1
   

Are Dictatorships more efficient??

 
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 02:21 pm
When asked for causes and reasons for WW-II, there are two things which I'd always put at the top of the list. One would be Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, which was the most major philosophical foundation of the fascist and communist states of the 20'th century, i.e. the idea that your fellow man is basically a meat byproduct of stochastic processes rather than a fellow child of God as had previously been universally believed.

Two would be the question of out-of-control arms races and their consequences. During the age which ended after WW-I the most expensive military items had been capital ships and those had service lives measured in decades. After WW-I, the most major expense items began to include aircraft and tanks and those became outmoded after four or five yerars, leaving the nations wishing to engage in arms races with three bad choices. They could:

  • Try to do what England did, i.e. prototype new weapons without actually building them, hoping to have a year or two after the outbreak of any major war in which to ramp up, i.e. hoping to get lucky. This left England with very little in the way of infrastructure to support modern weapons or people trained in their actual use when war did break out.
  • Do what France and Poland did, i.e. build complete new generations of weaponry and look like the baddest of the bad for five or six years without getting into a major war. This bankrupted those countries after which socialists took over their governments and decimated their militaries and military industries, leaving them easy pickings for Hitler.
  • Do what Hitler did, i.e. try to catch a wave and ride it. Totally implement new generations of weaponry and then try to acquire Kublai Khan's old job title, i.e. King of the World. In other words, the day after you become King of the World or Kha Khan, it won't really matter how much you owe the bankers for whatever it took to get there.


Saddam Hussein had basically fallen into the same trap in 1991, i.e. he basically owed so much money that the only real hope he had was taking over a rich neighbor.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 02:30 pm
Shocked

Okay, bye for now.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 02:33 pm
swolf wrote:
When asked for causes and reasons for WW-II, there are two things which I'd always put at the top of the list. One would be Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, which was the most major philosophical foundation of the fascist and communist states of the 20'th century, i.e. the idea that your fellow man is basically a meat byproduct of stochastic processes rather than a fellow child of God as had previously been universally believed.

Two would be the question of out-of-control arms races and their consequences. During the age which ended after WW-I the most expensive military items had been capital ships and those had service lives measured in decades. After WW-I, the most major expense items began to include aircraft and tanks and those became outmoded after four or five yerars, leaving the nations wishing to engage in arms races with three bad choices. They could:

  • Try to do what England did, i.e. prototype new weapons without actually building them, hoping to have a year or two after the outbreak of any major war in which to ramp up, i.e. hoping to get lucky. This left England with very little in the way of infrastructure to support modern weapons or people trained in their actual use when war did break out.
  • Do what France and Poland did, i.e. build complete new generations of weaponry and look like the baddest of the bad for five or six years without getting into a major war. This bankrupted those countries after which socialists took over their governments and decimated their militaries and military industries, leaving them easy pickings for Hitler.
  • Do what Hitler did, i.e. try to catch a wave and ride it. Totally implement new generations of weaponry and then try to acquire Kublai Khan's old job title, i.e. King of the World. In other words, the day after you become King of the World or Kha Khan, it won't really matter how much you owe the bankers for whatever it took to get there.


Saddam Hussein had basically fallen into the same trap in 1991, i.e. he basically owed so much money that the only real hope he had was taking over a rich neighbor.


Stop it! You're making milk come out of my nose!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 04:06 pm
I am going to make an argument for a benevelent dictatorship.

To me it is clear that a benevolent dictatorship is the most fair, just and efficient. The assumptions made here that dictators are inherently fascist and stifle dignity and creativiity are not accurate. There is no reason that a dictator can't listen to his citizens and make decisions based on their thoughts or concerns. Democracies are often bad at being decisive when quick action is needed. A good dictator can make the right decision quickly when needed.

Cav, is your kitchen a democracy, or do you (or someone else) have the ultimate authority and responsibility?

I have been in several situations where I have had wide ranging authority. My minions are always happy and productive.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jul, 2004 05:20 pm
I'm with ebrown. A dictatorship (the benevolent part you can hope for but....) is by far the easiest and most efficient form of government you can have.

Not always the "best" though.

Comes down to who the dictator is.....
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:20 am
I live in a dictatorship, btw: mostly called marriage, Mrs. Walter naming it something like "It's only for your best" and .... urgh, oops, rrrrr, ... help..., [size=7]...help...[/size]
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:22 am
Mr. Green . Poor Walter.
0 Replies
 
Galilite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:41 am
Benevolent dictatorship - ultimately hard to achieve, super-effective.

Two examples more striking than Germany - Singapore and Malaysia. The former was built nearly by "Brave New World". Started on almost barren rock, currently it is one of the most prosperous countries of the world.

On the other hand, there are nearby Philippines that were ruled by Marcos - it was effective first, and the country was flourishing. But then corruption slowly brought it where it is now.

I guess most dictatorships start as "benevolent" so there's no way to guess how it'll develop.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:43 am
Singapore is indeed a fine example.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:46 am
Cuba is a fine example of an efficient dictatorship.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:46 am
ebrown, sure, I do have the final say on the product that goes out, but I have no objections to suggestions from the team either. I guess I am a benevelont dictator. Smile
0 Replies
 
Galilite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:47 am
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Singapore is indeed a fine example.
...but they're more liberal now - chewing gum is already legal :-) .
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:48 am
Actually, if you want to get technical, it's the client who has the ultimate say. I'm just there to facilitate their wishes to the best of my abilities.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 07:50 am
Galilite wrote:
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Singapore is indeed a fine example.
...but they're more liberal now - chewing gum is already legal Smile .

WOW. Talk about an improvement!
0 Replies
 
Hans Goring
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Aug, 2004 01:09 pm
The thing i don't like about democracies is that any private company can gain control over natural resources(ie., water) When in a government controlling uhh government this won't happen and the resources can be sold to make profit for that country. American business' are suing the Canadian government for selling water cheaper to canadian business so know they will dictate the price of water to the canadian government...just think its a little wrong.


-Hans
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:18:09