Government

So I read a book  recently called The Mote in God's Eye. The story (though good) is unimportant, but a part of the background and the comments made by the narrator and a character intrigued me. In the book there is an Empire which rules most of mankind. The Empire seems to be an absolute monarchy with theocratic elements here and there. In the book, a character expresses faith in Lord Blaine's (and the aristocracy's) ability to make the right decisions for the rest of mankind. When offered a knighthood or something later on in the book he turned it down because, among other things, he thinks that he is too common, too ordinary to be in a position of power. The book's narrator also observes that a democracy on a rebel planet was inefficient and that its people had chosen its leaders poorly. The general consensus in the Empire is that hereditary rule is the best way to run a government.

This bothered me for a while. The citizens of the Empire are so similar to us, so why do they accept hereditary rule? Don't they want to live free?

Then I thought about a little more deeply. Hereditary rulers are trained to rule from birth. The future emperor or baron or marquis will be intimately familiar with the workings of government from the get-go and he would represent the ultimate "civilized" person. Ignoring all those hilarious "Bush is a moron" jokes (no, really, I can't stop laughing!) our president isn't very cultured. In fact, no people in government today seem very cultured, unless you mean good in the business culture. It is strange that the people who run our civilization don't seem unusually civilized themselves. Who, then, are we to learn civilized behavior from? The citizens of the Empire know exactly who to emulate.

Hereditary rulers are rich. Very rich. They've been fleecing their people for small amounts over generations and now they can keep their families in luxury without out help. But what about an elected official? He still has a family to feed, and being "new money" he is much more easily corrupted than the man who has never bought his own clothes. Once again, the hereditary ruler seems superior.

Anyway, what does it matter if "the people" choose a man to represent them  or if he was born into the position? So few of us vote, and so many of us respect and even fear the power of the office. We already trust people with fancy titles and degrees; why not a royal pedigree? We give our trust so easily to these people who have done nothing to deserve it. Judges, policemen and other public servants are mostly obeyed unquestioningly by the people. Well, why not one more kind of public servant who can take care of running the political apparatus for you?

Would you be bothered if you lived under a monarchy?

Do people always crave democracy, or are they content to have someone else to take care of it for them?

Are people "free" to participate in a government based on an aristocracy if the only way into the aristocracy is through military service or through extraordinary acts? Aren't members of our own aristocracy (yes, we do have one) chosen by how wealthy their family is, as well as blind luck? Which is better?

I feel the only way to have a truly great civilisation is indeed with one absolute ruler. The current, electoral system is clearly a failed dream and the potential with the monarchist system (possibly with a different selection then simply having a 'right' to power due to blood) is far better then an elected ruler.

Really, think about it, how well is your country doing with an elected ruler, now and in the past? Can anyone see a situation as to the current electoral system being modified to outwit the basic human nature of corruption and greed?

The reason we have a failing ideal with the election system is simple; we have men competing for us to like them enough to vote for them in the next election, meaning they will always be doing what the public wants rather then what it needs, as this is the only way to get, and sustain power.

An example would be the current drought crisis in Australia, before the problem was here we knew that it was around the corner so ideas where brought up on how to stop it. The best plan was to initiate the use of recycled sewerage water (which is actually cleaner then the water we use now), this would have indeed prevented the problem. But, the public did not like the idea of using "pee water" (out of pure ignorance alone) and the current officails, not wanting to lose public votes, rejected the idea.

We are now in one of the worst drought situations of our time. If we had one ruler, a ruler who would not be in fear of losing power, he would do what the public is in need of, rather then what it simply wants.

Our system has failed, it's time to admit that.   

 Saying that Democracy has failed is all well and good, but you can't say that a dictatorship is ideal. The French Revolution; Hitler; in fact, every dictatorship I can think of has failed. The only one that seems to work that I can think of is the Papacy, and even that has been accused of tyranny.

To say "what the public needs, instead of what the public wants" is fine, but to say that an absolute ruler is free from corruption is silly. Even if he is free from corruption by outside sources, he is much more corrupted by that absolute power thing. As a human being, he'd certainly have personal bias; he could even be racist and could persecute people for his own hatred. Hell, what if he/she wanted to rid the country of atheists. You'd be so fucked. While the ideal dictator may be better than ideal democracy (and there have been ideal dictators), the cost of dictators who are not ideal is way too high. Democracy is much more stable than dictatorship. If you have an unideal democratic president, the damage he can do is limited, whereas in a dictatorship, the damage is much greater.

I've never been able to understand why people say things like this, because a dictatorship does not preserve rights. At all. Or rather, the current dictator is the ultimate decider of which rights are preserved under his rule. Essentially, by advocating a system like this, you are also allowing for the possibility that you can lose the right to free speech, even the right to life based solely upon the disposition of a single person.

And, oh, about this: "the only way to have a truly great civilisation is indeed with one absolute ruler". I believe the current superpower of the world is a democracy, which really messes up your theory. And don't say the US isn't "truly" great; the greatness of a country can only really be measured in relative terms. Democratic governments > all other governments currently, though China is sort of making it's way up. But even in historical terms, it can easily be argued that democratic countries like the US have been more productive then non-democratic countries. Technology, quality of life, pretty much everything.

Which isn't to say that I wouldn't mind being a dictator. I just don't want to be dictated to by a malevolent dictator.

"Democracy is the worst form of government...except for every other form that's been tried."

Saying that Democracy has failed is all well and good, but you can't say that a dictatorship is ideal.

I believe I can, in the same way I say communism is ideal =o

Just because human quality corrupts it, doesn't turn from it being the ideal system.

'Dictator'... The word has such a malice presence doesn't it? The reason being that most modern dictators are people who ceased power and claimed it for themselves out of greed. The idea put forward by Saladin is one different from any of the dictators that we know of.

rulers are trained to rule from birth. The future emperor or baron or marquis will be intimately familiar with the workings of government from the get-go and he would represent the ultimate "civilized" person.

You say all dictatorships have failed..? I say they've never been given a conformed and structured start, so how could they not?

Let's take a look at the time in which the monarchs of England where not just figure heads; you think they all failed then..? All that is being proposed is that same scenario with better prepping and just a tad more control. 

And, oh, about this: "the only way to have a truly great civilisation is indeed with one absolute ruler". I believe the current superpower of the world is a democracy, which really messes up your theory. And don't say the US isn't "truly" great; the greatness of a country can only really be measured in relative terms.

Take America, make it ten times better in your head and compare it to the original, does your "truly great superpower" look so great now? What is "truly great", other then one persons perspective? Mine is different from yours, mine is something better. If you're only referring to relative terms, then that is all you can compare it to, but aren't we talking about something new to any form of government system of our time? What's relative about that..?

If you want to mark 'our best' as The Best then what's the point about discussing this, as it would seem that you're already living in perfection.

I think that feasibility should, in fact, be taken under consideration when considering the ideal government. I feel there should be a failsafe. The fact that a dictatorship can so easily do so much damage to a nation should be taken into account in this discussion. The stability of a democracy is one of it's best attributes, in my opinion. The fact that one bad leader can't completely fuck the nation and drastically diminish quality of life is important when discussing the ideal type of government I think. Yeah, it's a good attribute of a dictatorship that good things can be done for the nation very easily, but it's a very bad attribute that terrible things can be done so easily.

If you want to use the example of Britain, what about Henry VIII or Bloody Mary. Henry VIII killed and imprisoned people because he wanted to divorce his wife because his sperm didn't have a Y chromosome. Bloody Mary also persecuted people.  Even monarchs who were good for the nation, like Elizabeth I, also persecuted people for their religion. The fact that my examples are a father and his two daughters is on purpose. Null, of course, if you are using a selection method other than blood, but it still demonstrates the way regular people can be persecuted merely for adhering to something they believe in under a dictatorship. Of course, this can occur under a democracy as well, but it is much harder, it takes more than a single person. And if you believe in some other selection method, do tell, and who gets to decide? I suppose you could have selected officials choose a leader, as the papacy does, and it seems to do alright, but then again the pope's absolute authority extends only to matters of faith and morals. As a system of government, it also must extend to political matters, and the papacy fared slightly worse back then.

As to the stuff about "truly great". Of course life isn't perfect under a democracy. Of course I'd like to change some things about it. But I'd rather live in a world with evil and have free will, then live in a perfect world without it. I do not believe that relativity applies to much, I find it a useless philosophy. But, I also do not believe that saying "Oh yes, I live under the ideal type of government" is very useful if I'm in jail because I said something contrary to the will of the dictator. So if you want, we can get rid of relativism, but I think we should get rid of idealism too and talk more about the feasibility of these types of governments. I.e. how these governments work in reality. I know that the ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. But I know that in reality, under a dictatorship, it will not always be benevolent, and I think that that should be taken into consideration before advocating a type of government.

Haha! I love this! I totally support the system of blood nobility and ancestral rule, or inheritance of position/occupation, if you like. It's just better.

I think that feasibility should, in fact, be taken under consideration when considering the ideal government. I feel there should be a failsafe. The fact that a dictatorship can so easily do so much damage to a nation should be taken into account in this discussion. The stability of a democracy is one of it's best attributes, in my opinion. The fact that one bad leader can't completely fuck the nation and drastically diminish quality of life is important when discussing the ideal type of government I think. Yeah, it's a good attribute of a dictatorship that good things can be done for the nation very easily, but it's a very bad attribute that terrible things can be done so easily. If you want to use the example of Britain, what about Henry VIII or Bloody Mary. Henry VIII killed and imprisoned people because he wanted to divorce his wife because his sperm didn't have a Y chromosome. Bloody Mary also persecuted people.  Even monarchs who were good for the nation, like Elizabeth I, also persecuted people for their religion. The fact that my examples are a father and his two daughters is on purpose. Null, of course, if you are using a selection method other than blood,

but it still demonstrates the way regular people can be persecuted merely for adhering to something they believe in under a dictatorship.

Of course, this can occur under a democracy as well, but it is much harder, it takes more than a single person. And if you believe in some other selection method, do tell, and who gets to decide? I suppose you could have selected officials choose a leader, as the papacy does, and it seems to do alright, but then again the pope's absolute authority extends only to matters of faith and morals. As a system of government, it also must extend to political matters, and the papacy fared slightly worse back then.

I think that's just it, "regular people" as you describe them. People who are simply given power because they where 'born first', rather then because they deserve it or know how to handle it. How can any normal person do anything but become corrupted when given such massive amounts of power?

Again, this is not what we are talking about.

When a new politician is selected, how unsure do you feel? Not very I would assume, and that is because you are accustomed to the idea of your governmental system and understand that while something bad may happen (a president can still do a lot of damage, eh?) you know that it most likely wont.

Your prejudices to this new idea are strung alone on failed systems that just happen to share the same name. You want fail-safes? This isn't a dictator who is born into power, but one who must earn it during the obvious heavy prepping for this position. That's your fail-safe. I'll quote it again;

The future emperor or baron or marquis will be intimately familiar with the workings of government from the get-go and he would represent the ultimate "civilized" person.

