First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Autocracy
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
i believe we should. i mean, i dont dink republic would work due to the fact that majority of the people in the world/country are ignorant,brainless idiots. they wont care anything about the government unless it affects them. also, they only elect rulers that are famous but not rulers that are good rulers.
therefore, i believe its better to have a government ruled by a single ruler
9584 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / In Memphis, with...
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
And that ruler would be? Describing him/her of course. Plus, wouldn't that lead to some kind of monopoly? Wouldn't that be like putting the trust of everybody in the hands of one individual, who by the way would be human like everyone else?

All that said refers to the 'mislead' concept taken with good intentions, but ending up in dictatorships. History is full of them, in the past. That is just the case scenario. I believe it would be productive to give it a chance, but modern society would never let that happen. Because it's easy to keep the masses ignorant, that in order to control them. So, basically it is easy to control the masses.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

o0James0o wrote:

i believe we should. i mean, i dont dink republic would work due to the fact that majority of the people in the world/country are ignorant,brainless idiots. they wont care anything about the government unless it affects them. also, they only elect rulers that are famous but not rulers that are good rulers.
therefore, i believe its better to have a government ruled by a single ruler


thats the POINT of republics. because the majority of people are total, brainless idiots. so we hire people who know what they're doing to make decisions in our interest. i don't know of any better government system that provides power to the people, without causing the actions of the nation to be decided by public outcry.

the same goes if we have one leader. all our fates are determined by whims of the king. thats just as dangerous, if not more.
389 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
Agree with MEMPHADON.
I think the topic starter meant to say direct democracy.

Indirect democracy is the way to go. The representatives have to cater to their constituents while hyper pluralism is suppressed.

Good ruler? they come by once every... is there such a thing?
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

Cakeman wrote:

Agree with MEMPHADON.
I think the topic starter meant to say direct democracy.

Indirect democracy is the way to go. The representatives have to cater to their constituents while hyper pluralism is suppressed.

Good ruler? they come by once every... is there such a thing?


no no... i mean republic.... i dont get why it worked.... over the thousands of years.... we have monarchy.... then in the past few hundred , theres this republic thing... anbd yea demoncracy is even worst then republic... but about republic is that... every1 get the right to vote, that means then vote for bad rulers due to the fact that majority of the people r brainless idiots and then the bad rulers vote(they go for popular people) for even worst rulers.(look how bush win the election a few years back....) and the government in houses and stuff, they keep fighting over each another?... isnt it better if we just bring back autocracy...? or maybe at least, only allow a certain people to vote, like those with a high iq or something

ps. yes theres a good ruler once in a while.... well bad ones get things done... tho with the fact of killing tons of people


MEMPHADON wrote:


o0James0o wrote:

i believe we should. i mean, i dont dink republic would work due to the fact that majority of the people in the world/country are ignorant,brainless idiots. they wont care anything about the government unless it affects them. also, they only elect rulers that are famous but not rulers that are good rulers.
therefore, i believe its better to have a government ruled by a single ruler


thats the POINT of republics. because the majority of people are total, brainless idiots. so we hire people who know what they're doing to make decisions in our interest. i don't know of any better government system that provides power to the people, without causing the actions of the nation to be decided by public outcry.

the same goes if we have one leader. all our fates are determined by whims of the king. thats just as dangerous, if not more.


its that the brainless idiots hire people by not their knowledge and experience on running a government, but rather or not if they are popular...
Posted 2/10/08
no...

:[
we just need better
government officials.

presidents these days..
ahhhhh
the madness.
389 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
Wait. I'm not sure I understand you.

But anyway, why do you believe that most people are foolish? And how do you think a spoiled royalty would fair in domestic policies?

Well, I'm not an expert on world governments, but I think you are placing special emphasis on the US government and Bush's presidency. Things are actually a lot more complicated than that. Otherwise, everything would be perfect.

Ironically, the US government is meant to be as inefficient as possible to compromise corruption. Hence, there has been a long standing trend of divided government, usually with Republican President and Democratic congress. Bush happens to be nominated and was riding on the counter-coattail of Clinton's scandal (and Kerry was a poor campaigner with a poorly selected running mate). Also, the constitutionality of Bush's actions are still debatable.

Anyway, Bush got there through election. But what if he got there through royalty. Hypothetically, Papa Bush was a president, so Bush would succeed him. With no limits to his actions... yeah, not good. Which brings up my next point. Being popular and being a "good" ruler are not mutually exclusive. Roosevelt was a "good" president, and people chose him as a President. The only difference is that a President's term and power are limited. Hence, as corrupt as a President can be, there is always a limit.

