0

My American Government book says that anarchy and oligarchy both are forms of dictatorship.

I would gander a guess that your American Government book is wrong. How can anarchy be a dictatorship. Anarchy has no governing person or body, so how could it be a dictatorship? A dictatorship is where a person or party has absolute rule, so how in gods name can an anarchy be a dictatorship. You should mention to your teacher that the book he's making you use is crap.

0

I would gander a guess that your American Government book is wrong. How can anarchy be a dictatorship. Anarchy has no governing person or body, so how could it be a dictatorship? A dictatorship is where a person or party has absolute rule, so how in gods name can an anarchy be a dictatorship. You should mention to your teacher that the book he's making you use is crap.

Of course another explaination is that Christina mis-read or mis-interpreted what her book said. I sometimes do that -- read into something that is not there.

0

Is it possible the misread word was autarchy? This is a variant on the term autocracy, which simply means rule by a single individual. As such, it would fit a dictatorship nicely.

0

Where would an Emperor fit in? Something like general Julius Caesar started when he dismantled the Roman Republic.

0

i would say that dictatorship is the most efficient but i would not opt for it. it puts too much power in the hands of just one man and that one man can be corrupted easily.

sturm said that only the weak can be corrupted. that is debatable. i would rather say that it is very difficult to corrupt the pure of heart. but if one really is pure of heart one would believe that dictating to others is wrong.

I don't agree, I think that the pure of heart would be easily corrupted because the 'pure of heart' knows what is best for everyone and would try his/her best to dictate that everyone also be 'good'; and would try to do what is best for everyone. This would be a slippery slope to an evil dictatorship.

0

My American Government book says that anarchy and oligarchy both are forms of dictatorship.

Then your book is wrong!
Anarchy: "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."

Oligarchy:
"is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers)."

Dictatorship:
"In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law,constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state."

An Oligarchy can be a dictatorship but is not necessarily on; Anarchy cannot, by definition, be a dictatorship.

0

I don't agree, I think that the pure of heart would be easily corrupted because the 'pure of heart' knows what is best for everyone and would try his/her best to dictate that everyone also be 'good'; and would try to do what is best for everyone. This would be a slippery slope to an evil dictatorship.

Exactly how are you defining the term 'pure of heart' here? The way I see it, Ravenous Wolf is more likely to be correct, although I think I can follow where you're coming from.

0

Exactly how are you defining the term 'pure of heart' here? The way I see it, Ravenous Wolf is more likely to be correct, although I think I can follow where you're coming from.

I guess where I was coming from is could someone who is pure of heart resist doing good? If the p.o.h. can do good, can the poh resist doing as much good as it in the poh's power to do? Then, if the poh, has ultimate power (ie dictatorship) can the poh resist doing the the ultimate good?

Then - what is the ultimate good? This is the slippery slope that many religious take when suddenly they have power. The Christians who controled different states; the Muslims who controled different states. Both have holy books that speak of doing good; both have histories of not necessarily doing what is best even while doing good. I do not want to point at just those 2 - I mean the Jews, the Hindus, the Shinoto-ists (is that even a word?), the Buddhists each have made the mistake of doing too much good with too much power.

Is this where you thought I was going?

1

Well, the world has gained another dictator! Actually, I think that General Musharraf isn't that bad of a leader. Pakistan might be just a country unfit for democracy.

What will prevent generals Chaney and Bush from doing the same? I am sure they are watching carefully.

Votes + Comments
Please spell VP Cheney's name correctly; we've already been over this with the Karl/Carl Rove incident.
0

I was thinking about it, Chaney and Bush cannot do a "Musharraf" because our military heroes are all on the other side of the earth.

0

While I love a good bash bush pile on, I hought we were discussing the virtues of dictatorships and democracies?

0

While I love a good bash bush pile on, I hought we were discussing the virtues of dictatorships and democracies?

You are of course correct!

The idea was, could Chaney, sorry Cheney, and his pupil use some excuse like a major expansion of the endless war to stay in power and establish a more military based "democracy" along the line of Pakistan?

