Galatic Empire.
 AnimeGalleries [dot] Net |  AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com |  AnimePedia [dot] Com |  AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
| AnimeGalleries [dot] Net | AnimeWallpapers [dot] Com | AnimePedia [dot] Com | AnimeGlobe [dot] Com |
Republican system of government
Dictatorship
Galatic Empire.
What kind of power would I rather have?
Well, can I be overthrown in the dictatorship scenario?
If not then I'd be a dictator.
Strict laws and severe punishment is proven without reasonable doubt. I mean loosing toes for stealing stuff and loosing legs for assaulting children and being spanked with a bamboo paddle if you put vandalize anything.
But I would take care of my people to the best of my ability. Take care of the elderly and homeless and disabled people. In fact I wouldn't allow homelessness. I'd create large facilities to house these people and feed them.
And I'd outlaw golf and automobile racing. Takes up too much room.
Edit- AND THEY ARE STUPID AND BORING.
Last edited by Doctor One; 05-03-2009 at 09:33 PM.
That's pretty simple. An either-or decision is offered, but is done so under the false pretense that the choices offered are the only choices. We're talking about governments, of which there are many kinds. The opening post relies on the erroneous assumption that there are only those governments who are constructed in a representative manner, and those governments where a sole figure maintains the political power of the state. Additionally, as Eris' indicated, neither option presented by the original post are mutually exclusive. Those are the two critical failures in the opening post's premise.Originally Posted by Wio
Shedra, I'd be careful what you wished for, especially regarding homelessness. Look up Section 8 housing.
Edit: Wow, you're in Chicago, too. Don't just look up Section 8 housing, go outside and wander the city a bit. Someone with your vision tried exactly that in your city not more than 30-40 years ago...
Bad Memory
Last edited by Forgotten Show; 05-03-2009 at 09:41 PM.
Which of those have "leader/ruler of the highest authority in their respective nation" and upon having one still aren't dictatorships?
I agree. why do we get two very unattractive choices to choose from?
Having a unelected leader alone does not make you a dictator. The defining quality of dictatorship is absolute power and it is very possible to not be democratically elected and still be subject to the rule of law. See: the last 800ish years of British history.
Ehhh, I dunno if I'll stick around. We'll see.
The List of Hate, My self-indulgent journal-thing.
Last Post: Video Vomit 05/11/11
For the record, let me get this straight.
By republican system of government, I meant this:
By dictatorship I meant this:
Now, both of these can be evil or they can be good depending on how well you manage your nation.
To make it more clear, this thread is about you having absolute power or you representing the power of the citizens with some constraints. This thread is not actually about types of government. It's about the kind power you want to have, and I chose this two options seeing quite fitting when you talk about power.
Or, you can also interpret it as "under what terms would you like to rule"?
So, what would you do with such power or why you choose such power?
You surely read my mind. That's exactly what I meant.
It's as attractive as it can get. If I were to mention all forms of government, it would only get jumbled up too much, but then, it's about you having absolute power or you representing power of the citizens in republic manner.
Last edited by CrystalAce; 05-04-2009 at 02:10 AM.
"To do is to be" - Descartes, "To be is to do" - Voltaire, "Do be do be do" - Sinatra.
NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY
Constitutional monarchies have an unelected leader that is effectively powerless (and therefore does not a dictatorship make)
The others have other forms of undemocratic power distributions, like religious rule, power distributed based on how smart you is, power distributed based on how rich you are, a small group of unelected rulers, etc.
We don't. This is what I pointed out when I called the OP a false dichotomy.
Last edited by Eris; 05-04-2009 at 05:48 AM.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
In simpler terms,
Let me start with the topic of this thread. It's about YOU, a SINGULAR highest authority/ruler of your nation, so, let's not talk about oiligarchies, plutocracies, tribal societies, etc. over here.
Now,
The main point here is that, dictatorship regime can begin from both "republican system of government" as well as "monarchy" (if you consider it), but it depends on the will and power of the leader/ruler (in this thread's case, it's YOU) of the nation. Military regime (military dictators) may fall into dictatorship regime. Also, absolute monarchy maybe considered dictatorship as they do have complete power (if you are not considering the entire royal family) .Constitutional moarchy is not valid here as, this topic is about YOU singular leader of highest authority ( not ceremonial rank) and monarchs have got somewhat ceremonial post in constitutional monarh.
