|
| Thread: the Vote- I has it |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted June 17, 2009 07:24 PM |
|
|
Rarensu, democracy is quite ****, but it's the least **** form of government apart from a dictatorship by me. 
Anyway, what else do you suggest we do?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 11:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Rarensu, democracy is quite ****, but it's the least **** form of government apart from a dictatorship by me.
No, the least **** from of government would be a dictatorship that would make everyone ok with it. In theory.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 11:32 PM |
|
|
Like big brother? Naah, doesn't work.
Or in theory, a form of government with total freedom, but anarchy can be pretty **** too
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 11:38 PM |
|
|
Total freedom means freedom of killing too. Not sure I would find it very pleasant.
There are two main types of dictatorship: government abuse, or government who actually cares about something else than just selfish power or own self.
I'm talking about the latter.
Again, in theory.
A good question to ask the dictators, first (but not conclusive) to distinguish between them is: if I were a citizen in my country, would I blame my dictator-self for anything?
If the answer is no, then it's a start, it implies that the dictator is certainly not selfish -- he may have biased views, but not selfish.
For instance of a biased view (and let me clarify first that I have to add this here): Suppose Hitler (SUPPOSE!) treats germans fairly but not Jews. Obviously Hitler would say "yes I would be ok with the dictator if I were a citizen" because he isn't a Jew, but if he was a Jew, he would have a big problem.
Though as I have said, it is a start in distinguishing the two forms.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 17, 2009 11:45 PM |
|
|
Death, I wouldn't mind at all living in a dictatorship run by someone who agrees with me 100%.  (Except succession would be an issue, but that's a problem with any dictatorship - not just ones ruled by an ideological clone of me.) What say you now?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 12:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Death, I wouldn't mind at all living in a dictatorship run by someone who agrees with me 100%. (Except succession would be an issue, but that's a problem with any dictatorship - not just ones ruled by an ideological clone of me.) What say you now?
I'm sorry mvass but I don't believe you. Not because you would have no problem, but because if you were to get into such power, and as being motivated by selfishness, are you telling me you wouldn't abuse the people for your own pleasure? Or make whatever you need to make your life better, without caring for them?
Don't think in too "long terms", you don't live a few centuries, after all.
Being fair would imply that your goal in life is not just to selfishly feel good, which based on what I've read, it doesn't characterize you
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 01:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry mvass but I don't believe you. Not because you would have no problem, but because if you were to get into such power, and as being motivated by selfishness, are you telling me you wouldn't abuse the people for your own pleasure?
No. Abusing random people gives me absolutely no pleasure. Indeed, if I had absolute power over the government, I would weaken and dismantle it until only a relatively small fragment would be left - police, military, education, a central bank, and a taxation and budget agency. I'd appoint competent administrators to head each of these, and give them general guidelines. Then - I'd retire, with the right to come back to power if my administrators would go wrong.
Doesn't make me any less selfish.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 01:32 AM |
|
|
Mvass, you mentioned you do not care about ideology at all, but survival. Therefore, maximizing YOUR physical pointless survival is goal here, not your ideology as a ruler. The question is, what you would do in those shoes. What would you do if you were presented with that choice? (as a ruler of course)
I wouldn't do something for my own personal gains (unless you consider the ideology a personal gain, but let's NOT get into that AGAIN) even if you paid me money to do it. I'm one of those few who wouldn't get corrupted by power -- by "corrupted" I mean doing stuff that you didn't mention or wanted to do before (i.e change your viewpoint). I know I wouldn't.
There's one thing certain with people like me: ideology is the most important thing. That will not change for any trifle things like physical gains (unless such gains impact the ideology in the end). They can only be changed with reason or whatever you use them (if it's emotional ideology, then with art/impression/emotion ). "Power" does not change that (or corrupt it).
But this is off topic -- my point was a simple analysis on the types of dictatorships. That doesn't guarantee an answer to distinguish them (the test question I outlined), but it does give a "probably" output.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 01:45 AM |
|
|
The thing is, "ideology" (although "philosophy" would be a more accurate term here) is not always opposed to pleasure/survival. It gives me pleasure/happiness to implement my ideology, because I know it to be good - both for me and for others. Also, I wouldn't like being a dictator with too much power - it's both dangerous (watch out for assassins and rivals for power) and tedious (how much money should I allocate to the Department of Agriculture - $50 billion or $90 billion?).
Quote:
What would you do if you were presented with that choice?
Read the post above your last one for my answer.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 10:47 AM |
|
|
How does one measure the success of the government?
How long it lasts?
A water-monopoly empire lasts forever, in theory.
Benefits to the people? Today or tomorrow?
The workers during the industrial revolution suffered, but we live better lives in the long run as a result. Conversely, people during the 50s had a roaring good time, but created an instability that is about to crush us under its weight.
Popularity?
Hitler was popular, but Peter the Great wasn't.
I hereby declare that the "perfect government" depends on the culture of the people to be governed. India is doing well with the caste system, but Iraq is reacting poorly to democracy. (Yes, Indians still practice the caste system even though it is no longer part of their government. *sigh* Why do we even bother?)
Quote:
and ave to you to, mister Rarensu
I have no idea what that means, but it sounds sarcastic.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 07:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How does one measure the success of the government?
How long it lasts?
A water-monopoly empire lasts forever, in theory.
Benefits to the people? Today or tomorrow?
The workers during the industrial revolution suffered, but we live better lives in the long run as a result. Conversely, people during the 50s had a roaring good time, but created an instability that is about to crush us under its weight.
Popularity?
Hitler was popular, but Peter the Great wasn't.
I hereby declare that the "perfect government" depends on the culture of the people to be governed. India is doing well with the caste system, but Iraq is reacting poorly to democracy. (Yes, Indians still practice the caste system even though it is no longer part of their government. *sigh* Why do we even bother?)
Quote:
and ave to you to, mister Rarensu
I have no idea what that means, but it sounds sarcastic.
yes, it is.
It was a reference to one of the greatest empire known to history, the roman empire. a dictatorship, crushed under its own weight by, partly due to invasion, but mostly due to corruption. proof that a dictatorship needs strong rulers to survive, and if it lacks a strong ruler, then it all comes crashing down. proved in Russia, countless times, proved in greece, provide in iraq, and proved in rome.
India, incidently, still have the caste system, i'd give you that, but it is a democratic caste system, in that all but the untouchables are allowed to vote.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 18, 2009 08:17 PM |
|
|
I was under the impression that the dalits (they're not called untouchables any more) can vote.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 19, 2009 09:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I was under the impression that the dalits (they're not called untouchables any more) can vote.
really?
I guess I was mistaken on both parts.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
| |
|
|
