Would you be willing to live under one? A system in which the best and brightest is actually placed in power. Capable of restoring the US to its former glory. But you can’t remove him/her and they are there until they choose to step down, die, or are forcefully removed (good luck with that).
In order to fix an issue that’s taken years to create, it will take years to fix. Difficult to do with a government that changes every 4-8 years, can never make up its mind, and is more focused on self-profit over furthering the nation.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Would you be willing to live under one? A system in which the best and brightest is actually placed in power. Capable of restoring the US to its former glory. But you can’t remove him/her and they are there until they choose to step down, die, or are forcefully removed (good luck with that).
In order to fix an issue that’s taken years to create, it will take years to fix. Difficult to do with a government that changes every 4-8 years, can never make up its mind, and is more focused on self-profit over furthering the nation.[/quote]
Under no circumstance. No. How do you know a dictator will be more for furthering the nation than self-profit? If so, how do you know he will stay that way? With our current system we can vote out those that are only in for self profit. I certainly don’t think the answer whatever mess we are in is a dictator.
We can’t vote out a problem but once every 4 years, and I think our system is proven flawed as it currently stands. In fact, its being proven that you can “buy votes” from the commoners. In our current case, you are seeing a the dictatorship of a party instead of an individual - though the decisions are the same.
For the sake of argument, lets assume said dictator is capable of not becoming power hungry and doing what’s best for the country. They are willing to make the difficult decisions, stand their ground, etc. and do all that is necessary to return the US to power and the number 1 nation - beyond just military technology and spending.
Would you be willing to give up the “right to vote” in order to have this? Or is it better to live in a system where we vote in the lesser of two evils and hope they can change the world in 4 years, behind a system that is designed to prevent change that doesn’t benefit those making said decisions?
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
We can’t vote out a problem but once every 4 years, and I think our system is proven flawed as it currently stands. In fact, its being proven that you can “buy votes” from the commoners. In our current case, you are seeing a the dictatorship of a party instead of an individual - though the decisions are the same.
For the sake of argument, lets assume said dictator is capable of not becoming power hungry and doing what’s best for the country. They are willing to make the difficult decisions, stand their ground, etc. and do all that is necessary to return the US to power and the number 1 nation - beyond just military technology and spending.
Would you be willing to give up the “right to vote” in order to have this? Or is it better to live in a system where we vote in the lesser of two evils and hope they can change the world in 4 years, behind a system that is designed to prevent change that doesn’t benefit those making said decisions?[/quote]
Let’s say this dictator was stabbed to death near a theatre by a number of conspirators, all of whom were US Senators. Then, at the public reading of this dictator’s will his grand nephew was named as the next dictator. Furthermore, a number of civil wars then ensued between the supporters of the conspirators and the supporters of the dictator culminating in an unstable triumvirate whereby the US was ruled by three powerful men all distrustful of each other to the extent that they were unable to leave the country lest the other two dictators combine their supporters and oust him? What then?
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
We can’t vote out a problem but once every 4 years, and I think our system is proven flawed as it currently stands. In fact, its being proven that you can “buy votes” from the commoners. In our current case, you are seeing a the dictatorship of a party instead of an individual - though the decisions are the same.
For the sake of argument, lets assume said dictator is capable of not becoming power hungry and doing what’s best for the country. They are willing to make the difficult decisions, stand their ground, etc. and do all that is necessary to return the US to power and the number 1 nation - beyond just military technology and spending.
Would you be willing to give up the “right to vote” in order to have this? Or is it better to live in a system where we vote in the lesser of two evils and hope they can change the world in 4 years, behind a system that is designed to prevent change that doesn’t benefit those making said decisions?[/quote]
Let’s say this dictator was stabbed to death near a theatre by a number of conspirators, all of whom were US Senators. Then, at the public reading of this dictator’s will his grand nephew was named as the next dictator. Furthermore, a number of civil wars then ensued between the supporters of the conspirators and the supporters of the dictator culminating in an unstable triumvirate whereby the US was ruled by three powerful men all distrustful of each other to the extent that they were unable to leave the country lest the other two dictators combine their supporters and oust him? What then?[/quote]
Right? thst wss my first thought when he said “assume they don’t become power hungry”.
Absolutely unwilling. In a perfect world–one in which the original Roman empire envisioned its caesar acting, by way of public servitude–that might work once or twice. It did for Rome several times before the inevitable, but only just and only because the Classical virtues held cultural dominance and service, valor, and honor to the greater good held sway.
Utterly impossible. The only man who was capable of that since was Washington.
You essentially just asked the equivalent of the science “assume backwards time travel is possible, where would you go visit?”
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
We can’t vote out a problem but once every 4 years, and I think our system is proven flawed as it currently stands. In fact, its being proven that you can “buy votes” from the commoners. In our current case, you are seeing a the dictatorship of a party instead of an individual - though the decisions are the same.
For the sake of argument, lets assume said dictator is capable of not becoming power hungry and doing what’s best for the country. They are willing to make the difficult decisions, stand their ground, etc. and do all that is necessary to return the US to power and the number 1 nation - beyond just military technology and spending.
Would you be willing to give up the “right to vote” in order to have this? Or is it better to live in a system where we vote in the lesser of two evils and hope they can change the world in 4 years, behind a system that is designed to prevent change that doesn’t benefit those making said decisions?[/quote]
Let’s say this dictator was stabbed to death near a theatre by a number of conspirators, all of whom were US Senators. Then, at the public reading of this dictator’s will his grand nephew was named as the next dictator. Furthermore, a number of civil wars then ensued between the supporters of the conspirators and the supporters of the dictator culminating in an unstable triumvirate whereby the US was ruled by three powerful men all distrustful of each other to the extent that they were unable to leave the country lest the other two dictators combine their supporters and oust him? What then?[/quote]
One of these men would eventually seize power, through manipulation and cunning. And the plebs would cheer, as long as the grain kept coming from Africa.