As for the representatives in the house fighting over each other... well, they are fighting for their constituents, so everyone gets a piece of the pie but not the entire thing. If the monarch favored a group of people, then the rest will be screwed. If only certain people with "high quality" are allowed to vote, then it will become mutual back scratching between the affluent and the government.

In actuality, there are far more democrats than there are republicans. It's just that democrats do not vote: college kids have just about the lowest voter turn out while elderly educated white male has the highest of them all. So in essence, some of the corruption in Bush administration is a result of selective voting.


ps. yes theres a good ruler once in a while.... well bad ones get things done... tho with the fact of killing tons of people

Sorry to be the devil's advocate here... let's bring in another Hitler or Stalin to cure our current recession.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

o0James0o wrote:


Cakeman wrote:

Agree with MEMPHADON.
I think the topic starter meant to say direct democracy.

Indirect democracy is the way to go. The representatives have to cater to their constituents while hyper pluralism is suppressed.

Good ruler? they come by once every... is there such a thing?


no no... i mean republic.... i dont get why it worked.... over the thousands of years.... we have monarchy.... then in the past few hundred , theres this republic thing... anbd yea demoncracy is even worst then republic... but about republic is that... every1 get the right to vote, that means then vote for bad rulers due to the fact that majority of the people r brainless idiots and then the bad rulers vote(they go for popular people) for even worst rulers.(look how bush win the election a few years back....) and the government in houses and stuff, they keep fighting over each another?... isnt it better if we just bring back autocracy...? or maybe at least, only allow a certain people to vote, like those with a high iq or something

ps. yes theres a good ruler once in a while.... well bad ones get things done... tho with the fact of killing tons of people


MEMPHADON wrote:


o0James0o wrote:

i believe we should. i mean, i dont dink republic would work due to the fact that majority of the people in the world/country are ignorant,brainless idiots. they wont care anything about the government unless it affects them. also, they only elect rulers that are famous but not rulers that are good rulers.
therefore, i believe its better to have a government ruled by a single ruler


thats the POINT of republics. because the majority of people are total, brainless idiots. so we hire people who know what they're doing to make decisions in our interest. i don't know of any better government system that provides power to the people, without causing the actions of the nation to be decided by public outcry.

the same goes if we have one leader. all our fates are determined by whims of the king. thats just as dangerous, if not more.


its that the brainless idiots hire people by not their knowledge and experience on running a government, but rather or not if they are popular...



yes, monarchies worked, but they barely worked. empires constantly had to put down rebellions by unhappy peasants, rebellions put together by nobles, and generals who get to big for their britches. you can hardly call that a successful government.

with our system, we at least get to choose who leads us. we may vote for total idiots, but it is an idiot who the people accept and trust. we have rules in place that prevent them from getting too powerful. and they generally do whats right. they are at our mercy, because every 6 years, we decide whether we want to keep them or not. if we screw up, thats okay, we can vote someone new in next term.

what you're talking about is voting one ruler in for life. i dont think you understand the danger of that. once he's in, we're at HIS mercy. if we vote in a total idiot, he's our total idiot leader for life. you can't trust people to make the right decision, you said it yourself. so how can we expect them to make the right decision when voting for our dictator?

EDIT* when i said 6 years, i was talking about our U.S. senate. just.....FYI
1007 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Sweden
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
The only thing that haven't epic failed so far is monarchy and democracy (of any form really). Well monarchy have failed but we used it sucessfully for quite some time.
275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / F / mnvhg
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
ask the north koreans how thats working out for them,
547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

o0James0o wrote:

i believe we should. i mean, i dont dink republic would work due to the fact that majority of the people in the world/country are ignorant,brainless idiots. they wont care anything about the government unless it affects them. also, they only elect rulers that are famous but not rulers that are good rulers.
therefore, i believe its better to have a government ruled by a single ruler



It's true that people vote for what ruler they want... I know its selfish but thats just how the world goes round!! Well autocracy has ups and downs for example... there wouldnt be a war because the whole world would be governed by a single ruler... However, people likes to be in charge and to put forward their ideas and because nobody has more power than them they can do whatever they like...
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

Cakeman wrote:

But anyway, why do you believe that most people are foolish? And how do you think a spoiled royalty would fair in domestic policies?


I think they are foolish because they indeed are.... majority of the people are foolish...

i never said that we should bring back the royalty.. im just sayin bring back the autocracy..