So, if I were to mention "republican system" as your option as a form of government, it would be quite a resonable choice, and your choices in this thread are:
1. Either, work normally as a leader/ruler upholing the law and order of your nation with oppositions, party memebers, parliament, senate, citizens, and so on, consulting you (that's republican system of government)
2. Or rather, seize absolute power and do things your way that's fitting to your ideologies. (that's dictatorship regime)
So, I didn't mention monarchy or democracy (not to mention communism, socialism, so on) as it's fitting quite well when you talk about YOU having absolute power or YOU representing power of citizens with some constraints. And so, it's definately not a false dichotomy or, do you still think it is?
Last edited by CrystalAce; 05-06-2009 at 03:52 AM.
"To do is to be" - Descartes, "To be is to do" - Voltaire, "Do be do be do" - Sinatra.
NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY
You are redefining terms quite a lot in your post. If you substitute republican for democratic, and dictatorship for authoritarian (or despotic), then you are largely correct. Otherwise, you're wrong. A military junta for example, is not a dictatorship, because it lacks a single ruler (the defining trait of a dictatorship.)
If I was ruling the world, I might very probably erect some form of oligarchy, since I wouldn't want to do all the work by my self.
Last edited by Eris; 05-04-2009 at 09:41 AM.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
This.
If I were a dictator then I would use a Democratic style of leadership for my government. Thus not only will my own brain be put into action but also other people will have their own statements to add for the good of my government, which may prove useful. Then, with hope, the majority of my people will be happy as they are making the laws themselves and can live in society in their own prefered way. Of course foolish ideas will be cast away by myself.
That which is; is the truth.
Well, there are way too many forms of government to mention. But, some do have common principles. And based on that, I termed them to fit the purpose of this topic. It's about:
"If you were the leader/ruler of the highest authority in your nation, would you choose a republican or a dictatorship form of government?"
Besides, you cannot divide all types of government into just two or three options. It's an ideology and your's is quite different form mine. That's all.
That could be one way, I think.
So, you're saying Saddam Hussein was not a dictator. Are you saying Kim Il-sung is not a dictator? I presume you're familiar with wikipedia page (your wonderland). Here's a link for you then,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship
Then, common or poor people would suffer in your regime. That's the statement of a rising dictator.
That! Fat! Cat! Sat!
Makes no sense, huh! Neither does your's! So, elaborate your views!
Last edited by CrystalAce; 05-06-2009 at 03:43 AM.
"To do is to be" - Descartes, "To be is to do" - Voltaire, "Do be do be do" - Sinatra.
NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY
![[Spoiler]'s Avatar](images/avatars/avatars/Girls/princessusagi01.gif "[Spoiler]'s Avatar")
I would be a dictator. For once things will go my way.
A junta is a committee of generals. Therefore, military juntas are inherently not dictatorship. Neither Saddam nor Kim-Il were leaders of Military juntas. If you are going to use wikipedia, please link to the proper article. --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_junta Not that what article you link to matters that hard, since the article you linked to also states that a military junta is a committee. Did you actually read it?
Equating dictatorship with people suffering is simplifying the picture to the point where it's plain wrong. People suffer in (most) dictatorships, but this does not go to say that where people suffer there is a dictatorship. There is plenty of suffering common poor people in democracies today.
Last edited by Eris; 05-05-2009 at 09:11 AM.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
If I was a dictator I would try and make everyone happy!
I would listen to what the people had to say and not get wrapped up in power. And I would try to push people to pursue their dreams and have fun! ^_^
今日...明日...永遠に...
Interested in Pop-Up Cafes in Japan? Dango News is the place for you.
Dango News | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram
Personally, I'd prefer a communist or socialist government, but out of the two choices listed, I'd pick a republic. The responsibility for a whole country is too great for one ruler, even a good one.
For starters, I didn't mention anything about militatry JUNTAS in my post before.
Regardless, military Juntas is not valid in this topic. This topic is about you (singular) as the highest authority of your nation (not ceremonial post) of your nation believing and following the usual system of government ( democracy, communism, socialsim, and so on) or YOU seizing absolute power and doing things according to your own views that fits your nation.
I said military regime, and there are several types of military regime. And, it also implies people who came to power through military power or has military influence, like military dictatorship.
Funny thing is , if you type military regime in wiki, you come with the page of military dictatorship, Dictatorship? More confusion I guess...
Well, I didn't say people would suffer due to dictatorship. I meant poor or common people would suffer due to the formation of oligarchy as their voice would not be heard much. In democracy, at least there's a better chance for the voice of poor people to be heard through voting, but if you chose oligarchy form of government by yourself, then many people's voice would not be heard.