So we feel that somehow things would be horribly horribly bad under a dictatorship, but that as things are now, everything is fine and dandy?
Is there even a difference between the “right” and “left” anymore on the political level? The voters might have different mindset, but the politicians seem awfully similar.
We stated in another thread, Putin seems to be doing a better at leading Russia than Obama does leading the US. One is a dictator, one was elected by the people. Maybe we’re doing it wrong.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
We can’t vote out a problem but once every 4 years, and I think our system is proven flawed as it currently stands. In fact, its being proven that you can “buy votes” from the commoners. In our current case, you are seeing a the dictatorship of a party instead of an individual - though the decisions are the same.
For the sake of argument, lets assume said dictator is capable of not becoming power hungry and doing what’s best for the country. They are willing to make the difficult decisions, stand their ground, etc. and do all that is necessary to return the US to power and the number 1 nation - beyond just military technology and spending.
Would you be willing to give up the “right to vote” in order to have this? Or is it better to live in a system where we vote in the lesser of two evils and hope they can change the world in 4 years, behind a system that is designed to prevent change that doesn’t benefit those making said decisions?[/quote]
i agree we are broken in many ways, but even this perfect dictator is not the answer.
i recall a discussion i had with a d-bag going door to door trying to win support for obamacare. After i refuted every single point he had to make he said “the system is broken, we have to do something” I replied to him by saying the ‘obamacare something’ is not the CORRECT something.
Same story. something needs to be done, but it must be the CORRECT something, not just something for the sake of doing something.
if my house was on fire, i would need to do something. Grabbing my gas can and dumping it on the fire is something, but it sure as hell isnt the CORRECT something.
I’m just offering this as food for thought and something to discuss. Unfortunately, its just being entirely and completely struck off as not plausible.
We know our current system is broken, so what’s is the correct something? Maybe that will spur a better discussion.
We stated in another thread, Putin seems to be doing a better at leading Russia than Obama does leading the US. One is a dictator, one was elected by the people. Maybe we’re doing it wrong. [/quote]
From Wiki:
“The politics of the Russian Federation takes place in the framework of a federal semi-presidential republic. According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament’s approval. Legislative power is vested in the two houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding by-laws.”
We stated in another thread, Putin seems to be doing a better at leading Russia than Obama does leading the US. One is a dictator, one was elected by the people. Maybe we’re doing it wrong. [/quote]
From Wiki:
“The politics of the Russian Federation takes place in the framework of a federal semi-presidential republic. According to the Constitution of Russia, the President of Russia is head of state, and of a multi-party system with executive power exercised by the government, headed by the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the President with the parliament’s approval. Legislative power is vested in the two houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, while the President and the government issue numerous legally binding by-laws.”
Yup. Sounds like a dictatorship to me. [/quote]
Interesting thing. I used to work with a guy who was born and raised in communist Ukraine. We sat in the lunchroom watching the Obama campaign on break. After seeing enough, he got as pissed off as I’d ever seen him and started explaining how he’d seen politicians like Obama his whole life, and hoped to god that he didn’t get elected. He was absolutely passionate that if he were elected it would be very bad for this country.
Utterly impossible. The only man who was capable of that since was Washington.
[/quote]
What about Jefferson Davis? If Lee had more men and artillery he could’ve rolled back those yankee lines from Cemetery Ridge like a blue carpet…Joking of course.
We know our current system is broken, so what’s is the correct something? [/quote]
A lottery system every 20 years. Only married men with children who own property are eligible. Consult the Sibylline books when crises and natural disasters arise. Also, build a temple for sacrifices and produce a priestly class amongst whom soothsayers will emerge to guide us. Furthermore, the movements of the seven planets, moon and sun must be studied and interpreted to explain human events or solve problems like how many planets there are in the solar system.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I’m just offering this as food for thought and something to discuss. Unfortunately, its just being entirely and completely struck off as not plausible.
We know our current system is broken, so what’s is the correct something? Maybe that will spur a better discussion.[/quote]
i am not just shitting on the thought. I would fear any person becoming a dictator that wasnt me, like someone else said. can you ever really know someone that isnt family well enough to trust them with something so immense and important? Hell, can you even trust family that well in all cases?
In reality, i guess there are 3 ppl i would trust as dictator. my dad, my oldest sister or myself. i trust them with my life and i know them so well i know what they are thinking most of the time. i couldnt trust anyone with such a monumental task as being a fair dictator that i didnt have such a close relationship with.
And to be absolutely honest, i dont know if i could truly trust them or myself. I have never had that kind of power. I might become the 'tator and just start losing my shit. what little power i do have in this world i feel i use fairly and justly, but damn… think about how outrageous it would be. it is truly mind boggling. If i cant truly even trust myself 100% on such a thing, how could I trust someone else?
Discussing a perfect dictator is difficult from the get go, at least for me, because there is no such thing. I will fully admit it is a concept that is hard for me to wrap my head around.
we are broken now because we as a society for years have allowed those drunk on power to continue to imbibe. i truly believe that if we went back to the notions that founded this country we would be better/ok. but i fear those ideals may be dead and gone for all but a small handful of people, and that truly saddens me.
