- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Would you mind living in a benevolent dictatorship? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 11 2018, 06:32 PM (390 Views) | |
| Jasonn | May 1 2018, 12:07 PM Post #31 |
|
This is what these alt-right wing-jobs try to argue for - and also outright fascists! Also, this is what Communists or Christian/Muslim extremists would want. Anyway, I think distrust is the best option. Edited by Jasonn, May 1 2018, 12:07 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 1 2018, 01:24 PM Post #32 |
![]()
|
This sounds like a blatant combination of guilt by association and poisoning the well. |
![]() |
|
| Jasonn | May 1 2018, 04:43 PM Post #33 |
|
All such governments are trying to be a father figure to at least some of the population. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 2 2018, 01:56 AM Post #34 |
|
Lol, no, just cut excessive social spending like blowing vast sums on those in the last 6-12 months if their lives.
From the start, America could afford luxuries like liberty and democracy, because it was protected by two great oceans and had seemingly unlimited resources. In other words there was little need for sacrifice, either of liberty, to enhance defense or materially. South Korean and west German democracy stemmed from allied forces, which enabled them to afford the luxury since they no longer had to rely solely on themselves for defense i.e. be authoritarian with militarization etc like Germany in the half century or more prior to 1945.
But the world as a whole doesn't, and I'm not sure we have it here. Many times i've seen women with broods of four, five or more kids.... And of course democracy is hardly best suited to impose essential sacrifices in other areas, as I've said.
Sure but democracy is more often given as the reason though it's mainly due to the power of the pro-Israel bunch.
I doubt there will be an authoritarian America until AFTER the Mideast conflict climaxes, causing major repercussions...[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 6 2018, 12:43 AM Post #35 |
![]()
|
Well, I cannot evaluate how "excessive" this spending is, but if you had to cut spending, I'd propose cutting military spending. I'm not sure what doesn't count as luxury then, since these two countries were probably still less luxurious overall than present-day America. The main reason why they needed military backing was due to the constant threat of war from their neighbours. Their enemies also received military backing, yet I'm sure you would not call their conditions luxurious. The four things I proposed are not present in the world as a whole either, that's why I proposed them. Birthrates worldwide are already falling as a result of the four factors I mentioned. Wasn't the conflict a motivation for you to create an authoritarian America? |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 6 2018, 01:58 AM Post #36 |
|
I was totally against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, knowing it would be a costly waste. But there were deficits before that as well as after. Military spending might be a waste in principle or in a perfect world but now it's in the best interest of the country as a whole and international stability. Whereas much social spending, especially on nursing home and hospital cabbages is a total waste of money and resources.
Germany and Japan had faced a threat of war before coming into the US orbit. Back then, when they had NO US backing, they couldn't afford the luxury of democracy, since survival required more militarized, authoritarian societies.
World population growth hasn't stopped and in any event there is overconsumption and too high spending relative to taxation.
Our current Mideast policy attests to the failings of democracy but I doubt the country will change until a disaster forces it too.[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 6 2018, 10:07 AM Post #37 |
![]()
|
The rise in US debt heavily correlates with the War on Terror: ![]() I don't think military spending is wrong in and of itself, but military spending as the US does it right now is out of proportion. Even if I concede that point, I don't think Western democracies today are below the "luxury line" necessary to maintain a democracy. Take any of these international rankings you find on Wikipedia and you will see that they do fine. Even if you think democracy can only exist in luxury, the world is getting more and more luxurious over time, with the global GDP rising, poverty falling, international conflict becoming less and less common, etc. I'm sure the US has had far more dire times in its history than what it experiences today. While it hasn't stopped, it has slowed. You don't need to reduce the world population, you just need to make its growth slow enough that technology can adjust. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 7 2018, 02:12 AM Post #38 |
|
Much recent military spending has been a horrible waste but red ink was piling up before 2001 and popular social programs make up the bulk of spending. Trump's latest tax cuts are projected to greatly increase the debt.
Lol, unfortunately much of our current "prosperity" is false, taking debt into consideration. We're headed for an economic train wreck. Moreover as I've said, high consumption is excessively straining the environment. The solutions tend to be unpopular so democracy is rendered essentially obsolete (even if it'll take a while for problems to come to a head so more people realize what some academics have been saying already for years).
Even if true there are ample other problems democracy can't handle too well.[/quote] Edited by starman, May 7 2018, 02:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | May 7 2018, 06:59 AM Post #39 |
|
Administrator
|
Right. And the problem with a lot of society is that like they to put blame on the government rather than what they have done themselves. Instead of trying to get the government to cut spending on things, the people should start spending less and living more frugally to help the economy as well. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 7 2018, 08:57 AM Post #40 |
![]()
|
As my graph has shown, US debt as a percentage of the GDP (which is what actually matters) has been decreasing before 2001. Democratic countries have a tendency to pollute the environment less than countries like China in relation to their GDP. China has for example already polluted the environment more than the US even when it had a lower GDP. The same held true if you compared the Eastern and the Western block in the times of the Cold War. Authoritarianism was not helpful. What helps is more efficient production and this is definitely workable in a democracy. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 8 2018, 02:04 AM Post #41 |
|
Just wait until Trump's tax cuts send red ink rising into the stratosphere.
