We should already be talking about what it would be like, if Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, to live under a developing autocracy. Beyond the publicized plans of those around him to gut the
Honest question for everyone. And try to think about it honestly and not just regurgitate what society tells you to think:
Would you prefer to live in an authoritarian regime if your ideology was 100% the rules in force?
For example if Bernie became dictator. Universal healthcare. Taxes fairly. Free or severely reduced pricing education. Abortion and lgtbq protections enshrined forever. Affordable housing and rent. Higher wages. Infrastructure. Public transit. A yearly knit mitten stipend per household. Etc.
If you like that, and the candidate got it and then could just make it happen. Immediately and without decades of “negotiations” and lobbying and pork projects etc. Just decree that there is universal healthcare in 6 months time, no way to oppose it. Would you the democratic voter be against that?
Personally, I believe most people would enjoy living in an autocracy of their beliefs. In order to not sound like a sociopath you have to pretend to want to let the Bobert and MTG Trump voters have their fair say. But their fair say is the opposite of everything you want.
Now if you got 90% of what you want and 10% bullshit you disagree with, still a good deal? 75%. 55%?
Under the current system do you think you’re getting the same percentage of what you want?
Your question avoids the biggest issue with that sort of dictatorship - the fact that it replaces peaceful electoral competition for power with force, that can as easily result in chaos and civil war as a stable dictatorship.
With that off the table, the big issue is that kind of benevolent dictatorship has a tendency to start off strong and then decay as the original ruling clique who actually had some ideals die off and are replaced by their subordinates who got into working in an autocratic government for the power. Too bad Bernie is so old, we wouldn’t get that many years of him on top. Not worth it in the long run even if you do get some policy benefits in the short run. Unless you think the odds of Trump becoming a dictator instead are high enough that it’s better to take a chance on a better dictator, which is the kind of calculation that results in the civil wars and such I mentioned above.
Just calling out Bernie as a random example of someone with known policies. Trump by that same metric is also near death, probably more so than Bernie.
Not talking about what comes next. But what comes now. Of course human nature is to be greedy and start off nice and turn evil. But that’s not always true of dictatorships because generally a family has some checks and balances of their own, or there’s a coup and it swaps. But the question is really just do you want to live under authoritarianism of what you believe in, or democracy where half the people want the opposite of what you want.
I like democracy because it tends to produce more of the results that I like than authoritarianism. A dictatorship that sustainably produces better results than democracy would by definition be better, but from what I can tell that’s not possible.
But the question is really just do you want to live under authoritarianism of what you believe in, or democracy where half the people want the opposite of what you want.
Neither. I want to live under a democracy where there’s a real social safety net, and where there’s no financial interest in spreading misinformation and platforming rage, so that the breadth of opinions diffuses back into a more stable configuration (and away from the fringes) such that half the people (probably less) don’t want the opposite of what I want anymore, they just prefer slightly different paths of attaining the same goal.
But that has a basis in authoritarianism. You want a social safety net. Small government people, that make up half the US, do not. You want a cap on political spending, and maybe even censorship (disallowing misinformation media), and many do not.
You want a country made up of people almost all like you with small differences in day to day governance but no differences in the big ticket items. Is that achievable in a democratic Republic or parliamentary system in a modern global age? I don’t think it is.
Oh, please, tell me more about what I want. PLEASE do.
You want a social safety net. Small government people, that make up half the US,
[citation needed]
do not.
Actually they do, they’ve just been told a lie since the 1980s that “social safety net” = “socialism,” and that “socialism” = “totalitarianism.” But that was entirely invented to justify the Cold War, and has essentially no basis in reality. And in reality, it was bipartisan: Republicans Reagan and Nixon signed EITC, WIC, and SSI into law in the 1970s. Democrat LBJ pushed the “Great Society” programs of the 1960s. FDR’s “New Deal” was an unbelievably popular governmental program in the late 1930s, and it was a social safety net.
So a social safety net is incredibly popular, but you’re a rich guy who wants that money going to you instead. What do you do?
Associate that social safety net with the country’s greatest enemy. Come up with the idea of “trickle-down economics” and buy a news corporation to sell the idea to the masses.
Boom, easy-peasy, now the money is coming to you. But wait, there are people who don’t buy it and still want the “New Deal.” So what do you do? Get them all arguing about how to implement a social safety net. Blow legitimate concerns way out of proportion and make everyone scream at each other.
Works every time. Now it’s not popular anymore because all people can hear is the shouting.
