"A skilled dictator is much more beneficial to mankind than a democracy of ignorant people" Agree?

[dartmaul15]

"a skiled dictator is much more beneficial to mankind than a democracy of ignorant people". Some of you might recognize this quote form the anime Code Geass. To put it in perspective; during ww2 and for the years after UK were under active food rationing, yet people haven't been healthier theen during the war. So would a skilled dictator be better than a democracy of ignorant people?
Do you agree or disagree with the statement? Why do you agree? Why do you disagree?

Also, what are your toughts on the matter.

Please keep this serious and civil. No attacks on individual persons please, and keep your language as clean as possible, ok?

I agree

I agree to some extent

Neither agrees or disagrees / i don't have an opinion

I disagree to some extent

I disagree

[Izzy2102]

Well history has proven that to be wrong hasn't it?
With few exceptions Dictators or Kings have all been terrible.

Now I think what I think was obvious during ww2 is that Stalin and Hitler were at a distinct advantage because they could act spontaneously. That's why the romans had a system were during war they could elect one man to act as dictator. And the last one of that never gave back his power

[dartmaul15]

You're using bad dictators as an example. I'm talking about the theoretical "good dictator". The benvolent and enlightened kind! Sure, they're prone to be power hungry, that's true. But let's keep this within the frames of the question.
The theoretical good dictator vs the theoretical ignorant deomcracy.

[Izzy2102]

Well there have been few good dictators though. I mean name 15.
So if that is case there are two options. Either that statement is wrong or there are no good dictators. The result is the same

[dartmaul15]

You do have a point that humanity and its greed got a habit of fucking up dictatorships, that's true.
And i do agree that dictators tend to be bad.
sadly a tought experiment isn't bound by this world. Which leads to the following modification of your statement. "Either that statement is wrong, or himan nature does not make the rising of a good dictator on a frequent enough basis realistically possible."

[BuchitaBuchys]

I agree in theory, but in practice this usually turns out bad.

Too many variables and factors too control.
-It's hard for even the smartest person to think for everyone.
-That much power can corrupt even the most benevolent, decent person.
-Human greed almost always exceeds human need

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

[Ivy_Nicole]

No absolute power corrupts and I think no one can make the best decisions for everyone. But in theory this would solve some shitty debates and politics.

[cowsert101]

the idea was originally posed i think by Socrates as the idea that the best type of gov is a benevolent and enlightened dictator. and if you have both in the same leader this is correct. i think i would rather have that than the idiots running things. idiots cause all kinds of problems that could easily be avoided and on an international scale that can effect far too many people to be good

[dartmaul15]

FINALLY someone realize what a "good dictator" reffers to. So many seem to think dictators are universally bad (okay, many are, but aren't all politicans power hungry?).

[cowsert101]

it's kind of a needed trait to be a politician lol. that's not to say the power hungry trait can't coincide with a desire to do what is bet for your community and country as a whole. im a huge history buff, with my favorite period to study being the classical Hellenistic world so this kinda jumped right out to me lol

[dartmaul15]

Exactly. The desire to benefit your country, and the world. Now, put a dictator hell-bent on achieving that in power. I'd like to see that done as a social experiment.

[cowsert101]

it would be interesting but if the guy went about it the wrong way things could get dicey lol

[dartmaul15]

That's the problem, yeah. Human greed.
Fucks up so many theoretically good things. Communism, dictatorship, socialism, marxism... They're all good on paper, but fails when meeting human nature.

[cowsert101]

ya we are some greedy little bastards lol

[Longblackveil]

Yeah, it's probably true to some extent.

But hitler was probably the most skilled dictator that's ever lived, so...

I just don't think people should be ruled over with an iron fist and no choice.

Power corrupts and even a good hearted man is not immune to this fact.

[dartmaul15]

interresting that you bring up hitler.
On one side he got germany out of the 30s crisis, and made geramny one of the fastest developing countries of its time. On the other side he started ww2 and hollocoast.

[Longblackveil]

Yes that's what I mean. If you just look at what he did for their economy, yeah he did a great job.

But he is responsible for the death of a lot of people both directly and indirectly. I'm not sure if I'm right, but maybe more than anyone in the history of civilization.

[rjroy3]

In Rome, in times of crisis a dictator would take control to get things done. Julius Caesar was the last... it's too much power. So while I agree it can be better in terms of its effectiveness. Outside of assassination, there is no keeping him in check.

[dartmaul15]

Well, in ancient greece they had dictators too. And yes, you do have a point. But would a dictator with the right mindset benefit mankind?
And really, i'm comparing an effective dictator to an ineffective democracy. What's worse or better?

[rjroy3]

That seems an odd comparison.
You're asking what works better, a losing plan or a winning plan? Lol.

[dartmaul15]

More like a "good" plan created by one man and ruled by one, or a "bad" plan created by everybody...

[rjroy3]

That's a new scenario. Your original question was just the political system as a whole and it's effectiveness.
I thought it silly, because a qualified leader with complete power to do his plan would be more effective end of story.
An ignorant people leadership couldn't do anything because they're ignorant.
That was response to original question.
It'd be a more fair comparison to compare a good dictator to a good congress who have to discuss everything, but would have power in check. While a dictator could act swiftly and get things done, but is dangerous

[dartmaul15]

now we're talking here, even though it wasn't a new question.
Either way, that's the point of it all. If one form of controll is the de facto best, or if there are situations where others would be better. Yes, i am questioning western ideals XD

[rjroy3]

I don't feel like arguing the point more so I'm dropping it lol.

But yes, in a times of a state emergency as far as actually having decisions made and getting things done (good or bad) a dictatorship would be faster and therefore more effective.
But as a standard government it is a horrible idea. In times past it was always supposed to be temporary and the shit still hit the fan. Having that as the base government is a horrible idea. The dictators were all skilled, that's why they were in power. They just stepped out of line

[cowsert101]

your right about what the romans did but ceasar wasn't appointed because of a crisis. he seized the tittle by starting a civil war and winning. just a little clarification here. cincinnatus is the guy the romans liked to show to prove how successful this could be and it fits with the example you are making much better than ceasar does

[rjroy3]

@cowsert101

Thank you for the clarification, last I studied this particular history was 2008 lol.

[cowsert101]

i love history and rome is pretty much my favorite empire in history to study so i do it for pure enjoyment lol. and you are quite welcome. africanus scipio is the only other guy i can think of off the top of my head who did this (though i know there were more)

[Asksomeonelse]

In theory, yes. A skilled dictator would have the potential to be much more beneficial to mankind than a democracy of ignorant fools. Whether they'd want to or could even pull it off beyond their death however is another thing. However, if it was between a skilled dictator aiming for the betterment of humanity vs an equally skilled democracy of intellectuals wanting the same thing and being just as capable of doing it, my vote would go towards the democracy as that would more grounds for issues to be tackled on each side, multiple vantage points if you will.

[ThatBritishLad]

> Skilled Dictator
> Post-WWII UK
> wut
Dictatorships just don't work. It's the same as communism: Just because it sounds nice doesn't mean it would actually work as a long term solution. I don't know about you, but I doubt people enjoy putting down the working man without reason... Well, they actually do generally but... S-Shut up ¬w¬

[Anonymous]

Democracy of ignorant people create dictators. Turkey can be a case study on this. Majority of our stupid people vote for this asshole in every election and the is totally acting like a dictator. Our democracy is only on paper now.
Another example could be Berlusconi of Italy.

[dartmaul15]

So a democracy of ignorant people lead to a bad dictator?
I see your point, but on the same time it's wrong. I didn't ask if a bad dictator was better, but if a good dictator was. Something like giving Ghandi og martin luther king the rolle as a doctator (please, for the love of god, no age of empire refferences). Would that be better?

[mson95]

Democracy is basically dead worldwide, in it's current form anyway. Legislation nowadays doesn't benefit 'the people' but benefits corporations and those in power.

The politicians in my country give themselves outrageous pensions while cutting elderly pensions but it cannot/will not be changed as they would have to vote through legislation to allow it.

[dartmaul15]

EXACTLY!
Would it be better to have a dictator arise and rule in benefit of the people, but without the people able to influence? Sort of, he does what's best for them in the long run...
I KNOW this is unlikely, but it's mainly meant as a tought experiment with the purpose of questioning the democracy

[mson95]

I mean i kinda agree it would be great but even the most altruistic person would succumb to weakness at some point and become like any other dictator around the world currently. Unchecked power doesn't go well for long if at all.

[Jerusha]

From a political point of view, yes... Politics is emotionless and heartless. They put the benefits of the nation as a whole before the benefits of individuals.
From a human point of view, no.

[crazyincalifornia]

A dictator can be good, no doubt.
That said, modern societies want a say, ignorant or not.

[itsme_goodsamaritan]

Only if it is a benevolent dictator, otherwise, people are better off finding their own luck.

[Shut_Up_And_Marry_Me]

I think the main thing is that things would get done faster, though it might be biased to his wants and interests lmao!

[Ihav2fart]

Agree to some extent!
Ricktatorship! (The Walking Dead)

[koko124]

Yes, the best government in theory is a benevolent dictatorship.

[kep79]

It's beneficial to only his people. Islamic countries are democracies of ignorant people.

[bombamboum]

I just saw this on 9gag, coincidence?

[dartmaul15]

nope XD

[bombamboum]

I though so ^^

[Anonymous]

I agree 100%.

[Opinion Owner]

This is what I think of democracy: Basic reasons why Democracy is the worst possible system ↗