LOL if China has been a major polluter, it is because of HIGH CONSUMER DEMAND in democratic countries, notably the US. Much manufacturing shifted to China because of cheap labor, yet the blame for pollution still lies with the democracies, whose masses ensure manufacturing and pollution are at massive levels to satisfy their appetite for luxuries. The same holds for tropical countries. They've cleared vast tracks of forest to increase grazing land--to satisfy the huge market for burgers in western DEMOCRACIES. Democracy is ultimately to blame, because it lets the people overconsume at the expense of the environment.
I think the problem was that much of the cold war predated awareness of environmental degradation. Authoritarianism has the POTENTIAL to be VERY helpful in any area deemed vital.
Well, spending less would primarily benefit the environment. And there is too little PUBLIC pressure to cut spending. The masses resist sacrifice. They want spending to continue not be cut.[/quote] Edited by starman, May 8 2018, 02:10 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 8 2018, 03:16 AM Post #42 |
![]()
|
My point was simply that the current American problems are not an inevitability of the system. And Trump is not exactly known for keeping the promises he made to his voters (just look at his attitude towards war), so he is in no way a perfect example of a democrat. Trump's victory was hardly a logical consequence of the existence of democracy. There are several reasons for his success, one being that his opponents had terrible PR. He was only voted for because everyone else was worse. In an election, not just your content, but also how you frame it decides over your victory. Green parties for example advocate tight restrictions on consumption, but they can still win elections if they don't emphasise that too much and they instead rely on scare tactics and appeals to emotion. That's why these guys have several times managed to become the head of state in Scandinavia or the Baltic states. And even if that's only because these societies are for some reason more coherent (which I doubt, I think it has more to do with the fact that only two parties have any significance in the US), it's not as if you can't change societal attitudes (as you've noted, environmentalist have had success with raising awareness). This "awareness raising" is, IMO more efficient than brute force, I mean, the US government cannot even ban drugs. You'd need such social engineering for your dictatorship anyway, since Americans are not exactly an obedient society. …and I suppose these countries have no autonomy whatsoever about who does business with them? They let those manufacturers in and made those exports because they wanted it. Because without any consumers to export to, their economy won't work. Sure, they'd pollute less, but their GDP would also be far lower which doesn't change my fact about pollution in relation to GDP (since I suppose you want both). Not to mention that China does pretty much the same (moving industries) into Africa. I still think that the only way to save both the economy and the environment is to produce more efficiently. There exists enough matter and energy on this planet to sustain our civilisation, you just need the technology to make use of it. Use your budget wisely and invest in the right places (green energies are better than fossil fuels; lab grown meat is better than conventional one, etc.). Edited by Jinfengopteryx, May 8 2018, 04:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| starman | May 9 2018, 02:33 AM Post #43 |
|
Sure it is. We can't always count on a healthy GDP to mitigate the impact of deficits. A "train wreck" is bound to happen sooner or later, and the system is at the heart of the problem. It is designed to promote the individual, not a greater whole such as society or the environment. Deficits were a problem long before Trump and they'll be a problem after him, as long as the current system lasts. You just don't win elections by imposing sacrifices. Btw I didn't claim that Hillary would've been better than Trump....
Lol, they'd have to win in much bigger countries to have much effect. Not sure they'd have much effect in any event--"don't emphasize that too much"...
Believe me the government has for decades done everything it can to raise awareness about drugs and how dangerous they are. It hasn't been very effective because too many people are just too dumb to listen. Same goes for the environment, deficits...I don't doubt raising awareness can do considerable good, but not enough. That's why the problems continue even worsen.
Of course, but they're only satisfying demand in democratic countries. Just like opium growers, they're not the root of the problem, which is dopey consumers.
Sure they're exploiting consumer demand here, where the fault lies.
I'm all for green technology and efficiency, but it isn't coming fast enough, because you can't force people to adopt it. There are lots of people who buy gas guzzlers instead of the most fuel efficient vehicles, because that's what they want and can afford.[/quote] Edited by starman, May 9 2018, 02:38 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 9 2018, 03:15 AM Post #44 |
![]()
|
Neither the environment nor society as a whole has any interests, so the individual is what matters in the end. My point was that it is in principle possible to win elections despite advocating for sacrifices. And I don't even need to come up with green parties, just about every large democracy has a large left-wing party. You criticised the political left for raising taxes, but not lowering spending. I'll elaborate below why the spending + taxing approach works. The emphasis refers to the self-advertisement, not to work in the parliament.
![]() ^Well, that looks effective! ![]() ^Not as successful as with tobacco, but far more successful than prohibitions: http://www.thespruceeats.com/united-states-prohibition-of-alcohol-760167 …which doesn't change my more general point that your business won't work if no-one buys your goods. If the market doesn't produce green energies quick enough, I propose the taxing + spending approach mentioned above. Take the money from the dirty energy producers and give it to those producing green energies. Like that, the green energies become more affordable and the consumer buys them. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 9 2018, 07:01 AM Post #45 |
|
LOL of course but put them to the test with actual, real sacrifices.... And it's ultimately in the best interest of individuals that a greater whole be emphasized. No use high consumption if it wrecks the environment, and no use high spending if it leads to bankruptcy and economic ruin.
It's worked great here in ending deficits.....The problem isn't spending and taxation but too high a level of the former compared to the latter.
Doesn't look so impressive to me. If they could cut it by 60-90% I'd be impressed...The problem with enforcement around here is current government is frequently hamstrung by a system mainly intended to protect individuals.
That should be their problem. We shouldn't be consuming and importing so much.
A key problem with this approach is, yet again, the initial sacrifices are likely to be politically unpalatable. It would make dirty energy more costly. Clean energy, while "more affordable" may not be sufficiently cheaper for some time. Another serious problem is lobbying by vested interests--not just the owners but many employees.[/quote] Edited by starman, May 9 2018, 07:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 13 2018, 12:37 PM Post #46 |
![]()
|
Almost forgot about this one.Which I don't consider to be necessary. Too high sacrifices could even prove to be harmful. If you control energy production too much, you could kill competition. The graph for tobacco comes close to that. For that, you are going to need to do much more than just to get rid of democracy. You would also somehow need to get rid of globalisation which is going to be much harder. If any form of market regulation (the one I proposed is hardly extreme) was incompatible with democracy, what we would observe would be an arms race of democracies doing nothing else but regulating even less than their neighbour does. This is not what we observe. It doesn't need to be much cheaper, only cheaper enough to have a little head start over fossil fuels so that the consumers start favouring green energies. As I've said before, regulating too much would make green energy producers dependent on that regulation and in fact slow down their improvement as they have no competition to fear) |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 14 2018, 02:00 AM Post #47 |
|
Sacrifice involves reducing consumption.
Under a more sacrificial system, people just wouldn't be able to afford so many luxuries and amenities, many imported.
But current government just isn't taxing "dirty energy" enough. It's a good idea, but it's not being done, presumably because it would be too unpopular politically. [/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 14 2018, 08:04 AM Post #48 |
![]()
|
OK, since our main topic of contention right now seems to be "Can the necessary sacrifices be enforced in a democracy?", I've searched to find evidence of how much Americans are willing to sacrifice: http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/13/16468318/americans-willing-to-pay-climate-change Americans are willing to pay an annual carbon tax of $177 on average (and I'm sure something a bit above that won't bother them much, after all, I don't need all voters, I should still be able to win an election with $200 - $300). This admittedly sounds low for your stated goals. However, the annual $22.3 billion revenue sounds lucrative. And 80% of Americans are willing to let it go into green energies. Since my stated goals were to give the producers of renewable enegies a head start over their competitors, that's enough for my goals. I think forcibly reducing consumption would have many undesired goals, such as creating more unemployment. Which I think shows a major flaw of authoritarianism and its supporters. You don't seem to be very self-critical of your position and seem them as obvious. I obviously disagree (for reasons I gave) and I think there lies a problem in a dictatorship. People are fallible and that's why democracy has all of its self-correcting mechanisms. Mechanisms which go away if you centralise the power. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 15 2018, 01:55 AM Post #49 |
|
I'll believe it when I see it. People may claim to be willing to pay more but...put them to the test on election day and I doubt a candidate promising tax hikes will actually win, lol. For many years all I've seen is an ever rising national debt, and a deteriorating environment. Democratic government has had decades to rectify these problems. It just can't--the problem is the system itself.
I don't claim dictatorships are perfect--far from it. But there's no doubt they at least have the POTENTIAL to tackle the problems. Real solutions are unpopular, so what's needed is a government with the power to impose solutions if necessary, regardless of the popular will.[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 15 2018, 02:08 AM Post #50 |
![]()
|
The candidate doesn't have to promise tax hikes. The candidate only has to promise "I will save the environment" and put the exact methods in the fine print no-one reads. If that's your case, it would be better to come up with polls on the popularity of your preferred solutions instead of simply using failures of democracies as evidence for your case. Even then, I think unpopular solutions can be marketed well by a demagogue. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 15 2018, 05:48 AM Post #51 |
|
LOL!!! You gotta be joking, mister...Someone WILL read the fine print of a candidate's policy positions--his opponents. If they find anything that can be used to undermine his popularity with the voters, they'll trumpet it...
Democracies have failed PRECISELY because most (or too many) people don't want the real solutions. (I mean the ACTUAL solutions, not mere rhetoric.) Sure, many people will say they're willing to sacrifice for the environment or a balanced budget. But put them to the test and it's a different matter.... In light of the seriousness of environmental and other problems, there's no doubt those in power would've implemented REAL solutions, probably long ago, had it really been possible in our democracy. They JUST CAN'T, because they're hamstrung by the voters and the system empowering them.[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 15 2018, 01:00 PM Post #52 |
![]()
|
While such tactics are used, their success has been moderate during my country's last election campaign. Also, due to the way a representative democracy works, you don't need a popular environmental policy to win elections. You can have unpopular positions on the environment and popular positions on everything else and still win (you can't tell me there isn't enough where the public is right). Is there any evidence that the bulk of the guilt lies among the voters? From my knowledge, the oil lobby has played a great part in the US environmental policy, a problem that won't disappear in a dictatorship, as dictators are just as bribable as democrats (going by the corruption index, perhaps even more). |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 16 2018, 02:04 AM Post #53 |
|
Depends on what's in the fine print. REAL solutions to environmental problems, even just higher taxes on gasoline, if publicized could easily bury a candidate.
In highly competitive US elections you can't have unpopular positions and get very far. Candidates like that get weeded out in the primaries even before the general election.
Of course blame lies with the voters. Nearly everyone here drives--they prefer their own private cars to public transportation--and they don't want higher prices or taxes for gasoline. Nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to buy gas guzzlers. As for bribery, it depends on the attitude and priorities of a dictatorship, its raisin d'etre. If a key reason for the rise of dictatorship is to rectify environmental problems, as the situation gets worse..it would be well advised to tell the oil companies to go to hell (and the gas guzzling people too). To retain enough backing to survive (which need NOT be majority support of course) a dictatorship must deliver; it must effect improvement of whatever crisis brought it about. Edited by starman, May 16 2018, 02:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 16 2018, 02:59 AM Post #54 |
![]()
|
I doubt Hillary's aggressive foreign policy is popular, but she got far. The last election has demonstrated well how politics is often about whom you hate least. No, I was talking about the blame for political decisions, not the blame for the pollution itself. Your voting behaviour does not have to reflect your personal life (such hypocrisy is well-known). That fallacy seems to lie at the heart of your claim that you cannot win an election when proposing stuff like higher taxes on gasoline. That's maybe true, but I definitely wouldn't want a single-issue dictatorship. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 16 2018, 07:38 AM Post #55 |
|
Even among Democrats, an aggressive foreign policy isn't necessary unpopular provided Americans aren't get shot at or killed in significant numbers. I don't think Trump won because he was less hated. He is said to have won because he led people to believe he could bring back the past, like high paying blue collar jobs.
Lol, well I've believe adequate sacrifices are possible in our democracy when I see it.
Considering the potential sources of trouble stemming from democratic government or its ineffectiveness I don't think it would be single issue. [/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | May 16 2018, 07:55 AM Post #56 |
|
Administrator
|
Trump won due to the flawed Electoral College, but if you want to debate over the EC with me, you can create a different thread for that. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 17 2018, 01:17 AM Post #57 |
![]()
|
It was definitely about whom they hated least: ![]() ![]() Source So, basically, you accept arguments from theoretical benefits for a dictatorship (you talked about a dictatorship's great potential), but not for a democracy? |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 17 2018, 03:15 AM Post #58 |
|
Good point.
Theoretical? China can have a one child policy; try implementing that in our democracy. Democracy may have "theoretical benefits" but there's no need to talk about "theoretical" here. Democracy has existed continuously here--more or less--since the 18th century. It's been facing the same problems for decades already. I suppose in theory it could solve them. Actual experience, however, suggests otherwise.... Edited by starman, May 17 2018, 03:21 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 17 2018, 05:57 AM Post #59 |
![]()
|
I was rather having an earlier point of you in mind: This is now a new point. I'm not sure how successful China is with enforcing their one-child policy, tbh. They keep making new exceptions to it, giving the impression that it gets softened. Maybe it's enough for your purposes, but then the fact that the developed world's birthrates are quite close to China's anyway makes it a bit unnecessary. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 18 2018, 01:58 AM Post #60 |
|
The point is that dictatorships can enforce essential policies however unpopular. That's very important in this day and age.[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Political Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












4:49 PM Jul 10