0

We best pray Musharif doesn't lose Pakistan... otherwise we might see the Taliban take control of a fully functional nuclear stockpile.

That would not bode well for neither us or the pakistani's.

You are of course correct!

The idea was, could Chaney, sorry Cheney, and his pupil use some excuse like a major expansion of the endless war to stay in power and establish a more military based "democracy" along the line of Pakistan?

0

The idea was, could Chaney, sorry Cheney, and his pupil use some excuse like a major expansion of the endless war to stay in power and establish a more military based "democracy" along the line of Pakistan?

No, that is not possible, so don't worry about it. There will be an election in US next year and in Jan 09 we will have a new President and VP. There is nothing short of full nuclear war where we are blown to bits that can prevent it. And in that case, who the hell cares?

0

We best pray Musharif doesn't lose Pakistan... otherwise we might see the Taliban take control of a fully functional nuclear stockpile.

That would not bode well for neither us or the pakistani's.

I am half sure that the CIA knows where these nukes are. In the above case, our special forces would swoop right in and take them all out.

Come to think of it, what do you call a Taliban style government?

0

No, that is not possible, so don't worry about it. There will be an election in US next year and in Jan 09 we will have a new President and VP. There is nothing short of full nuclear war where we are blown to bits that can prevent it. And in that case, who the hell cares?

I have seen General Pervez Musharraf twice here in an US TV interview, and both times I was impressed. This man is very smart, well educated in historical facts, and comes through like a mild father figure with a good sense of humor. Too bad he can't run for president here, he could easily beat all the shady characters we have now in waiting.

0

I am half sure that the CIA knows where these nukes are. In the above case, our special forces would swoop right in and take them all out.

Come to think of it, what do you call a Taliban style government?

Uhhh, okay give me the punchline. What do you call a Taliban style government?

You really think that our special ops would be able to effectively swoop into Pakistan, destroy their nukes, and get the hell out without massive casualties? Now, you do recall this little incident back in the early 90's where we went into this little hellhole called Somalia and had our asses handed to us, correct?

Well, Pakistan would be worse. My prediction is, if the Taliban does take the country, which is very well possible, that you will see the US use tactical nukes against the nuclear missile sites.

0

Uhhh, okay give me the punchline. What do you call a Taliban style government?

You really think that our special ops would be able to effectively swoop into Pakistan, destroy their nukes, and get the hell out without massive casualties? Now, you do recall this little incident back in the early 90's where we went into this little hellhole called Somalia and had our asses handed to us, correct?

Well, Pakistan would be worse. My prediction is, if the Taliban does take the country, which is very well possible, that you will see the US use tactical nukes against the nuclear missile sites.

One could call it "Moral Majority".

US use tactical nukes against the nuclear missile sites? I am sure the folks in India and China would love to be downwind from the fallout of such an adventure.

0

"Moral Majority" for a taliban style government, great idea! After all, they had the "moral police" going around with canes beating violators of the holy book's dictates.

0

Well, Pakistan would be worse. My prediction is, if the Taliban does take the country, which is very well possible, that you will see the US use tactical nukes against the nuclear missile sites.

No we would not use nuclear weapons to do that. We didn't use them when China, USSR and others went nuclear, and we won't this time either.

0

How much do you think any one of those Pakistany nuclear warheads would be worth to typical tin pot dictator?

0

How much do you think any one of those Pakistany nuclear warheads would be worth to typical tin pot dictator?

If he wants to increase his dictatorial territory, a lot of muhla, maybe $12,000,000. But then, not all dictators are evil!

0

How much do you think any one of those Pakistany nuclear warheads would be worth to typical tin pot dictator?

remember we have been worrying about all the nukes in the post-soviet world; all those break-away countries had their own nukes for awhile.

The Russian army barely gets paid - heck, an entire base could live for months on what they would get for a couple of nukes.

0

Name one. They wouldn't be dictators is they aren't evil.

Ferdinand Marcos, General Manuel Antonio Noriega, Anastasio Somoza GarcĂ­a, just to mention a few since I don't want to overwhelm you, all supported by the USA for many many years. None of them looked evil to our leadership then and perhaps even now.

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.