Which of these two rulers would you prefer?

Pages: 1

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Which of these two rulers would you prefer?

Poll

Which of these two rulers would you prefer?

A benevolent dictator	48%	48% - 27
A corrupt elected leader	12%	12% - 7
Other (explain)	21%	21% - 12
The jurys out on this one!	17%	17% - 10
Total: 56

2007-02-02 02:28:07

BVC: Member; +325|7122

Someone bought up a point on another forum, and I thought you'd all have fun with it.

A country springs up overnight and you have to choose the sort of ruler it has. It'll have this sort of leader as long as it exists. You can have a benevolent dictator or a corrupt elected president/PM/whatever.

A benevolent dictator; they didn't get into their position of rule by fair means, but they do well for you and your fellow citizens.

A corrupt elected leader; their heart can be bought and often is, but they're who the people wanted.

Me? The jurys out; there are benefits and drawbacks to both.

2007-02-02 02:31:07

daffytag: cheese-it!; +104|7001

I can only choose one cos you made the poll incorrectly. I chose "other", the other three are negative. I'm not that stupid

2007-02-02 02:34:18

Kukulcan: Member; +6|6727|The Battlefield

I'd surely prefer an ''enlightened dictator'' , in the world , there are already enough corrupt leaders democratically elected.

If a dictatorship works good , then is right. I mean : i don't want that a good governor leaves his seat , he is the best person for that role , so let him be.

2007-02-02 03:03:09

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7027|132 and Bush

I prefer an elected system with checks and balances as opposed to a single person with absolute power. All these guys turned their powers into a dictatorship: Benito Mussolin, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

I can only choose one cos you made the poll incorrectly. I chose "other", the other three are negative. I'm not that stupid

He obviously made it biased anyways by casting one as benevolent and the other as corrupt..lol

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-02 03:11:44

Kukulcan: Member; +6|6727|The Battlefield

Kmarion wrote:
I prefer an elected system with checks and balances as opposed to a single person with absolute power. All these guys turned their powers into a dictatorship: Benito Mussolin, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

I can only choose one cos you made the poll incorrectly. I chose "other", the other three are negative. I'm not that stupid
He obviously made it biased anyways by casting one as benevolent and the other as corrupt..lol

Those aren't examples of enlightened dictatorship

2007-02-02 03:17:37

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7027|132 and Bush

Kukulcan wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
I prefer an elected system with checks and balances as opposed to a single person with absolute power. All these guys turned their powers into a dictatorship: Benito Mussolin, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

I can only choose one cos you made the poll incorrectly. I chose "other", the other three are negative. I'm not that stupid
He obviously made it biased anyways by casting one as benevolent and the other as corrupt..lol
Those aren't examples of enlightened dictatorship

I think the ideas they brought were new and innovative although sick.

Enlightenment (or brightening) broadly means the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception.

What he did say was benevolent in which I was trying to demonstrate is not typical when a single person assumes power.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-02 03:19:35)

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-02 03:45:12

TeamZephyr: Maintaining My Rage Since 1975; +124|6955|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

While I would personally prefer a system where the government and leader are elected by the people and a true system of checks and balances with the seperation of powers so that the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary are not combined like in a dictatorship. I would also prefer that the government must act in the interests of the people and be held accountable in more ways than just being elected every four years.

The problem with any kind of dictatorship is that the legislative, executive AND judiciary are combined as one making it corrupt right from the outset, simply because having one person in charge does not make him accountable whether he is benevolent or not. Eventually the "benevolent" dictator will get corrupted by the fact that he is the sole person in charge and can exercise his will no matter what. The idea of the benevolent dictator is IMPOSSIBLE in the 21st Century simply because everyone who is in a position of power is in for their lust for money, power or both, not from their geniune desire to help out the general populance of their country.

Then there is the issue of getting into power, in today's modern world getting into a position of power requires a lot of immoral activity, large amounts of money and the ability to manipulate and lie. Admit it that every politician whether they are Republican, Democrat, Labor, Liberal, Conservative or Hardline Commie is corrupted by greed and power and only act in the interets of themselves and their party, not the people they represent. The idea of someone who is completey moral and benevolent to come out of this cesspool of power lust is something that can not be seen.

While most of us would like to see a benevolent dictator that assists us, it's impossible in today's world because humans have evolved to the extent where money and power corrupt no matter how moral you seem before gaining that position of power.

2007-02-02 04:32:38

Kukulcan: Member; +6|6727|The Battlefield

Kmarion wrote:
Kukulcan wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
I prefer an elected system with checks and balances as opposed to a single person with absolute power. All these guys turned their powers into a dictatorship: Benito Mussolin, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

He obviously made it biased anyways by casting one as benevolent and the other as corrupt..lol
Those aren't examples of enlightened dictatorship
I think the ideas they brought were new and innovative although sick.

Enlightenment (or brightening) broadly means the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception.

What he did say was benevolent in which I was trying to demonstrate is not typical when a single person assumes power.

I mean that Mussolini , Hitler and Stalin at the beginning of their rule , probably , were good governors : it was the power itself that corrupted them .

