EPTBut the other thing is the peaceful exchange of governments- if you can get a critical mass of your citizenry and especially the army to believe in the merits of democracy. Regime change is typically a rather messy affair and infrequent at that.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1843
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
Falling
Canada11369 Posts
But the other thing is the peaceful exchange of governments- if you can get a critical mass of your citizenry and especially the army to believe in the merits of democracy. Regime change is typically a rather messy affair and infrequent at that. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
On October 08 2019 16:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: My mother grew up in a dictatorship. So I heard all about how much fun it is when there is no separation of power, no rule of law and no freedom of speech. When decisions are only taken in the interest of the ones in power, when you can get arrested, tortured and killed when you say something that the power dislikes. The problem with dictatorship is not that it's hard to find a really good dictator, it that it's a dictatorship. It's a system built on force without legitimacy with nothing to stop power abuse. Democracy is not just a way to chose a leader it's a way to ensure the state serve the citizens and not the other way round. And it works amazingly well. Which is why Canada, Norway, Australia, Germany and other functional democracies are probably the best and fairest place to live not only today but in human history. The only problem with democracy is that it's fragile and requires its citizens to defend it. If our generation starts to say that it sucks and dictatorship is better, it won't last long. So your statement is not controversial, it's false and dangerous. Did you edit your post? Anyway, I just wanted to point out that SK and Spain prospered economically under dictatorships. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18113 Posts
On October 08 2019 17:18 maybenexttime wrote: Did you edit your post? Anyway, I just wanted to point out that SK and Spain prospered economically under dictatorships. Spain?! You have no idea. Spain may have rebounded a bit after Franco dropped autarky, but that was mostly because it was so low it couldn't drop any further. Spain was vastly behind its Mediterranean peers when the dictatorship ended in the 70s, and it made a huge economic leap forward under democratic rule (and joining the EU) in subsequent decades. Spain is a pretty bad example of a "benevolent" dictatorship. Hell, Pinochet probably helped Chile more than Franco helped Spain... and Pinochet disappeared almost 100k citizens. Which brings me to the main point: he isn't worried about economic prosperity. He's worried about the lack of freedom of speech. I don't know much about SK, but Spain had some nasty political prisons, and most critics of Franco were voicing those opinions from the safety of Paris. It's a common theme among dictatorships that political opponents end up dead or in jail. E: some of Spain's relative economic malaise can be attributed to not benefiting from the Marshall plan. But there are plenty of really bad ideas of Franco's government that contributed equally or more. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
Add to that the problem of changing who is in power. In a dictatorship, this is only possible through civil war or revolution. The main selling point of a democracy with a rule of law is that it allows a peaceful transition of power between different governments. Also, it is almost always a much better place to live in due to said rule of law. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On October 08 2019 17:18 maybenexttime wrote: Did you edit your post? Anyway, I just wanted to point out that SK and Spain prospered economically under dictatorships. Yup i edited it like five times. Often do that, sorry 🙃 Other than that, Spain under Franco was one of the poorest and least advanced countries in Europe with an abysmal record in human rights, freedom of speech and public liberties. It boomed as soon as it became a democracy. And Franco was a murderous asshole. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
Democracy is important not because of the illusion of the rule of people, but because it puts a ton of control mechanisms on power. A dictatorship, no matter how benevolent, will at the core be a channel with potential for, and eventually always, unmitigated abuse of power. Even if it could deliver 'better' results, you'd be powerless to influence it the moment it went worse. The more centralized and far-reaching power becomes, the greater ammount of control mechanisms is needed to control it. | ||
|
Vivax
22089 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
The only thing that makes a monarchy sound better is the nostalgia of a lot of time having passed since real powerful monarchies existed. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On October 08 2019 18:28 Vivax wrote: Maybe we should discuss the differences between a monarchy and a dictatorship. I could deal with having to live under a King, but not under a dictatorship. Kings have a tradition to adhere to, dictators are supposed to be a short-term hardline solution that escalates into brutal regimes every time. Monarchy can be dictatorships or can be democracies. Contemporary Sweden is a monarchy, so was France under Louis XIV. The first one is a set of wonderful institutions which ensure prosperity and justice in one of the best societies of all times, the other one was a fucking nightmare if you were not an aristocrat. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On October 08 2019 14:29 evilfatsh1t wrote: this statement is probably going to be pretty controversial but im of the opinion a dictatorship is the ideal system over democracy. the only problem with a dictatorship is youre never gonna find that perfect leader who does everything right for your country and its people. youre looking for the kind of person that can only exist in fairy tales or in movies like the dark knight. not only that, but now people generally arent as submissive to authority and order as they were back in the days. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely Even if you are the best guy in the world, when making decisions and someone gives advice that counters your personal opinion, with absolute power it will be many times easier to simply push through your opinion rather that convince others that it is the best solution. So instead of endless convincing you just go 'I'm doing what's best for the country, now shut up' and tadaa, you are started on the path of every other repressive dictator. If the easy choice is 'do whatever the fuck you want' then you will start doing whatever you want and ignore expert opinions on complicated matters eventually. Because getting an understanding of those complicated matters is way harder than just acting on the matters with what you think is best. A person who cannot be challenged will never make only good decisions in the long run | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4953 Posts