You want a cap on political spending,
As of 2015, 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats favor overturning “Citizens United” constitutionally. Over 77% of Americans agree that there should be some sort of campaign finance reform limiting the amount of money individuals or groups can spend on campaigns. 83% of Americans agree that political contributions should be disclosed. Campaign finance reform is a remarkably unifying and bipartisan idea.
and maybe even censorship (disallowing misinformation media), and many do not.
Making an argument in bad faith? That’s a paddlin’. I didn’t say I wanted to “censor” misinformation (though I do think that more money should be spent on media literacy). I said I wanted to remove the financial interest in spreading it; and campaign finance would go a long way toward that.
You want a country made up of people almost all like you with small differences in day to day governance but no differences in the big ticket items.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? I never said that, and I never thought that. No! Stop arguing in bad faith.
Is that achievable in a democratic Republic or parliamentary system in a modern global age? I don’t think it is.
Is a monoculture of people exactly like me achievable? Good lord I hope not. That sounds awful. But is it possible to get money out of politics to the point where our country can recover and get away from the walls? Probably not entirely, but I think we can do a whole lot better than we currently are.
An authoritarian regime putting my ideology into force would be self-dismantling, which is probably a contradiction in terms.
Personally, I’m not just concerned with some set of policies, but the process by which policy changes occur. I don’t want to see society hit some point of improvement and stop, I want to see continuous improvement. A dictatorship will inevitably regress when it no longer has a benevolent dictator, which really isn’t compatible with my goals for how society should be ordered, or how power should be distributed.
The reason people are terrified of an authoritarian regime isn’t because a dictator Republican is going to force lower taxes on people. It’s because of the state and private violence. I may have hated Reagan and W because of their policies, but neither of them would have tried to overthrow the government of the US and replace it with a dictatorship. If either of them lost their election, they would have conceded. Neither of them promised while running for office that they would enact a dictatorship.
The problem with your question is that you’re assuming that what we have an issue with are republican policies. It’s true, we do. That’s not the biggest problem with Trump, though, and the linked article makes that quite clear.
To be honest, I wish Obama had been more successful in passing a national healthcare program. I hated that he had campaigned for Lieberman (because the default position is to support the incumbent) rather than his from-the-left challenger in the primaries, and that L went on to tank the public option. But I wish that Obama had used every ounce of political power to ram it through, or had thrown L to the dogs and went all in on getting a more liberal senate. I don’t wish Obama had dictatorial power.
I don’t even particularly favor having an executive branch that’s separate from the legislature. I think that parliamentary democracy is a better approach (although it has its issues too).
The policies are independent of the question. Insert your own policies to answer the question truthfully.
Current US democracy allowed for a (failed) armed insurrection of the government. And current US democracy is allowing that failed coup leader to run again just like Germany 100 years ago. It’s pretty obvious that democracy does not offer such protections. It requires the populous to not be idiots assuming everything else works properly.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’s honest. I know you have to say that because you have to believe in all people having valid opinions and equality and so on. But deep down, I’m not sure you even believe it based on what you said.
If Obama had authoritarian abilities or was able to be a dictator for just one day like Trump wants to be, and he rammed healthcare out the system, I think you’d view that as a net positive.
In a world where 30% of your fellow countryman hate you (doesn’t matter which side, it’s about that) and another 10% strongly believe things polar opposite to what you believe, I fail to see how anyone that is honest with themselves would say they prefer a democracy (Republic or parliamentary or even absolute) unless they were absolutely sure that they would win the vote and could get their policies passed. And all that is, is authoritarianism with extra steps.
I ask the question because I’m curious what people think nowadays. The gut response is always democracy is sacred. That’s what you’re taught to believe.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not a new idea. What you’re proposing is (as far as I can see) the Platonic philosopher-king. They would rule fairly and wisely - since they agree with me and I am fair and wise.
But let’s make sure we are being fair here. It’s not “democracy” that allowed for an armed insurrection against the government. Armed insurrections against governments occur in totalitarian regimes all the time. I can recommend a 400 page biography of Che if you want a reference. British democracy allowed the IRA. Iranian dictatorship allowed for the Islamic revolution. There are multiple civil wars going on right now around the world under multiple systems of government.
I absolutely don’t believe that all people have equally valid opinions. I don’t even believe that people have free will. I agree with Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky that everything people do is predetermined. I’ve gotten very deep into that in other conversations on here so I don’t want to repeat all of that, but I can say that democracy allows for more dynamic adaptation. My position on free will makes these discussions more nuanced - human behavior is determined but not predictable - so I prefer to think of it in terms of information flows.
So let me do my thing as a theoretical biologist. Do ants have democracy? I’d argue that they do, in a very real sense. Emergent behaviors - where each ant’s activity influences others’ activities - is a coordinating action. The queen ant isn’t the brain of the colony. She’s the reproductive organ. The brain of the colony is the ants themselves, the ants whose genetically driven programs respond to their environment and peers in a way that is responsive.
