We have a Democracy and thus are wiser than you back water Dictatorship types...
Thank you steemit comments and replies for yet more inspiration for an article.
Have you ever noticed how we immediately demonize Dictatorship as a bad thing?
I asked someone a question a few minutes ago in the comments of an article by @riskdebonair titled "Asians are smarter than Westerners".
@swolesome asked a simple question "Aren't there more dictatorships in Asia versus the West?".
Something went click in my head. A mental piece fell into place.
Why are we so quick to bash a dictatorship? It is primarily because it ends up being a single person that has the ability to force us to live a certain way?
So when a couple of hundred people have the ability to force you to live a certain way is the end result for you better?
I don't think it really is. We have this delusion that the quantity of people making a decision suddenly makes it right and a good thing.
You can have a single person with such abilities that might actually be better than a large group of people. For one thing these large groups are usually eventually corrupted and plagued by cronyism.
Do you think you might have a better chance of convincing one person to change their mind, or a better chance of convincing a large group of people?
Ultimately we are being sold a magic bean that doesn't really grow a beanstalk. It wasn't magical at all. We just got conned into paying a lot of money for an ordinary bean.
Whether it is a Dictatorship, or a Democracy it still resolves down to someone having the ability to FORCE you to live a certain way.
We have this nice little bean that was given to us by a group. Better yet they convinced us it is even more magical because we got to choose who was members of that group. They generally trot a bunch of people out in front of you and say "Choose your representative" and the big part of the con we miss here is that they generally choose WHICH people are allowed to stand in front of you.
"Pick one from THIS group to represent you."
SARCASM: That sounds like a great way to best pick someone that truly represents you and your interests. END SARCASM
It is interesting that people would discuss level of intelligence based upon how many Dictatorships there are or are not. They still are people getting to tell you how you must live.
Now we've been conditioned to defend the actions of government. That is a big part of the Prussian Education System which is the model most educational systems around the world use. That was one of the things those in charge thought was an incredible asset within that system when it was discovered. It was very good at making obedient and compliant people.
If your actions do not directly OR indirectly harm another person or their property then why should anyone be able to force you to behave in a certain manner?
If you do harm someone and their property don't we already have laws to handle that without needing to create more?
Do we need to ban substances, literature, types of speech, tools, etc?
OR
Can we simply use the laws we already have for when someone is hurt, killed, their property is stolen, damaged, etc?
If a person is killed by a drunk driver do we truly need to ban alcohol and penalize everyone, or can we simply prosecute the person for murder or manslaughter?
If a person shoots another person do we need to ban guns, or should we simply prosecute the person for murder?
People should be able to do what they wish with their own bodies and property. If they do something that impacts the person or property of another in such a way that it would already be considered a crime then we can simply enforce that without creating new laws.
One of the things these groups of people that RULE us have conned us into thinking is that law must be super complicated. The over complication of law is a kind of shackle. We are unwittingly and in ignorance fastening shackles around our limbs. We are encouraging them to fortify those shackles, and lay land mines in our paths.
There is a preponderance of STUPID and unnecessary laws. The amount of new laws created every year is staggering. The dictator I'd think would be more likely to not do this as they are a LONE person. They can't keep track of all the craziness in law these days either.
That doesn't mean dictatorship is good. Yet I believe we've been conned into believing the fact a group of people can force us to do things is any better.
The end result is the same. You are forced to do certain things.
Damn it, I had written and posted a comment earlier in FF, but usually I use Chrome, and for some reason it's not here.
So the gist was that their is a tendency to trust decision making that is done for you moreso when its done by more people than one person. There is personal bias that usually conflicts with an honest appraisal of the right decision to make for all involved/affected.
I think you've seen If You Were King by Larken Rose? That illustrates one side taht is usually bad, of just one person calling the shots for all. Sure it can be good, there can be times were it's better to have the wise leader than the despotic mod rule of people who don't know what they are doing lol. But that's not how things last it seems...
The other side that is better, is when more people are involved. The i deal is unanimous decision making which requires more responsibility on the part of each individual. This maximizes out potential for freedom and autonomy. It's not something familiar to most people, since the abdication of personal responsibility though voting representatives to decide things for us is the familiar thing.
