First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Autocracy
225 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / Brasil
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
No way in hell a country should be lead by a single person, these person would be a dictator. Has anything good ever came out or that?
Taking for an exemple all the latim american dictator, what did they do?? They killed millions of innocent people, tortured and raped women. So many people are still waiting for their relatives body's to be found, so they can bury them..but they never will and that is the sort of thing that happens when ther is only one voice to comand a nation. A well administred democratic governament is the best alternative in my opinion.
39308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / canada
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
yeah right
113 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
i belief democracy is the best,
though for certain countries in the middle east,
the gap between its citizens is too vast to bridge.
So the Bush administration of trying to unite them through democracy wont work,
an alternative like republican government might fare better..
7716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / M / Florida, US
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
You guys can't use examples as strong support for your ideal government. (since the quality of the leader doesn't speak for the actual system of government)

Autocratic governments are like major gambles where you put all your money on one bet. There's a chance the leader can be incredible and the world (or country) will be governed wonderfully. Yet, it can also end up like Josef Stalin where people are dying out and everyone is fearful of their lives.

The bad thing about democracy is that it is one of the safer routes to go since it's like making a bunch of small bets. You might get a good leader one term, then a horrible one the next. Another thing is that the leaders are appointed and fighting for popularity preventing any leader from completely fulfilling their roles as a leader. They have to worry about pleasing the public and other government heads.

Keep this in mind. Senators and governors are usually fighting for popularity for the next term. So, they're always bought out by lobbyists. You look at supreme court justices (who have life terms) and they go by what they think is right with minimum biases to please the public or anyone else.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
I wonder y there isnt a single soul that agree with me....

u all gave me so much information on why we SHOULD NOT have a autocracy :/.... but i still think we SHOULD....
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 2/10/08
you dont give any good information AT ALL about why having an autocracy would be good, thats why there isn't a single soul that agrees with you.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

tobydiah wrote:

You guys can't use examples as strong support for your ideal government. (since the quality of the leader doesn't speak for the actual system of government)

Autocratic governments are like major gambles where you put all your money on one bet. There's a chance the leader can be incredible and the world (or country) will be governed wonderfully. Yet, it can also end up like Josef Stalin where people are dying out and everyone is fearful of their lives.

The bad thing about democracy is that it is one of the safer routes to go since it's like making a bunch of small bets. You might get a good leader one term, then a horrible one the next. Another thing is that the leaders are appointed and fighting for popularity preventing any leader from completely fulfilling their roles as a leader. They have to worry about pleasing the public and other government heads.

Keep this in mind. Senators and governors are usually fighting for popularity for the next term. So, they're always bought out by lobbyists. You look at supreme court justices (who have life terms) and they go by what they think is right with minimum biases to please the public or anyone else.


you raise good points, but at the same time, the supreme court doesn't determine foreign policy, they don't control U.S. general funds, they don't make laws. they're judges, all their job requires is determining whether this or that court case is constitutional. they are powerful, but not in the same way that members of thel legislature or executive are.

EDIT* sorry for double post
7716 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / M / Florida, US
Offline
Posted 2/10/08

MEMPHADON wrote:


tobydiah wrote:

You guys can't use examples as strong support for your ideal government. (since the quality of the leader doesn't speak for the actual system of government)

Autocratic governments are like major gambles where you put all your money on one bet. There's a chance the leader can be incredible and the world (or country) will be governed wonderfully. Yet, it can also end up like Josef Stalin where people are dying out and everyone is fearful of their lives.

The bad thing about democracy is that it is one of the safer routes to go since it's like making a bunch of small bets. You might get a good leader one term, then a horrible one the next. Another thing is that the leaders are appointed and fighting for popularity preventing any leader from completely fulfilling their roles as a leader. They have to worry about pleasing the public and other government heads.

Keep this in mind. Senators and governors are usually fighting for popularity for the next term. So, they're always bought out by lobbyists. You look at supreme court justices (who have life terms) and they go by what they think is right with minimum biases to please the public or anyone else.


you raise good points, but at the same time, the supreme court doesn't determine foreign policy, they don't control U.S. general funds, they don't make laws. they're judges, all their job requires is determining whether this or that court case is constitutional. they are powerful, but not in the same way that members of thel legislature or executive are.