Current US democracy allowed for a (failed) armed insurrection of the government. And current US democracy is allowing that failed coup leader to run again just like Germany 100 years ago. It’s pretty obvious that democracy does not offer such protections. It requires the populous to not be idiots assuming everything else works properly.
Sure, but Russian monarchy allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1917. Chinese imperialism allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1911-1912. French monarchy in 1789 allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government. And, lest we forget, British monarchy in 1776 allowed for a successful armed insurrection in the Americas. They all faced a problem of stability, in addition to the problems inherent in monarchies.
No. Because I may be wrong, and I have been wrong.
Others are needed. As long as they are honest and not the current showboating clowns that call themselves the GOP.
We need honesty. That is how a democracy functions. The whole, “We are in this together.” thing and honest discourse.
No one person or ideology can achieve this, because they are blind to the truth. Look what ideology got us with respect to climate change, gridlock after gridlock. It has nothing to do with an authoritarian regime, it has to do with a rampant amount of dishonesty.
The issue with any single regime is that it requires one version of thing, over time even if that thing becomes untrue, which most things do. Every single authoritarian regime suffers from a need to stay in power regardless of the ground truths. That is why massive centralisation of power usually fails in the face of ground realities.
You honestly believe that a democracy of peers will have an overwhelming honest populous that won’t be beholden to external interests or hate against each other? There has always been a boogie man. The GOP is the idiots of today but there were others before and more after.
You said a democracy functions on honesty. If you’re populous isn’t honest or intelligent enough to be correct, then it can’t function.
What do you mean “one version of thing”? The UK monarchy has been one thing many ways. It is rarely a dictatorship with just 1 person. It’s usually authoritarian run by a collective. You could argue that the collective is essentially a republic. Except instead of being a democratic Republic, it’s monarch Republic. The Royal families of various gulf countries have presided for a while now, and views have changed over the years and there’s been succession.
The issue with autocracy is it has far more power to make the world a better place, or a worse place, and a good leader does not guarantee another good leader when one dies. If there were very strong plans in place to transition to a form of government with some checks in it? Sure, I’d be more than happy to let a genuinely good and intelligent person (read: a person who agrees with my beliefs and morals) have control for awhile, the country would greatly benefit from it.
The only argument anyone has made that has any semblance of reason is the succession question. When the leader dies, the values and trajectory may change. I agree.
However be honest. Look at a democracy. The succession question must be asked every election cycle. That’s every 4 years in the USA.
Most authoritarian regimes have checks and balances. The thought that the USA is the only one with it, is just false. And considering how well these checks have worked the past few years, I’d say they don’t work at all in the USA.
Many modern authoritarian governments have councils. And in today’s global world, money is an excellent check for balance of power. It would be very easy to argue that is truly the only check and balance in the USA at this point too. Those with the gold make the rules in the USA and they also skirt justice. In an authoritarian regime with investment, if they decide to go crazy, they lose their own power.
So you feel that the US has a way of stopping dystopic ideas now? Like abortion rights? The US did not maintain those rights and the US populace has no way to stop it. It’s decided by a few old people that are there until they die. And the old people can decide whether or not to even listen to a case where they decide to do what they already did or do something else.
The majority of Americans want gun reform. There is no way to implement it in the current US system. The majority want universal healthcare and affordable universities. Also no chance of happening.
Policies enacted by one administration in the US are routinely overruled by the next 4 or 8 years later. Can’t maintain.
None of these are a democracy problem. They’re all a dysfunction problem. You can have a dysfunctional democracy or a dysfunctional monarchy, and only one of those can be replaced without a war.
The only authoritarian regime in which my ideology is 100% the law of the land would be one in which I am the autocrat. And, given the life expectancy of an autocrat, I’m not interested.
But, taking your question as it was intended: still no. Why? Because I might trust the current regime, but there’s no guarantee that I’ll trust the next one. I might trust the current regime right now, but there’s no way to know if they’ll suddenly take a shift in a couple of years and become unpalatable to me (as many Republicans are currently discovering). Even if I trust that Emperor Bernie would make decisions in good faith, I have no idea if Emperor Bernie II would have the same values, or if either of them would hold scrupulously to those values for their entire lives.
Or maybe you meant “what if you could guarantee that it’s always what you want forever?” Still no, because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I’m not all-knowing; I don’t know what decisions I might be all for that could cause someone else’s suffering. If they’re voting on behalf of themselves, if they’re represented, there’s a pushback against the things that I want if they could harm someone else.
