Today, it seems that not only is the latter assumed to be superior, but, with our current administration, it is actually proselytized as a form of government. Since this is the case, I think that a look at the relative merits of a republic and a dictatorship is in order.

The way that I see things, a representative democracy, or republic, has many flaws.

1) The will of the masses is very easily manipulated by those who have wealth, and their interests may be malevolent (they certainly are not guaranteed to be benevolent or neutral). Therefore, the outcome of elections is not determined by the people, because it is evident that people are led like sheep. Do you really think that it is just a coincidence that nearly everyone votes either Republican or Democrat, or do you think that perhaps, the innumerable media cues implying that one should do just that, have something to do with this phenomena? If humans were more independent, and less herd-like/lemming-like by nature, then, I maintain that the votes would be much more evenly distributed amongst all political parties, as compared to the status quo.

2) The tremendous amounts of time, effort, and wealth that go into periodic elections are wasted. Imagine using your computer to do an electronic coin flip or dice roll so as to make up your mind on what to have for dinner, every night, for instance. What is the point in going through months of campaigning, and all that that entails, to make one decision, especially when the two candidates often agree on several issues?

3) Important things are accomplished slower, or not at all, in a republic, than in a dictatorship. With a division of power, there is much "gridlock," and important, vital tasks are left unaccomplished.

4) In republics, money, and not so much the "will of the people," often times rules (see # 1), and this leads to many miscarriages of justice in which the wealthy can do whatever they please and not be punished.

5) Representative democracy is pretentious because it claims to be morally superior when in fact, if 49% of the people are correct, and 51% incorrect, then the 49% have to suffer for the foolishness of the 51%. In other words, the working premise of a republic is that a greater number of fools is more important than a lesser number of sages. Truth, prudence, and advancement are subjugated to the will of the masses.

6) In a representative democracy, intelligent people have just as much say as unintelligent people, and this leads to cynicism and lack of participation on the part of many of the former category.

7) Even if the masses are not easily persuaded by those who have wealth, and thus the loudest voice, elected officials often times are easily bribed. So once again, representative democracy is caught not being what it is claimed to be (fair and noble).

Questions for debate:

1) Which is a superior form of government, a republic, or a benevolent, competent, intelligent dictator?

2) Why?

OK, I'll bite. Here's the problem with your analysis. Note that in your question, you add some qualifiers to the dictatorship...benevolent, competent, intelligent. I'll give you the last two (if you're not intelligent and competent...how'd you get to be dictator?). But that first one, benevolent...that's a stretch. How many benevolent dictators are out there...if you're that benevolent, how'd you get to be dictator? Granted, benevolent dictorships are probably the best form of government...it removes the bureacracy and politics which get in the way of things getting done. Unfortunately, the absolute worst form of government is probably the malevolent dictatorship...and malevolent dictators are far, far more common. This is easy to see....malevolent, selfish people are far more likely to have what it takes to get to be a dictator. So, you have a fundamental problem....one type of government (dictatorship) is simultaneously the best and worst type of government possible. Further, even initially benevolent dictators could switch at any moment (absolute power corrupting absolutely)...so people who initially tolerated a benevolent dictator would suddenly be confronted by a malevolent one, with no real mechanism for removing him/her. Given that...who would want to run the risk? Most people wouldn't...dictatorships are seldom arrived at through any decision on the part of the people. Which essentially makes the question moot...if dictatorships aren't arrived at through any will or consensus of the people, what difference does it make if they're good or bad? You think <insert name of dictator of choice> would step down simply because a bunch of people decided republics were a superior form of government? Or would those same bunch of people suddenly have reason to fear for their lives?

If we are talking practically and not theoretically, a republic is definitely superior. As Hobbes points out, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This concept has yet to be proven wrong. While there are no guarantees that any form of government will be free from corruption, you are almost guaranteed to have it in a dictatorship. And I'd be more willing to deal with a form of government that would at least allow for the possibility of holding the government accountable for corruption. A dictatorship does not allow for this -- at least not in any peaceful manner.