EDIT* sorry for double post


Oh. I agree. I mean, that's why the supreme court's life term exists in our democratic society. It's just an example of one of the highest, decision-making positions that doesn't have to worry about re-election. I mean, an actual single ruler for an entire nation or world would be far more extreme. But, in that sense, the risks are even higher where the rewards may even be better. Since we can theoretically end up the ultimate leader and live happily. If this great guy was elected president, he would have to deal with the congress, senate, re-election, the legal process, etc. Then he would only have 8 years to serve in office IF he was re-elected for being popular. After that, who knows who will take the presidency and have to deal with outside influences and legal processes again? If that first guy had been our autocratic ruler, we couldn't had a lifetime of success. People also dislike the thought of losing more freedom. There really isn't a set line to how much freedom we want or should have. I think people were free to do all the important things in life even under monarchy aside from minor things. It even prevented unethical business practices and corporate machines that took over the economy and society. (of course, I'm talking about times under good leadership; not during incompetent leadership) I think the government democracy in the US helps corporations more than the people since it keeps the government leaders in the hands of these major businesses.
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/11/08
Responding to the OP.

There are only two perfect forms of government in the world:

A dictatorship ruled by an enlightened despot who puts the needs of the people and the state first before himself,the first servant of the state if you will.Take for example the monarchs of 18th century Europe,notably Frederick the Great.

OR

If you have true faith in humanity,Anarchy.There will be no governments or laws to tell people how to live their lives,every man will be their own leader and for once in the history of the human race,be able to be masters of their own destiny.

Every other form of government besides those two,are lies.
3474 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / anime.4tv.
Offline
Posted 2/11/08
definitely....
its inevitable...
esp. to those leaders who are too clingy to power...
in my country this is rampant...
we people cant just do nothin about it...
i hope the other countries would intervene to help us...
please...
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 2/11/08

Hawker wrote:

Responding to the OP.

There are only two perfect forms of government in the world:

A dictatorship ruled by an enlightened despot who puts the needs of the people and the state first before himself,the first servant of the state if you will.Take for example the monarchs of 18th century Europe,notably Frederick the Great.

OR

If you have true faith in humanity,Anarchy.There will be no governments or laws to tell people how to live their lives,every man will be their own leader and for once in the history of the human race,be able to be masters of their own destiny.

Every other form of government besides those two,are lies.


i am in awe!~ those 2 forms r awwsome...
4963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / cebu
Offline
Posted 2/11/08
i think we should not... autocracy would not help the world nowadays....
962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / dgs
Offline
Posted 2/11/08

o0James0o wrote:

I wonder y there isnt a single soul that agree with me....

u all gave me so much information on why we SHOULD NOT have a autocracy :/.... but i still think we SHOULD....


haha...you are funnie. here's my two cents worth.

why autocracy ?
- a visionary leader
- absolute control

why not autocracy ?
- absolute control leads to corruption
- lack of structure

Perhaps you could name some nations or some great leaders using autocracy and tell us your point.

Here's some leaders or nation that might be using autocracy. As to whether we should have autocracy or not, history already told us a lot!

- Qin Shi Huang
- Adolf Hitler
- Napoleon Bonaparte
- Cuba (Castro)
- Alexander the Great
299 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Samsara
Offline
Posted 2/11/08

dkcy209 wrote:


o0James0o wrote:

I wonder y there isnt a single soul that agree with me....

u all gave me so much information on why we SHOULD NOT have a autocracy :/.... but i still think we SHOULD....


haha...you are funnie. here's my two cents worth.

why autocracy ?
- a visionary leader
- absolute control

why not autocracy ?
- absolute control leads to corruption
- lack of structure

Perhaps you could name some nations or some great leaders using autocracy and tell us your point.

Here's some leaders or nation that might be using autocracy. As to whether we should have autocracy or not, history already told us a lot!

- Qin Shi Huang
- Adolf Hitler
- Napoleon Bonaparte
- Cuba (Castro)
- Alexander the Great


Qin Shi Huang-
Went mad later during his reign because of the medicine he was taking for his joints,and one of the key ingredients of that medicine was mercury,which is known to be bad to mental and physical health.

Adolf Hitler-
He was mad to begin with and his syphilis made him even worse.

Napoleon Bonaparte-
His policies and laws were far more progressive and liberal than any in Europe at the time.He established the French civil code which heavily influenced the legal codes of many countries and is still in use in France to this day.

Castro-
A powerful country is your next door neighbor and his clearly hostile to your regime,if I was in his position I would do the same thing.And if your going to make a point about Cuba having political prisoners,take into account the fact that a majority of the worlds republics also have political prisoners,including the US.

Alexander the Great-
A majority of his rule he spent conquering half the civilized world and shortly when he had set out to establish his rule of the conquered territories and administer his empire,he died.There is little evidence that showed whether he would be an able administrator.

Your assumptions are flawed,try to make a better point next time.
Posted 2/11/08
No lol because most dictatorships think they are better than everyone which creates racism xD and assimilation lol
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.