But perhaps you meant “what if you could guarantee that the outcome you wanted is always accomplished, even if you don’t know it’s the outcome you wanted?” And then you’re talking about…I dunno, some sort of divine theocracy or something. And we’ve tried that, to pretty awful results.
So you’d rather guarantee that you don’t get what you want and live in constant tribal infighting versus gambling on getting what you want now, and maybe not in the future?
Also while all empires eventually fail, if it’s a well run autocracy hopefully Bernie II and Bernie Jr. Would have been brought up with the ideals of the kingdom, and carry them forwards.
So you’d rather guarantee that you don’t get what you want and live in constant tribal infighting versus gambling on getting what you want now, and maybe not in the future?
False dichotomy. I want a democracy that actually works for its people, where the people who are voting have meaningful choices (more parties) with meaningful ways to make them (RCV/STV, NPVIC), and the people who are in office have no financial incentive to do things that don’t align with the values and desires of their constituents. And also where there’s a social safety net and a financial disincentive to spreading misinformation, but we’re talking about that in another thread already.
Also while all empires eventually fail,
FYI, you toss that off as if it’s not a big deal, but things get super messy right there at the end.
if it’s a well run autocracy
I can’t say with total confidence, but I’m pretty sure that’s an oxymoron.
hopefully Bernie II and Bernie Jr. Would have been brought up with the ideals of the kingdom, and carry them forwards.
Call me crazy, I’m not super into the idea of putting all my chips on “hopefully.”
Not hate, just genuinely curious.
Well, I didn’t think there was any hate motivation until you said that, lol. Now I’m curious.
Great marketing and propaganda line. But when you really think about it… Is it?
The answer is very clearly no for most of the world. And having lived with many forms of government, the absolute worst is American democracy which is really just an oligarchy with extra steps.
Say you get dictatorship of all-you-value-and-agree-with, but 20y later it turns into something that hates all you are…
Dictatorship’s only useful for correcting ( e.g. for chopping-out all-pervading corruption … I don’t think any “democracy” ever could clean-up Northern Mexico, e.g. ), but it has to be dictatorship that is committed to eradicating dictatorship, strategically, in the long-run, including itself.
The dictatorship/democracy question is actually a specific remapping of another question:
Which is “better”?
consensus-rule
capable chain-of-command
??
The true answer is:
It depends on the situation!!
Got all the time in the world? Consensus’s your answer.
Ship’s sinking, & you need to stop that happening, NOW?? Capable chain-of-command’s your answer.
Will the world’s human-viability situation get SO bad that only benevolent-dictatorship CAN save a remnant of humankind??
Also, “democracy” only allows attacking corruption down to a level that doesn’t threaten the deep corruption: once any “democracy” threatens that deep roots-level corruption, then …
Sorry, no more anti-corruption allowed. …
Only appearances are allowed to change, iow, and that’s a human socio-political law underlying all cultures, East, West, civilian, military, corporate, not-for-profit, religious, atheist/anti-theist, ALL of them.
I read, years ago, that the surest way to get a prison to riot, is to prevent the “blowing off steam” petty-crimes/cheats/underground-economy in it.
Once you prevent the petty-criminality-economy from working, pressure BUILDS, until killing is happening.
Like clockwork.
“Acceptable” civilization/society’s the same way, kinda.
You either accommodate the criminality underlying acceptable-appearances, or it will BREAK your life & your cleaning-up action.
( this principle doesn’t mean that removing corruption isn’t possible, it does mean that there needs to be a spectrum of “OK…not-ok” for people to experiment in/with, in order to … it translates from thoughtshapes into English as “discover their underlying selves/natures”, but I’m not certain that’s a good/complete rendition of it )
Dictatorship seems to be the only possible means of breaking corruption-is-the-underlying-law, but it’d have to be dictatorship of someone who had non-human nature, or more-precisely, who didn’t have the normal human unconscious-ignorance-protecting instinct.
Good luck finding such a someone.
Normal AwakeSoulist/Buddhist monks/nuns aren’t anywhere-near that level, though true Zen-masters are ( that level means having shed/destroyed one’s unconscious-LifeMind’s ignorance-substance identity-crystal … that was the basis for both their ego & their projected mirage-nature SurfaceMind, which no-longer has any existence/basis ).
Human-process is a process, right?
How could a dictatorship be a mundane human dictatorship, & simultaneously keep tracking what humankind actually requires, in order to keep evolving, at pace, while ClimatePunctuation, economic-conditions, ecological-butchery, geopolitics, etc, all keep changing?
You’re categorically looking at something outside of mundane-human, then.
Didn’t miss it at all. Your talking point ignores the reality.
