Can Dictatorship Be Better Than Democracy?

[zynner]

This will annoy some people; shock others. Please just think about it before responding.

What is the purpose of a government? My answer to that is: Maximize liberty for all within the society (playing no favorites).

Using that as a goal of "good government," is it possible that a dictatorship could be better than a democracy?

When we think of dictatorships, we think of Stalin, Hitler, Pot Pol, and Hussein (most of whom had the backing of the US gov't, by the way). We think of corruption and mass murder.

But a "dictatorship" is really just a way of voting, as is a "democracy." What if a dictator existed who was benign? What if said dictator passed all the laws, oversaw the enforcement of them, and was final arbiteur in the courts, but did so in a way that was consistent with you and me living a life of freedom? What if such a person had a law against murder, but no laws against victimless crimes? What if such a person played no sides in a big business-union dispute, but just let the sides work it out on their own? What if such a person had no laws that spied on the people, imprisoned anyone without charges (like Gitmo), waged no wars (but maintained a national defense, made up of volunteers), etc.? Wouldn't we have to say that such a society was free, regardless of who made the laws?

And what if a democracy existed where the majority passed laws that required everybody obey a particular religion, such as is in the process of happening in Iraq? What if that society passed laws taking the wealth of the producers, outlawed gun ownership, outlawed abortions, etc. Wouldn't such a society be considered less free than the dictatorship described above?

I think so. Of course, nobody has yet figured out how to keep a dictatorship from devolving into a society where the ruler rules with an iron fist.

Then again, nobody has yet figured out a way to stop the emotions of mob rule to devolve into a society where the democratic majority rules over the out-voted minority, either.

The key to liberty has little to do with how the votes are cast. It has everything to do with making sure the government never has the power to rule with an iron fist in the first place.

It's a lesson that needs to be re-learned throughout the world today.

~ zynner

[PatrickHenry]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Mia]

Then again, nobody has yet figured out a way to stop the emotions of mob rule to devolve into a society where the democratic majority rules over the out-voted minority, either.

This one has been figured out. The democratric republic - with a constitution that protects the minority.

The problem with the dictator is he has to guard against being overthrown. So you have forced loyalty and secret police to ferret out resistance.

You can never make everyone happy so somebody's going to want to oust you.

There are kingdoms where rulers are benign as they can be, aren't there? Haven't researched that.

[RickSp]

Dictatorships are the least effective of all forms of government. The dictator's decision making power is limited by the funneling and filtering of information so that the dictator will ultimately have the most power yet the least reliable information with which to make decisions on wielding that power. This is also the fundamental flaw of the idealized "republic" where wise disinterested leaders decide what is best for society.

The more autocratic the decision-making the less effective that decisions will be, whether in business or politics.

[zynner]

Quote by: Mia This one has been figured out. The democratric republic - with a constitution that protects the minority.

Many Americans believe that's true. They are living in a fantasy world.

The problem with the dictator is he has to guard against being overthrown. So you have forced loyalty and secret police to ferret out resistance. You can never make everyone happy so somebody's going to want to oust you.

You are assuming a certain brand of dictatorship. Think beyond that to the point I was making.

There are kingdoms where rulers are benign as they can be, aren't there? Haven't researched that.

Dubai is a benign monarchy and Singapore is a benign dictatorship.

Better than either is Hong Kong, which is more like a corporate-state whereby the head is called the "Chief Executive Officer" and the people vote somewhat similarly to corporate shareholders.

Regardless, it is about respecting fundamental rights more than the method of voting.

It seems clear to many today that the US Constitution was a good attempt to reign in the abuses of power, but an unsuccessful one. Anyone who believes otherwise has their head in the sand today.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: RickSp Dictatorships are the least effective of all forms of government. The dictator's decision making power is limited by the funneling and filtering of information so that the dictator will ultimately have the most power yet the least reliable information with which to make decisions on wielding that power. This is also the fundamental flaw of the idealized "republic" where wise disinterested leaders decide what is best for society. The more autocratic the decision-making the less effective that decisions will be, whether in business or politics.

Rick, I suspect that the main reason dictatorships throughout history have been ineffective has more to do with the fact that most of them acheived and maintained power through force. So, they got paranoid about everyone around them and that leads to what you describe.

Just look at what George Bush did with his intelligence reports on Iraq and we can clearly see that there is no real difference from what a dictatorship would have done. But the reason for that is that GW does not believe in liberty -- it has little to do with the form of government (which, btw, did absolutely nothing to stop his invasion).

~ zynner

[G. Adams]

A benign dictatorship is problematic for, off the top of my head, 3 main reasons.

Firstly, as pointed out PH, Lord Actons wise words "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Secondly, how do you find someone so essentially good that, with such power at their disposal they will not abuse it? And if they did, how do you remove them? When they die, how do you replace them? - Monarchy's occaisionally produce great leaders, but you might be suffering a long time waiting for someone merely adequate once they die.

And finally, what if your idea of a benign dictatorship is different to mine? More importantly, what if the dictators idea of benign is different to mine?

Ooh, and another one came into my head...by taking away elections you are taking away people's responsibility to choose a leader, or policies depending on quite how democratic you are. In doing so, even if all the dictators limit themselves to very narrow fields, the public are still renouncing an aspect of life for which they should be responsible, at least for their part.

[underbear1]

Dictators aren't elected, if an elected official becomes a dictator, his/her voters and supporters had no say in the matter. No one has the power to get rid of a dictator, short of overthrowing the government or assasination.There are no checks or balances, and no specific means of choosing the next ruler once the current dictator dies.The way absolute power corrupts, this sounds like a disastorous choice in government.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Zynner Just look at what George Bush did with his intelligence reports on Iraq and we can clearly see that there is no real difference from what a dictatorship would have done. But the reason for that is that GW does not believe in liberty -- it has little to do with the form of government (which, btw, did absolutely nothing to stop his invasion).