Hobbes, you have raised excellent points. Obviously there are the problem of choosing a dictator to begin with, and also of removing him if he turns out to be malevolent. Setting aside the first problem for now, let's consider the second one.

I would favor a constitutionally limited dictator who could not, for instance, tell you when to go to bed and what to have for dinner. In the modern age, there are ample opportunities for anonymity. I would favor some sort of ingenious means that would allow the quick and painless removal of a potential malevolent dictator. One idea that I have been working on is one in which 100 (1,000, 10,000?) randomly chosen citizens, with a certain level of intelligence (or higher), clean records, etc., would be assigned user names and passwords for a top secret website in which they, after reflection, could log in an register a vote for deposal. After 1/2, or 2/3, or whatever fraction of secret citizens have registered a vote for deposal, the dictator is deposed. This could be done either by automatic means (a bomb located under his residence, when the computer knew that he was home and that no innocent people would be hurt), or by a secret Council of Elders who would have control of an independent quasi-military force, but who would have absolutely no say in any policy matters. They would simply execute the decision to depose a horrible head of state. Alternatively, the Council of Elders could decide to remove the dictator (as opposed to the random citizens) as well as execute this decision.

As for the first problem, perhaps this Council of Elders could choose a man based on intelligence, level of education, and the results of extensive moral screening. The Council of Elders would be bound by blood oaths not to choose anyone whom they have any close relation to, nor any familiarity with. Each dictator would be a total stranger to every council member. New council members would be chosen in a similar manner, albeit, based on their qualifications to be Council members, rather than a dictator.

I'd like to point out that there are two problems with this scenario:

1) The council of 100, 1,000, or 10,000 people selected to depose the dictator has the same problem that you raised as criticism of the republic - it is a division of power that slows things down.

2) The Council of Elders could be malevolent.

You must consider that in a "benevolent dictatorship" there is always someone defining what is "benevolent," and such power could corrupt the people defining the term.

Also, given that malevolent people are more inclined to seek power than benevolent people, it is possible that a malevolent person may fool the people selecting the dictator into thinking that he is benevolent, and then turn on the people.

The whole concept of benevolent dictatorship, I say, constitutes nothing but foolishness. We should not have more faith in our rulers than we have in ourselves. The incentive to make a benevolent decision comes from being affected by that decision. Dictators have no incentive to be benevolent, but they have a tremendous incentive to be malevolent.

1) Which is a superior form of government, a republic, or a benevolent, competent, intelligent dictator?

History shows that when too much power is in the hands of a few, they are more likely to abuse their powers to the detriment of the public and world. The founding fathers of the United States understood this which is why they broke up the power of government into three separate branches, each with checks and balances. They also gave the lion's share of power to the general public. The intent of giving power to the general public is based on the notion that the majority of people tend to be good people and will therefore decide and vote accordingly. This system, while not without its problems, is possibly the best, most stable, and longest lasting form of government that the human race has come up with.

Sounds like the electoral college... Only instead making a viagra commercial, the loser gets blown up.

But in all seriousness neither system is perfect. Both systems can create terrible leaders. Just look at Hitler, he was able to rise to power in a republic, he was elected dictator with 90% of the vote. At the same time governments which weren't elected like the Soviet Union were capable of evil abuses of power. Even in the good ole' USA we have the problem of hyper-pluralism where we all pull in different directions.

In the end though there is no perfect government for everyone. People, even the most intelligent and well educated, will always disagree. Some people will want tax cuts, some people will want public works. There is no right answer and a good government acknowledges that. A good government doesn't control its citizens but helps to enable them to achieve for themselves. A republic can harness that community of its citizens to work for common good and protect individual rights, at the same time. A dictatorship can only herd people like sheep. And because that benevolent sheep herder can never move the sheep where he wants them to go, he becomes a wolf, picking off those he thinks can't run fast enough. Eventually you just have a government obsessed with chasing down its own people.

Frozny:



Not at all. The logging into the secret website would take place in the background, at a rate proportional to the malevolence of the dictator in power. The faster and more thoroughly the dictator mismanages the country, the sooner he will be deposed.



