Food for thought

shakermaker · 12-03-2008, 17:02

Which is better; a wise dictatorship or an ignorant democracy? Why?

We had this question given to us in philosophy today for debate.
Thought I'd pose it to you lot as a few similar threads are knocking around, so thought it may interest a few.

flashy · 12-03-2008, 17:06

neither, who wants dictatorship? who wants ignorant democracy?

would rather have someone truthful who i trusted

jaysay · 12-03-2008, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashytart

neither, who wants dictatorship? who wants ignorant democracy?

would rather have someone truthful who i trusted

Spot on flashy I'm with you on that one

shakermaker · 12-03-2008, 18:09

The point of this is to provoke debate between two (at face value) bad situations. There is no 'neither' option!

MargaretR · 12-03-2008, 18:53

I suggest that they both will have the same outcome -- anarchy

jambutty · 12-03-2008, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

Which is better; a wise dictatorship or an ignorant democracy? Why?

We had this question given to us in philosophy today for debate.
Thought I'd pose it to you lot as a few similar threads are knocking around, so thought it may interest a few.

An “Ignorant Democracy” is the lesser of two evils but at least with the ballot box you can get rid of it and replace it with another “Ignorant Democracy”.

The only way to get rid of a dictator is by the gun/poison/arrow/exploding cigars/coup-de-tat.

shakermaker · 12-03-2008, 19:04

What I mean by a wise dictatorship is one where the said system works very well for that society. Economically, morally, etc.
Essentially this is a question of a) morality and b) whether people would be prepared to let go of their preconceptions of dictatorships in favour of democracy, even if the said dictatorship works best for that society. And of course if true democracy is not possible.

blazey · 12-03-2008, 20:46

I voted for the wise dictator. Too many people associate dictators with evil people like Hitler, but not every dictator intends on genocide and massacre!

Assuming wise means he/she has strong ability to run a country whilst keeping the people happy, I don't see what is the problem, the only bad thing is that we all know decisions are better made between people rather than by one sole individual, but if the ignorant democracy involves people that can't please the people, or upset certain groups, then decisions made between them are pointless anyway.

steeljack · 12-03-2008, 21:43

my thoughts are that when an electorate gives one party a super majority ,examples.. Thatcher a 144 seat majority in 1983 , or Blair a 179 seat majority in 1997 then in fact you are creating a Dictatorship .......with no chance or requirement to listen to any informed opposition, just a bunch of political goons carrying following the leaders orders

blazey · 14-03-2008, 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by steeljack

my thoughts are that when an electorate gives one party a super majority ,examples.. Thatcher a 144 seat majority in 1983 , or Blair a 179 seat majority in 1997 then in fact you are creating a Dictatorship .......with no chance or requirement to listen to any informed opposition, just a bunch of political goons carrying following the leaders orders

I think there are many people who would make good dictators. Pinochet was a 'good' dictator in my opinion!

jambutty · 14-03-2008, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by blazey

I think there are many people who would make good dictators. Pinochet was a 'good' dictator in my opinion!

If you ignore the thousands of Argentineans who just went missing, never to be heard of again, then he probably was and if you were one of his chosen few cohorts.

I don’t know who coined this phrase but it is a relevant today as it has been for millennia.

“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Even God couldn’t resist becoming a “do as I say not as I do” dictator.