I had said a bit more, or in a different way, but I can't remember ;)
I'm glad to see you're still around. I was talking about you with someone else yesterday I think. We both had thought you had dropped off the radar. I am glad that you didn't.
My main thing here is that quantity of people does not make something better. It can be just as bad, worse, or in some case better. This is also true when it is one person.
Ultimately the idea that someone else can dictate what you are allowed and not allowed to do even with things like victimless crimes is a problem whether an individual is mandating such rules, or a group.
Indeed, I agree. It's the tendency though, a bias that favor quantity. I think I had also said something about people just tacitly accept decisions based on that bias tendency, rather that actually evaluating the decision itself for validity. Like biases do, they bypass proper thinking hehe.
I took a few weeks away as a protest to the flags. I'll try to post solutions like some want me to. Maybe something will come of it :) . I didn't see it as productive the first time since it's not an issue enough people care about. I just went back to making people aware of the flagging issue. Maybe now a solution will be more welcome just to shut me up lol. Ahh... to just stand down, go along to get along, keep the peace, then all of the changes from the flagging fuss would likely not have happened and I would not have been a target :P lol. I knew the repercussion potential beforehand as I'm familiar with what happens when immune authority is challenged, and know why so many people don't stand up to issues or stand with others. Thanks for speaking/posting on the issue.
Just to give an example for a dictator who did good things: King Sejong the Great, inventor of the Korean alphabet. I dont know much else about him, so I dont want to call him a good dictator per se.
I prefer a dictator over what you call democracy (It is still just representative parlamentarism). With a dictator in power you at least know who rules you, with democracy you have to guess, many would say it is currently Rothschild.
And another reason is that too many cooks spoil the broth especially in politics. All these laws are a testimony to that.
I need to do some research and thinking before I can come up with a solid alternative to dictatorship and parlamentarism. But we circled around this topic for so long I think I have to.
What about WMDs though? Especially A-bombs.
Well I can't argue that there IS a good reason for WMDs. Not a single one.
A-Bombs... perhaps to blow up an approaching asteroid though that is unlikely too..
The tech used to make WMDs can have a purpose but WMDs I believe have no POSITIVE reason for existing.
So there is a "tool" you would like to ban? :3
I know this is quite nitpicky, but it goes to show that there are things that oppose the Libertarian/Anarcho doctrine. It is a great approach to many things, but it has limits.
I don't believe bans are truly effective. It just creates a black market, and criminal enterprises. It builds powerful empires of crime that then go on to influence our governments.
So dealing with WMDs is a tough one. It isn't a problem really with anarchists as there really would be no reason for them to exist. WMDs tend to be tools used between governments. :)
I hadn't seen the quote from Murray Rothbard before.
That adds a new perspective on some posts from @kafkaanarchy84
Well If you lived under a dictatorship you could argue that, but the receiving will be a gun. Or you wouldn't simply have the luxury to have this thoughts. Because you probably wouldn't be educated to think something different to what the government says.
Democracy is better because it allows you to choose and differ freely with what has been chosen. But democracy is only as good as the education behind it. And I didn't say that, Plato did
Only if you follow the rules the REPRESENTATIVES pass down.
Ultimately it is the same. I'd also say it is potentially easier to root out a corrupt dictator (one target) than to try to root out the corruption in a group.
I really do not see a distinction. I see just as many horrors being committed in the world whether by the whims of a Dictator or the whims of a Democracy.
To be fair, there are problems in democracies that need to be fixed. But that is a long shot to being robbed and killed by your own country soldiers and police, in the middle of the day, in full view of cameras and being recorded. Knowing that the state of law is non-existent (or only available to the cronies for their own protection) is what makes a dictatorship a terrible place to live. And it's what I differ with your post.
Some dictatorships. The problem is that people have been conditioned to believe Dictatorships are ALWAYS one way, which is essentially what you described.
Yet historically that is not the case. It is OFTEN the case, but not always.