If the issue is succession and we pick the US, you have this potential issue every 4 years on the presidential level. You have the same issue on the house and senate level. You have a worse issue on the supreme Court.
If the leaders change in 4 years, you’re equally screwed as if your dictator changed in 4 years. However a dictator generally is in power for decades or many decades. So really, you’ve shown the opposite. It is better to be in a stable dictatorship because the succession unknown is less often.
Honest question for everyone. And try to think about it honestly and not just regurgitate what society tells you to think:
Would you prefer to live in an authoritarian regime if your ideology was 100% the rules in force?
For example if Bernie became dictator. Universal healthcare. Taxes fairly. Free or severely reduced pricing education. Abortion and lgtbq protections enshrined forever. Affordable housing and rent. Higher wages. Infrastructure. Public transit. A yearly knit mitten stipend per household. Etc.
If you like that, and the candidate got it and then could just make it happen. Immediately and without decades of “negotiations” and lobbying and pork projects etc. Just decree that there is universal healthcare in 6 months time, no way to oppose it. Would you the democratic voter be against that?
Personally, I believe most people would enjoy living in an autocracy of their beliefs. In order to not sound like a sociopath you have to pretend to want to let the Bobert and MTG Trump voters have their fair say. But their fair say is the opposite of everything you want.
Now if you got 90% of what you want and 10% bullshit you disagree with, still a good deal? 75%. 55%?
Under the current system do you think you’re getting the same percentage of what you want?
Your question avoids the biggest issue with that sort of dictatorship - the fact that it replaces peaceful electoral competition for power with force, that can as easily result in chaos and civil war as a stable dictatorship.
With that off the table, the big issue is that kind of benevolent dictatorship has a tendency to start off strong and then decay as the original ruling clique who actually had some ideals die off and are replaced by their subordinates who got into working in an autocratic government for the power. Too bad Bernie is so old, we wouldn’t get that many years of him on top. Not worth it in the long run even if you do get some policy benefits in the short run. Unless you think the odds of Trump becoming a dictator instead are high enough that it’s better to take a chance on a better dictator, which is the kind of calculation that results in the civil wars and such I mentioned above.
Just calling out Bernie as a random example of someone with known policies. Trump by that same metric is also near death, probably more so than Bernie.
Not talking about what comes next. But what comes now. Of course human nature is to be greedy and start off nice and turn evil. But that’s not always true of dictatorships because generally a family has some checks and balances of their own, or there’s a coup and it swaps. But the question is really just do you want to live under authoritarianism of what you believe in, or democracy where half the people want the opposite of what you want.
I like democracy because it tends to produce more of the results that I like than authoritarianism. A dictatorship that sustainably produces better results than democracy would by definition be better, but from what I can tell that’s not possible.
Neither. I want to live under a democracy where there’s a real social safety net, and where there’s no financial interest in spreading misinformation and platforming rage, so that the breadth of opinions diffuses back into a more stable configuration (and away from the fringes) such that half the people (probably less) don’t want the opposite of what I want anymore, they just prefer slightly different paths of attaining the same goal.
But that has a basis in authoritarianism. You want a social safety net. Small government people, that make up half the US, do not. You want a cap on political spending, and maybe even censorship (disallowing misinformation media), and many do not.
You want a country made up of people almost all like you with small differences in day to day governance but no differences in the big ticket items. Is that achievable in a democratic Republic or parliamentary system in a modern global age? I don’t think it is.
Oh, please, tell me more about what I want. PLEASE do.
[citation needed]
Actually they do, they’ve just been told a lie since the 1980s that “social safety net” = “socialism,” and that “socialism” = “totalitarianism.” But that was entirely invented to justify the Cold War, and has essentially no basis in reality. And in reality, it was bipartisan: Republicans Reagan and Nixon signed EITC, WIC, and SSI into law in the 1970s. Democrat LBJ pushed the “Great Society” programs of the 1960s. FDR’s “New Deal” was an unbelievably popular governmental program in the late 1930s, and it was a social safety net.
So a social safety net is incredibly popular, but you’re a rich guy who wants that money going to you instead. What do you do?
Associate that social safety net with the country’s greatest enemy. Come up with the idea of “trickle-down economics” and buy a news corporation to sell the idea to the masses.
Boom, easy-peasy, now the money is coming to you. But wait, there are people who don’t buy it and still want the “New Deal.” So what do you do? Get them all arguing about how to implement a social safety net. Blow legitimate concerns way out of proportion and make everyone scream at each other.
Works every time. Now it’s not popular anymore because all people can hear is the shouting.
