• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would having a dictator better for the U.S.?

M

mikegg

Platinum Member
It seems like our government can't get anything done. When they do, it usually takes them months if not years. Since there are so many people involved, it's easy to bribe just a single person.

I was thinking, is having a single dictator, in our situation, be better for us? The dictator can demand redistribution of wealth from the 1% and the bankers (who have been stealing from us with every economic collapse) without asking everyone for permission. He/she can demand much needed changes that otherwise would be impossible to pass through in our current system.

Let's assume the all important point that the dictator is not corrupt.

Your thoughts?
 
Right now money has all the power so it wouldn't matter who was in power of the gov.

Redistributing wealth wouldn't automatically fix the problems (the rich and their needed capital for development would leave, like France) fixing the banking market through dubious means would just cause no one to lend us money if they thought our markets were rigged and unfair, such as in the case in Argentina.
 
OP simply wants a dictator that will dictate his political beliefs. Sure, not a problem when you agree with every move the dictator does, but what if he starts doing things you don't agree with? And you assume this supposed dictator knows everything that needs to be done, that he will make no mistakes in changing policy. That is a fantasy.

This 'dictator' is simply a transparent proxy for the OP's political beliefs, testing the waters with them as it is.
 
Yeah. Stalin would fit the bill.

He took a backwater place, industrialized the fuck out of it, put a damper on jesus, and made it into a super power. The deep south could use some of that.

Lots of sluggish schizophrenics in the US that need mental help, also. They're holding america back.

Oh.. and the US govn't needs the living fuck purged out of it.
Stalin is good at that too. :awe:
 
senttoschool said:
It seems like our government can't get anything done. When they do, it usually takes them months if not years. Since there are so many people involved, it's easy to bribe just a single person.

I was thinking, is having a single dictator, in our situation, be better for us? The dictator can demand redistribution of wealth from the 1% and the bankers (who have been stealing from us with every economic collapse) without asking everyone for permission. He/she can demand much needed changes that otherwise would be impossible to pass through in our current system.

Let's assume the all important point that the dictator is not corrupt.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Wasn't this Anakin's argument? Just take a look at how that turned out.
 
One could make the argument that a dictatorship has the potential to be the best form of government regardless of the situation. The problem is that the humans that have found themselves in such a position didn't necessarily handle that absolute power very well.
 
A benevolent dictatorship is arguably the best political system that exists, but a bad dictatorship is the worst, and it's very hard to choose which you're going to get. Even if you start with a benevolent dictatorship, succession is a real problem.

Democracy exists only because it's more effective than revolution at getting rid of bad leaders, not because it necessarily produces more good leaders.
 
jagec said:
A benevolent dictatorship is arguably the best political system that exists, but a bad dictatorship is the worst, and it's very hard to choose which you're going to get. Even if you start with a benevolent dictatorship, succession is a real problem.

Democracy exists only because it's more effective than revolution at getting rid of bad leaders, not because it necessarily produces more good leaders.
Click to expand...

The poor in Venezuela consider Chavez a benevolent dictator. See how that's worked out for the country.
 
JoLLyRoGer said:
Yes!! And i nominate Obama!! (oh.. wait..)
Click to expand...

Has to be white like this guy.... D:

DictatorBottom.jpg


A dictator will never work here in the USA. 🙄

Is the United States a Dictatorship?
Can Obama declare an Executive Order and become a Dictator of the USA?
 
dictator is synonymous with being a king

Did you know there was a time when we were absolutely dying for George Washington to be a "Dictator" of the United States? but he turned it down because he felt the USA should never have a "king" as that was what they just fought against.
 
Only works if the dictator is benevolent and completely immune to corruption & hedonism, which disqualifies just about EVERYONE.
 
Sureshot324 said:
And how would we choose this dictator?
Click to expand...

you get 2 political parties, who basically believe in the same thing but tell the people they are completely different, to select 2 candidates every 4 years and then tell the masses to vote for one of them. You then ignore these votes and have a secret council from each state vote for the party that promises them the most pork.
 
the government shouldnt need to DO anything, aside from protect its people from foreign and domestic enemies, and resolve disputes between citizens

that aside, a wise benevolent dictator would be the most fair and efficient means of governance, but you cannot force either of those things to be true or stay true. having elections is a safeguard. better officials may end up being removed in favor of worse, but you will never get stuck in tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top