Granted, but the Council of Elders would be founded at the time of the society's transition to a a new type of government, and thoroughly imbued with the ideas and intellectual spirit of the new age. In a sense, malevolence could be ruled out a priori if the Council was formed and maintained in such a way that it would always be one with the ideals of the society that it serves.



Yes, benevolence and malevolence are subjective, but one could define them in ways that compare the behavior in question to some set standard.



This leads to one of the key points: the dictator would not seek this position, but would be invited. Being done in such a way that each new dictator is tapped on the shoulder, rather than campaigning for the position, would nullify this objection. Just as Karl Dönitz was invited to be dictator, without actively seeking this position, and accepted the invitation, so too it may be done again. Hey, from a mainstream viewpoint, I don't think that anyone here will argue that his administration was that horrible, in light of his major decision.



We should have more faith in the wise than in the foolish.



I disagree. Men who have the best interests of their people in mind will have a tremendous incentive to be benevolent. Good people do exist, you know.

deerjerkydave:



The general public has the lion's share of the power in so far as its members can think for themselves (assuming that our constitutional government really runs 100% the way that it is supposed to be run according to paper). Yes, the votes may be the immediate cause of who wins, and so yes, the masses do lead, but they lead at the behest of those who control their thinking, which are those who have the wealth to have the loudest voices.



Most people may be good people, but the average person, in my opinion, is not that intelligent, not that profound, not that interested in things not completely inside the sphere of his or her daily life, and not that independent in his or her thinking.



With all due respect, there could be other forms of government that were not given a chance to prove themselves because they were toppled by external powers.

Rancid Uncle



As a non-partisan, I can certainly appreciate your humor.



I'm afraid I do not understand your point. Would you please clarify?



I agree with both statements, particularly the latter one, and I think that it sums up one of the most important reasons why the U.S.A. is failing.



This brings me to a very important point, one that I have not disclosed yet. I maintain that in politics, there is objective truth. Consider the following.

Remember high school geometry? You start with some basic, commonsense assumptions (postulates), and from those assumptions, build an internally consistent, highly rigorous logical system of theorems, lemmas, corollaries, etc. With human life, we can propose some postulates. Let's say that the purpose of human life is to prosper and advance. These are straightforward goals that have little or no room for subjective interpretation, and yet, are postulates that I'd think most people would agree on. Now here is the million dollar point: in any given situation (time and place, etc.), there exists a best path (barring ties) on which society can move toward the achievement of these meaning-of-life postulates, and the measure of a good leader (or leaders), is how close he/she/they come to this path (if not dead smack on it).

Imagine elementary school children voting on what three times seven equals. That is why representative democracy is so absurd. Looking at it from the framework just disclosed, there is one right answer, and varying degrees of wrong answers. In light of this, why should we vote? Is there not one truth (as in the best path toward the meaning-of-life postulates)?

I for one strongly support the idea of a dictatorship. However, as with the original question, I too have to qualify my concept of dictatorship. In my case, I have only one qualifier, that I be the dictator.


1) Which is a superior form of government, a republic, or a benevolent, competent, intelligent dictator?

2) Why?


All joking aside, lets consider the reality of dictatorship. Can anyone name one country, run by a dictatorship, in the modern world, that is both economically successful (as in at least the people are not starving) and not oppressive to it's citizens? I for one, cannot.

The Representative Republic is the best form of government. It gives the citizenship a say in their government by electing their representatives, and also allows for quick action by the government by not requiring every issue to be addressed by public referendum (which is a very slow process).

The problem with our country and it's Representative Republic these days is not the form of government, or even the representatives. The problem is caused by the people. Many in this country who regularly vote have become so rabidly partisan (by the design of both major parties IMHO) that they would sooner vote for a bad candidate from their own party then vote for a good candidate from the opposing party. This is because they are convinced (wrongly) that if the other side gains power, the world will come crashing to an end.

