There has been an absolutely fantastic post over in "Spirituality..." forum that has splashed over into a political debate as to what works better, a democracy or a dictorship if the dictator is the right guy.
I will, breif as I can, replay the debate between me and Pinksharkmark in the "Non-Violence Explained" thread...
With an effort to really express his true philosophy Pinksharkmark believes that if you could prevent people, with force if need be, from harming others then there would be no crime.
To quote him -
The best way to end violence is to make the consequences of its initiation so draconian that only the most incorrigible will ever even ATTEMPT a violent act, and then only once.
He also said -
Imagine a society in which every member had a "destruct" mechanism implanted in their cranium at birth, with a monitoring system reporting back to an impartial central computer programmed to detect acts of aggression. Whenever an individual attempts to deliberately harm another, the computer sends a signal and the "destruct" charge goes off, turning the contents of that particular cranium into mush. How long do you think it would take to put an end to violent crime and wars? About a week?
To which I replied -
What your computer effectiviely does is takes people whom the computer deems worthy and kills them all. Replace the word computer with Hitler, and you have an explanation for a Nazi party. Believing in this is believing that the opinion of a computer (programmed by some guys) is worthy of being treated as fact and law that everyone else has to live by. A dictactorship by definition. What I mean by someone's law is that your philosophy would include SOMEONE'S definition of violence. Now obviously most everyone thinks murder is violence, however there are other matters wich some people don't agree is violence. Some people think killing a killer is justice, others think it is violence, just for one example.
And the debate about Dictatorship versus Democracy was on.
I said a one man Government would never work. He said -
There have been many one-man governments in recorded history that worked just fine. Depends entirely on who the man is and what fundamental principles he chose to govern by.
The example he gave were Julius Caesar, King Canute, Theodoric the Great, "the Chiefs of countless North American native tribes" and "dozens of Egyptian Pharaohs"
To which I replied -
Julius Caesar
He was not a dictator by definition. Rome was a democracy consisting of an executive branch with elected magistrates,a legislative branch consiting of three assemblies, lead by elected censors and magistrates and a Senate which was lead by two elected consules.
Caesar was hardly a one man government is my point.
King Canute
It is nice to see someone else with a knowledge of Scandanavian History! All right man, I am excited! We should go out for a beer man! Me and you could talk history and philosophy all night!
Oh yes, the serious rebuttle...(Serious tone)...It is funny you mention Canute as an example of a one man Government because he was a guy who didn't believe in the power of kings. There is the obvious famous qoute of "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings."
Canute himself was a believer in the opinion that a Dictatorship is hopeless.
Theodoric the Great
He was pretty much a dictator but he was a, relative to dictators, tolerant one, allowing all forms of Christianity and sharing power with the Pope for instance, very radical in those times. However, his plan to unite the people of the Mediterranean failed in a short period of time because ultimately anyone who did not agree with his plan of unity was put to death (the famous people being Boeththius and the Senator Symmachus, for example) and his the Ostrogoths (whom he was the King of to those who do not know) died out because of it, soon there after in 553, some 70 years after he took the title of King...so his system of Government worked...but not longer than 70 years. The USA's has worked for nearly 230 years. If you ask me he was just another well meaning guy, who ultimately was someone who believed his way was the only way and peace would come if everyone who he disagreed with was just murdered...not unlike the Fuhrer we have been speaking of, eh?
the Chiefs of countless North American native tribes
If these were so successful how come there were so many of them? Non of them lasted because they all got toppled in short periods of time by each other. Eventually the Europeans came in, but that was later. If you examine Native American history they did plenty of fighting and dying off and rebuilding...and besides it was commonplace for chiefs to discuss policy at a sort of town meeting where tribes members could vote, not the sort of thing that comes from a dictator.
dozens of Egyptian Pharaohs
Egypt as a soceity (with Pharaohs) lasted a long time, about three thousand years. However, no one was in control for long. The average family was in power for about 100 years (notice I said family, as in family name, not one guy), and often the first Pharoh of a family was murdered so his power could be passed to his son and then ultimately over thrown by someone else, and so it went...Egypt was a successful enough soceity but each ruler could not hold onto power (never "voted off" either I might add) and ultimately they were easily defeated by the Persians.
Also, they were not such dictators either...the Pharaohs appointed "reagional" authority to middle class individuals (not upper class because, in the Pharaohs mind they held to much power...not lower class because they were thought of as scum) who had to answer to the people of their region.
To which he said -
I provided a brief list of several one-man Governments that DID work. You are basically responding that they only worked while the head of the government was alive, which is EXACTLY what I had first said -- There have been many one-man governments in recorded history that worked just fine. Depends entirely on who the man was and what fundamental principles he chose to govern by.
Me now -
Well, here lies our difference of opinion, I believe I gave detailed information as to why they were NOT one man Governments. Having one man at the HEAD of a Government is not the same as a dictator, and I was asking for dictators (because that is my interpretation of a one man Government).
The fundamental question is....what is a better long term form of Government, a Dictatorship with the "right dictator" or a Democracy?
BTW, pinky if I have misrepresented your beliefs in any way, let me know and I shall either have you explain them yourself or have you tell me how to edit my post.
--------------------
Shroomalicious -  I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
Edited by Shroomalicious (11/02/02 11:42 PM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Red Vein Kratom
Shroomalicious 
Xlea321 
Edit 
Reply 
God_Killer
FrenchSocialist
1 2 3 4 all )
Ancalagon
Silversoul
Learyfan
DoctorJ
FutureExPatriot