• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Government : The Dictator

P

Pozessed

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2014
Messages
934
Reaction score
217
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A government, that distinguishes and enforces law, can be considered a dictator according to my logic. I am curious as to what is morally righteous by a dictator concerning their subjects. Seeing as the discussion is about morals, I think it is important to realize that this whole topic is based on subjectivity.

I am curious which should be considered more righteous to a dictator. A dictator whom allows its individual subjects freedom to harm their individual selves or a dictator whom uses their powers that be to protect these subjects from themselves.
 
Pozessed said:
A government, that distinguishes and enforces law, can be considered a dictator according to my logic
Click to expand...

Lead us through this logic. A democratically elected government is not a dictatorship. To start with the word dictator is singular but a government is plural.
 
Pozessed said:
A government, that distinguishes and enforces law, can be considered a dictator according to my logic. I am curious as to what is morally righteous by a dictator concerning their subjects. Seeing as the discussion is about morals, I think it is important to realize that this whole topic is based on subjectivity.

I am curious which should be considered more righteous to a dictator. A dictator whom allows its individual subjects freedom to harm their individual selves or a dictator whom uses their powers that be to protect these subjects from themselves.
Click to expand...

So governments are people too now?
 
The government of the USA for the most part is NOT "democratic" in the pure sense as people elect representatives, rather than directly voting for laws. In addition, no administrators are elected and they create more laws and restrictive regulations than do the elected representatives. Accordingly virtually all laws are one or two steps removed from democracy.

In addition, democracy itself if rule of the majority oppressing the individual and those in the minority. A democracy is not a free society. It is a democratic society, which is different from a free society. However, a purely free society also is a society of essentially anarchy and is no society at all.

There is a line from the movie "The Patriot" that is relevant to this discussion. "Why would I want to replace 1 dictator 3000 miles away with 3000 dictators 1 mile away? A legislative body can be just as oppressive as a king."

That the United States has more people in prison and more people with criminal records thus deprived many core citizens rights than any other country in the world gives merit to that question. We also are learning that people via representative democratic voting can take individual's property, land, income and freedom for their own usage - as can an elected government - the same as any dictatorship.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
The government of the USA for the most part is NOT "democratic" in the pure sense as people elect representatives, rather than directly voting for laws. In addition, no administrators are elected and they create more laws and restrictive regulations than do the elected representatives. Accordingly virtually all laws are one or two steps removed from democracy.

In addition, democracy itself if rule of the majority oppressing the individual and those in the minority. A democracy is not a free society. It is a democratic society, which is different from a free society. However, a purely free society also is a society of essentially anarchy and is no society at all.

There is a line from the movie "The Patriot" that is relevant to this discussion. "Why would I want to replace 1 dictator 3000 miles away with 3000 dictators 1 mile away? A legislative body can be just as oppressive as a king."

That the United States has more people in prison and more people with criminal records thus deprived many core citizens rights than any other country in the world gives merit to that question. We also are learning that people via representative democratic voting can take individual's property, land, income and freedom for their own usage - as can an elected government - the same as any dictatorship.
Click to expand...

What system would you like to replace it with? No legislative body regardless of the distance? Anarchy?
 
zyzygy said:
Lead us through this logic. A democratically elected government is not a dictatorship. To start with the word dictator is singular but a government is plural.
Click to expand...

Yes because America is a government that's controlled by the vote of the people and not the money of corporations.... Gimme a break. Lobbying > democracy when capitalism structures the legislature as well as the economy.
 
Pozessed said:
Yes because America is a government that's controlled by the vote of the people and not the money of corporations.... Gimme a break. Lobbying > democracy when capitalism structures the legislature as well as the economy.
Click to expand...

What's your solution?
 
zyzygy said:
What's your solution?
Click to expand...

Do away with senators/representatives and voting. Use pure public opinion to create laws/regulation. Do this by creating a largely marketed public forum for all city, county, state, and federal levels. Only allow people to publish an argument or concern anonymously. No recognition or credit to gain will decrease selfish motives.
I'm not really sure how it would or could work. But I found it to be better than offering no suggestion.
 
Pozessed said:
Do away with senators/representatives and voting. Use pure public opinion to create laws/regulation. Do this by creating a largely marketed public forum for all city, county, state, and federal levels. Only allow people to publish an argument or concern anonymously. No recognition or credit to gain will decrease selfish motives.
I'm not really sure how it would or could work. But I found it to be better than offering no suggestion.
Click to expand...