As to the stuff about "truly great".

That was simply covering your pettiness over my simple usage of the words "ideal" and "truly great".

Of course life isn't perfect under a democracy. Of course I'd like to change some things about it. But I'd rather live in a world with evil and have free will, then live in a perfect world without it.

Allow me to be petty over word usage for a moment; "perfect world"? Perhaps you don't understand the implications of the words, either that or you're lying to yourself.

I do not believe that relativity applies to much, I find it a useless philosophy.

This would say otherwise:

And, oh, about this: "the only way to have a truly great civilisation is indeed with one absolute ruler". I believe the current superpower of the world is a democracy, which really messes up your theory. And don't say the US isn't "truly" great; the greatness of a country can only really be measured in relative terms.

But, I also do not believe that saying "Oh yes, I live under the ideal type of government" is very useful if I'm in jail because I said something contrary to the will of the dictator.

Really, is slander all you have? We are not talking about giving some random psychopath this position of power, this is a person who has been conformed from birth to have the ideals of a perfect civilisation put into him or her, while the view of what a perfect civilisation may be different from one person to another, we would have the exact same concern with an electoral system. Gay marriage debate anyone?

So if you want, we can get rid of relativism, but I think we should get rid of idealism too and talk more about the feasibility of these types of governments. I.e. how these governments work in reality. I know that the ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. But I know that in reality, under a dictatorship, it will not always be benevolent, and I think that that should be taken into consideration before advocating a type of government.

Perhaps we should also re-look at the feasibility of the electoral system as well? In fact I think it was just that exactly that inspired this debate. Let's start by looking at the "facade" of separation of religion and state in America; if the majority of people are Christian and if that majority of people always select a Christian ruler out of either ignorance, manipulation or association, then how can you have a nation built on "separation of church and state" when the populace will always select a Christian ruler?

I remember a quote that has always hit my heart rather heavily; "No, I do not know that atheists should be considered citisens, this is one nation under God". Replace the word "atheist" with Muslim or Jew and you can see what a dire statement that is making on the American Government.

Perhaps we can ask candidates to simply not use these tactics to win elections, I'm sure that will work just fine aye? All of these problems are eliminated with one ruler, trained to serve the people. You think a Ruler, trained from birth to have the peoples best intentions in mind would be even on the same caliber as any of the brow-nosing, lying and manipulative pigs we have now wanting our votes?

You think that your precious electoral system works? What was it Bush said about the Iraqi war? God told me to strike the enemy down, and I did so. You either have the most manipulative, vindictive president in power or a man who is fully and utterly insane. Your pick.

I would like to point out that I was not talking about dictators and juntas who damage or destroy a country when they use force to take it. These people are usually uncultured and have a humble origin. I don't know where all this talk about dictators came from. In a monarchy there can be plenty of freedom - you just can't become head of state.

Modern_algebra: how many people in your nation of origin really care  about politics and laws besides whatever happens to touch their everyday lives? Marijuana laws? Tyrrany! Hostile relations with Cuba? I'm sure someone will take care of it.

That is more or less how most people think about government. When they elect a leader he is usually chosen  for petty reasons. Hell, even their looks matter! How is this better than someone who has been trained from birth to rule? The balance of power that democracy needs only works if people are willing to maintain it - which, it seems, they aren't. You worry about abuses of power in monarchies, but they happen just as easily in a democracy.

I would like to point out that I was not talking about dictators .

Dictator has no direct implication of malice despite the modern spin it's been given by a few bad seeds... Technically any ruler with absolute power whether they are good rulers or bad, are labeled Dictators, it just infers absolute control. It's really not a negative word in absolute, it just has a bad 'PI' in modern usage...

Technically a normal King or Queen is still bound by the laws they create and in some cases are indeed accountable, in my eye this is problematic.

@Saladin: A monarch is a dictator, the difference between the two is essentially the concept of Divine Right. There are a few other differences, but essentially monarch = dictator.

"The future emperor or baron or marquis will be intimately familiar with the workings of government from the get-go and he would represent the ultimate "civilized" person."

This is unfeasible. Or actually, that part is not unfeasible, the implication of the word "civilised" is unfeasible. It seems to me like you think of a dictatorship as a democracy but with a better, more powerful leader. This is incorrect. The very concept of a dictatorship is ultimately against the regular person. I.e. people like you and I. While this does not mean that we are all going to be persecuted or anything, it does mean that there is no legitmate reason to complain if we are, and furthermore, that the system is not being abused if we are. Hell, let's talk about productivity. The absolute ideal for productivity is that every person in a nation is doing what they are best at. In a democracy, this is obviously not true. There are thousands of go-nowhere writers living in their parents' attic writing crap stories. Same thing with artists, but they do it because it's what they want to do. Therefore, the best way for a dictator to make his nation productive is, in fact, to remove free will, at least in the terms of profession. Test everyone, see what they're best at, and make them have that job. The fact is: your idea of the super leader is someone like yourself who holds the same values and will enforce the same values. This is simply untrue. As well, any dictatorship will almost certainly have to either dispose of religion entirely or enstate a single, state religion, as religion is an alternative source of authority for people, which obviously cannot occur. There's two rights already thrown out simply by the ideal dictatorship.

Your idea that our super leaders are not "regular" people and that they are trained to handle power is also unfeasible. Firstly, who is training them? You? Do they have representatives from every type of person in the nation training these people? What gives the trainers the authority to teach this person what is best for the nation? What if even one of these trainers, who have so much impact on the future of the nation, is a racist, and imparts that. Then we have a racist dictator. In previous monarchies, such a training did occur. It occured for Louis XVI, who was still incapable. It occured for Bloody Mary, who still persecuted her people. People, unless they are completely brainwashed, always have prejudice, and if they are completely brainwashed, the people doing the brainwashing have prejudice. I'm probably old fashioned, but I like having rights. I like having my rights protected.

And @DS: as to this: "I do not believe that relativity applies to much, I find it a useless philosophy." I was clearly offering to leave it out of the discussion in exchange for you to stop talking about idealism, as was almost immediately contextualized with this: "So if you want, we can get rid of relativism, but I think we should get rid of idealism too". And it's not slander to offer criticism; it's not slander to use historical occurences and saying "this happened under a dictatorship, and it can easily happen to any dictatorship". That's merely using evidence to support a claim. And also what are "the people's best intentions", might I ask. First, which people's, because not everyone's intentions are the same, and if you are speaking of doing what is objectively "best" for the people, then how do we know what that "best" is?

@Saladin: Yeah, not enough people care about government. People get elected in for stupid reasons. Bad politicians are all over the place. But good politicians exist too. And at the very least, the bad politicians aren't all in league, so those stupid politicians can't ruin a nation. However, if even one bad leader occurs in a dictatorship, then that one person can destroy a nation. And saying that he is smart and educated does not automatically make him a good person. I know a lot of smart and educated people, and so few of them have the same opinions on how a country should be run that it is unfeasible to say there is a person who knows absolutely what's best for the country and should be allowed to run it with absolute authority.

This is incorrect. The very concept of a dictatorship is ultimately against the regular person. I.e. people like you and I. While this does not mean that we are all going to be persecuted or anything, it does mean that there is no legitmate reason to complain if we are

Gay marriage is still illegal in many parts of America. Marijuana laws; you think they are there to protect the people? Tobacco is still legal, how many people did that kill last year Marijuana is illegal because the people think it needs to be due to ignorance. The peoples ignorance is the countries with the electoral system. Want to talk about abortions as well?

You are being oppressed every day, perhaps you just do not realise it. "But the difference is the people 'could' change it, if they wanted to".  They couldn't with an absolute ruler? Presidents can be a real bitch if they want to be, but they don't, why; because if the people aren't happy neither is the country, an oppressed country doesn't work, but that doesn't mean it should get what it wants all of the time. A country is like a child, and it's government is like it's parents; we all know that a child can not be raised on candy despite wanting to have it all of the time, if the child does not get what it wants and throws a tantrum here is what happens with two kinds of parents;

1) Daddy  Disposable: The child throws a fit and daddy meets the unhealthy demands or is replaced with somebody who will.

2) Daddy for Life: The child throws a fit, father knows this is not in the child's best interest and simply allows the child to continue to cry for a while.

You think a president can't oppress it's people ?_? They can, nearly as badly as a dictator, but they don't. If you think it is because of the fear of being kicked out of office, then what type of people are you putting in there that need fear to control them from doing evil things..?

You're saying because a person has ultimate power, they will abuse it. I on the other hand know that people with power don't simply do this because they have it, otherwise the electoral system would have failed as well.

Same thing with artists, but they do it because it's what they want to do. Therefore, the best way for a dictator to make his nation productive is, in fact, to remove free will, at least in the terms of profession. Test everyone, see what they're best at, and make them have that job.

We're talking about communism now? How'd that happen If this was true it would already be imposed, again, you are doing nothing but speculating.
 

First, which people's, because not everyone's intentions are the same, and if you are speaking of doing what is objectively "best" for the people, then how do we know what that "best" is?

while the view of what a perfect civilisation may be different from one person to another, we would have the exact same concern with an electoral system. Gay marriage debate anyone?

The same question is going to your supported system. The majority vote for the president so let's see what happens:

1) What ever the average "white-bread" view that the majority happens to share is going to be reflected in the leader they pick.

Is the average person homophobic? In my definition, absolutely. Is the average person racist? I don't see a black president happening in America. The peoples prejudices becomes the presidents, meaning that because they will vote for someone like them; new, positive changes that the people fear will either not happen or happen at a rate too slow to be considered progress.

2) The running candidate will manipulate the people's views to get into a position of power.

This seems to be the norm for candidates any way, they will adapt the majorities opinions, whether it's a good opinion or bad, simply to gain votes. The people will not vote for somebody who is "genuinely good" because no stupid racist hick has this view; "Well gee, I hate fagots and they're an abomination onto the Lord who will burn them in the pits of hell at their death, but hey! I think they still have the right to get married, despite my corrupted view of them!". People just aren't that big.

3) Good guys Never win.

Most people are narrow minded and have a biased view, politicians know this and oddly enough will use it to their advantage *SHOCK*. People are not going to vote for the 'apparent' good politicians if they do not share the same view as the people. This is shown true by the lack of any Black, Jewish, Female, Gay or over all 'different' President in the history of American. YEAH PEOPLE AREN'T BIASED. If the people don't like something (like fagots for one thing) they are not going to vote for somebody who opposes their view despite their view being incorrect. 

You think people aren't oppressed? Ask a gay couple who wish to get married if THEY are oppressed. Ask a woman who is forced to raise a child because she was raped by her father whether SHE is oppressed. People are oppressed just as much in your system, but rather then being oppressed by one person, they are oppressed by the ignorant view of millions. Your freedom is an illusion and nothing more.

