Dictatorship is an appropriate temporary step toward freedom, agree or disagree?

on one hand i agree with you and on the other your post makes me what to yell and scream. A country is about more than an ecconomy, in fact the economy is just a means to an end. What is good for the PEOPLE comes first above whats goodfor the economy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree Asguard; economy isn't the main goal, it is the means of achieving the main goal, which is the welfare of the people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow relax guys. I was only using the economy as an example. I was discussing how so many are in debt and I saw it fit to use the economy as an example in showing how little the populous knows.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What examples from history make you think this is correct?

 

Examples? I use logic: dictatorship means centralized power. Power = efficiency. Efficiency = things getting done.

 

Nonsense i know but i have herd to many times "whats good for the economy is good for the country". Its wrong, the economy can be sacrificed for the good of the PEOPLE because thats the first priority. It has led to economiests in almost every goverment department rather than scientists and ethists who work in these fields

 

Well, I could counter with power leads to corruption and selfish protection of power.

Logic, or really abstract thinking like yours above may have very little to do with reality. Further, getting things done can include, and has included incarcerating critics, secret police and total surveillance, lack of judicial process. murders of those considered rivals, the use of war to distract the citizens from the oppression of the dictatorships, nepotism and so on.

What leads you to believe that in the real world dictatorships are good options?

 

I would need evidence of both of those assertions. Centralized power has seldom been associated with efficiency in my experience.

 

"The right people", It's a nice sounding phrase don'cha think ?, But, According to different people, the right people vary. At WHAT PRICE ? shall we accept their definitions of "RIGHT"? .

Pinochet was "the right person" according to the US, and upper and middle class Chileans, but guess what over 3000 people died for it and over 30000 people were tortured. Go tell them, that if they had "the right people" in charge, then maybe they wouldn't have been tortured.. And they'd tell you that no one can have that much power, ever again.

 

i think i will let our highest judical officer speak for me here
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/cj/cj_ruleoflaw.htm

 

That's because you are the type of person who can only feel safe when they are submissive to authority- the stronger the government, the weaker the people must be to keep it in power.

The opposite point of view to yours - the conservative outlook - is that its up to individuals to be strong and take care of themselves, that government has only very basic powers, and only intervenes to protect an individuals rights

 

synthesizer-patel thats not nessarly true, a goverment can care for its people without being restrictive (except in the revinue sence i guess). A country can be highly democratic and still provide health and education services to its people

 

I was discussing the issue in terms of the two extremes asguard - on the one extreme we have tyranny and totalitarianism (i.e soviet style communism, and Norsefire's preferred system, facsism with homoerotic undertones) - at the other extreme we have libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism - clearly most societies range somewhere in between these two extremes, conservatism being closer (though not necessarily adjacent to) to libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism and liberalism/socialism being closer (though not necessarily adjacent to) communism.

I'm simplifying somewhat, but you get the idea.

 

Nonsense: Also your point about the cost of living being different in the West and Far East, this is true but the gap in wages is too significant to make that argument.


The dates of the articles are a few years back but as I pointed out their economy is growing and so is a new middle-class. The gap between what are too great? Between the poor chinese and the rich chinese? Or between the west and east?

 

Nazi Germany was a perfect example of how government should operate. Without the whole genocide thing, of course, then it would have been near perfect.

 

Wasn't that my point that wages of the West are soooooo much greater? And it true that China is growing but only because it is exploiting the working class. I believe I said all this in a previous post in the beginning.

 

That government would have imploded long ago. Without any foreign enemy or internal enemy to fight, The workers, the middle class, the minorities, would have wanted change. And in a totalitarian state, change comes at very, very high price.
Oh, and btw, true fascists would probably be imprisoned by those that can manipulate the power.

 

America isn't imploding. You don't need to be in a war to survive.

 

hahahaha That's great Norsefire. How many people like you exist in your country? You sound like an easy target.

 

What do you mean?