In the U.S. they just throw you into prison so you are out of sight and make you work on products and services they then resell. Slavery in disguise. If you resist being thrown into prison they'll shoot you.
We have tons of people in prison for crimes where there was no victim.
Please do give an example of benevolent dictatorships.
And believing they go one way is because:
And that in consequence brings economic chaos, lack of financial stability and lack of security (personal,financial political).
I can't dispute this as EVERYONE dies. :)
I will say that you did hit upon what I think is the only solution to most of the world problems including this one.
That is education.
I truly believe that is the key to most problems. Yet I also see what is being pushed as education and that actually increases the problems.
The Prussian Education System is great for some things, especially blind obedience. It is absolutely horrible for other things.
And Yeah, education is the key:
The funny thing is whether Democracy or Dictatorship they all for the most part are using the Prussion Education System. Check out its history when you get a chance. It is interesting the things they praised as GOOD things.
There are exceptions. Finland has a pretty amazing education system right now (I believe one of the best in the world) and it doesn't seem to follow the Prussian model at all.
funfact: The Finland model is (better was) based on the model of the former GDR, not exactly a democracy - and which of course, being on the same area as Prussia, got quite a bit from the school system there.
They improved it in a big way in the 90s (first step in 1989, when the GDR fell, history is funny) and are constantly re-evaluating it instead of the changing politicians decide what will be done.
In Finland everyone gets the same chances (which does not mean the same teaching, quite contrary) and that shows in the simple fact that there is only a very small difference between the social classes in school results.
Fucking damn Socialists!
One very important difference e.g. to Germany is that they wanna-be teachers get exhaustively tested on their pedagogical qualifications instead of getting just a few words on it in their whole learning of the job.
Yeah Finland is right on point with their education system.
And trues the Prussian model is what they use. That is the point I was trying to get across in my other post though, sorry If I couldn't explain myself properly
Very well written. I enjoy these kind of dissections of ideas. Followed. Dictatorships may be the wrong term I rally against. I would say any form of excessively authoritative government. North Korea according to refugees will execute citizens that make unauthorized international calls.
We can talk about being mislead but we can't even execute the worst of our criminals here on the US unless they go through years of appeals.
But I also would like to add I do not trust any government. Especially my own. I just feel our democratic republic is better than any other authoritative dictatorships some of which do not elect their leaders but have it as a birthright.
I am glad I have given you ideas. It makes me feel useful :)
Your reasoning is interesting ... dictatorship is definitely evil. Freedom is a very great value.
Ever heard of a benevolent dictator. People only consider it evil if the dictator is pushing for evil things. Yet that does not have to be always the case.
And again I ask?
How is one person being able to force you to do something worse than a group of people being able to force you to do something?
The end result is the same. The group can be just as evil. In fact, I'd argue that replacing ONE evil person might be easier than trying to purge evil out of a group.
It is also something you do not have if other people can FORCE you to do things.
For a long time I do not remember such, that someone forced me) always it is possible to rise and leave ...
That is the claim. Yet it ultimately is unrealistic. Seriously think about it.
Can you choose not to pay taxes and still live where you are without being fined, thrown into prison, etc?
That is coercive force.
It may not seem obvious because it is what we live with. It is also unrealistic, because everywhere on the planet is doing that through governments. That is only one form.
So you can get up and leave to go somewhere that is doing the same thing. :)
Government is FORCE. That is really the only reason they exist. To force people to follow their rules. If you do not follow their rules that is a crime, and different governments deal with crime in different ways.
Yet rise and leave just moves you from one government to another. Most of them also have a central bank (I believe only 3 countries on the planet now do not) so you also have the FORCED way that the central banks expect you to do things, and again it doesn't matter where you leave to go to. It is still there too.
In my country, once upon a time, people who did not agree with the government went to live in the taiga in the hermitages ... apparently they were my ancestors)))
Yes, there were times in the past where you did have such options. That hasn't been the case for some time. Every inch of the planet is owned by some government or at least subject to governmental treaties.
Perhaps you are in something right)
No, dictatorship is not necessary evil. And democracy is not necessary good.
Why should it be?
I did not understand, what you wanted to say, forgive me, English is not my native language.
You stated that dictatorship is evil.
But is that true? Or is that just a description of a structure without morals?
Because what is good and what is bad can be defined differently. And a dictatorship does not have to be evil. It is very likely, but not necessary.
Being ruled by one or being ruled by many. There really isn't that much of a difference to the individual.
Exactly this. Yet they try to convince us that one is good, and the other is bad.
The point in a democracy is not the rule of many. It is the involvement of the many in the choosing what rule is enacted.
The more people are influentially involved, the more "civil" the rules get.
In both dictatorship and democracy the people who are not influential do not decide the policies and such are frequently not included in the positive things.
That is for example the reason why refugees and homeless are frequently overlooked in policies (that would benefit them). They either have no influence or are a so minor group it would be too costly to include them.
In a way that is also true for children. Politics never aims to benefit children. It only aims to benefit parents (if saying "I love children sooo much!!" is not enough) because they can vote.
And that is also the reason why farmers are a very influential group in certain countries. Because they are not only naturally important (food) but they are also a very homogeneous, basically single-issue group.
Dole out big money on farmers and you have 2-5% of the electorate or even more. There is no other group that is so "effective".
Nearly everything else has more people you have to spend money on (which gets questioned, money for farmers seldom gets questioned) or the money also benefits your rival's supporters.
Well constructed article. For all intents and purposes, Gaddafi had Libya rolling pretty good. The state gave you money and land at marriage. Free education and utilities. etc - Yet the West calls him a ruthless dictator and murders him. I imagine being the leader of a tribal state, with many factions, you better have a little ruthlessness in you or you won't last long.
Yep and we killed Gaddafi and within a week or two they opened a Central Bank. Interesting how it was one of the few nations left not CONTROLLED by a Central Bank which is basically the same people controlling ALL countries and unelected at that.
Though as I illustrated election is generally just a shell game and con anyway.
There is a troubling development: a dysfunctional system is given a beautiful name and suddenly, the beautiful name is associated with something bad.
The dictatorship of a majority over the few, the dictatorship of two parties over the people, the dictatorship of an elite-owned mass media in collusion with the ruling oligarchy – all this is NOT democracy; even though we may have been led to believe that by calling the systems in the western world "democratic". They are not.
"demos" is the people, an older translation even is the village. Democracy, in its literal translation, is the rule of the people over themselves, the rule of each village over itself. In a sense, democracy is indistinguishable from an-archy, the absence of a ruler or a ruling class.
I wish we wouldn't let the current rulers hijack the beautiful words of the dreams of freedom and autonomy our forefathers and -thinkers sketched.
Word hijacking is the mode of operation for propaganda. It happens frequently. :) I do believe you likely have a point. Yet the form of Democracy I am writing about is the form that Democracy (hijacked though it is) has taken for a century or two. So it is likely what people will think of with the word. The original version of which Socrates was not a fan of himself is not what anyone is really proposing in governments when they are recommending Democracy.
Technically we are also a Democratic republic, but even the original is very much at the whims and experience levels of the electorate. Majority rule when the majority are voting on something they have no experience with is not a good thing.
I resteemed a post that shared more on the Socrates angle.
I have seen this increasingly often in the last years; at first, I was surprised that people considered themselves anti-democratic until I understood they were talking about the rule of majority, or "democratic" as opposed to "republic". It makes me sad to see this beautiful word, and the ideas originally associated with it, used to describe the unjust and tyrannical systems we live in today. The problem runs deeper; if we allow our words to be taken from us, we become speechless. When we become speechless, we lose the only power we have; just as when people associate "anarchy" (the absence of a ruler) with "anomie" (the absence of rules).
I think I saw it. It was great, and each point was valid, but also calls "representative parliamentarism" by the name of "democracy", as @thegermandude pointed out. But instead of c&ping my nitpick there, I'll simply make a post :)
Shoot me a reply to it here with a link when you are done if you don't mind. It doesn't sound like one I'd like to accidentally miss with the level of activity on here these days.
Great article!!