Dont evade the question and say "if you have to ask ur not mature enough to understand".
2006-09-30
02:50:18
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Roffleharris
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Government
Assuming that the dictator might know whats better for you than you do. If we had a global dictator wouldint he do something about global warming?
dont use todays dictatorships as the only from that can exist.
2006-09-30
02:56:20 ·
update #1
A dictatorship also just means that the leader or leaders are non-democraticaly installed. NOT that there is an extream lack of personal freedom.
2006-09-30
02:57:50 ·
update #2
Also like to add im a firm believer in democracy :/ .
i do goverment and politics as am stuck for ideas on democracys failures.
heres one for all you people who dont think. if there is an objective moral truth as claimed by most major religions why do we need democary?why ask people what they want when we know whats right?
also if a democratic decicion is reached that goes against your personal morals will you follow it?
2006-09-30
03:06:43 ·
update #3
If this was a dictatorship you would not be allowed to ask this question.
2006-09-30 02:54:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I've seen surveys in Latin America that show a majority of people there would rather have a half-way benevolent dictator than democracy. Which I found quite interesting.
Actually Hitler was democratically elected. He wasn't a German king or someone who took power militarily.
The question is actually quite relevant if you look at places like Thailand where the monarch has decided to overthrow the government. A similar thing happened with Pakistan. The reaction is usually "ho-hum, so what? The new dictatorship isn't any worse than the old government, so why should I care?".
Actually if you look at all the dictatorships in the world and compare them to the democracies, it is hard to tell the difference.
So I really don't know yet... I'll think about it some more.
2006-09-30 03:28:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Carl K 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
In point of fact I'd generally agree with the view that the best possible ruler would be some sort of philosopher king-- an intelligent person who really did have the best interests of the people at heart. On the other hand the track record of despots is pretty abysmal. Compare the three best known tyrants of the last century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) against three significant elected leaders (say, Churchill, FDR and, oh, LBJ). Frankly having a system that is forced to recognize the rights of the individual and that prevents any one person from amassing absolute power is a pretty damned good idea.
2006-09-30 03:02:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Adam J 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Any law, or judge, or political person who believes that their ideas and sense of morality trumps another is a part of dictatorship.
So long as your rights to freedom are not being ignored, you have no right to ask another to accept your belief and dismiss theirs.
No. If the law went against my own personal moral code, I would not follow the law.
My right to individualism is supreme.
2006-09-30 03:38:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by leftturnclyde152521 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Aristotle believes that whether the government is good or bad does not depend on upon whether it is exercised by one, or by the few, or by the people as a whole, but upon how it is exercised ; it will be a good government if it is exercised in the interest of the community as a whole , and a bad one if in one's selfish purposes. In his theory:
Good Government Bad Government
Government by one: Monarchy (best,1st) Tyranny (worst 1st)
Gov. by the few: Aristocracy (2nd) Oligarchy (2nd)
Gov. by the many: Polity (3rd) Democracy (3rd)
Aristotle believes that if a perfectly virtuous man could be found it would be right to give him supreme power to achieve Monarchy, and iMonarchy can only be justified as the best form of government when such perfectly virtuous person is found, otherwise it becomes Tryanny.
2006-09-30 03:39:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by meowmimi1981 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Those who do not read and study history are doomed to repeat it. I would suggest you read up on Hitler, Mussollini (sp) and Fidel Castro. The people under these regimes had no freedom, whatsoever. They did as they were told or they died. Is that what you want for America? I certainly hope not. Your question frightens me. I fear for my grandchildren's future if there are many who believe the way you do.
2006-09-30 03:02:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by dbarnes3 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Democracy offers a real choice; dictatorships never do, short of a revolution
2006-09-30 02:52:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
freedom and in democracy we got atleast alittle bit of say in politics,even if they dont hear us,but wit a president with war time powers in an ideological war is equal to a dictatorship
2006-09-30 03:31:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by big_e_40 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
In actual fact, democracy should only be justified each election period. Benevolent dictatorial governments are much more efficient than the arbitrary parliaments and congress we use in North America.
2006-09-30 02:56:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
When I become the Supreme Enlighten Despot ,you seek I will
personally explain it to you.!
2006-09-30 04:23:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