Well, I'm not an expert on world governments, but I think you are placing special emphasis on the US government and Bush's presidency. Things are actually a lot more complicated than that. Otherwise, everything would be perfect.


i dont really get government that much either. and no i just think that republic wont work... and usin bush's presidency as a example on how much republic sucked



Being popular and being a "good" ruler are not mutually exclusive. Roosevelt was a "good" president, and people chose him as a President. The only difference is that a President's term and power are limited. Hence, as corrupt as a President can be, there is always a limit.


we will find out if the limit will work after the next election...



As for the representatives in the house fighting over each other... well, they are fighting for their constituents, so everyone gets a piece of the pie but not the entire thing. If the monarch favored a group of people, then the rest will be screwed. If only certain people with "high quality" are allowed to vote, then it will become mutual back scratching between the affluent and the government.


fighting will never get things done. but if monarch favored a certain group, even if they failed, they can restart over



In actuality, there are far more democrats than there are republicans. It's just that democrats do not vote: college kids have just about the lowest voter turn out while elderly educated white male has the highest of them all. So in essence, some of the corruption in Bush administration is a result of selective voting.

i dont really know all that much.... due to the fact that im only 14 :D... and my former history class sucked...




ps. yes theres a good ruler once in a while.... well bad ones get things done... tho with the fact of killing tons of people

Sorry to be the devil's advocate here... let's bring in another Hitler or Stalin to cure our current recession.

Hitler... hes a intelligent ruler.. he brings Germany to rule over europe...
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

MEMPHADON wrote:

yes, monarchies worked, but they barely worked. empires constantly had to put down rebellions by unhappy peasants, rebellions put together by nobles, and generals who get to big for their britches. you can hardly call that a successful government.

with our system, we at least get to choose who leads us. we may vote for total idiots, but it is an idiot who the people accept and trust. we have rules in place that prevent them from getting too powerful. and they generally do whats right. they are at our mercy, because every 6 years, we decide whether we want to keep them or not. if we screw up, thats okay, we can vote someone new in next term.

what you're talking about is voting one ruler in for life. i dont think you understand the danger of that. once he's in, we're at HIS mercy. if we vote in a total idiot, he's our total idiot leader for life. you can't trust people to make the right decision, you said it yourself. so how can we expect them to make the right decision when voting for our dictator?

EDIT* when i said 6 years, i was talking about our U.S. senate. just.....FYI



yes im talkin about 1 ruler for life, and yes we r in his mercy, but.. if he can make the nation better, why not?... and no, i dont think we should "VOTE" one ruler for life, the ruler should be decided by what he have dont in the government.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
so who would CHOOSE who the ruler would be then?

all leaders have the ability to make the nation better. we can keep a good legislator (house of reps or senate member) for as long as he/she wants to run. that is far safer, and leaves the ultimate power in the hands of the people, which is where it belongs.

it also keeps the power divided, making it harder for decisions to be made based on emotion, public outcry, or on a whim. it makes legislation a longer process, but it is all in order to keep a balance of power.
389 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
I think they are foolish because they indeed are.... majority of the people are foolish...

i never said that we should bring back the royalty.. im just sayin bring back the autocracy..

That's like saying a person is stupid because he just is. You'll be surprised how insightful people are. I once stopped to talk with a homeless person on street... I digress.

How do people chose successors in autocracy? the successor is heavily favored by the ruling person, and there's no way to tell if the successor is "good" only that s/he has similar opinion as the predecessor.



i dont really get government that much either. and no i just think that republic wont work... and usin bush's presidency as a example on how much republic sucked


By the way, US is not a republic, it's a democratic republic. US citizens have a lot more say in the government. But there's always the good and the bad. Kim starved millions of North Koreans under his iron fist while South Korea adopted western government and capitalism and thrived. Western Europe is considerably wealthier than its eastern counterpart.



we will find out if the limit will work after the next election...

I don't see US rushing into North Korea or Iran. hmm...


fighting will never get things done. but if monarch favored a certain group, even if they failed, they can restart over

As I've said before. The US government is meant to slow things down so that certain fleeting emotions won't turn into tyranny. I agree that things can be done faster with monarchy, but it doesn't mean that it's always good and there are always consequences.


Hitler... hes a intelligent ruler.. he brings Germany to rule over europe...

Right. He's so intelligent that he stifled the supplies to the front lines by using the railways to send Jews to concentration camp and he prematurely attacked Soviet Union when he could have gotten Great Britain. He resurrected Germany from military armaments and antagonized the whole world through invasions. If western powers had not helped West Germany after the war, West Germany would be as run-down as its Eastern counterpart.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.