What price Freedom?

I'm not overlooking anything. The reason why dictatorships invariably spiral into human rights nightmares is because the concept is founded on the principle that one person holds the entirety of power for the state, including the military, including the economy, including the infrastructure. Any monarchial (king, dictator, whatever) cannot have a threat to their power. Even a relatively benevolent one cannot allow free speech or free markets, because that will quickly undermine the power of the monarch. You'll notice how this happened in just about every european country during the industrial revolution. You'll also notice that modern dictatorships have learned to curb free-enterprise for that very reason.

And why is it so bad that democracy is self-interested? We should be! Government only exists as a social contract between the People and the State. The people, if the state does not truly represent them (as I suggest the case is in the US) have the right, and the *responsibility* to dissolve that government, and replace it with one which exists to protect and keep the rights of the people intact.

I'm sure that we're all vain enough to think that if *we* were in charge, we could make everything right. If we were in charge, we could stop this palestine/isreal problem in a heartbeat. If we were in charge we'd all hold hands and sing 60's protest songs, and they'd call the time period the pax tyler, or the pax asguard or the pax esp, and there'd be flowers and skipping children and no one would go hungry.

Hell, I'll admit that when I was in high school, I thought I had all the answers myself. Of course, none of us have to really deal with the logistical problems of feeding all of the hungry. We haven't really gotten to see deep into what the impetus *really* is for the Isreal/Palestine conflict. In fact, as a whole we have been more or less insulated from the why and how of every decision that's made in the world. Planetary rule is more complex than even simply State rule.

My final argument against dictatorships is this:
If every single human just unquestionably did whatever I told them to, there would be no war, hate, crime, murder..... and so forth
Click to expand...

Well, that's all fine and good, as long as you're the one giving the orders, isn't it? The fact of the matter is that that statement essentially violates the very nature of human beings as being self-determined creatures.

Yes, we have murders, we have crime, and we have hate. But that is the cost for being free. I'm pretty sure that Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying "people who give up freedom for security deserve neither". There is a cost to freedom. The biggest cost is that we are responsible for ourselves. The past 200 years have seen the birth and death of personal responsibility, and if we ever are able to get it back I certainly hope that we KEEP it this time.
 
As I said, a benevolent dictatorship. If a dictator wants to remain alive and in charge, he/she has to keep the people happy.

The reason why dictatorships invariably spiral into human rights nightmares is because the concept is founded on the principle that one person holds the entirety of power for the state, including the military, including the economy, including the infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Those are not reasons for instability. They are simply facts of dictatorship.

Any monarchial (king, dictator, whatever) cannot have a threat to their power.
Click to expand...
Why would there be threats if the people are happy? Revolution would be unlikely. The only likely threat would be from people who already have power, wealth, luxury.

Even a relatively benevolent one cannot allow free speech or free markets, because that will quickly undermine the power of the monarch.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, a dictator who encouraged free trade and free speech has less to fear from both the general public and from discontents who might otherwise remain secretive. Free trade allows more growth and development for the state, which is good for the people, which in turn is good for the dictator.

You'll notice how this happened in just about every european country during the industrial revolution.
Click to expand...
You'll notice the French revolution was bollocks from start to finish. As Napoleone heard from a wealthy parliamentarian/businessman upon entering Paris once "We don't stall or utterly halt the Royalty's plans for the sake of the people, we do it because we can." The non-noble wealthy in France were behind the revolution there, stirring things up to cause the problems so they could set new tax laws and trade tariffs and such. The peasantry became involved as they did because they were uneducated louts who had no idea what was going on. For example, they didn't know the head of state was trying to set up massive charity and public aid schemes, which the parliament denied at every turn.

Government only exists as a social contract between the People and the State. The people, if the state does not truly represent them (as I suggest the case is in the US) have the right, and the *responsibility* to dissolve that government, and replace it with one which exists to protect and keep the rights of the people intact.
Click to expand...
I agree. I see no reason why this would not hold true for a benevolent dictatorship. One man or woman can not remain in power if the people all want him or her gone. A benevolent dictator would be one who upholds the rights and freedoms of the individual. The difference between such a person and today's representative democracies is that the dictator could run an efficient and more functional state.

Planetary rule is more complex than even simply State rule.
Click to expand...
I disagree. One global state means no national conflicts and borders to deal with. One set of laws for everyone.

If every single human just unquestionably did whatever I told them to, there would be no war, hate, crime, murder..... and so forth.
Click to expand...
This idea is not intrinsic to the nature of dictatorship. In fact, I would say it is antithetical to dictatorship, as it breeds discontent likely to topple the dictator. Notice all the dictators who screw over the people end up getting screwed over themselves. To me, the dictator who is true to the nature of dictatorship runs the state so as to ensure the survival and well-being of both the state and himself/herself. This means not screwing over the people.
 
Adam,

Don't forget:

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Unfortunately, there is no cure for "the ego".

Tom
 
IMO ...

Freedom - I Won't

Just be prepared to shed either your blood, or someone else's.

Take care :mad:
 
Power does not corrupt at all. Greed and stupidity corrupt.

Why shed anyone's blood at all?
 
Forgive me.

I understand now that we're going to find buddah and place him in charge of the world. :bugeye:
This idea is not intrinsic to the nature of dictatorship. In fact, I would say it is antithetical to dictatorship, as it breeds discontent likely to topple the dictator. Notice all the dictators who screw over the people end up getting screwed over themselves. To me, the dictator who is true to the nature of dictatorship runs the state so as to ensure the survival and well-being of both the state and himself/herself. This means not screwing over the people.
Click to expand...

It's amazing that any non-benevolent dictatorships continue then, isn't it? My example: Cuba, which has managed to limp along despite the loss of a significant portion of its tourist trade since the inception of communism there. And yet castro reigns. Maybe that's just an isolated coincidence?

The idea is fully in line with everything you've said in your post. if you were in charge of the whole world, there'd never be a war? There would never be a clash of people? My estimation would be that ther would be plenty of civil uprisings. Enough to keep you plenty busy at least.

Yes, a benevelent dictatorship would work just as well as pure self-determination! you know... if everyone did the right thing and didn't infringe on people's rights.

I don't even know where to begin with the rest of that post.

So i'm getting from you that human right abuses are ok in a dictatorship, however benevolent?

I also read that your decisions will always be perfect, apply to the entire globe and across custom and culture boundaries easily, and no one will ever disagree with them, because the decisions are, after all, perfect.

I'm glad to hear you've been able to settle the Abortion debate that's been going on for the last 30 years, and bring a solution that makes people against and for happy.

If you think that dissolution of borders would *really* change the fundamental issues regarding most of the problems which are based on thousands of years of anger and resentment, debating any further is really a waste of both of our time.

The point you're still missing is that a people have the right and responsibility to govern THEMSELVES. That means that officials need to and must be elected from themselves to look out for the welfare of the community while the rest of the people work to make their lives better.

On the contrary, a dictator who encouraged free trade and free speech has less to fear from both the general public and from discontents who might otherwise remain secretive. Free trade allows more growth and development for the state, which is good for the people, which in turn is good for the dictator.
Click to expand...

Balderdash. Free speech undermines the full authority of the government. Am I the only person that's noticed that we're actively censoring ourselves in the United States now when we talk about the Afghanistan war? People that disagree with the war are accused of being unpatriotic and supporting terrorism. If you don't think there's a connection between that and the summary loss of freedom from illegal search and siezure which was taken from us in order to allow the FBI to "hunt terrorists" (because they'll never use that for hunting down internal dissidents which disagree with the government) you're sorely mistaken.

Free market economy is inimical to dictatorships. Is anyone suprised that when the Venezuelan president was overthrown the STATE OIL COMPANY attempted to install a dictator, instead of installing free elections? Do you honestly think that these things are simply coincident?

The difference between such a person and today's representative democracies is that the dictator could run an efficient and more functional state.
Click to expand...

How. Explain this to me. Tell me why a dictator could control the entire planet more efficiently than democratic nations serving and represneting their people, for their people.
 
Adam ...

You answered the question re. why shed blood at all:

"Greed and stupidity corrupt."

And those corrupted most often fall back on the use of force.

Take care

;)
 
It's amazing that any non-benevolent dictatorships continue then, isn't it? My example: Cuba, which has managed to limp along despite the loss of a significant portion of its tourist trade since the inception of communism there. And yet castro reigns. Maybe that's just an isolated coincidence?
Click to expand...
Our ambassadors seem to get along quite fine with Castro. I don't know what the press in your country says about him. Two things I do know about Castro's Cuba: they don't have 30 million homeless people, and in the past century they haven't invaded dozens of other nations.

So i'm getting from you that human right abuses are ok in a dictatorship, however benevolent?
Click to expand...
I don't know where this is coming from at all. Obviously you can read, else you would not be posting messages here. I never said human rights abuses were ok. In fact I said a dictator who wished to maintain his position would ensure they did not happen, at least not at the hands of his government.

I also read that your decisions will always be perfect, apply to the entire globe and across custom and culture boundaries easily, and no one will ever disagree with them, because the decisions are, after all, perfect.
Click to expand...
Please point out where I said my decisions would be perfect and would be the best for everyone. The job of any government which works for the people is to do the will of the majority. If possibly, everybody. But at the least, the majority.

I'm glad to hear you've been able to settle the Abortion debate that's been going on for the last 30 years, and bring a solution that makes people against and for happy.
Click to expand...
It's really not that difficult to settle. If a person/couple wants an abortion, they have it, If they don't want it, they don't have it.

If you think that dissolution of borders would *really* change the fundamental issues regarding most of the problems which are based on thousands of years of anger and resentment, debating any further is really a waste of both of our time.
Click to expand...
And yet your post continues... But anyway, let people have what borders they will, to separate from each other. The same law applies on both sides of the border, however, and if they start shooting each other they get a swift kicking. A simple decision by a global government would not change millennia of resentment. However, lack of opportunities to continue cycles of retaliation (by limiting the arms available) would, eventually, calm things down. Maybe they would hate each other for ever. That's fine by me, as long as they don't kill each other.

The point you're still missing is that a people have the right and responsibility to govern THEMSELVES.
Click to expand...
In terms of government: Why?

Am I the only person that's noticed that we're actively censoring ourselves in the United States now when we talk about the Afghanistan war? People that disagree with the war are accused of being unpatriotic and supporting terrorism. If you don't think there's a connection between that and the summary loss of freedom from illegal search and siezure which was taken from us in order to allow the FBI to "hunt terrorists" (because they'll never use that for hunting down internal dissidents which disagree with the government) you're sorely mistaken.
Click to expand...
And this in a representative democracy. A government "that officials need to and must be elected from themselves to look out for the welfare of the community while the rest of the people work to make their lives better." See my point? This is not a dictator doing this to you. It's the government the people placed in charge of their state.

Free market economy is inimical to dictatorships. Is anyone suprised that when the Venezuelan president was overthrown the STATE OIL COMPANY attempted to install a dictator, instead of installing free elections? Do you honestly think that these things are simply coincident?
Click to expand...
I would point out that large companies buy government policies in representative democracies such as the USA. It's what comanies do. Again, this has no exclusive relationship to dictatorship.

How. Explain this to me. Tell me why a dictator could control the entire planet more efficiently than democratic nations serving and represneting their people, for their people.
Click to expand...
I'll give you an example. Australia has spent scores of millions of dollars over more than a decade trying to decide what land rights people get when they claim native ancestry. This includes such matters as:
- Do they suddenly get some free land?
- Do we take that land off people who have owned it for generations?
- Who do we say is of native ancestry? How many generations back do we check?
- What do we do if the land given away is turned into a dump?
These questions were bandied about in committees for over a decade, as I said, wasting the public's money, employing bureaucrats. A dictator might simply say "If you want land, pay for it", and it is done in seconds. No more drain on the tax-payers.
 
Adam

your problem lies in everyones concept of a "dictator". Everyone see this as someone who abuses power unlike a ships captain, who (although in compleat control) works for the good of all
 
Yeah, I know. Most people hear "dictator" and reflexively think "evil" without actually considering the subject fully.
 
Hm ...

The more said re. dictatorship being benevolent and desireable ...

The more I hear: Philosopher King.

Just a thought.

Take care ;)
 
Actually, the price of freedom is $49.99 but for a short period of time, if you send $34.99 to Tyler Cohen, you will receive FULL FREEDOM!
 
Now, what good is freedom without the free steakknives hmm?

A benevolent dictatorship is a lovely idea... right up there with true communism really. Shame about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top