Dictator vs Democracy

    • hackbinder
      Joined: 15.05.2009 Posts: 618
      I have finished reading the book "The Predator State" by James Galbraith. James Galbraith is the son of John Galbraith, a noted economist and highly respected author (he had lots of experience both as a professor and as an actual policy maker in the U.S. government).

      In short, it is about how the U.S. governments economic policies are based on errors and are doomed to fail. But the message between the lines, however, is more scary...

      Economists, REAL economists, know why the economy fails but they are powerless to effect any change because the medicine needed will never get you elected. In fact, the rhetoric of the failing economy ("a balanced budget", "free market", "free trade") is what average people understand as good economic policy. In other words, uneducated people vote for the rhetoric they understand, even though those policies have NOTHING to do with a good economic plan based on the data.

      People who know how to solve this mess can never get voted in because their message would be

      1) unpopular
      2) not fully understood by the masses

      So, my question...

      Would you accept a dictator in your country if you knew that the right decisions would be made?
  • 8 replies
    • Schris7
      Joined: 15.01.2007 Posts: 730
      democracy is a dictatorship with the illusion of freedom.
    • themagpiespg
      Joined: 23.02.2009 Posts: 280
      Yes if the dictatorship was made up of people with the right qualifications and right background then I would accept it, but if they fucked up the would be the first against the wall.

      But a better system of government would be a meritocracy, with the people running the country where actually qualified to do the job thoroughly vetted.

      Unfortunately all political system are flawed as power would corrupt most people and we would end up with as much of a mess as we have now so in conclusion I would suggest an anarchistic system but that would be a worse system than we have now, so the meritocracy would be the best system in my opinion.
    • tofu22
      Joined: 18.10.2008 Posts: 659
      since your talking about america, one of the most interesting examples of politics vs economic reality are taxes. one quite prominant economist (i forget his name) in america pointed out that in order to get america out of the recesion you must raise taxes on corporations. corporate taxes work much in the same way as the blinds do in poker, without them poker doesn't work, you need incentive to play the game. the huge majority people in the us want higher taxes for corporations, but it isn't done, because both parties are bought and paid for by these same low tax paying interest groups.

      i think your asking the wrong question here. america isn't really a democracy, people get to vote, but since there's a two party system, it doesn't matter very much who's in power, they all work for the same boss.

      i think the smaller the country is the better democracy works, because these interest groups are smaller as well. in every country or region democracy is percieved differently and expectations from it are different as well. so in some countries democracy can work quite well, most probably not.

      the future, in terms of a socio-political/economic system, has a known direction, you have to understand two things: climate change + peak oil (peak everything). and there is a lot writen on these topics.
    • sirilidion
      Joined: 15.04.2008 Posts: 1,575
      the problem in't that democracy doesn't work in the US. The problem is that politicians need to raise funds for there campagne and so they own those lobbies favors when they do get into office. in the people paid for the politicians through taxes and it would be allowed to take money from companies it would already improve the system. Also I think a multiparty system works better to reduce corruption and to improve a countries policy that a 2 party system does.
    • sirilidion
      Joined: 15.04.2008 Posts: 1,575
      the only way atm I see how the average american that politicans do anything to reprisent there intrest in they would start an organisation to buy the politicians. because as I see atm the the vast mayority ofpoliticians in the US only care about filling there own pockets and don't care at all if that results that there country going to shit
    • MarcPS
      Joined: 09.11.2010 Posts: 1,077
      Originally posted by hackbinder

      Would you accept a dictator in your country if you knew that the right decisions would be made?
      is that really a dictatorship? sounds more like a eutopia.....
    • londonsystem
      Joined: 19.11.2008 Posts: 747
      Originally posted by hackbinder
      Would you accept a dictator in your country if you knew that the right decisions would be made?
      You could just say 'One is a dictator when he says he would always make right decisions'.

      The 'dictator' and 'right' do not go together, never. If you read history, it never worked. It does not seem to work now, and there is very slim chance for the future.

      Anyone could redefine what it means (the combination of dictator + right decisions), but that's exactly all dictators do.

      On a sidebar, the North Korea even have 'Democratic' in its offical name - DPRK, so it's just another example how much a dictator loves to redefine words.
    • akrammon
      Joined: 17.05.2009 Posts: 3,142
      No, I definitely wouldn't accept a dictator. Whatever the benefits are, there are always great costs in an autocratic system.

      Also, a dictator doesn't need to be "accepted", so the question pretty much looses sense :)

      I think people should be educated better and then they would have some idea about economics and how the world works. People are utterly stupid, there is nothing you can do about that on the short run tho. Make education more relevant and the world will work.