But the Partisan Sheep are not the only problem. Many in this country look at the government, and do not like what it is doing. They complain, rant, rave, etc. But when election day comes around, they would rather watch I love Lucy re-runs then goto the polls. You cannot resolve an issue if you refuse to use the tools available to create a resolution.

To effect change in this country we need to combat partisanship. People need to understand that the only way to get representatives to listen to them and address their needs is to vote out the representatives that will not support their views, or simply will not act, regardless of the party they belong to. Which is better, a government run by your party, where the representatives do nothing and ignore your issues, or a government run by members of both parties where the representatives seek to resolve your issues because failure to do so will mean they loose their job in the next election?

For the people to take back the government, they must first start thinking of themselves as individuals and not just party members. Futhermore, those who have chosen to sit out previous elections must step up and vote.

The situation in our government is not the product of Republican control. We have suffered many of the same problems under previous years of Democratic control. The problem is the American People's failure to vote for the individual that they feel will best serve their needs, without limiting their choices to just one party or another.

Most Importantly we MUST be willing to vote out bad politicians even if they belong to the party we support. Failure to do so effectively creates a consequence free environment for politicians. They might as well be dictators, if we allow then to do whatever they want without holding them accountable.

That sounds like a Republic to me.



So who gets to decide who is wise and who is foolish? Why, we do!

I maintain that the wisest master of a person's life is that person himself.



Who sets the standards? Answer: ruling elites of some sort.

No matter how thickly you layer your system in hierarchies, there will always be someone excercising some power of whim to bring malevolence into the system.

So far, it seems that you are advocating a sort of meritocracy in that you believe that there is someone out there who is benevolent and thus deserves to rule. The reality is that no one deserves to rule. Deserve implies justice - justice implies ethics - rulership is unethical.

Nobody is benevolent enough to justly claim mastery over another's life.

The form of government far superior to others would have to be a competent dictatorship.




Imagine one person calling all the shots. It would eliminate discussion and promote action. We would not have to worry about a representative government's official's preening on the camera for their supporters and bank-rollers.

There would be no political scheming because one person in the driver's seat it would eliminate the need for discussion. While people are dying from starvation a representative form of government is discussing an embargo on cabbage from some remote nation. Action should be taken in situations where discussion causes more peril, a competent dictatorship can do that.

Imagine one person controlling the banks and finances of one country. We wouldn't have crooks and thieves getting rich off of the labor of their countrymen. There would be one central leader operating and directing funds for the good of the country without having to clear it through committee. Misplaced funds would not be wasted on a pet project of a Congress person where suffering could be reduced under the direction of one person.

All decisions do not require approval from many people, all it takes is one level-headed person to push a decision through their own head to do good. Good decisions are not based on the number of people in the nation's government. Good decisions are based on the ramifications of the action behind the decision. One person can make good decisions just as easily, and more quickly, than a body of delegates.

1) Which is a superior form of government, a republic, or a benevolent, competent, intelligent dictator?

2) Why?

A benevolent, competent, intelligent dictator is superior to a typical republic. However, I must point out that in all of human history, we have not had a single case of a benevolent, competent, intelligent dictator. Marcus Aurelius was benevolent, competent, and intelligent, but I don't think his government was superior to our own. Henry VIII started off, believe it or not, as a BCI dictator, raising the hopes of intellectuals, but gee, power corrupts and Henry VIII ended up as not very BCI. Charles XII of Sweden was impressive, but he ended up bankrupting Sweden in wars. Whom else can we cite as a BCI dictator? Atahualpa? Ivan the Terrible? Vlad the Impaler?

1) Which is a superior form of government, a republic, or a benevolent, competent, intelligent dictator?
2) Why?

Theoretically, a benevolent, competent dictator could be better than a republic for all the reasons already outlined.

However, all humans are fallible. A dictator might be flawlessly competent and benevolent for a period of time, then lose his or her touch. Or, maybe they might only be benevolent or competent some of the time, or only in some areas of policy.