Not really. A real dictator would just say that he didn't care what his people thought enough to even lie to them. Some of the worst people ala Stalin and Hitler (though I realize he's not technically a dictator) were actually fairly up-front about what they wanted to do and just did it. They didn't bother trying to sway people to their side at the extent seen by the Bush administration. Sure there was propaganda but there just wasn't the acknowledgement of opposition that we have today.

As far as the Op is concerned, I think a dictatorship could work with the right people in charge. However, how would you select someone that is working in the interest of the people and not someone who put themselves in that position via a lust for power. The chances of finding the "right" people are about as good as finding politicians who don't lie in Washington.

[rmnunez]

Under zynner's definition, dictatorship cannot be better for democracy. But I don't think the best government is the one which confers the greatest amount of liberty. I do believe many governments which restrict personal freedoms are better than some which assure greater freedoms. Some censorship and restrictions can yield more stability and prosperity.

[underbear1]

Quote by: rmnunez Under zynner's definition, dictatorship cannot be better for democracy. But I don't think the best government is the one which confers the greatest amount of liberty. I do believe many governments which restrict personal freedoms are better than some which assure greater freedoms. Some censorship and restrictions can yield more stability and prosperity.

YIKES! Anyone who would settle for that, doesn't deserve Liberty.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: underbear1 Dictators aren't elected, if an elected official becomes a dictator, his/her voters and supporters had no say in the matter. No one has the power to get rid of a dictator, short of overthrowing the government or assasination.There are no checks or balances, and no specific means of choosing the next ruler once the current dictator dies.The way absolute power corrupts, this sounds like a disastorous choice in government.

Not true. Dictatorships can have elections. Take the UK for example, it has an "elected dictatorship" as Lord Acton put it. The PM of the UK has the ability to do anything in this country. We do not have a fixed constitution in this country, so there is nothing we can point to and say "hey, he's going beyond his jurisdiction". Any law that would prevent a government from doing as it pleased can be overturned in less than an hour, with a new bill being passed government will have the ability to modify existing bills without debate etc And as the government, the executive, is drawn from the Commons, the legislature, the are no checks and balances. The PM of the UK can also use MI5 and MI6 without much interference, as there is little independant oversight of those bodies.

So, we have a government that cannot be prevented from acting in any manner it pleases. The only thing that differentiates the modern UK and some third world tin pot dictatorship is our vast wealth and the amount of restraint that has been shown by politicians not to abuse their limitless power. That is changing however.

Yet we have elections, but that means nothing. It means picking between dictatorships.

[brien]

Quote by: zynner This will annoy some people; shock others. Please just think about it before responding. What is the purpose of a government? My answer to that is: Maximize liberty for all within the society (playing no favorites). Using that as a goal of "good government," is it possible that a dictatorship could be better than a democracy? When we think of dictatorships, we think of Stalin, Hitler, Pot Pol, and Hussein (most of whom had the backing of the US gov't, by the way). We think of corruption and mass murder. But a "dictatorship" is really just a way of voting, as is a "democracy." What if a dictator existed who was benign? What if said dictator passed all the laws, oversaw the enforcement of them, and was final arbiteur in the courts, but did so in a way that was consistent with you and me living a life of freedom? What if such a person had a law against murder, but no laws against victimless crimes? What if such a person played no sides in a big business-union dispute, but just let the sides work it out on their own? What if such a person had no laws that spied on the people, imprisoned anyone without charges (like Gitmo), waged no wars (but maintained a national defense, made up of volunteers), etc.? Wouldn't we have to say that such a society was free, regardless of who made the laws? And what if a democracy existed where the majority passed laws that required everybody obey a particular religion, such as is in the process of happening in Iraq? What if that society passed laws taking the wealth of the producers, outlawed gun ownership, outlawed abortions, etc. Wouldn't such a society be considered less free than the dictatorship described above? I think so. Of course, nobody has yet figured out how to keep a dictatorship from devolving into a society where the ruler rules with an iron fist. Then again, nobody has yet figured out a way to stop the emotions of mob rule to devolve into a society where the democratic majority rules over the out-voted minority, either. The key to liberty has little to do with how the votes are cast. It has everything to do with making sure the government never has the power to rule with an iron fist in the first place. It's a lesson that needs to be re-learned throughout the world today. ~ zynner

I guess you are serious. I suppose you could find a "benign dictator" and when you do, you can go there, check it out, and report back to us. Meanwhile, I will continue to fight the good fight here in the US against our elected dictators.

[Chaossaber314]

Not quite. I refer you to the Lincoln was Pro-Slavery thread.

[lsbskins1]

You know, if you could find a pig that was born with wings, and hollow bones and feathers and several other necessary anatomical varriants, you would have a beautiful flying pig. Or, you would more than likely, according to most taxonomists, have a bird that you were simply calling a "flying pig".

If, if , if. You are doing that thing. If you force me to accept that there is this human, who will not be corrupted and you force me to accept the premise that he will "rule" in such a way that his "rule" will be advantagous, what are you learning by inviting me to agree with your contentions? Nothing. And, I surely agree with the ideas expressed earlier about the problems of succession and such like. So, in the end, no matter how "enlightened" or "benign" any one individual, your primise fails because that is not and will never be a universal human condition and therefore the dangers inherent are never outweighed by the "advantages" one sage "superbeing" might bring.