As of 2015, 66% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats favor overturning “Citizens United” constitutionally. Over 77% of Americans agree that there should be some sort of campaign finance reform limiting the amount of money individuals or groups can spend on campaigns. 83% of Americans agree that political contributions should be disclosed. Campaign finance reform is a remarkably unifying and bipartisan idea.
Making an argument in bad faith? That’s a paddlin’. I didn’t say I wanted to “censor” misinformation (though I do think that more money should be spent on media literacy). I said I wanted to remove the financial interest in spreading it; and campaign finance would go a long way toward that.
Where on Earth did you get that idea? I never said that, and I never thought that. No! Stop arguing in bad faith.
Is a monoculture of people exactly like me achievable? Good lord I hope not. That sounds awful. But is it possible to get money out of politics to the point where our country can recover and get away from the walls? Probably not entirely, but I think we can do a whole lot better than we currently are.
An authoritarian regime putting my ideology into force would be self-dismantling, which is probably a contradiction in terms.
Personally, I’m not just concerned with some set of policies, but the process by which policy changes occur. I don’t want to see society hit some point of improvement and stop, I want to see continuous improvement. A dictatorship will inevitably regress when it no longer has a benevolent dictator, which really isn’t compatible with my goals for how society should be ordered, or how power should be distributed.
The reason people are terrified of an authoritarian regime isn’t because a dictator Republican is going to force lower taxes on people. It’s because of the state and private violence. I may have hated Reagan and W because of their policies, but neither of them would have tried to overthrow the government of the US and replace it with a dictatorship. If either of them lost their election, they would have conceded. Neither of them promised while running for office that they would enact a dictatorship.
The problem with your question is that you’re assuming that what we have an issue with are republican policies. It’s true, we do. That’s not the biggest problem with Trump, though, and the linked article makes that quite clear.
To be honest, I wish Obama had been more successful in passing a national healthcare program. I hated that he had campaigned for Lieberman (because the default position is to support the incumbent) rather than his from-the-left challenger in the primaries, and that L went on to tank the public option. But I wish that Obama had used every ounce of political power to ram it through, or had thrown L to the dogs and went all in on getting a more liberal senate. I don’t wish Obama had dictatorial power.
I don’t even particularly favor having an executive branch that’s separate from the legislature. I think that parliamentary democracy is a better approach (although it has its issues too).
The policies are independent of the question. Insert your own policies to answer the question truthfully.
Current US democracy allowed for a (failed) armed insurrection of the government. And current US democracy is allowing that failed coup leader to run again just like Germany 100 years ago. It’s pretty obvious that democracy does not offer such protections. It requires the populous to not be idiots assuming everything else works properly.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t think it’s honest. I know you have to say that because you have to believe in all people having valid opinions and equality and so on. But deep down, I’m not sure you even believe it based on what you said.
If Obama had authoritarian abilities or was able to be a dictator for just one day like Trump wants to be, and he rammed healthcare out the system, I think you’d view that as a net positive.
In a world where 30% of your fellow countryman hate you (doesn’t matter which side, it’s about that) and another 10% strongly believe things polar opposite to what you believe, I fail to see how anyone that is honest with themselves would say they prefer a democracy (Republic or parliamentary or even absolute) unless they were absolutely sure that they would win the vote and could get their policies passed. And all that is, is authoritarianism with extra steps.
I ask the question because I’m curious what people think nowadays. The gut response is always democracy is sacred. That’s what you’re taught to believe.
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s not a new idea. What you’re proposing is (as far as I can see) the Platonic philosopher-king. They would rule fairly and wisely - since they agree with me and I am fair and wise.
But let’s make sure we are being fair here. It’s not “democracy” that allowed for an armed insurrection against the government. Armed insurrections against governments occur in totalitarian regimes all the time. I can recommend a 400 page biography of Che if you want a reference. British democracy allowed the IRA. Iranian dictatorship allowed for the Islamic revolution. There are multiple civil wars going on right now around the world under multiple systems of government.
I absolutely don’t believe that all people have equally valid opinions. I don’t even believe that people have free will. I agree with Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky that everything people do is predetermined. I’ve gotten very deep into that in other conversations on here so I don’t want to repeat all of that, but I can say that democracy allows for more dynamic adaptation. My position on free will makes these discussions more nuanced - human behavior is determined but not predictable - so I prefer to think of it in terms of information flows.
So let me do my thing as a theoretical biologist. Do ants have democracy? I’d argue that they do, in a very real sense. Emergent behaviors - where each ant’s activity influences others’ activities - is a coordinating action. The queen ant isn’t the brain of the colony. She’s the reproductive organ. The brain of the colony is the ants themselves, the ants whose genetically driven programs respond to their environment and peers in a way that is responsive.