It does not sound practical.
 
zyzygy said:
It does not sound practical.
Click to expand...
It can be in some fashion. Why don't we have marketed government internet forums such as this, which our representatives are responsible to correspond with? I've heard that moderation of forums such as those would be to costly... I think that is a poor validation considering the value of public opinion in a supposedly democratic union.
 
Pozessed said:
Do away with senators/representatives and voting. Use pure public opinion to create laws/regulation. Do this by creating a largely marketed public forum for all city, county, state, and federal levels. Only allow people to publish an argument or concern anonymously. No recognition or credit to gain will decrease selfish motives.
I'm not really sure how it would or could work. But I found it to be better than offering no suggestion.
Click to expand...

Look around this forum.

Do you want a government run by these people?
 
We can openly and publicly dissect every law created. Keeping a conversation on topic and in a progressive fashion is up to the moderators. Granted this forum is more lax than a formal government forum would need, but it's still a good premise on how to use the publics own written thought to generate intimate laws.
 
Pozessed said:
We can openly and publicly dissect every law created. Keeping a conversation on topic and in a progressive fashion is up to the moderators. Granted this forum is more lax than a formal government forum would need, but it's still a good premise on how to use the publics own written thought to generate intimate laws.
Click to expand...

Millions of people discussing every law. Who would make the final decisions and would they be elected? I have no idea what you mean by intimate laws. Are they laws about sex?
 
Pozessed said:
It can be in some fashion. Why don't we have marketed government internet forums such as this, which our representatives are responsible to correspond with? I've heard that moderation of forums such as those would be to costly... I think that is a poor validation considering the value of public opinion in a supposedly democratic union.
Click to expand...

Many politicians are on Twitter. So you are not proposing doing away with elections and politicians?
 
Pozessed said:
A government, that distinguishes and enforces law, can be considered a dictator according to my logic. I am curious as to what is morally righteous by a dictator concerning their subjects. Seeing as the discussion is about morals, I think it is important to realize that this whole topic is based on subjectivity.

I am curious which should be considered more righteous to a dictator. A dictator whom allows its individual subjects freedom to harm their individual selves or a dictator whom uses their powers that be to protect these subjects from themselves.
Click to expand...

Depends how you define a government .... What is a government?

A entity that has juristiction to make Laws in a certain area? Then all property owners are governments, families are governments.

What is a government?

Also there is a huge difference between a total monarchy, and a loosely Federated Democracy.
 
zyzygy said:
Millions of people discussing every law. Who would make the final decisions and would they be elected? I have no idea what you mean by intimate laws. Are they laws about sex?
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't know how or if something like that could work. I was offering a suggestion.

By intimate laws, I meant individuals would be able to initiate conversations about laws that most effect them and their community. As of now, a person is lucky if their opinion is heard let alone understood at an official level.
 
zyzygy said:
Many politicians are on Twitter. So you are not proposing doing away with elections and politicians?
Click to expand...

Twitter is not a good place for lengthy discussion, nor are conversations kept in an orderly fashion.
I thought we were discussing practical?
 
"A dictator whom allows its individual subjects freedom to harm their individual selves" would be the more righteous of the two, IMO.
 
Pozessed said:
As I said, I don't know how or if something like that could work. I was offering a suggestion.
Click to expand...

If you have no idea of how something like that could work then how can we discuss your idea?
 
Pozessed said:
Twitter is not a good place for lengthy discussion, nor are conversations kept in an orderly fashion.
I thought we were discussing practical?
Click to expand...

See above post.
 
zyzygy said:
If you have no idea of how something like that could work then how can we discuss your idea?
Click to expand...

By being open minded and creative instead of detouring and narrow minded. If I had a well thought out proposal, I wouldn't have concluded to not know how something worked.
 
Pozessed said:
By being open minded and creative instead of detouring and narrow minded. If I had a well thought out proposal, I wouldn't have concluded to not know how something worked.
Click to expand...

Come back when you have a well thought out proposal.
 
zyzygy said:
Come back when you have a well thought out proposal.
Click to expand...

I'll remember not to bounce ideas off of you. Don't ask for an answer to a question you think you have figured out, and we wouldn't have started this discussion.
 
Pozessed said:
I'll remember not to bounce ideas off of you. Don't ask for an answer to a question you think you have figured out, and we wouldn't have started this discussion.
Click to expand...

Which idea would this be? As far as I can see you don't think that democracy in the USA works.
 
zyzygy said:
Which idea would this be? As far as I can see you don't think that democracy in the USA works.
Click to expand...

Your question further strengthens my wishes to not continue.
Yea, and my point was that you disagree and are being a bigot, which is bad for progressive communication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom