The best form of government is autocracy

[Ballpark]

Seriously, people democracy is fucked up.
We need a bastard dictator to tell us what to do and guide society in the right direction.
You remember the golden ages in the past with great rulers and megalomania, all products of autocracy.
There are some checks and balances though that must be imposed:
(1)no heriditary rule
(2)basic rights and freedoms guareenteed to all people
(3)No police state
(4)no censorship of the press and regulations against freedom of speech.

[Flatchett]

We need a bastard dictator to tell us what to do and guide society in the right direction.
...
(2)basic rights and freedoms guareenteed to all people
(3)No police state
(4)no censorship of the press and regulations against freedom of speech.

Does not compute.

[mgb]

Seriously, people democracy is fucked up.
We need a bastard dictator to tell us what to do and guide society in the right direction.
You remember the golden ages in the past with great rulers and megalomania, all products of autocracy.
There are some checks and balances though that must be imposed:
(1)no heriditary rule
(2)basic rights and freedoms guareenteed to all people
(3)No police state
(4)no censorship of the press and regulations against freedom of speech.

What you're saying is that we need a bastard dictator, but with some sort of constitution that the bastard dictator is going to follow because he wants to.

I could see if you'd meant benevolent dictatorship instead of autocracy as the topic of discussion here. But I don't think you did.

But let's give you a chance. Besides what doesn't work with an autocracy, what actually does? And why?

[mancroft]

America is supposed to be a republic. That is what it says in the Constitution of the United States of America.

What you actually have is a strange mixture of republic, democracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy and one or two other forms of government besides.

You are rapidly headed towards a corporatist, technocratic, communitarian dictatorship controlled by the UN.

[mgb]

America is supposed to be a republic. That is what it says in the Constitution of the United States of America.

What you actually have is a strange mixture of republic, democracy, oligarchy, kleptocracy and one or two other forms of government besides.

You are rapidly headed towards a corporatist, technocratic, communitarian dictatorship controlled by the UN.

Yeah, so umm, what does that have to do with the OP? Or do you just see any topic and think, "Hey, let's relate that to why America, A PLACE WHERE I DON'T LIVE, is going downhill."

[mancroft]

Yeah, so umm, what does that have to do with the OP? Or do you just see any topic and think, "Hey, let's relate that to why America, A PLACE WHERE I DON'T LIVE, is going downhill."

http://www.recoveryourlife.com/forum/images/smilies/new/Emoticon(22).gif

[C.J.Woolf]

We need a bastard dictator to tell us what to do and guide society in the right direction.
And what stops him from guiding society in the wrong direction?


(1)no heriditary rule
For all its faults, hereditary rule has one virtue: it can't be disputed, assuming heredity is known. When an autocracy has no clearly defined succession that is respected by everyone, succession becomes a free-for-all with coups, assassinations, and civil war. Saddam Hussein didn't sleep in the same place two nights in a row for fear of assassination, and that was before he pissed off the United States.

[Chunes]

Not to mention that hereditary rule contains a decent chance for producing a leader who doesn't want to rule. The best kind by far, as Plato pointed out.

[pesquisa]

Re: OP. Sure democracies are imperfect. But so are dictatorships. What do they have in common? Imperfect people. We need to leave it to G.O.D. to make all the important decisions. Deists have faith that God created man. So why can't we have faith that man can create G.O.D, the Global Omniscient Decider, a computer with access to all recorded data, that can provide the utilitarian answer to any inputted question? There will be no need for messy debate after G.O.D. has decided. All will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. *in a satirical mood*

[Flatchett]

Not to mention that hereditary rule contains a decent chance for producing a leader who doesn't want to rule.

Ehh...not really. There's a better chance than with most other systems, but I don't think it's a very high chance.

[Zephyrus055]

Democracy/representative government is actually a plutocracy at least 98% of the time in a civilized, developed state. And if by some miracle that state manages to begin as a representative government, it develops in to a plutocracy 100% of the time. The question is which is preferable, elite rule or autocracy/oligarchy? The advantage of the latter is that it can mitigate the abuses of the elite, but the disadvantage is that there is no guarantee that the super elite won't become unbearably abusive either.

All governments work when the rulers are stewards. Historically, stewardship has been in the best interest of monarchs. A powerful monarch benefits from a wealthy and competitive state, while ruling parasitically exposes him/her to many dangers both foreign and domestic. Problems begin when rulers choose to harm the state for their own benefit. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a powerful ruler living better than a petty one, as what constitutes harming the state for personal use is relative. And those rulers of the past who did not rule as stewards more often than not harmed their state for themselves or successors. So autocrats who failed at stewardship usually were either ignorant, had a character defect, or had a powerful elite to contend with.

Representative governments have historically tended to emerge from commercially developed states, and the elite of those states tended to use the state as a tool to advance their commercial interests. Representative governments can be stewardships, as I honestly believe the early American Republic was one overall. However, the problem with representative government begins when the elite decide it's in their best interest to do something like conduct costly wars to increase the value of their assets. The US elite, for example, do not have a problem with this. In fact, they let the state borrow money to do it. Furthermore, not only are they waging wars, they are neglecting social problems because they are too occupied with making money.

Oh, and my point is this. The OP's idea that the people rule is incorrect. Second, what form of government is preferable and best ensures stewardship actually depends on the circumstances. In Rome, Tarquin certainly needed to be overthrown. Yet during the period beginning around the Gracchi Revolution, Rome increasingly needed a strong and powerful Emperor to check the abuses of its elite.

[intpgolfer]

1. AUTOCRACY: Much easier - only one person needs to be wise and educated - the despot!

2. DEMOCRACY: Much harder - because a significant majority of the people need to be both wise and educated.

[Harion]

Seriously, people democracy is fucked up.
We need a bastard dictator to tell us what to do and guide society in the right direction.
You remember the golden ages in the past with great rulers and megalomania, all products of autocracy.
There are some checks and balances though that must be imposed:
(1)no heriditary rule
(2)basic rights and freedoms guareenteed to all people
(3)No police state
(4)no censorship of the press and regulations against freedom of speech.
no you won't be that bastard dictator so stop dreaming

[Ballpark]

What you're saying is that we need a bastard dictator, but with some sort of constitution that the bastard dictator is going to follow because he wants to.

I could see if you'd meant benevolent dictatorship instead of autocracy as the topic of discussion here. But I don't think you did.

But let's give you a chance. Besides what doesn't work with an autocracy, what actually does? And why?

Yea , actually thats what I mean (on benevolent dictator), a leader with autocratic powers, but also with some cheques and balances.

[Ballpark]

no you won't be that bastard dictator so stop dreaming

This thread is a discussion about the ideal form of government, not about my personal interests and preferances.

Autocratic rule

=/= (not necessarily equal to)

Police state
totalitarian rule
censorship of free speech and free flow of information
Total obedience and submission to the state

I am thinking whether it is possible to still have autocratic rule with the basic rights and freedoms of the people intact.

Japan is the best example of democracy failure. There are like 4 leader switches in one year ( I am not sure the exact, but roughly about that) and no one can seem to repair the broken economy and stagnation.

[YHWH]

The five good emperors were an interesting phenomenon, of course it might have been circumstantial or maybe these emperors weren't really that good, they just had brilliant propaganda but that's less likely than the uncynical story, the conditions that supposedly rendered these emperors relatively "good" - be it succession by adoption or philosophical upbringing among others- is a reasonably plausible theory.

Hmm, I probably shouldn't be posting non-trollishly in a troll thread.

[CoHo]

I'd prefer a computerised lottery system. Every job is determined at birth by lottery, randomly, efficiently. Failure to listen to the will of the lottery means immediate termination. All jobs are delivered in percentage of what would make a functioning system (Carpenters, CEO, Serial Rapist, White Collar Criminal, Bus Driver etc). This ensures that no single entity, family, group or organisation will have sole power, except for the lottery holders, and they should be robots. With laser cannons. And they should be able to morph into jets, or cars (but not both). And when they talk it should be like those classic 80's era computer sounds, all *BLEEP* *BOOP* *BOP* shit, you know that came from the MOTHERBOARD (fuck yeah, no man, YOUR MOTHERBOARD HAHAHAHAAHA!) like gary neuman and kraftwerk had an abortion on a synthesiser (a legal one).

[jyng1]

There are a couple of States which are quite interesting: Singapore which some view as a defacto one party state and power was originally passed from father to son. The general view would be that the Singapore government is generally benevolent and has been phenomenally successful. Then there is Fiji (which is lucky the US is giving it millions as no-one else will) with the incumbent, General Bananarama, who recently took over in just another coup and promptly curtailed the press, decimated the judiciary, clamped down on the Indian businessmen actually running the place, and is currently watching while major employers like Fiji water take their plastic bottles elsewhere.

The problem with autocratic states is that one person in charge determines the success of a whole nation... and the trouble with that is that it's easier for one person to look after themselves than several million peasants.

[Zephyrus055]

The problem with autocratic states is that one person in charge determines the success of a whole nation... and the trouble with that is that it's easier for one person to look after themselves than several million peasants.

That's also true of representative states. It is easy for the commercial elite to push for legislative and executive decisions that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

[Architectonic]

1. AUTOCRACY: Much easier - only one person needs to be wise and educated - the despot!

2. DEMOCRACY: Much harder - because a significant majority of the people need to be both wise and educated.

But the many have a much greater combined capacity for knowledge. It is not physically possible to educate a single leader on such a scale, nor would they have the capacity to produce enough decisions.
True autocracy means that every single decision is already made for us - we do not choose when we wake up, or who we spend our time with. This is clearly impossible, hence on some scales autocracy cannot work.

[Dirty-American-Devil]

Scratch that, sleepy.

[Zephyrus055]

Please, do tell me how the government ran by the Philosopher King is compared to the democracy of a civilized & developed nation?

You seem to be implying that civilized and developed states owe that status to representative governments, and then use that supposed fact to argue against autocracy by comparing those states with an impractical autocratic theory. It's not working. First of all, not all states with representative governments are first world countries, and second the first world countries owe their status from the empires they inherited. The reason first world countries are often representative governments today is because the commercial elite began to displace their old aristocracy hundreds of years ago, and commercial elites tend to favor representative governments.

Keep in mind that I am not proposing an autocracy as the best government. I am only defending it from the bull shit arguments against it. I personally do not believe that any one government presently developed is the best for everyone, but rather the best government depends on the circumstances of a particular state. Furthermore, politics is driven by power. You can't look at it as representative governments are good because politicians are elected and responsible to the people, while autocrats are not and it therefore takes a morally exemplary autocrat to restrain him/her self from raping the state. That is just propaganda made up by the commercial elite.

For me, I do not care whether the rulers are plutocrats or military dictators. I don't expect them to be morally exemplary. I only ask them to be rational and stewards of their state. Unlike America today, where the elite are becoming increasingly short-sighted and influenced by irrational lobbies.

[Ballpark]

There are a couple of States which are quite interesting: Singapore which some view as a defacto one party state and power was originally passed from father to son. The general view would be that the Singapore government is generally benevolent and has been phenomenally successful. Then there is Fiji (which is lucky the US is giving it millions as no-one else will) with the incumbent, General Bananarama, who recently took over in just another coup and promptly curtailed the press, decimated the judiciary, clamped down on the Indian businessmen actually running the place, and is currently watching while major employers like Fiji water take their plastic bottles elsewhere.

The problem with autocratic states is that one person in charge determines the success of a whole nation... and the trouble with that is that it's easier for one person to look after themselves than several million peasants.

Singapore is crap. There is no freedom of speech or any guarentee of human rights.

But I stand by my point. Most people are sheep and need to be told what to do.
I bet a lot of things like high crime rates and social problems will be fixed if we have some form of autocratic government.

[Ballpark]

So the basic question remains reagarding the best form of government:

How should the leader(ruler) be chosen (by meritocratic appointment from the past leader, hiereditary bloodline or chosen by the people)?
How long should he stay in power?

[Architectonic]

Politics is not just about selection of leaders.

[Works]

So the basic question remains reagarding the best form of government:

How should the leader(ruler) be chosen (by meritocratic appointment from the past leader, hiereditary bloodline or chosen by the people)?
How long should he stay in power?

While we're on the subject of impossible scenarios that would work out well, I think the leader should just be chosen by god. A flock of doves or toads could descend on the anointed one.

[vSv]

I think the problem might be that this is not a democracy we're living in. When was the last time you actually voted for anything besides a person who would be the dictator you are talking about?
If we had direct democracy everyone could vote for everything that affects them, if they wanted to of course, and I'd rather have that then an autocracy.

[Reepicheep]

For all its faults, hereditary rule has one virtue: it can't be disputed, assuming heredity is known.

This would have come as a surprise to, say, the Tudors.

[starjots]

For all its faults, hereditary rule has one virtue: it can't be disputed, assuming heredity is known.


This would have come as a surprise to, say, the Tudors.

The Stuarts show another downside to hereditary rule, a string of child kings.

[Reepicheep]

The Stuarts show another downside to hereditary rule, a string of child kings.

...and let's not forget the terrible inbreeding of the Habsburgs.

[C.J.Woolf]

The Stuarts show another downside to hereditary rule, a string of child kings.


...and let's not forget the terrible inbreeding of the Habsburgs.

Which goes to show the lengths to which people will go to avoid civil war and other succession crises.

[Reepicheep]

Which goes to show the lengths to which people will go to avoid civil war and other succession crises.

If you're proposing that multiple generations of uncle-neice marriages were arranged solely for the purpose of avoiding civil war, I'm afraid you're going to have to show me how you connected the dots on that one. Myself, I attributed it to 1) rampant snobbery, 2) political interests trumping family interests, and 3) a woeful ignorance of the dangers of inbreeding.

[starjots]

Which goes to show the lengths to which people will go to avoid civil war and other succession crises.

If you're proposing that multiple generations of uncle-neice marriages were arranged solely for the purpose of avoiding civil war, I'm afraid you're going to have to show me how you connected the dots on that one. Myself, I attributed it to 1) rampant snobbery, 2) political interests trumping family interests, and 3) a woeful ignorance of the dangers of inbreeding.

I think both views are valid and are two sides of a coin.

The rulers in the Middle Ages were quite rational. The shadow cast by the Roman Empire had to influence their thinking. Why did such a great power disintegrate? Roman history details countless civil wars, purges and instability. I believe the answer, developed over time, was the divine right of kings, and that right rested on the divine act of procreation (which nixes the adoption option).

[Reepicheep]

The rulers in the Middle Ages were quite rational. The shadow cast by the Roman Empire had to influence their thinking. Why did such a great power disintegrate? Roman history details countless civil wars, purges and instability. I believe the answer, developed over time, was the divine right of kings, and that right rested on the divine act of procreation (which nixes the adoption option).

That clearly explains the premise of the divine right of kings; but royalty can be royalty (and exercise that divine right) without being more inbred than a show-quality Irish Setter. The paternal line of succession worked just fine to maintain divine right; you could source the maternal line from among the smart girls in the aristocracy and keep the dynasty strong.