Democracy makes everything less bloody and harsh, but the game that's being played has many more layers, which makes it something frustrating for the people that are governed. You can completely isolate yourself as a 'democratically elected government' with Kafkaesk bureaucracy and technically still be called democratic, even though you've esentially become a dictating body. I sometimes wonder how much top politicians feign their ideologies just to adhere to status quo's once they've been granted the power to (try to) change things.. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18113 Posts
On October 08 2019 19:50 Silvanel wrote: Just to clear: there is a full spectrum of governaments between "absolute monarchy" and "monarchy only in name we are really a democracy". Absolute monarchies werent even that common in history, unless i am forgeting something only Sweden, France, Prussia and Russia reached that state and only for a certain period of time. Even this is a simplification. Absolutism is identified mainly by a centralization of power in the hands of the monarch. Even countries that never went full France have attempted this (e.g. Spain after the War of Succession). There are also absolutist rulers who were not monarchs (e.g. Stalin). Finally, you're forgetting all continents other than Europe. Some Chinese dynasties were absolute monarchies with their mandate of heaven. Plenty of African rulers were absolute monarchs (among them, Shaka Zulu). Many Amerindian nations were ruled by absolute monarchs (including the Inca). Finally, most pre-Greek ancient civilizations were absolute monarchies, particularly Egypt (for most of the dynasties). | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21950 Posts
On October 08 2019 12:20 Introvert wrote: Republicans don't want to take domestic power back because that would mean they have to actually do work and be held responsible for that work. Pretty much the entire senate, it seems, is of one mind on this so we'll see what they can do. Lindsey Graham was making noise about having a veto-proof majority to hit Turkey economically should they do anything out of line (I'm sure they will). This is one of the many problems conservatives had with Trump when he was running. Despite all the talk about being a madman his view of America's role in the world could leave us quite weak and without allies. Everyone is pushing the US, at some point it's time to push back. Still, it really is a sight to see Congress so concerned and maybe even willing to go over Trump's had (as they have in the past) on foreign policy and national security, two of the presidency's strongest domains. When will they take some of their domestic power back? Republicans don't want to give it up now that they have it and the Democrats don't want to take it away because they want to use it next (and they have a more exalted view of the presidency anyways). Much better to let it languish with the President so they can complain about it and hold on to their seat instead. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On October 08 2019 20:06 Acrofales wrote: Even this is a simplification. Absolutism is identified mainly by a centralization of power in the hands of the monarch. Even countries that never went full France have attempted this (e.g. Spain after the War of Succession). There are also absolutist rulers who were not monarchs (e.g. Stalin). Finally, you're forgetting all continents other than Europe. Some Chinese dynasties were absolute monarchies with their mandate of heaven. Plenty of African rulers were absolute monarchs (among them, Shaka Zulu). Many Amerindian nations were ruled by absolute monarchs (including the Inca). Finally, most pre-Greek ancient civilizations were absolute monarchies, particularly Egypt (for most of the dynasties). Depends. For instance the Chinese beleive that for most of their history, they were a mixture of a bureaucratic government and a feudal state. Many so called absolute monarchs also ruled only with the support of their own version of aristocracy. Many so called absolute monarchs were anything but wielding absolute power. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
On October 08 2019 05:03 Rebs wrote: You are correct, it makes no sense. Unless you are willing to admit that there actions are just incomprehensibly evil because they surely arent that stupid, and then you get to that conclusion. And the reason I make that statement, is because while I dont genuinely believe it. People who do make conclusions or like to make conclusions in those parts of the world will make this one and in the absence of a better explanation that becomes the narrative. And once its the narrative, now you got enemies for reals and I dont mean just the fragmented figher groups. It also stunts recovery for those places because the ones shaping the narrative take it to the other extreme and just blame the U.S for everything with zero introspection because the trust deficit is irrecoverable at the point so it must be all America's fault. It just perma fucks everything. Can’t argue with any of that man. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
As per democracy, well it’s never been perfect but I do feel it’s started to function less well in recent years as it’s become more adversarial. I feel the media landscape has fuelled this, it feels to me that a more stratified and diffused news machine has caused/fuelled a much bigger sense of political identity amongst people. People tend to be much more needlessly adversarial when it’s a part of their identity at stake, rather than x policy they agree/disagree with. I see it a lot over nationality where I live for obvious reasons. Of course this has always happened to some kind of degree, but I do feel this extent of fusion is relatively recent in how extreme and widespread it is. It’s a society-wide malaise and until people take responsibility and ownership in rectifying their own roles in fostering it I can’t see current trends reversing to a good place any time soon. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43211 Posts
On October 08 2019 17:45 Acrofales wrote: Spain?! You have no idea. Spain may have rebounded a bit after Franco dropped autarky, but that was mostly because it was so low it couldn't drop any further. Spain was vastly behind its Mediterranean peers when the dictatorship ended in the 70s, and it made a huge economic leap forward under democratic rule (and joining the EU) in subsequent decades. Spain is a pretty bad example of a "benevolent" dictatorship. Hell, Pinochet probably helped Chile more than Franco helped Spain... and Pinochet disappeared almost 100k citizens. Which brings me to the main point: he isn't worried about economic prosperity. He's worried about the lack of freedom of speech. I don't know much about SK, but Spain had some nasty political prisons, and most critics of Franco were voicing those opinions from the safety of Paris. It's a common theme among dictatorships that political opponents end up dead or in jail. E: some of Spain's relative economic malaise can be attributed to not benefiting from the Marshall plan. But there are plenty of really bad ideas of Franco's government that contributed equally or more. This. The idea that Spain was an economic powerhouse is bizarre. It’s remarkably poor given its status as a large country on the Mediterranean coast that wasn’t bombed to shit in WW2. | ||
| ||
