2016: A Damnable Year

But you are presuming all dictatorships do that. They don't. Bad ones do, to be sure, but not all of them do. Singapore, for instance...

Dictatorship would be functional if we had a perfect, all-knowing rulling class of ubermensch watching us all and guiding us to be better people. But there is no such thing, and everyone who says otherwise is on the pathway to a genocide.

Meaning we should go find ourselves some elves?

Anyway, yeah, the thing with dictatorships is they take democracies' worst vices and multiply them since there's less control to what the rulers want to do. Saying 'oh, it's only the bad ones that do that' helps little because it can be countered by criticism on democracy being answered with 'oh, only the bad ones do that' as well. Power corrupts, but absolutist power corrupts faster and more easily.

To be fair, Singapore is an unique (and quite clever) case. There are few non-democratic countries that seem to work properly nowadays...

edited 2nd Sep '16 7:29:34 PM by Quag15

No we should find ourselves some Dwarves. BARUK KHAZAD, KHAZAD-AI-MENU!

edited 2nd Sep '16 8:11:28 PM by Gaon

True, but let's just say the idea of the Elective Dictatorship exists for a reason.

Nothing saying that both a Monarchy and Democracy can co-exist, or even an Elective Monarchy.

Monarchy is not the evulz on its face, I should also note.

True, but let's just say the idea of the Elective Dictatorship exists for a reason.

Elective Dictatorship indeed exists, but as an idea for a reason.

Nothing saying that both a Monarchy and Democracy can co-exist, or even an Elective Monarchy.

Ah, I should rephrase that a bit better, I mean the old, original monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy is just for countries that don't want some royal family lord over them, but don't want to completely lose them. It made them unique, you see. Unless, of course, being turned into some sort of tourist bait is really one hell of a position, allowing you to control the nation with absolute power. Elective Monarchy is a fake democracy. Sure, the king is elected, but when the ones who elect him is a group of special people who may or may not but mostly may not represent the people. You can't call that democracy. Besides, the royal family in elective monarchy mostly serve as some sort of tourist bait, too.

Monarchy is not the evulz on its face, I should also note.

But the king is as accountable as a dictator, am I wrong? I like accountability in my government, and monarchy and dictatorship simply don't have it. And before you say it, nope, revolution isn't accountability. That's a failure in government.

I always find it funny that supporters of dictatorship don't like democracy because those in charge are incompetent or unable to satisfy the people. If you think about it, do you think when the government become a dictatorship the one in charge is different? Nope, it's going to be the same guy, but this time that guy have absolute power and can't be removed. Only death and revolution can do it. And, of course, the new guy that replaces the previous guy is definitely going to be better.

True. A lot of the Scandinavian countries^note  And also the UK people like to hold up as good examples here are in fact (Constitutional) Monarchies.

The Monarch is usually accountable (and gets given funds by) the country's Parliament. They also have an important role should an Elected Government declare itself a Dictatorship, as formally the Armed Forces are under their control.

edited 3rd Sep '16 1:22:57 AM by Greenmantle

Yeah, but that is the new monarchy a.k.a. diet democracy. The kings of old don't have parliament watching over them. Saudi Arabia is a sterling example of old monarchy and I can't see any accountability in it.

Kings of that era usually had some form of nobility to keep them in line, however. If a Monarch went too far, there would usually be some sort of Civil War.

Whatever the form of Government, if it wants to last, public opinion has to be listened to.

That I can agree. Revolution and civil war isn't exactly the kind of accountability that I like, though. I consider it to be more of a failure of the government. I don't think I want a government that requires the threats of revolution and civil war to keep it in line.

I also would like to clarify that I'm not saying that modern monarchy is as bad as dictatorship or the exact carbon copy of it. And I think that modern monarchy is a step to the right direction even if it's a bit half-hearted.

edited 3rd Sep '16 1:52:47 AM by Advarielle

The only really difference between a traditional monarchy and a dictatorship is the name, and the lack of legitimacy the latter term implies anywhere other than pre-Imperial Rome. Dictators generally also have elites to contend with, who can and will dispose of the dictator should he prove too weak to rule.

While democracy tends to be oligarchic in practice outside of extreme circumstances, it is a dramatic improvement over the previous world order for most of society.

Not quite so simple. One other difference is that a monarchy also has a legitimacy, which means it's usually a more "accepted" government than a dictatorship.

Pretty much any kind of government can work if the people in charge are benevolent and society functions with some degree of order. That's a pretty big "if" though, and the advantage of a democracy (or a republic) is that the people in charge are changed out from time to time. But yes, most people in the world would likely tolerate even an oppressive government if it "kept the trains running on time" and could keep its people fed.

My personal philosophy is that no long-term government is legitimate without the consent of the governed, or without periodically submitting itself to the review of the governed. Monarchies are pure anachronisms, and dictatorships, unless possibly along the ancient Roman model (good luck with that), are seriously bad ideas.

edited 3rd Sep '16 1:52:03 PM by Robbery

Consent is implicit. If there is no chaos, then honestly they are fine with it. Monarchy isn't really an anachronism if it lays out simply what democracies try to couch in bullshit. Dictatorship is simply more bullshit in their excuses than democracy is when it comes to that sort of thing.

There are very few absolute monarchies nowadays, anyway. I'd rather see a stable constitutional monarchy, rather than a chaotic republic or democracy (depending on the nation's context around the world).

Also, this latest discussion seemed to be more appropriate for the general politics thread, but to rerail it in the general theme:

A common theme this year in the West: politicians have lost the inability to guide the nation and fix the problems by sheer action and leadership (because they either depend on the big financial power, or are tied by organizations' bureaucratic measures which stifle national autonomy/relative independence - e.g. like the EU - or both). How long will this last, and who will be the possible new actors on the political stage other than politicians like Trump (though this one is less a politician and more of a dangerous clown) or Le Pen (on the right) or the leftwing parties across Southern Europe (though the latter also have their hands pretty much tied up)?

edited 3rd Sep '16 4:40:50 PM by Quag15

Upon the first victory of the far right in Western Europe, you will then have copy cats coming quickly. The same thing can't really happen on the far left unless it was Germany where that happened.

(thanks for the rerail)

So Washington officially accused Moscow of hacking the government and interfering in the US election. Tensions over Syria and Eastern Europe are also getting worse, and in general US-Russia relations have chilled to a point not seen since the 1980s.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/us-russia-tensions-cold-war/index.html

edited 12th Oct '16 11:46:37 AM by Rationalinsanity

Well now i'm terrified!

Should we get those old "Duck and Cover" PSAs out of storage?

edited 12th Oct '16 11:43:46 AM by nervmeister

Trump recently quoted a Russian propaganda website (Sputnik, if your interested) that erroneously reported Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenfeld of saying that Hilary Clinton was responsible for Benghazi. Blumenfeld in fact e-mailed a news article in which the writer (not Blumenfeld) exoressed that particular analysis to another Clinton staffer, and that e-mail was one of the ones stolen by hackers. Gee, wonder where Trump got it....

Russia is a bit of a red herring in this. They probably tolerate hackers since they like trolling, but I do feel as though the obsession with Putin's alleged direct involvement isn't helping world affairs...

Though I do feel like Russia are jealous of the US because they aren't a superpower anymore since the Soviet Union broke up in the 90's.

edited 12th Oct '16 7:23:52 PM by Bat178

Not really, given that the US is also no longer a superpower in practice. They're pissed about the triumphalism they had to endure during the 90s from the US and NATO in what the feel is their backyard, but beyond that, they don't care because they knew it would inevitably and quickly fade.