To mitigate the damage that could be caused by the natural tendency of all humans to make mistakes occasionally, our BCI dictator (thanks for the shorthand, Erasmussimo ) has to have people around them to advise, or even take decisions, on policy areas where they are not themselves expert, and to challenge their thinking on areas where they are expert to ensure that their levels of benevolence and competence are optimised. So you start to have something that looks more like government than simple dictatorship.

And, because BCID might get sick, or just tired or worn out - for the moment setting aside the real possibility that they may stop being benevolent or competent at some stage - our notional dictator would need to be benevolent enough at the outset to set up some kind of apparatus that would act in the interests of the people they had sworn to act in the best interest of on the day of the coup, and arrange for the ordered replacement of our off-the-boil, sick (or corrupted) dictator at the earliest opportunity. Maybe by limited terms of office with periodic polls of the people themselves to gauge what their best interests are. Which starts to look more like democratic elections than simple dictatorship.

So I'd have to say that, of the two alternatives on offer here (I'll assume for now that no particular slight is intended against parliamentary democracy by not including it as an option, as that's probably best discussed in another thread), a BCID might be theoretically preferable, but practical delivery of it that does not allow for simple fallibility (let alone malice) creeping in later on would not be.

A republic is the lesser option in principle, but the only pragmatically workable one, given what we know about human nature.

Except that everyone seems to be comparing a theoretically perfect dictator with the grim reality of a republic!

If you want to do this analysis properly, you need to compare either:

a.) a theoretically perfect benevolent dictator with a theoretically perfect republic

or

b.) a real-life benevolent dictator with a real-life republic.


Now, picking a 'benevolent' dictator from the real world is suprisingly tricky because - on some level or other, every single unelected government out there tramples on 'someones' human rights in order to stay in power...even 'nice' guys like Musharaff (Dictator of Pakistan). So, on balance, I would say that a republic is more likely to respect human rights than a dictator, because a republic absolutely HAS to in order to be re-elected, whereas a dictator - well he doesn't have that constraint.

So then in the theoretical world - well, they're both perfect, so you're choosing between two ideals. The decisions they make are going to be perfect, so really, the question becomes ' ceteris paribus is a government that people have chosen better than one they haven't'

Duh....

And if the debate really is comparing a real world republic to an idealised benevolent dictator, then fair enough, you might as well ask 'would the world be better or worse if God ruled it directly (the ideal benevolent dictator!) or we were able to elect imperfect governments.....'

On paper, a BCI dictatorship is the best route to go, but of course, how many of those have we had? The closest i can think of was Ivan the III of Russia (Ivan the Great), or even Benito Mussolini. People discount Benito because he did join the Axis, and he invaded Ethiopia.

But really, he got that country back on track, lowered crime, brought back the economy, and he wasn't really looking for trouble. In all realness, you can't even blame Benito for invading Ethiopia, as taking over Africa as colonies was the in thing to do back then (ok, so he was a little late on the age of imperialism...but if England and France and the rest of Europe can do it, then do it). Also, remember that Mussolini was pulled into the war by Hitler, as he was scared that his country may fall to the Nazis if he did not side with them.

Benito Mussolini is a good person.

I'd like to add here a little point - there is no such thing as a benevolent ruler. By definition, a ruler is someone who interferes with liberty. To interfere with liberty is to interfere with the right to pursue happiness, which is malevolent.

Benevolent people help people. They do not rule people. Rulership, or agressive force, is the means of evil.

I'd like to challenge your source for claiming there is no such thing as a benevolent ruler. Benevolence, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The general population of Venezuela views their leader as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They find him to reap enormous rewards to the nation. However on the flip-side of the coin America views him as a harsh, tyrannical dictator who despises us. There is no basis to claim in some people's mind there is not a pre-determined mindset for benevolence.

A ruler in the right circumstances can benefit the country hugely, a ruler is a guide to the path to liberty. A leader is not there to impede someone's personal right to liberty or freedom, they are there to ensure that that right is preserved in a dignified fashion.

Granted, an individual would probably regard a ruler as benevolent if the ruler agreed with him as how to go about pursuing happiness - that is, a ruler who would force him to live as he intended to live anyway. But if two people agree all the time, one of them is unnecessary - in this case, it is the ruler. A benevolent ruler is an unnecessary ruler.



Do you know that under dictatorships, criticism of the dictator is suppressed, and the people are forced to praise their ruler? You don't know that the Venezuelans really think their dictator is so great.



Marxist poppycock. Dictatorships do not "wither away" to liberty - dictatorships are self-perpetuating.



A leader is distinguished from a ruler. Rulers use aggressive force - leaders are simply followed. Leaders are not necessarily rulers.

A person or group who defends liberty cannot be called a ruler.

Not entirely. It shows that if the ruler/follower always agreed the ruler was doing something right. Just because I do not agree with the current president is grounds to keep him in office; just because I agree with the current president is not grounds to eliminate him either. Rulers and leaders are not unnecessary. You seem to be fostering anarchy vs. dictatorship scenario. Anarchy itself is unnecessary- I have not yet been given a single case when a system lasted under anarchy. The least dictatorships can say is that they have managed to keep things up and running effectively.




General knowledge. However you seem to forget resistance factions form and often word reaches American soil that there is a group ready to snap. We have praise and scorn for the president everyday, the fact that some nations are forced by law to praise their ruler is not grounds to stereotype all dictatorships. All dictatorships are not as iron-fisted as you may think. China is not quite as bad as some other nations you or I could name.




Based on information I have either read or watched on the evening news the rural countrymen of Venezuela have supported their ruler because he is "a friend to the poor" and blames America for all the problems of the world by calling America "the Devil." As a matter of fact he employees visual aid's when talking about the American Devil, when watching one of the ruler's speeches about stepping up their defense system I could not find an unhappy face, and the report said all people there were there because they love their ruler: not because they were forced into drinking the kool-aide.




Not all liberty is universal. What is liberty to you or I may be different from another nations. We are born into American liberty. Other nations must work for or have different liberties.




When last I looked these titles were synonymous with each other. Rulers and leaders both pass down judgment and decide what is best for his/her followers. Aggressive force is not the disguising feature of a ruler. Being followed is not the defining attribute to a leader. You seem to be adopting that anarchy system of government: what you fail to understand is war is an adoptive trait of anarchy. Lives are lost, blood is spilled, and people die because of anarchy. People who comply at least to even the most hostile of dictatorships are allowed to live (unless of course you are a member of the wrong ethnic group). All leaders are rulers, all rulers are leaders, all people are themselves rulers and leaders. It is the responsibility of the individual to decide if they will be subject to your stereotyped ruler's harsh environment, if they do not wish to be they have several alternatives: run, fight or die.




On what grounds is the title ruler exclusive to malevolent regimes and hostile leaders?

Straw man - that is not remotely what I said. Let me simplify it for you:

Suppose there was a ruler who ordered every individual to live in a manner that the individual intended to live in anyway. The people would regard him as a benevolent ruler. However, if he were removed, the people would still go about living as they intended anyway. The society would be the same whether or not the benevolent ruler had power.



Anarchist communities have existed and remained stable during the Spanish Civil War - it took nothing less than mass murder from the Communist government to destroy them.




Oh, I know that. In fact, I hear that in the dictatorships they only have 1 less political party than we do. If these rumors are true, then it can't be much worse than we have it here.



If the speech was attended voluntarily, then of course the people who loved the ruler flocked there. And remember, dictators can brainwash the people, shower them with propaganda, and use countless coercive tools to make the people "love" them.




Not true. Voluntary groups may have leaders, but they never have rulers. For example, Howard Dean is the leader of the Democratic Party, but he is not the ruler of it. A ruler is a special type of leader - one who forces people to follow him.



Anarchy is not what you think it is. You confuse it with nihilism. An anarchist would never sanction such violent acts - in fact, it is a principle of anarchy that no one should violate the rights of another. Even anarchist communities have a way to retaliate against violent crimes - it is called the local defense association.



When did I say that?