And to establish oligarchy as you wish means you have absolute power, meaning you are a dictator.
Originally Posted by blueangel06661
If I was a dictator I would try and make everyone happy!
I would listen to what the people had to say and not get wrapped up in power. And I would try to push people to pursue their dreams and have fun! ^_^
A cheerful dictator, I see. The world needs dictator like you. I'll cheer for your success.
Last edited by CrystalAce; 05-06-2009 at 03:40 AM.
"To do is to be" - Descartes, "To be is to do" - Voltaire, "Do be do be do" - Sinatra.
NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY
So which is it? Are all people equal in all things, with no personal property and no one profiting from another's suffering, or are there some inequalities among people, continued ownership of personal property, and government involvement in an otherwise capitalist economy? Those are two very, very different governments, you describe...
Bad Memory
Yes, I understand the difference between the two, but I can tolerate either. True communism can never work, I know, but it's a utopian society in theory.
My parents lived under a oppressive government during their childhoods in Vietnam, I know it has flaws
Last edited by BDNguyen; 05-06-2009 at 02:48 PM.
Not really. Without some sort of modifier, the word Socialism is always assumed to be Marxism. Socialists and Communists want the same thing, the difference is how much violence they are willing to inflict to achieve it. Lenin's socialism was a little more harsh then Marx would have liked, and Stalin's communism was a lot harsher then either, even if grounded in the same idealogical goals. What you are decribing is a Social Democracy.
Ehhh, I dunno if I'll stick around. We'll see.
The List of Hate, My self-indulgent journal-thing.
Last Post: Video Vomit 05/11/11
No, but I did, which prompted you to ramble about military dictatorships, indicating that you think the two are connected.
This was exactly what I was getting to. Because Juntas and other non-republican/non-dictatorship regimes are not options, the question is a false dichotomy, which is meaningless to anwer.
An oligarchy means that I, together with a small group of people will share absolute power. That is not a dictatorship. A dictatorship is when a single individual holds the power. If other people also hold the power, it is consequently not a dictatorship.
Last edited by Eris; 05-06-2009 at 10:40 AM.
Hey look, Japan made a movie about me!
The difference between communism and socialism seems to be a matter of degrees. Communism is an entire sociopolitical perspective concerning economy, equality, and governing; you could say it's the whole package to socialism's buffet picking and choosing. I don't believe it's the violence that separates the two. Socialism is fairly ill-defined, and admittedly is too broad (and divided) for me to have tried to sum it up in as small a statement as I did. Consider: meritocracy vs egalitarianism, nationalization of the market vs nationalization of capital within the existing market, reformists vs revolutionaries, and these don't even begin to touch social anarchism and libertarian Marxism. Because nobody has ever managed to achieve communism, every attempt to do so has resulted in one type of socialism or another, rendering it even more difficult to distinguish between the two and arguably giving rise to much of the variety within socialism that we see. In the U.S.A., socialism gravitates towards limited intervention of the government in the market and is strongly associated with statism. In Europe, socialism takes on different hues depending on the country and its past experiences with the Warsaw Pact states.
Manhattan_Project, I realize what you're saying and yeah, I was mistaken to try to sum it up so easily. However, the difference between communism and the many faces of socialism are certainly distinct in effect, even if their goals aren't so different.
Bad Memory
Yes exactly, I know the difference between the two governments, I'm only looking to the end product.
If that's what a Social Democracy is, it's then merely fascism as applied to an economy, lopping off the rest of its totalitarian thought.
Anyway...
Assuming you mean a loosely republican form of government, and assuming you mean a totalitarian dictatorship, as connotation might suggest (because, frankly, the clarification the OP gave was bizarre)...
I'd want to run a republic in the sense that Rome was a republic. If I need to gain power, I can just off my competition. Cutt-throat politics in the truest sense!
Of course, Rome's politicians were more or less like Putin, so I suppose I'm cheating a little, but- oh well!
By the way, I'd always seen socialism defined as a category for socialism-like economic systems, but whenever I've seen it defined specifically, it resembled a state-wide commune, with no property at all.
Communism, on the other hand, has the government as the owner of most if not all property, and seems to be more class-based than specific socialism. Fascism is merely applied totalitarianism, where literally everything is the state's business, so the economic part of fascism is not unlike how MP2K described a 'social democracy.' The government has comlpete control if it so wishes, but not actual ownership of all the property.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks