerland ?

Switzerland provides the strongest example of modern direct democracy, as it exhibits the first two pillars at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years more than 240 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government. (See Direct democracy in Switzerland below.)

1

The last thing I want in a government is efficiency.

What we need are limitations on what government is allowed to do:

Government must be absolutely be prohibited from doing any of the following:

- Spending ANY tax money on sports, the arts, entertainment, recreation, parks, land banks, monuments, museums, memorials, venues, advertising, businesses, and anything else which is nice, but not essential..

- Doing anything which violates any religion.

- Forcing people to disobey their religions.

- Taking more than 10 percent of anyone's income in taxation.

- Requiring identification or keeping track of honest people.

- Doing anything that competes with business.

- Placing power in the hands of nonelected people, other than trained professionals needed to implement traffic and safety laws.

- Prohibiting any activity that only annoys someone, but is not a real hazard.

- Trying to control wages or prices.

- Conscription.

- Eminent domain for any purpose other than transportation or water supply impoundment.

- Owning schools or utilities.

- Creating monopolies by requiring franchises to operate certain kinds of businesses in a given jurisdiction.

- Limiting the number of businesses doing business in a given industry in a given area.

- Allowing incumbents to run for office. They should have to work at real jobs before being allowed to run for office again.

Votes + Comments
Nice list.
0

It has been said that the US president is basically a dictator with a four year term.

That is about as far from the truth as can be.

Congress has the real power, not the President. The only real power the President has is to STOP something from being law, and as the head of the military.

Don't believe all the garbage you read on the Internet. There are hate groups out there spreading lies. They want some special right or entitlement that President Bush vetoed (probably because it would bankrupt the country), so they call him a dictator.

One of the wackiest lies these sites spread was the one that said that, if they impeached President Bush, John Kerry would become President. WRONG! Vice President Cheney would become President if President Bush left office. Kerry is not even on the succession list. Even if George Bush had died or been disqualified after the election, but before becoming President, Cheney would have become President, not Kerry.

I do wish that they hadn't changed one thing about the elections. Under the original rule in the Constitution, the runner-up for President became Vice President. But the parties cheated by running two candidates. They should have banned that instead.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.