It comes down to information flows.
Sure, but Russian monarchy allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1917. Chinese imperialism allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government in 1911-1912. French monarchy in 1789 allowed for a successful armed insurrection of the government. And, lest we forget, British monarchy in 1776 allowed for a successful armed insurrection in the Americas. They all faced a problem of stability, in addition to the problems inherent in monarchies.
No. Because I may be wrong, and I have been wrong.
Others are needed. As long as they are honest and not the current showboating clowns that call themselves the GOP.
We need honesty. That is how a democracy functions. The whole, “We are in this together.” thing and honest discourse.
No one person or ideology can achieve this, because they are blind to the truth. Look what ideology got us with respect to climate change, gridlock after gridlock. It has nothing to do with an authoritarian regime, it has to do with a rampant amount of dishonesty.
The issue with any single regime is that it requires one version of thing, over time even if that thing becomes untrue, which most things do. Every single authoritarian regime suffers from a need to stay in power regardless of the ground truths. That is why massive centralisation of power usually fails in the face of ground realities.
Nah. This is not being truthful with yourself.
You honestly believe that a democracy of peers will have an overwhelming honest populous that won’t be beholden to external interests or hate against each other? There has always been a boogie man. The GOP is the idiots of today but there were others before and more after.
You said a democracy functions on honesty. If you’re populous isn’t honest or intelligent enough to be correct, then it can’t function.
What do you mean “one version of thing”? The UK monarchy has been one thing many ways. It is rarely a dictatorship with just 1 person. It’s usually authoritarian run by a collective. You could argue that the collective is essentially a republic. Except instead of being a democratic Republic, it’s monarch Republic. The Royal families of various gulf countries have presided for a while now, and views have changed over the years and there’s been succession.
The issue with autocracy is it has far more power to make the world a better place, or a worse place, and a good leader does not guarantee another good leader when one dies. If there were very strong plans in place to transition to a form of government with some checks in it? Sure, I’d be more than happy to let a genuinely good and intelligent person (read: a person who agrees with my beliefs and morals) have control for awhile, the country would greatly benefit from it.
The only argument anyone has made that has any semblance of reason is the succession question. When the leader dies, the values and trajectory may change. I agree.
However be honest. Look at a democracy. The succession question must be asked every election cycle. That’s every 4 years in the USA.
Most authoritarian regimes have checks and balances. The thought that the USA is the only one with it, is just false. And considering how well these checks have worked the past few years, I’d say they don’t work at all in the USA.
Many modern authoritarian governments have councils. And in today’s global world, money is an excellent check for balance of power. It would be very easy to argue that is truly the only check and balance in the USA at this point too. Those with the gold make the rules in the USA and they also skirt justice. In an authoritarian regime with investment, if they decide to go crazy, they lose their own power.
The problem is you have no way of maintaining that. You’re always one crazy idea away from dystopia, and you have no way to stop it.
So you feel that the US has a way of stopping dystopic ideas now? Like abortion rights? The US did not maintain those rights and the US populace has no way to stop it. It’s decided by a few old people that are there until they die. And the old people can decide whether or not to even listen to a case where they decide to do what they already did or do something else.
The majority of Americans want gun reform. There is no way to implement it in the current US system. The majority want universal healthcare and affordable universities. Also no chance of happening.
Policies enacted by one administration in the US are routinely overruled by the next 4 or 8 years later. Can’t maintain.
None of these are a democracy problem. They’re all a dysfunction problem. You can have a dysfunctional democracy or a dysfunctional monarchy, and only one of those can be replaced without a war.
The only authoritarian regime in which my ideology is 100% the law of the land would be one in which I am the autocrat. And, given the life expectancy of an autocrat, I’m not interested.
But, taking your question as it was intended: still no. Why? Because I might trust the current regime, but there’s no guarantee that I’ll trust the next one. I might trust the current regime right now, but there’s no way to know if they’ll suddenly take a shift in a couple of years and become unpalatable to me (as many Republicans are currently discovering). Even if I trust that Emperor Bernie would make decisions in good faith, I have no idea if Emperor Bernie II would have the same values, or if either of them would hold scrupulously to those values for their entire lives.
Or maybe you meant “what if you could guarantee that it’s always what you want forever?” Still no, because of the Law of Unintended Consequences. I’m not all-knowing; I don’t know what decisions I might be all for that could cause someone else’s suffering. If they’re voting on behalf of themselves, if they’re represented, there’s a pushback against the things that I want if they could harm someone else.