Every negative aspect you have thrown in can be said of the electoral system as well. If I have missed any of your points, please excuse me, your debating style is difficult to separate different points.

Gay marriage is still illegal in many parts of America. Marijuana laws; you think they are there to protect the people? Tobacco is still legal, how many people did that kill last year Huh? Marijuana is illegal because the people think it needs to be due to ignorance. The peoples ignorance is the countries with the electoral system. Want to talk about abortions as well?

You are being oppressed every day, perhaps you just do not realise it.

You are way undervaluing the meaning of oppression. Hell, using oppression so lightly I can say I'm oppressed because abortion is legal. You're not oppressed because it's incovenient. I do not believe in lawlessness. I don't think murder should be legal because it suppresses a person's free will. I don't think necrophilia should be legal because it is forcibly denying someone's sexual preference. That's just plain silly. I believe laws exist to protect certain rights, and as long as a law does not infringe upon someone's legitimate rights, then I have no problem with it. I believe that oppression can be more accurately described as the suppression of one of the following rights:

• life
• religion/belief
• freedom of the press
• self-determination

(I might miss some, and I'm not using official terms, these are the ones that come to mind)

In the case of a dictatorship, the right to religion/belief and freedom of the press are limited and/or eliminated completely by neccesity, simply because both of those are alternative sources of authority, which is incredibly harmful to a dictatorship. If you don't mind being forced to attend muslim prayer sessions or that you are being fed propoganda then you can be happy in a dictatorship. But of course, you will refuse to believe that in your dictatorship, such a thing could happen, because you seem to believe that a dictator produced in such a manner as to have the people's best interests at heart will hold the exact same opinions as you and will not be muslim, nor will he feel it necessary to limit freedom of the press because he wants their to be other authorities in the nation aside from him. You have to realize that the dictator will not be you, he/she will have different opinions; he/she will enforce laws that you feel are unjust and/or stupid. Do you want to subject yourself entirely to this government, with leaders who may or may not be entirely different from you, or do you want some say in who it is that is going to be your leader? And of course, with a dictatorship, both the right to life and the right to self-determination are subject completely to the person who is your leader. He may, as you say, protect them. He also may not, as many dictators trained in the way you have described have not.

"But the difference is the people 'could' change it, if they wanted to".  They couldn't with an absolute ruler?

No, in fact, they cannot. It is quite impossible. "Hey, let's go to the king and complain about the king". Any absolute ruler will suppress the option of being disposed of, and he can easily do that because his will is absolute. They won't just pleasantly step down if the people dislike the rule. Do you know how the people get rid of a dictator? They revolt and cause thousands of death and plunge the state into anarchy. That's it.

You think a president can't oppress it's people ?_? They can, nearly as badly as a dictator, but they don't. If you think it is because of the fear of being kicked out of office, then what type of people are you putting in there that need fear to control them from doing evil things..?

They can't even come close to the level of dictator. First because any laws passed go through first the house and then the senate. There are hundreds of people who determine whether the law is okay or if it's unconstitutional, and an unjust law or bill can be stricken down rather easily. The only way a democratic leader can oppress his people nearly as much as a dictator would be to overthrow the democracy and the democratic process and establish a dictatorship.

You're saying because a person has ultimate power, they will abuse it. I on the other hand know that people with power don't simply do this because they have it, otherwise the electoral system would have failed as well.

No, I'm saying that they will do what they feel is best for the nation, and if they feel the best thing for the nation is to get rid of all the muslims then they will. I'm saying that any dictator will not be without prejudice, I'm saying that no dictator will be a perfect judge of what is best for the nation, and I'm saying that giving any person absolute control over your life to do as he likes is dangerous. I doubt that Hitler thought it would harm his nation to send the Jews and the Gypsies to concentration camps. I think he probably thought that would benefit his nation, and I think that any person, even one trained to have the nation's best interests at heart, will have similar prejudices. In Italy, there is a culture of Gypsies which drugs their children and mutilate themselves in order to extract pity and money from tourists. These people do not benefit the nation. What is a perfect dictator to do?

The same question is going to your supported system. The majority vote for the president so let's see what happens:

1) What ever the average "white-bread" view that the majority happens to share is going to be reflected in the leader they pick.

Is the average person homophobic? In my definition, absolutely. Is the average person racist? I don't see a black president happening in America. The peoples prejudices becomes the presidents, meaning that because they will vote for someone like them; new, positive changes that the people fear will either not happen or happen at a rate too slow to be considered progress.

2) The running candidate will manipulate the people's views to get into a position of power.

This seems to be the norm for candidates any way, they will adapt the majorities opinions, whether it's a good opinion or bad, simply to gain votes. The people will not vote for somebody who is "genuinely good" because no stupid racist hick has this view; "Well gee, I hate fagots and they're an abomination onto the Lord who will burn them in the pits of hell at their death, but hey! I think they still have the right to get married, despite my corrupted view of them!". People just aren't that big.

3) Good guys Never win.

Most people are narrow minded and have a biased view, politicians know this and oddly enough will use it to their advantage *SHOCK*. People are not going to vote for the 'apparent' good politicians if they do not share the same view as the people. This is shown true by the lack of any Black, Jewish, Female, Gay or over all 'different' President in the history of American. YEAH PEOPLE AREN'T BIASED. If the people don't like something (like fagots for one thing) they are not going to vote for somebody who opposes their view despite their view being incorrect.

FDR was elected for three terms. He had had polio and was paralyzed. He did not look like a strong candidate, the average person did indeed have prejudice towards people who had to be carried up stairs. Most would think such a person not strong enough to lead them. He won them over, and I think he's an example of a good guy who did, in fact, win. To say that the opinions of the average person are always going to be racist is untrue. Even over the past century, black people have come a long way in society. Why do you think that is? Part of the reason Democracy is so good is it's dynamicism. Every four years or so, a president who represents the opinion of his time is elected and is able to make the changes requested. Not only can the people change things, they do, incessantly. The reason you can't forsee a black or woman president is simply because you're short-sighted. No, change does not come easily, but it is allowed to come under a democracy. It is not allowed to come under a dictatorship, or rather it comes drastically each time a new leader comes into power, but it is completely static for however long a leader is in power. Maybe you have a cycling program, but think of it this way. A dictator believes that what he has done is the best thing for his country. Will he not control the super leader training program in order to reflect his personal views of what is best, and will this not effect the next leader?[/quote]

You think people aren't oppressed? Ask a gay couple who wish to get married if THEY are oppressed. Ask a woman who is forced to raise a child because she was raped by her father whether SHE is oppressed. People are oppressed just as much in your system, but rather then being oppressed by one person, they are oppressed by the ignorant view of millions. Your freedom is an illusion and nothing more.

Every negative aspect you have thrown in can be said of the electoral system as well. If I have missed any of your points, please excuse me, your debating style is difficult to separate different points.

Like I said, your view of oppression is very mild. And in the case of the woman, first there is no democratic country in the world which does not allow abortions in the case of rape and incest. Second, there is no democratic country which forces a woman to raise the child, as there are adoption programs. And if you want that, why don't you say "let's ask the child who's entire life is under the discretion of a single person who is pregnant if HE feels oppressed". This isn't a debate on abortion though, and so I will drop it, but I think that describes the problem with your ideas. I would rather be oppressed by the ignorancce of millions of people then the ignorance of one, where in one case you have the ability to enlighten the millions and in the other you have no possibility of changing it whatsoever. Just think of the blacks in the US, and then think of the Karen in Myanmar, or think of any people oppressed under a dictatorship. They can't change it. Black people did, and they continue to change it. And I know you will say that there is no possibility that your super leader camp will produce someone who is ignorant, but you're wrong. You still refuse to acknowledge the unfeasibility of a dictatorship, instead relying solely on the ideal dictatorship. If I am to say:

Democracy is the best system of government because it educates the population and gives that population the possibility to change it, and thus the educated, intelligent populace will always choose leaders who will lead them down the best path. And of course, none of the populace will be ignorant because they are educated in good schools, and so the majority opinion will be the correct and right opinion and that's why Democracy is awesome and better than dictatorship.

And then when you say:

That isn't the way it is, there are countless examples that that is not true.

I say:

Only because it hasn't been done right yet. Once it's done right it will prove that it is the best.

You could honestly say: This guy is wrong, and his argument is completely ineffective because he refuses to recognize the reality of a democracy, but this is your argument for dictatorship. It's completely silly. The ideal you strive for will not be retained, and I think the only reason you are a proponent of dictatorship is because you essentially believe that you, or someone exactlty like you, will be the dictator. That the best path for the nation is exactly what you think the best path for the nation is. It's pure conceit. Or at least, that is what you are coming off as.

I am willing to acknowledge that there is a best path for a nation. But I simply do not believe that any person, no matter how trained he is, know precisely what the best path is, and knows it for every single situation that arises in the government of his nation. It's completely unfeasible to assume that such a person exists, even if I were to accept that there is a person who will not allow his prejudice to interfere with his governing, which I also do not believe.

And you say that the same problems arise with a democracy, but as I said before, democracy is dynamic. I would rather be oppressed and have a say in my future than be oppressed and have no say. For that matter, I would rather be oppressed and have a say in my future than see other people oppressed who do not have a say in their future. And yeah, our leaders aren't neccesarily good or even competent, but they change.

I pressed the edit button on your post rather then quote, please excuse the edit, I changed nothing.

You are way undervaluing the meaning of oppression. Hell, using oppression so lightly I can say I'm oppressed because abortion is legal. You're not oppressed because it's incovenient. I do not believe in lawlessness. I don't think murder should be legal because it suppresses a person's free will. I don't think necrophilia should be legal because it is forcibly denying someone's sexual preference.

No, I was addressing the version of oppression that was applicable. You compare the senseless halting of gays right to marriage to the 'oppression of murder'..? Are you mad, or perhaps just homophobic?

That's just plain silly. I believe laws exist to protect certain rights, and as long as a law does not infringe upon someone's legitimate rights, then I have no problem with it. I believe that oppression can be more accurately described as the suppression of one of the following rights:

• life
• religion/belief
• freedom of the press
• self-determination

(I might miss some, and I'm not using official terms, these are the ones that come to mind)

Righto, and which category does gay marriage fall under..? The right of Christians to be gay-bashers..? What about marijuana, I'm aware of the danger, I know the harms and I am willing to risk it because I choose to, what right does the government have to oppress me? My "safety"? Again, what about tobacco, and even fatty foods? Want to compare the death rate of the abuse of both compared to marijuana?

In the case of a dictatorship, the right to religion/belief and freedom of the press are limited and/or eliminated completely by neccesity, simply because both of those are alternative sources of authority, which is incredibly harmful to a dictatorship.

Perhaps you would like to explain how so, unless you just want us to take your word that religion would be so dangerous as to crush any chance of all dictatorships into a guaranteed rate of complete failure..?

If you don't mind being forced to attend muslim prayer sessions or that you are being fed propoganda then you can be happy in a dictatorship. But of course, you will refuse to believe that in your dictatorship, such a thing could happen, because you seem to believe that a dictator produced in such a manner as to have the people's best interests at heart will hold the exact same opinions as you and will not be muslim, nor will he feel it necessary to limit freedom of the press because he wants their to be other authorities in the nation aside from him. You have to realize that the dictator will not be you, he/she will have different opinions; he/she will enforce laws that you feel are unjust and/or stupid.

I've gotten the quote in full this time, and a name of who said it

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

You actually think that if a president can feel this way that persecution of Atheists, and perhaps all non-Christians isn't a possible future? The word "Atheist" is one of the most demonised words in America: atheist are considered one of the most (if not the most) evil people to exist. There we go, you have persecution of religion and propaganda right at your electoral door.

The thing is of course you're saying it will happen in a dictatorship, when in reality it might happen in the failure of ALL government systems.

Do you want to subject yourself entirely to this government, with leaders who may or may not be entirely different from you, or do you want some say in who it is that is going to be your leader?

I already am in a governmental system with leaders who don't share any of my views =o

You only get a say if your say is identical to millions of other people, it's not freedom to choose, but it certainly looks that way.

And of course, with a dictatorship, both the right to life and the right to self-determination are subject completely to the person who is your leader. He may, as you say, protect them. He also may not, as many dictators trained in the way you have described have not.

"But the difference is the people 'could' change it, if they wanted to".  They couldn't with an absolute ruler?

No, in fact, they cannot. It is quite impossible. "Hey, let's go to the king and complain about the king". Any absolute ruler will suppress the option of being disposed of, and he can easily do that because his will is absolute. They won't just pleasantly step down if the people dislike the rule. Do you know how the people get rid of a dictator? They revolt and cause thousands of death and plunge the state into anarchy. That's it.

It's amazing how a person who embraces the 'replace a problem' system, thinks that the only way to fix a bad decision is to replace the person who came up with it! You're telling me people in power don't listen to others suggestions? You're telling me that Bush only makes up his mind using his own thoughts, therefore must be replaced if he comes up with a bad one (lol, replace bush with someone else if you will, kinda a black eye on your system at the moment eh..?)?

Why wouldn't our ruler listen to the people, because he doesn't have to? Perhaps that's your view and morales affecting your opinion, but I assure that most people do indeed have morality MA...

You think a president can't oppress it's people ?_? They can, nearly as badly as a dictator, but they don't. If you think it is because of the fear of being kicked out of office, then what type of people are you putting in there that need fear to control them from doing evil things..?

They can't even come close to the level of dictator. First because any laws passed go through first the house and then the senate. There are hundreds of people who determine whether the law is okay or if it's unconstitutional, and an unjust law or bill can be stricken down rather easily. The only way a democratic leader can oppress his people nearly as much as a dictator would be to overthrow the democracy and the democratic process and establish a dictatorship.

No, I was saying they are in the position to abuse power equal to a dictatorship. Yeah, if they want to be 'legal' about it they probably couldn't get very far, but do you actually think the US President couldn't seize mass power, especially in a state of crisis? In fact, I believe they can overthrow the need of support from others to make discussions in situations that it is 'felt necessary'.

The amount of power is close to equal in the same situation, if the president takes full power, and the people (or at least, people who matter..) supported him, who would stop it ?_?

But you did just admit that they could only have the same level of abuse as a dictator by becoming one themselves, but doesn't that also imply that they could put them self into that position if so wished? It may have a different label, but it's still the result of the flawed electoral system, it's still just as dangerous. You now just admitted that someone could make themselves a dictator through your system, meaning it has the exact same negative rate if a nut does become president, in fact, it's identical. You say it would be bad if some crazy person was to be selected as ruler in a dictatorship? Well now I say the same risk is involved in the electoral system.

No, I'm saying that they will do what they feel is best for the nation, and if they feel the best thing for the nation is to get rid of all the muslims then they will. I'm saying that any dictator will not be without prejudice, I'm saying that no dictator will be a perfect judge of what is best for the nation, and I'm saying that giving any person absolute control over your life to do as he likes is dangerous. I doubt that Hitler thought it would harm his nation to send the Jews and the Gypsies to concentration camps. I think he probably thought that would benefit his nation, and I think that any person, even one trained to have the nation's best interests at heart, will have similar prejudices. In Italy, there is a culture of Gypsies which drugs their children and mutilate themselves in order to extract pity and money from tourists. These people do not benefit the nation. What is a perfect dictator to do?

You're making the assumption that this ruler is making 100% of the decisions by himself, as said: this is a system set up exactly like the modern system, except you have one person with absolute power all of the time, it doesn't mean he will do what he wants to all of the time, that would be stupid, there would be other people in power, who make the decisions as well, they are voted in and replaceable, they would decide and the ruler could  overthrow their decisions, if it was deemed necessary.

The more I describe this idea, the more it reminds me of a Caesar, a man with absolute power, but there was a senate in place who decided things along side the ruler. He could of overthrown their decisions, but he didn't, at least not all of the time. I guess we could always call the great Rome a failure though, as they did have imposed religious views, but seeing as this is the system we are talking about (or at least similar), we can always use it. If one of the greatest Empires in the history of man is the result of a lesser version of our idea, then imagine what it could be like with modern improvements.

FDR was elected for three terms. He had had polio and was paralyzed. He did not look like a strong candidate, the average person did indeed have prejudice towards people who had to be carried up stairs. Most would think such a person not strong enough to lead them. He won them over, and I think he's an example of a good guy who did, in fact, win.

Actually FDR had Guillain-Barre syndrome, not polio, the man was also so ashamed by his paralysis that he used iron leg braces in public as to not allow the people into seeing his absolute reliance of a wheel chair. I wonder why?

To say that the opinions of the average person are always going to be racist is untrue. Even over the past century, black people have come a long way in society. Why do you think that is?

Why do I think that African-Americans (their skin-colour a production of the African women slaves being raped by white men) are no longer slaves and are treated as equal human beings? You actually want to put re-writing the incredible wrong (the rape of a civilisation) by the same people no less that caused this evil, as a positive thing..? Perhaps you think giving a hand to help somebody up after you have pushed them down the stairs is a good thing that shines the light of decency on the pusher, but I certainly do not see it that way.

Part of the reason Democracy is so good is it's dynamicism.

Not found in any dictionary, but there's a wiki article on it, says something like "It argues that differential equations are more suited to modeling cognition than more traditional computer models"

Every four years or so, a president who represents the opinion of his time is elected and is able to make the changes requested. Not only can the people change things, they do, incessantly.

Which would work, if:

1) Candidates kept their promises and didn't lie.

2) The people knew what was best.

3) If the President just happened to be doing the goood things  (against all odds) the other politicians would also need to agree with those ideas.

The reason you can't forsee a black or woman president is simply because you're short-sighted.

Oh, so the people are sexist and racist now, but they wont be later..? How do you know this? If it's your own personal assumption, which I would have to assume the case to be, don't you later on in your argument criticise my debating side? Yet you are now using a completely ineffective argument with your simple guess, or perhaps hope, that your country wont be the racist, sexist and biased people they happen to be right now, do you happen to think that is how a debate works? He says/she says? You base your assumption on nothing short of hope, is the way of your people so disgusting to you that this is needed?

No, change does not come easily, but it is allowed to come under a democracy. It is not allowed to come under a dictatorship, or rather it comes drastically each time a new leader comes into power, but it is completely static for however long a leader is in power. Maybe you have a cycling program, but think of it this way. A dictator believes that what he has done is the best thing for his country. Will he not control the super leader training program in order to reflect his personal views of what is best, and will this not effect the next leader?

*inserts same speech about Caesar thing*

Just because a dictator has ultimate power, doesn't mean it will be reflected to him using all of that power 100% of the time. If this system is so flawed, then how did the Roman Empire succeed so well..?

While I personally hate all religions, that does not mean I would stop people from believing in them if I could. Just because I think most people are fucking morons who pick up a paintbrush instead of going to collage, it doesn't mean I would force them into a better suited carrier if I had the power to. I do things that many would consider completely evil and wrong, but I am aware that they are wrong and I would not enforce my views on others if I had the power to do so. I understand other people have a different view to mine, I may not agree with it, but I certainly could respect their right in having them.

If I, a person who is clearly flawed and untrained can come to a reasonable idea of an unbiased perspective despite my own personal view, why would a person specifically trained to have this insight be worse then me? Perhaps I am just that great after all.

You think people aren't oppressed? Ask a gay couple who wish to get married if THEY are oppressed. Ask a woman who is forced to raise a child because she was raped by her father whether SHE is oppressed. People are oppressed just as much in your system, but rather then being oppressed by one person, they are oppressed by the ignorant view of millions. Your freedom is an illusion and nothing more.

Like I said, your view of oppression is very mild. And in the case of the woman, first there is no democratic country in the world which does not allow abortions in the case of rape and incest. Second, there is no democratic country which forces a woman to raise the child, as there are adoption programs. And if you want that, why don't you say "let's ask the child who's entire life is under the discretion of a single person who is pregnant if HE feels oppressed".

A fetus is a person after birth, not before. Quite frankly until a certain developmental stage when the fetus has no higher brain function, it is nothing more then a growth of excess flesh. You would like to ask a growth of flesh a question? Well you could, I'm not sure if you would get an answer though.

This isn't a debate on abortion though, and so I will drop it, but I think that describes the problem with your ideas.

No, you haven't even slightly swayed views on the abortion issue, going by your response I truly doubt you even have an understanding of basic human biology.

I would rather be oppressed by the ignorancce of millions of people then the ignorance of one, where in one case you have the ability to enlighten the millions and in the other you have no possibility of changing it whatsoever.

In what possible view is this proposed rulers opinion un-changeable..? Please explain to me this: If you alone have a choice to make on an issue, are you going to ignore the advice of others simply because they have no say on the matter?

Just think of the blacks in the US, and then think of the Karen in Myanmar, or think of any people oppressed under a dictatorship. They can't change it. Black people did, and they continue to change it. And I know you will say that there is no possibility that your super leader camp will produce someone who is ignorant, but you're wrong.

I said it could never produce a bad ruler..? Please quote me saying that and I will step aside from this debate the moment you do. What I did say was that negativities brought up where applicable to both systems and that the ruler produced on our side would not be to the same caliber as any of the thieves in congress now. Please refrain from placing words in my mouth, you can't be truly that desperate and out of ideas to revert to foul play this early can you?

You still refuse to acknowledge the unfeasibility of a dictatorship, instead relying solely on the ideal dictatorship. If I am to say:

Democracy is the best system of government because it educates the population and gives that population the possibility to change it, and thus the educated, intelligent populace will always choose leaders who will lead them down the best path. And of course, none of the populace will be ignorant because they are educated in good schools, and so the majority opinion will be the correct and right opinion and that's why Democracy is awesome and better than dictatorship.

And then when you say:

That isn't the way it is, there are countless examples that that is not true.

I say:

Only because it hasn't been done right yet. Once it's done right it will prove that it is the best.

You could honestly say: This guy is wrong, and his argument is completely ineffective because he refuses to recognize the reality of a democracy, but this is your argument for dictatorship. It's completely silly. The ideal you strive for will not be retained, and I think the only reason you are a proponent of dictatorship is because you essentially believe that you, or someone exactlty like you, will be the dictator. That the best path for the nation is exactly what you think the best path for the nation is. It's pure conceit. Or at least, that is what you are coming off as.

1) What am I meant to admit complete un-feasibility to? The side I'm defending, as I think that would defeat the purpose, no? Perhaps rather then simply proclaiming your opponent to be wrong you could show it, as is the normal with debates I believe, perhaps I should check the definition?

2) Someone exactly like me..? Well, I assure you that wouldn't work very well at all, I'm really rather perverted and I'm also amoral, I don't overtly care about others. I don't think that would work at all. I do expect them rather then to have the "right" view, to have a non-biased view, a view I can have so I know it's achievable by humans... I'm coming off as nothing to what you're implying, I'm afraid you are reading into your opponents and their ideas far too much, not a wise thing to do...

3) I don't say "you're wrong and there are many examples that you are wrong", I show people they are wrong, with explanations and empirical showings. It's an absolute shame you seem to only be doing the first with this last quote.

I am willing to acknowledge that there is a best path for a nation. But I simply do not believe that any person, no matter how trained he is, know precisely what the best path is, and knows it for every single situation that arises in the government of his nation. It's completely unfeasible to assume that such a person exists, even if I were to accept that there is a person who will not allow his prejudice to interfere with his governing, which I also do not believe.

Perhaps that is because you allow your own personal biased to affect your thinking and actions. I tend not to, that is how I know it is a possibility.

And you say that the same problems arise with a democracy, but as I said before, democracy is dynamic. I would rather be oppressed and have a say in my future than be oppressed and have no say. For that matter, I would rather be oppressed and have a say in my future than see other people oppressed who do not have a say in their future. And yeah, our leaders aren't neccesarily good or even competent, but they change.

But that is where you are wrong, you do not have a say in your future, you do not have a say in who will rule your country. One vote will not make a difference and one voice will not bring a change. Besides, as said, the same level of say can be brought in: the senate was a representation of the people in Rome, despite the Caesar having full authority he still listened to the senate, the senate still made the majority of the decisions, the senate overthrew the Caesars decisions, and despite the Caesar being able to do what he wanted, he didn't. While there are bad rulers there too, there are bad rulers in all systems and when the negatives are equal you must weigh up the positives, in which I say ours has more.

No, I was addressing the version of oppression that was applicable. You compare the senseless halting of gays right to marriage to the 'oppression of murder'..? Are you mad, or perhaps just homophobic?

I wasn't comparing anything. I was saying that it is not oppression to limit a right if that right infringes upon other, more important rights. This does not really apply to gay rights. I find it funny that you interpreted it to be a comparison between gay marriage and murder, since if you were to consider my statement a comparison to your statement, it would only make sense that necrophilia would be the comparison to gay marriage and murder would be the comparison to abortion. It is quite obvious you are specifically looking for things to misinterpret. Regardless, it wasn't a comparison. I was illustrating a point. For that matter, I do not believe it is oppression to limit some of the things we consider rights, as I say further on I consider it only oppression if these four rights are infringed upon, because to me, the others are not really important.

• life
• religion/belief
• freedom of the press
• self-determination

Righto, and which category does gay marriage fall under..? The right of Christians to be gay-bashers..? What about marijuana, I'm aware of the danger, I know the harms and I am willing to risk it because I choose to, what right does the government have to oppress me? My "safety"? Again, what about tobacco, and even fatty foods? Want to compare the death rate of the abuse of both compared to marijuana?

Marriage, I suppose, would fall under religion if that particular religion considered it important. Note that there are religions which do allow gay marriage, including Christian denominations, so don't get all pissy. Denying gay marriage to an Episcopelian would effectively be the oppression of the right to religious belief. (To be honest, the definition of marriage varies so greatly between religions that I don't think the government shouldn't really concern itself with marriage at all, and just give out civil union certificates.) As for marijuana, tobacco, fatty foods, those would fall under self-determination.

In the case of a dictatorship, the right to religion/belief and freedom of the press are limited and/or eliminated completely by neccesity, simply because both of those are alternative sources of authority, which is incredibly harmful to a dictatorship.

Perhaps you would like to explain how so, unless you just want us to take your word that religion would be so dangerous as to crush any chance of all dictatorships into a guaranteed rate of complete failure..?

Okay, both the press and religion provide alternate sources of authority. In the case of religion, it actually claims higher authority then the dictatorship. Dictatorships rest entirely on having absolute authority. Press and Religion inhibit that. If you wish to see the effects, just think of the Pope and the effect he had on communism. Here's a BBC article. The fact is that religions inhibit the effectiveness of a dictatorship. If, for example, a dictator came into power in Ireland and made abortion legal, an encyclical from the pope could doubtless get millions of them into the streets protesting. Respecting freedom of religion in a dictatorship sets limits on absolute power, and that is why it is not possible in a dictatorship. As well, press can have the same effect, though on a lesser scale. Essentially, it's distributing the dictator's authority among others, which is obviously crippling to a dictatorship.

I've gotten the quote in full this time, and a name of who said it

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

You actually think that if a president can feel this way that persecution of Atheists, and perhaps all non-Christians isn't a possible future? The word "Atheist" is one of the most demonised words in America: atheist are considered one of the most (if not the most) evil people to exist. There we go, you have persecution of religion and propaganda right at your electoral door.

That actually proves my point. The fact that a president, the leader of a nation, clearly has no respect for atheism but still does not pass laws against atheism is one of the attributes of democracy I am saying is good. His power is limited. Significantly. He may not take God out of the pledge of allegiance and he may not do anything against his religion, but he also cannot do anything to persecute atheists. If a dictator held the same viewpoint as George W. Bush, then atheists would be persecuted. If a dictator says a group of people aren't citizens or patriots, then that's it. They aren't patriots or citizens. And of course, your response will be that your super leader would never hold such a narrow-sighted view. Nothing bad can happen in a dictatorship, but whatever, I'll let you say it before I bother repelling it.

I already am in a governmental system with leaders who don't share any of my views =o

You only get a say if your say is identical to millions of other people, it's not freedom to choose, but it certainly looks that way.

You don't get a say if you don't vote. If you do vote though, then you get a say. Even if you aren't in the majority, you can protest. Thus my example of black liberation. They didn't have a say. Now they do. Solely because of their efforts. So don't go whine about how you don't have a say. You do.

And of course, with a dictatorship, both the right to life and the right to self-determination are subject completely to the person who is your leader. He may, as you say, protect them. He also may not, as many dictators trained in the way you have described have not.

"But the difference is the people 'could' change it, if they wanted to".  They couldn't with an absolute ruler?

No, in fact, they cannot. It is quite impossible. "Hey, let's go to the king and complain about the king". Any absolute ruler will suppress the option of being disposed of, and he can easily do that because his will is absolute. They won't just pleasantly step down if the people dislike the rule. Do you know how the people get rid of a dictator? They revolt and cause thousands of death and plunge the state into anarchy. That's it.

It's amazing how a person who embraces the 'replace a problem' system, thinks that the only way to fix a bad decision is to replace the person who came up with it! You're telling me people in power don't listen to others suggestions? You're telling me that Bush only makes up his mind using his own thoughts, therefore must be replaced if he comes up with a bad one (lol, replace bush with someone else if you will, kinda a black eye on your system at the moment eh..?)?

Why wouldn't our ruler listen to the people, because he doesn't have to? Perhaps that's your view and morales affecting your opinion, but I assure that most people do indeed have morality MA...

I am saying that a bad ruler can be replaced in a democracy, and cannot be replaced in a dictatorship, yes. I never said it was the only way, I'm saying that it is an option that is retained where all else fails. In a dictatorship, maybe the dictator will care what people say, maybe he won't. In a democracy, the leader has to care what the people say. And if you want a reason why a dictator wouldn't listen, it's because he believes he is right. The principal value of the system you are a proponent of is that the dictator knows what is the right path, and he has the power to choose it. I am saying that if he goes down a wrong path, he still has the confidence that it is the right path and will not change it because he is doing what he think will benefit the nation, despite the will and thoughts of the people. If a dictator listened to the people and allowed himself to be influenced by the people, then it would be just as ineffective as you are claiming a democracy is.

No, I was saying they are in the position to abuse power equal to a dictatorship. Yeah, if they want to be 'legal' about it they probably couldn't get very far, but do you actually think the US President couldn't seize mass power, especially in a state of crisis? In fact, I believe they can overthrow the need of support from others to make discussions in situations that it is 'felt necessary'.

The amount of power is close to equal in the same situation, if the president takes full power, and the people (or at least, people who matter..) supported him, who would stop it ?_?

Yes, in a state of crisis, the president has executive authority. Once the state of crisis is over, the actions he took, for example martial law, are reversed and his actions are reviewed and if they are deemed unneccesary and unconstitutional, those are grounds for impeachment. This is significantly different from a dictator, whose actions are permanent as long as he remains in office.

But you did just admit that they could only have the same level of abuse as a dictator by becoming one themselves, but doesn't that also imply that they could put them self into that position if so wished? It may have a different label, but it's still the result of the flawed electoral system, it's still just as dangerous. You now just admitted that someone could make themselves a dictator through your system, meaning it has the exact same negative rate if a nut does become president, in fact, it's identical. You say it would be bad if some crazy person was to be selected as ruler in a dictatorship? Well now I say the same risk is involved in the electoral system.

My statements may have implied that, but it is untrue. It is not actually possible for a democratic president to become a dictator.

You're making the assumption that this ruler is making 100% of the decisions by himself, as said: this is a system set up exactly like the modern system, except you have one person with absolute power all of the time, it doesn't mean he will do what he wants to all of the time, that would be stupid, there would be other people in power, who make the decisions as well, they are voted in and replaceable, they would decide and the ruler could  overthrow their decisions, if it was deemed necessary.

The more I describe this idea, the more it reminds me of a Caesar, a man with absolute power, but there was a senate in place who decided things along side the ruler. He could of overthrown their decisions, but he didn't, at least not all of the time. I guess we could always call the great Rome a failure though, as they did have imposed religious views, but seeing as this is the system we are talking about (or at least similar), we can always use it. If one of the greatest Empires in the history of man is the result of a lesser version of our idea, then imagine what it could be like with modern improvements.