2007-02-02 04:42:35

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6987

Kmarion wrote:
He obviously made it biased anyways by casting one as benevolent and the other as corrupt..lol

That's not bias, that's the point. Would you prefer the much touted democracy, but your life is shit, or the despised totalitarianism, but you live a happy life.

Similar to the offer of Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light: you can have eternal high pay, but your work is burned in front of you each day, or your work can be valued and respected, but you must live in eternal poverty.

2007-02-02 04:42:45

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7027|132 and Bush

Kukulcan wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Kukulcan wrote:

Those aren't examples of enlightened dictatorship
I think the ideas they brought were new and innovative although sick.

Enlightenment (or brightening) broadly means the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception.

What he did say was benevolent in which I was trying to demonstrate is not typical when a single person assumes power.
I mean that Mussolini , Hitler and Stalin at the beginning of their rule , probably , were good governors : it was the power itself that corrupted them .

That is why what I was trying to explain. I would consider a benevolent dictator if I didn't already know that power does eventually corrupt. I already know the ending to that story.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-02 04:43:36

Bubbalo: The Lizzard; +541|6987

Kukulcan wrote:
I mean that Mussolini , Hitler and Stalin at the beginning of their rule , probably , were good governors : it was the power itself that corrupted them .

Stalin, perhaps, but perhaps not (we don't know enough about him pre-power). Hitler and Mussolini, definitely not. They were always power hungry assholes.

2007-02-02 04:48:03

Sydney: 2λчиэλ; +783|7269|Reykjavík, Iceland.

I have always said that the best form of government is dictatorship where the dictator does what is good for the people and stuff.

The problem is that the people don't always agree with everything, so what shall the dictator choose?

2007-02-02 05:09:20

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7027|132 and Bush

PBAsydney wrote:
The problem is that the people don't always agree with everything, so what shall the dictator choose?

That is why you choose a form a government in which everyone is represented.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-02-02 14:52:17

BVC: Member; +325|7122

I meant for the poll to be that way. The only other things I could have done to make it different were to enter the options in a different order. Obviously we'd all prefer an elected benevolent leader, but the poll is meant to be more about what you'd choose if you had to pick one or the other, but not both. I guess I just want to find out what people value more.

2007-02-02 15:25:01

Major_Spittle: Banned; +276|7081|United States of America

Why is there no corrupt dictator choice? I will abstain from voting.

2007-02-02 15:28:00

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7008|SE London

Kmarion wrote:
Kukulcan wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
I prefer an elected system with checks and balances as opposed to a single person with absolute power. All these guys turned their powers into a dictatorship: Benito Mussolin, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

He obviously made it biased anyways by casting one as benevolent and the other as corrupt..lol
Those aren't examples of enlightened dictatorship
I think the ideas they brought were new and innovative although sick.

Enlightenment (or brightening) broadly means the acquisition of new wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception.

What he did say was benevolent in which I was trying to demonstrate is not typical when a single person assumes power.

Augustus was a pretty benevolent dictator. That's going back a way though and while he and Caesar were pretty decent dictators, many that followed were not.

2007-02-02 15:28:07

deeznutz1245: Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.; +483|6919|Connecticut

I dont want a leader. Someone someday may speak for me, but nobody can possibly speak for everyone.

Malloy must go

2007-02-02 16:25:18

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6831|North Carolina

I chose "other." Ideally, humans would be split into equally talented groups of about 10 million with an elected leader on top of the group as a whole, but with several lower leaders (with smaller groups of constituents) making most of the decisions. Groups would be arranged so that the people in each had a general agreement on most cultural issues, so as to avoid most conflict.

In other words, this would be like a vague spinoff of Plato's Republic.

2007-02-02 18:48:05

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6771|Twyford, UK

Benevolent dictator. Currently have both due to britain's wierd system of democracy/monarchy duality, and want someone who has the people's interest in mind.

This is a similar choice to the ending of Deus Ex I went through the other day. Choice between a return to 20th century 'democracy' and capitalism guided by the Illuminati, a benevolent dictatorship consisting of me, the internet, and a few fused AIs, and no government whatsoever.
Or, of course, letting that madman Page win, but he killed my goddamn parents, grew me in a vat, and threw hordes of genetic mutants at me.

2007-02-02 18:49:57

Archer: rapes face; +161|6850|Canuckistan

Anarchy

2007-02-02 18:55:02

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6949|...

a bio super computer called MAGI

2007-02-02 19:20:04

Masques: Black Panzer Party; +184|7148|Eastern PA

Benevolent dictatorship.

There's always a release valve for dissent, even in a dictatorship. Some just tend to be more violent than others.

2007-02-02 19:33:40

G3|Genius: Pope of BF2s; +355|7052|Sea to globally-cooled sea

The Kingdom of Heaven is a benevolent dictatorship.

Chew on that.

2007-02-02 20:10:32

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6771|Twyford, UK

*gnaw gnaw*
I still don't see anything wrong WITH a benevolent dictatorship, as long as it stays benevolent.

Pages: 1

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Which of these two rulers would you prefer?

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Which of these two rulers would you prefer?

Poll

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

PBAsydney wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Kukulcan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Board footer