But perhaps you meant “what if you could guarantee that the outcome you wanted is always accomplished, even if you don’t know it’s the outcome you wanted?” And then you’re talking about…I dunno, some sort of divine theocracy or something. And we’ve tried that, to pretty awful results.
So, no.
So you’d rather guarantee that you don’t get what you want and live in constant tribal infighting versus gambling on getting what you want now, and maybe not in the future?
Also while all empires eventually fail, if it’s a well run autocracy hopefully Bernie II and Bernie Jr. Would have been brought up with the ideals of the kingdom, and carry them forwards.
Not hate, just genuinely curious.
False dichotomy. I want a democracy that actually works for its people, where the people who are voting have meaningful choices (more parties) with meaningful ways to make them (RCV/STV, NPVIC), and the people who are in office have no financial incentive to do things that don’t align with the values and desires of their constituents. And also where there’s a social safety net and a financial disincentive to spreading misinformation, but we’re talking about that in another thread already.
FYI, you toss that off as if it’s not a big deal, but things get super messy right there at the end.
I can’t say with total confidence, but I’m pretty sure that’s an oxymoron.
Call me crazy, I’m not super into the idea of putting all my chips on “hopefully.”
Well, I didn’t think there was any hate motivation until you said that, lol. Now I’m curious.
Great marketing and propaganda line. But when you really think about it… Is it?
The answer is very clearly no for most of the world. And having lived with many forms of government, the absolute worst is American democracy which is really just an oligarchy with extra steps.
You’re missing a point, though:
Succession.
Say you get dictatorship of all-you-value-and-agree-with, but 20y later it turns into something that hates all you are…
Dictatorship’s only useful for correcting ( e.g. for chopping-out all-pervading corruption … I don’t think any “democracy” ever could clean-up Northern Mexico, e.g. ), but it has to be dictatorship that is committed to eradicating dictatorship, strategically, in the long-run, including itself.
The dictatorship/democracy question is actually a specific remapping of another question:
Which is “better”?
??
The true answer is:
It depends on the situation!!
Got all the time in the world? Consensus’s your answer.
Ship’s sinking, & you need to stop that happening, NOW?? Capable chain-of-command’s your answer.
Will the world’s human-viability situation get SO bad that only benevolent-dictatorship CAN save a remnant of humankind??
Also, “democracy” only allows attacking corruption down to a level that doesn’t threaten the deep corruption: once any “democracy” threatens that deep roots-level corruption, then …
Sorry, no more anti-corruption allowed. …
Only appearances are allowed to change, iow, and that’s a human socio-political law underlying all cultures, East, West, civilian, military, corporate, not-for-profit, religious, atheist/anti-theist, ALL of them.
I read, years ago, that the surest way to get a prison to riot, is to prevent the “blowing off steam” petty-crimes/cheats/underground-economy in it.
Once you prevent the petty-criminality-economy from working, pressure BUILDS, until killing is happening.
Like clockwork.
“Acceptable” civilization/society’s the same way, kinda.
You either accommodate the criminality underlying acceptable-appearances, or it will BREAK your life & your cleaning-up action.
( this principle doesn’t mean that removing corruption isn’t possible, it does mean that there needs to be a spectrum of “OK…not-ok” for people to experiment in/with, in order to … it translates from thoughtshapes into English as “discover their underlying selves/natures”, but I’m not certain that’s a good/complete rendition of it )
Dictatorship seems to be the only possible means of breaking corruption-is-the-underlying-law, but it’d have to be dictatorship of someone who had non-human nature, or more-precisely, who didn’t have the normal human unconscious-ignorance-protecting instinct.
Good luck finding such a someone.
Normal AwakeSoulist/Buddhist monks/nuns aren’t anywhere-near that level, though true Zen-masters are ( that level means having shed/destroyed one’s unconscious-LifeMind’s ignorance-substance identity-crystal … that was the basis for both their ego & their projected mirage-nature SurfaceMind, which no-longer has any existence/basis ).
Human-process is a process, right?
How could a dictatorship be a mundane human dictatorship, & simultaneously keep tracking what humankind actually requires, in order to keep evolving, at pace, while ClimatePunctuation, economic-conditions, ecological-butchery, geopolitics, etc, all keep changing?
You’re categorically looking at something outside of mundane-human, then.
_ /\ _
Didn’t miss it at all. Your talking point ignores the reality.
If the issue is succession and we pick the US, you have this potential issue every 4 years on the presidential level. You have the same issue on the house and senate level. You have a worse issue on the supreme Court.
If the leaders change in 4 years, you’re equally screwed as if your dictator changed in 4 years. However a dictator generally is in power for decades or many decades. So really, you’ve shown the opposite. It is better to be in a stable dictatorship because the succession unknown is less often.