The modern system is a product of democracy. It can't really be mimiced in a dictatorship. What you are saying is that you have a dictator, whose actions are reviewed by a senate, which is essentially purposeless because he doesn't have to listen to them. Maybe if he wanted to get some feedback, he would send it to the senate first, but if he wanted something done he'd do it regardless of what they say. Furthermore, you are allowing other authorities in, such as religions and press. In the end, you are suggesting a democracy, but the leader can do whatever he wants and he's not voted in. There's no way it could work. Every time he did something, there would be an outcry, because he's bound to piss off someone. If hee doesn't listen to the senate, the republicans (as in, someone who believes from the people, for the people) will get pissed off. If he doesn't listen to the churches, the religious will get pissed off, and if he doesn't listen to the press, everyone will get pissed off. Unlike a democracy, at times there is going to be a majority of citizens protesting. Actually, people will get pissed off enough that they'll turn it back into a democracy. The system as it is now is built to have a replaceable, elected leader, and the only way it works is because it has that. It is because democracy is dynamic.

Actually FDR had Guillain-Barre syndrome, not polio, the man was also so ashamed by his paralysis that he used iron leg braces in public as to not allow the people into seeing his absolute reliance of a wheel chair. I wonder why?

It was decided it was most likely he had Guillain-Barre syndrome fifty years after his death. It was believed to be polio for his entire life and many years after. In any case, it does not matter at all, the point is he was paralyzed. Stop being so petty.

Why do I think that African-Americans (their skin-colour a production of the African women slaves being raped by white men) are no longer slaves and are treated as equal human beings? You actually want to put re-writing the incredible wrong (the rape of a civilisation) by the same people no less that caused this evil, as a positive thing..? Perhaps you think giving a hand to help somebody up after you have pushed them down the stairs is a good thing that shines the light of decency on the pusher, but I certainly do not see it that way.

No, I don't think that "giving a hand to help somebody up after you have pushed them down the stairs is a good thing that shines the light of decency on the pusher", nor did I say it, nor did I imply it. I said that with democracy, change is possible; change is inevitable. I said that you're wrong in thinking people can't make a difference in a democracy. And yes, righting that wrong is a positive thing

Part of the reason Democracy is so good is it's dynamicism.

Not found in any dictionary, but there's a wiki article on it, says something like "It argues that differential equations are more suited to modeling cognition than more traditional computer models"

Perhaps not, it is mentioned in the OED, but I used the word wrong. I apologize. Either way, I doubt that you did not understand it to mean the fact that it is always changing; the opposite of static.

Every four years or so, a president who represents the opinion of his time is elected and is able to make the changes requested. Not only can the people change things, they do, incessantly.

Which would work, if:

1) Candidates kept their promises and didn't lie.

2) The people knew what was best.

3) If the President just happened to be doing the goood things  (against all odds) the other politicians would also need to agree with those ideas.

Candidates do keep their promises, people do know what is best, and all candidates can see the good in something. LULZ I CAN REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF MY SYSTEM TOOOOOOOO. For you to doubt that change occurs in a democracy seems to me like you are intentionally blinding yourself. If you do recognize that things change in a democracy, why do you think change will not continue to occur? As to the points above, some candidates do keep their promises, some don't. In general, it is more likely the majority will be correct than any single person, including your candidates at the super leader camp. And, politicians do agree sometimes. If you doubt that, mind telling me how bills get passed? Again, the majority of people are more likely to be correct then a single person.

The reason you can't forsee a black or woman president is simply because you're short-sighted.

Oh, so the people are sexist and racist now, but they wont be later..? How do you know this? If it's your own personal assumption, which I would have to assume the case to be, don't you later on in your argument criticise my debating side? Yet you are now using a completely ineffective argument with your simple guess, or perhaps hope, that your country wont be the racist, sexist and biased people they happen to be right now, do you happen to think that is how a debate works? He says/she says? You base your assumption on nothing short of hope, is the way of your people so disgusting to you that this is needed?

Again, given that the history of every democracy is one of (mostly) positive change, what brings you to the conclusion that a democracy cannot continue to positively change? I think that the only way Clinton or Obama will not be elected in the upcoming election is if they continue to tear at each other's throats.

Just because a dictator has ultimate power, doesn't mean it will be reflected to him using all of that power 100% of the time. If this system is so flawed, then how did the Roman Empire succeed so well..?

While I personally hate all religions, that does not mean I would stop people from believing in them if I could. Just because I think most people are fucking morons who pick up a paintbrush instead of going to collage, it doesn't mean I would force them into a better suited carrier if I had the power to. I do things that many would consider completely evil and wrong, but I am aware that they are wrong and I would not enforce my views on others if I had the power to do so. I understand other people have a different view to mine, I may not agree with it, but I certainly could respect their right in having them.

If I, a person who is clearly flawed and untrained can come to a reasonable idea of an unbiased perspective despite my own personal view, why would a person specifically trained to have this insight be worse then me? Perhaps I am just that great after all.

I've answered most of these earlier in the post, but I am not saying that a dictator will use his power 100% of the time. I am saying that he is flawed, and that when he uses his power he will not always use it properly. He will end up persecuting people because he is biased, and in some cases because it is the only way the dictatorship can work. (Example: suppressing religion)

A fetus is a person after birth, not before. Quite frankly until a certain developmental stage when the fetus has no higher brain function, it is nothing more then a growth of excess flesh. You would like to ask a growth of flesh a question? Well you could, I'm not sure if you would get an answer though.

This isn't a debate on abortion though, and so I will drop it, but I think that describes the problem with your ideas.

No, you haven't even slightly swayed views on the abortion issue, going by your response I truly doubt you even have an understanding of basic human biology.

Actually, I understand human biology quite well. As well, both my parents are doctors. Ask a 6 month old child a question, just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean he's not a person. I think of life as a process of stages, infancy, childhood, adulthood are all stages of a human life. I also think the fetus is a human, in a different developmental stage. A child is not less human because he is not yet an adult, and a fetus is not less a human because he is not yet an infant. But, I digress, if you want to know my views on abortion, read the topic I stated them in, and if you want to talk about them, reopen that topic, but don't bring it up in this topic again.

Just think of the blacks in the US, and then think of the Karen in Myanmar, or think of any people oppressed under a dictatorship. They can't change it. Black people did, and they continue to change it. And I know you will say that there is no possibility that your super leader camp will produce someone who is ignorant, but you're wrong.

I said it could never produce a bad ruler..? Please quote me saying that and I will step aside from this debate the moment you do. What I did say was that negativities brought up where applicable to both systems and that the ruler produced on our side would not be to the same caliber as any of the thieves in congress now. Please refrain from placing words in my mouth, you can't be truly that desperate and out of ideas to revert to foul play this early can you?

I said ignorant, actually, not bad. And the worst that can be said of a president is that he is ignorant. Therefore, if a ruler produced by your system is ignorant, then he is of the same calibre as one produced from democracy.

1) What am I meant to admit complete un-feasibility to? The side I'm defending, as I think that would defeat the purpose, no? Perhaps rather then simply proclaiming your opponent to be wrong you could show it, as is the normal with debates I believe, perhaps I should check the definition?

2) Someone exactly like me..? Well, I assure you that wouldn't work very well at all, I'm really rather perverted and I'm also amoral, I don't overtly care about others. I don't think that would work at all. I do expect them rather then to have the "right" view, to have a non-biased view, a view I can have so I know it's achievable by humans... I'm coming off as nothing to what you're implying, I'm afraid you are reading into your opponents and their ideas far too much, not a wise thing to do...

3) I don't say "you're wrong and there are many examples that you are wrong", I show people they are wrong, with explanations and empirical showings. It's an absolute shame you seem to only be doing the first with this last quote.

1) You think it is effective arguing for something with no possibility of success. If you were in a company, and there were two proposals. One has the best outcome if it succeeds with a 95% chance of failure, and the other has a good, but worse outcome with a 5% chance of failure. If you fail, you lose everything. You're arguing for the former, and you refuse to acknowledge the unacceptable failure rate. Anybody would choose the latter option because you are not allaying their concerns or even acknowledging them. To convince them, you would need to argue that the gain is so much better than the other option that it is worth the risk. Your refusal to acknowledge the failure rate at all is actually working against you in your argument.

2) Maybe not someone exactly like you, but you seem to be of the opinion that nothing that is "best for the nation" will land you in prison, or will in some way oppress you. This is a conceited idea.

3) Evidence of failure is a reason why you are wrong though. I am giving you historical examples of dictatorships like the one you suggest that have failed. I am saying that there is nothing that they could have done to avoid failure, and there is nothing a modern dictatorship can do to avoid failure either.

I am willing to acknowledge that there is a best path for a nation. But I simply do not believe that any person, no matter how trained he is, know precisely what the best path is, and knows it for every single situation that arises in the government of his nation. It's completely unfeasible to assume that such a person exists, even if I were to accept that there is a person who will not allow his prejudice to interfere with his governing, which I also do not believe.

Perhaps that is because you allow your own personal biased to affect your thinking and actions. I tend not to, that is how I know it is a possibility.

Of course I let my bias influence my thinking. It is actually impossible not to. You have a bias against religion and so you will naturally be turned off by a religious person. It has nothing to do with empirical evidence, and everything to do with your bias. If they were to stop you and try to preach to you, you would almost certainly challenge their faith, rather than walking away, which shows how it influences your actions. That is an assumption, but a correct one if you were to review any religion topics on the forum. Maybe he might not persecute the people based on that bias, that's possible. It depends on how strong the bias is, and I think that given absolute power, a leader will act at least upon one of those biases and persecute people. Because they have them too.

And you say that the same problems arise with a democracy, but as I said before, democracy is dynamic. I would rather be oppressed and have a say in my future than be oppressed and have no say. For that matter, I would rather be oppressed and have a say in my future than see other people oppressed who do not have a say in their future. And yeah, our leaders aren't neccesarily good or even competent, but they change.

But that is where you are wrong, you do not have a say in your future, you do not have a say in who will rule your country. One vote will not make a difference and one voice will not bring a change. Besides, as said, the same level of say can be brought in: the senate was a representation of the people in Rome, despite the Caesar having full authority he still listened to the senate, the senate still made the majority of the decisions, the senate overthrew the Caesars decisions, and despite the Caesar being able to do what he wanted, he didn't. While there are bad rulers there too, there are bad rulers in all systems and when the negatives are equal you must weigh up the positives, in which I say ours has more.

[/quote]

*inserts african-american example here. You are wrong again, we do have a say. You can't just deny that and refuse to acknowledge that the reason african-americans are not persecuted to the extent they were back then is because they spoke out; that it's because of their actions. They could never have come so far if America was a dictatorship.

In any case, until you recognize the shortcomings of a dictatorship, all my future posts will refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of a democracy.

The trouble with democracy...

Democracy is a feedback loop that allows through just as much tyranny as the mass psychology will admit at a given time. And because people adapt, because they come to accept as a necessity anything that has been there long enough, they will always accept a little more tyranny tomorrow than they did today. And because they have accepted each bit as it came, they see themselves as under their own rule, even if in truth the driving forces had other interests in mind--and the resulting system other people to benefit.

And so democracy is an evolving tyranny immune to revolutions, like a cleverly malicious tyrant who polls his patrons regularly to see just how much they will tolerate, and just what superficial things would make them feel better about the whole thing. Over time, there is nowhere we can't go, no absurdity the masses can't be sold into taking themselves. If they are taken too quickly, they simply vote it down, and vote it in in smaller steps instead.

Democracy is to say "help me enslave you--tell me just how much more you will accept today without fighting back" and the reply is "just this much!"

...

People complain about the government as if it is some kind of mythological entitie ruling over us from an unscaleable plateau. The true tyrant is the parasitic modern man, who's essentially selfish and individualistic world view (translating into voting habits in democracy) and demand for "equality" for his parasitic and destructive decisions and behaviors is the source of all social stigmas against changing our current order.

The solution, is, of course, simple. Remove the parasites from any position where they are allowed to make (or vote on) decisions affecting the world anymore than what they are going to have for lunch (though, considering what most people eat, they'll just fuck that up too), and allow the the more intelligent, forward thinking, and nobler men and women to take the reigns.

~~~

Beautiful.

I wasn't comparing anything. I was saying that it is not oppression to limit a right if that right infringes upon other, more important rights. This does not really apply to gay rights. I find it funny that you interpreted it to be a comparison between gay marriage and murder, since if you were to consider my statement a comparison to your statement, it would only make sense that necrophilia would be the comparison to gay marriage and murder would be the comparison to abortion. It is quite obvious you are specifically looking for things to misinterpret. Regardless, it wasn't a comparison. I was illustrating a point. For that matter, I do not believe it is oppression to limit some of the things we consider rights, as I say further on I consider it only oppression if these four rights are infringed upon, because to me, the others are not really important.

You made that statement after you quoted my list of American oppressions, then you put your words like 'oppression of murder' into play saying that they don't count as 'realistic' versions of oppression. If it wasn't relating to what I had said then why did you quote it?

Marriage, I suppose, would fall under religion if that particular religion considered it important. Note that there are religions which do allow gay marriage, including Christian denominations, so don't get all pissy. Denying gay marriage to an Episcopelian would effectively be the oppression of the right to religious belief. (To be honest, the definition of marriage varies so greatly between religions that I don't think the government shouldn't really concern itself with marriage at all, and just give out civil union certificates.)

You do understand that a marriage is a contract under the law..? I'm not saying: "why wont Christians allow gays to marry in their church", I'm saying: "why has the government made gay marriage, a legal process, illegal?". This has nothing to do with the church, how could you even get that idea..? People can be wed in front of a judge with no religious settings at all. 

By what right does the government have to stop homosexuals from marrying one another (referring to the legal definition of the implication not religious)?

In many places children who are put up for adoption can find out who their parents are when they are 18, even if the parents don't wish the child to know. In others, the record is sealed permanently. Is this oppression in either case?

As for marijuana, tobacco, fatty foods, those would fall under self-determination.

Right, but marijuana is ILLEGAL, yet you say this falls under the right of self-determination..? Well that would be the oppression of self determination right there, your words.

Okay, both the press and religion provide alternate sources of authority. In the case of religion, it actually claims higher authority then the dictatorship. Dictatorships rest entirely on having absolute authority. Press and Religion inhibit that. If you wish to see the effects, just think of the Pope and the effect he had on communism. Here's a BBC article. The fact is that religions inhibit the effectiveness of a dictatorship. If, for example, a dictator came into power in Ireland and made abortion legal, an encyclical from the pope could doubtless get millions of them into the streets protesting. Respecting freedom of religion in a dictatorship sets limits on absolute power, and that is why it is not possible in a dictatorship. As well, press can have the same effect, though on a lesser scale. Essentially, it's distributing the dictator's authority among others, which is obviously crippling to a dictatorship.

As far as I know the dictatorship in Brazil did not affect the people's religious life in any way. Brazil is the world's biggest Catholic country, so why didn't the monarchistic-government use their unstoppable power to oppress this religion that had people pledging loyalty to a foreign head of state (the Pope)? Where is the same "crippling effect" that the pope had on communism in this situation?

Your saying that religion is somehow responsible for the downfall of all dictatorships, when in reality it seems that all dictators that have oppressed religious freedom did so out of a personal biased rather then the fear of collapse.

The Christians were suppressed by the Roman empire, yet there were still Christians, no? Even if you commanded that no one may have religious worship, that doesn't mean it will happen, it will simply drive the religion underground where it would still have the same "crippling" effect, which it clearly has not done so in any example I've seen. You're talking about a power that could destroy a dictator? Then why would this power stop because this dictator commands it to..?

Your religious theory is incorrect and lacking in all if any evidence supporting it.

As for 'freedom of the press': What are the allegations put onto the fox news network of biasedly supporting the Republicans, when they are supposed to give an impartial view..? Also, who says that a country can't prosper without freedom of the press..?

That actually proves my point. The fact that a president, the leader of a nation, clearly has no respect for atheism but still does not pass laws against atheism is one of the attributes of democracy I am saying is good. His power is limited. Significantly. He may not take God out of the pledge of allegiance and he may not do anything against his religion, but he also cannot do anything to persecute atheists. If a dictator held the same viewpoint as George W. Bush, then atheists would be persecuted. If a dictator says a group of people aren't citizens or patriots, then that's it. They aren't patriots or citizens. And of course, your response will be that your super leader would never hold such a narrow-sighted view. Nothing bad can happen in a dictatorship, but whatever, I'll let you say it before I bother repelling it.

First: that quote was from Bush Sr. just to clarify,  second: 'I said isn't it a possible future', perhaps you would like to explain why it's not ?_? third: again, your saying if a dictator has these views he WILL persecute atheists for it, yet explain no reason why. I'm not saying a leader will automatically be perfect, YOU on the other hand are saying that any person who is in this position will automatically persecute others due to personal biased, yet show no reason as to why this is. 

You think your democracy is infallible of making such grievous errors..? Let's bring this over to your next point.

You don't get a say if you don't vote. If you do vote though, then you get a say. Even if you aren't in the majority, you can protest. Thus my example of black liberation. They didn't have a say. Now they do. Solely because of their efforts. So don't go whine about how you don't have a say. You do.

I was talking about the individual, you are talking about a minority, they are not the same. Would the black revolution have worked if there was only one black man protesting ?_?

But wait, African-Americans had to protest  in order to get their rights as fellow humans?? What about woman's suffrage? Was that given to them when they simply asked for it, or did they have to take drastic action to receive equal rights to men? Was a bill rejected giving women the right to vote before women where forced to rally a movement? If so, why? What reason would the democratic system have to justify continuing oppressive behavior?

Your system was trying to keep womans rights to a minimum and only changed at a physical threat, not because they had to. Your system did not legally have to give women the right to vote, but they did, so why wouldn't the same work with an Emperor, or King? Your system can indeed form a dictatorial stance, it simply needs the majority of people in power to cooperate, that is all.

I am saying that a bad ruler can be replaced in a democracy, and cannot be replaced in a dictatorship, yes. I never said it was the only way, I'm saying that it is an option that is retained where all else fails. In a dictatorship, maybe the dictator will care what people say, maybe he won't. In a democracy, the leader has to care what the people say. And if you want a reason why a dictator wouldn't listen, it's because he believes he is right. The principal value of the system you are a proponent of is that the dictator knows what is the right path, and he has the power to choose it. I am saying that if he goes down a wrong path, he still has the confidence that it is the right path and will not change it because he is doing what he think will benefit the nation, despite the will and thoughts of the people.

You think democracy has fail-safes that would prevent the bad scenarios that can occur in a dictatorship..? Let's take a look at Russia, it's now a democracy so according to your theory even if the changes are slow, they will always being going forward in a positive state, but that's not the case, Russia is slowly stepping back into an authoritarianism state, why aren't your democratic fail-safes working there? Venezuela is strangling itself by stealing land from rich landowners and giving it to poor city-dwelling people who know nothing about farming. Maybe the government wasn't set up right, or the people just can't handle the freedom they have or they think that the system will keep running without them but the fact is, sometimes democracies fail.

If a dictator listened to the people and allowed himself to be influenced by the people, then it would be just as ineffective as you are claiming a democracy is.

Not even slightly, there is a difference in what the people want and what they need. An Emperor could listen to the needs of a country and not the wants if the wants are not healthy for the people. Democracy is forced to obey ALL the people's desires, whether they are healthy or not. No, this Ruler will not always know the right answer, but no one does and that is why only a fool makes all of the decisions by himself.

Yes, in a state of crisis, the president has executive authority. Once the state of crisis is over, the actions he took, for example martial law, are reversed and his actions are reviewed and if they are deemed unneccesary and unconstitutional, those are grounds for impeachment. This is significantly different from a dictator, whose actions are permanent as long as he remains in office.

Yes, as we all know people will always take what they are given and never cause an uprising!  "Democracy" is nothing but a point of view. While the white males where naming it "democracy", it was nothing short of a dictatorship to women and blacks at a certain point. They had no say, yet they brought change in a "point of view dictatorship", they brought change in the same way people could bring change under an all-powerful King.

My statements may have implied that, but it is untrue. It is not actually possible for a democratic president to become a dictator.

Until very recently the House and Senate were just huge rubber stamps for anything that the administration churned out because they were all controlled by the same party. It only needs cooperation for democracy to become a dictatorship... What is the difference if the power is the same..?

The modern system is a product of democracy. It can't really be mimiced in a dictatorship. What you are saying is that you have a dictator, whose actions are reviewed by a senate, which is essentially purposeless because he doesn't have to listen to them. Maybe if he wanted to get some feedback, he would send it to the senate first, but if he wanted something done he'd do it regardless of what they say.

Then why was the decision of the Roman Senate taken so highly? If this was true, the Caesar wouldn't have cared what they thought. You're getting mixed up with kings of old with modern 'el presidentes'. It may shock you to find out but kings had advisers who would help them make decisions and people could take their grievances to the King without fearing for their lives. Were they the 'evil dictators' your making out our proposed ruler to be..?

The very need for you to use the word "dictator" instead of King/Queen or Emperor is because of the modern meaning and implication of the word to describe some insane person who claimed power for themselves in a river of blood. Yes, we both apparently know that it doesn't imply anything but an all-powerful ruler, but you're using it in nothing more then a pejorative way...

Perhaps you're projecting what you would do in a situation of this power, but there are many "Dictatorships" that have worked.

What about Myanmar? It's getting along okay. Iraq seemed to be doing quite fine before the invasion. There are also dictatorships spread throughout Africa and authoritarian governments can be fond in South America and Asia. To say dictatorships will fail is a pathetic and blind statement; in the long run, all  governments will fail. Just because Rome eventually collapsed it doesn't put a black eye on dictatorial rule; if America was destroyed, would it directly imply that democracy failed..?
 
How many republics have failed? Rome? All the eastern European republics that folded? What about the Wiemar Republic, which put Hitler in a position of power? And what about civil wars? The American Civil War was particularly bloody, and it can easily be portrayed as an example of Yankee tyrants imposing their will on Southerners who didn't want to be in the Union anymore.

Does that mean all democracies will fail..? No? Then the measly examples you've given say nothing on the future success rate of monarchs.

Furthermore, you are allowing other authorities in, such as religions and press. In the end, you are suggesting a democracy, but the leader can do whatever he wants and he's not voted in. There's no way it could work. Every time he did something, there would be an outcry, because he's bound to piss off someone. If hee doesn't listen to the senate, the republicans (as in, someone who believes from the people, for the people) will get pissed off.

And they don't now..? The church wouldn't get pissed if gay marriage laws are lifted?

There's no way it could work.

Rome, it had a senate, people for the people by the people. How did it work?

If he doesn't listen to the churches, the religious will get pissed off,

Since when has the church had any major say in political affairs? This isn't the dark ages.

and if he doesn't listen to the press, everyone will get pissed off. Unlike a democracy, at times there is going to be a majority of citizens protesting. Actually, people will get pissed off enough that they'll turn it back into a democracy. The system as it is now is built to have a replaceable, elected leader, and the only way it works is because it has that. It is because democracy is dynamic.

I was talking to someone about this debate and I asked him for his insight on my points, one of the replies I received was that I was getting angry at you for defending democracy, when in fact you were doing no such thing. You aren't defending democracy, you're defending some type of mythical magical version of it where everybody gets along and cooperates when this isn't reality. You say I'm not looking at the un-feasibility of an empire? You're version of democracy isn't even close to a representation of it working in the real world, it's a pipe dream.

Let's bring up Rome again: it was started as a republic, what happened there?

It was decided it was most likely he had Guillain-Barre syndrome fifty years after his death. It was believed to be polio for his entire life and many years after. In any case, it does not matter at all, the point is he was paralyzed. Stop being so petty.

You're right, what caused his paralysis was petty but this certainly wasn't:

the man was also so ashamed by his paralysis that he used iron leg braces in public as to not allow the people into seeing his absolute reliance of a wheel chair. I wonder why?

The only name you could bring up out of Presidents who aren't one of your 'average white males' hid his deformity from the public every chance he could. If your American people were that caring, by what right would he have to hide his disability, or at least feel the need to..? Stop avoiding questions.

No, I don't think that "giving a hand to help somebody up after you have pushed them down the stairs is a good thing that shines the light of decency on the pusher", nor did I say it, nor did I imply it. I said that with democracy, change is possible; change is inevitable. I said that you're wrong in thinking people can't make a difference in a democracy. And yes, righting that wrong is a positive thing

Your system was forced into rewriting a black eye on history, out of protest, not the democratic system itself. Black people did not have a vote, meaning under no circumstances did the government have to give them the rights of fellow human-beings, but they did, in the same way a monarch system would have. 

Candidates do keep their promises, people do know what is best, and all candidates can see the good in something. LULZ I CAN REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SHORTCOMINGS OF MY SYSTEM TOOOOOOOO.

When have I said I refuse to accept the shortcomings of a Monarch? I have accepted them many times, I just added that it's a better system then the electoral one, the positives out way the negatives. If I thought any less of it I would be on your side, what more do you want me to admit..?

For you to doubt that change occurs in a democracy seems to me like you are intentionally blinding yourself. If you do recognize that things change in a democracy, why do you think change will not continue to occur? As to the points above, some candidates do keep their promises, some don't. In general, it is more likely the majority will be correct than any single person, including your candidates at the super leader camp. And, politicians do agree sometimes. If you doubt that, mind telling me how bills get passed? Again, the majority of people are more likely to be correct then a single person.

I never doubted change could happen, I said if it happened it did so at a rate too slow to be considered progress. There is only one reason that gay marriage is illegal and that is the ignorance of many.

The majority is more likely to be correct about something..? Like that the world was a flat disc? Or that masturbation caused blindness? The majority is often incorrect and it seems to be the majority of the time too. The majority is not a positively-combined intellectual entity, the average person in America is what the vote of the majority comes down to and that's not saying much; a recent survey showed that 20% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, 9% say they don't know which revolves around which and about 60% have never read a book (statistics from both the The Twilight of American Culture and Dark Ages America). This is who you think is to be trusted with your future?

The majority are ignorant and stupid, especially so when counted as one.

Again, given that the history of every democracy is one of (mostly) positive change, what brings you to the conclusion that a democracy cannot continue to positively change? I think that the only way Clinton or Obama will not be elected in the upcoming election is if they continue to tear at each other's throats.

'Mostly positive change'..? No, your system isn't the slow but steady turtle who will always win the race, you've gotten lucky.

Let's take a look at Russia, it's now a democracy, so according to your theory even if the changes are slow, they will always being going forward in a positive state, but it's not, Russia is slowly stepping into an authoritarianism state, where are your democratic fail-safes there? Venezuela is strangling itself by stealing land from rich landowners and giving it to poor city-dwelling people who know nothing about farming. Maybe the government wasn't set up right, or the people just can't handle the freedom they have, or they think that the system will keep running without them but the fact is, sometimes democracies fail

I've answered most of these earlier in the post, but I am not saying that a dictator will use his power 100% of the time. I am saying that he is flawed, and that when he uses his power he will not always use it properly. He will end up persecuting people because he is biased, and in some cases because it is the only way the dictatorship can work. (Example: suppressing religion)

The only Dictatorship that I can recall that suppresses mainstream religion is Communism. As said: the dictatorship in Brazil did not affect the people's religious life in any way. This 'massive suppression' is simply your opinion of the only way a dictatorship can work, yet I've shown quite a few cases where this is clearly not true.

Actually, I understand human biology quite well. As well, both my parents are doctors. Ask a 6 month old child a question, just because you don't get an answer doesn't mean he's not a person. I think of life as a process of stages, infancy, childhood, adulthood are all stages of a human life. I also think the fetus is a human, in a different developmental stage. A child is not less human because he is not yet an adult, and a fetus is not less a human because he is not yet an infant. But, I digress, if you want to know my views on abortion, read the topic I stated them in, and if you want to talk about them, reopen that topic, but don't bring it up in this topic again.

Actually I will, but mainly to show you that oppression can and will happen in a democracy. You said that there is no case in which abortions are not allowed in situations like incest and rape? Wrong. Take South Dakota, they are trying to pass the unconstitutional law that ALL abortions (excluding when a risk is to the mothers life) will be made illegal. Even if this doesn't succeed the point is it could, meaning your system would be one of oppression to peoples rights in an extreme way. Where's this apparent fail safe in this situation

Edit: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, it was accepted! [New Source]

I said ignorant, actually, not bad. And the worst that can be said of a president is that he is ignorant. Therefore, if a ruler produced by your system is ignorant, then he is of the same calibre as one produced from democracy.

And pigs could fly. Your point? Absolutely anything could happen, but that doesn't mean it's likely to. The point was made that a system to raise a child to be a good ruler would more then likely create a better leader then any of the people we see in our current politicians. Yeah, it MAY fail, but you MAY accidentally vote a disguised Osama Bin Laden into power. I mean fuck, that could happen, let's abandon democracy!

1) You think it is effective arguing for something with no possibility of success. If you were in a company, and there were two proposals. One has the best outcome if it succeeds with a 95% chance of failure, and the other has a good, but worse outcome with a 5% chance of failure. If you fail, you lose everything. You're arguing for the former, and you refuse to acknowledge the unacceptable failure rate. Anybody would choose the latter option because you are not allaying their concerns or even acknowledging them. To convince them, you would need to argue that the gain is so much better than the other option that it is worth the risk. Your refusal to acknowledge the failure rate at all is actually working against you in your argument.

 

Show me where you got the 95%/5% chances and I'll answer. If not, it's un-relative to the current situation and is nothing more then slander.

2) Maybe not someone exactly like you, but you seem to be of the opinion that nothing that is "best for the nation" will land you in prison, or will in some way oppress you. This is a conceited idea.

In the exact same way that your opinion of the majority normally being correct is a conceited idea.

3) Evidence of failure is a reason why you are wrong though. I am giving you historical examples of dictatorships like the one you suggest that have failed. I am saying that there is nothing that they could have done to avoid failure, and there is nothing a modern dictatorship can do to avoid failure either.

And I've shown you plenty that have succeeded, in modern times too. Even if past example showed future success you would still be wrong as I have shown you examples of failed democracies.

Of course I let my bias influence my thinking. It is actually impossible not to. You have a bias against religion and so you will naturally be turned off by a religious person. It has nothing to do with empirical evidence, and everything to do with your bias. If they were to stop you and try to preach to you, you would almost certainly challenge their faith, rather than walking away, which shows how it influences your actions. That is an assumption, but a correct one if you were to review any religion topics on the forum. Maybe he might not persecute the people based on that bias, that's possible. It depends on how strong the bias is, and I think that given absolute power, a leader will act at least upon one of those biases and persecute people. Because they have them too.

No I don't challenge every or any preacher that comes my way, as to the rest: nothing but your personal speculation, you think because only one person is there to make a decision that the person will reject the opinions of others? How, why and who? You've given nothing but your own person opinion; why should I take that alone, as mine says different.   

*inserts african-american example here. You are wrong again, we do have a say. You can't just deny that and refuse to acknowledge that the reason african-americans are not persecuted to the extent they were back then is because they spoke out; that it's because of their actions. They could never have come so far if America was a dictatorship.

In that era America was a dictatorship! African-Americans didn't "VOTE" for freedom they used force to take it! The government at the time did not under any circumstance have a legal obligation to the African-Americans as blacks did not have the rights of fellow-humans! They where swayed to make change by voice NOT because they had to and this is EXACTLY how it would work in a Monarch system as it has in the past.

In any case, until you recognize the shortcomings of a dictatorship, all my future posts will refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of a democracy.

You mean you haven't been doing that already already I haven't blindly ignored or refused to accept the short comings of a Monarch system, I have seen them as I have seen the short comings of democracy. I made my choice on which was better, that is why we are here.

If you want to act like a child because I refuse to accept your made up and presumed downfalls of a monarch then that is your decision alone and will only reflect your immaturity to handle a debate.

"Where" instead of "were"? "Your" instead of "you're"? Oh, Kate.

pft

I am going away for a couple days, so I can't respond now. I will repond upon my return on Tuesday.

With much love,

           modern algebra

I'm very tempted to delete that post as spam.