Ellendra wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
During times of great peril, Rome's constitution allowed for the election of a dictator for a term of one year with nearly unlimited authority. Julius Caesar was named dictator for life by a captive Senate and later assassinated, ending the office of dictator in Rome. Would the United States do well with such a provision? What if the Constitution were suspended for one year and a dictator named with sweeping powers to revitalize the economy and nation?
Please tell me you're trolling?
Most of NeantHumain's posts in the politics forum are "satirical" complaints about the Tea Party. I will assume that this is similar: a satirical complaint about The Right in general.
ruveyn wrote:
All a dictator can do is enslave us. A dictator cannot make a market economy work.
Well, surely in theory a dictator could decide to let the free market and the invisible hand do it's thing, and still remain a dictator.
abacacus wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
abacacus wrote:
There is nothing inherently wrong with a dictator, but people will not trust anyone to hold that position (aside from themselves in almost every case).
Dictators, by definition are not accountable to anyone for their exercises of force and power. That makes them very dangerous. Do you really believe in benign dictators? I don't. And history back me up to the hilt.
ruveyn
And democracy is any better? Nothing ever gets done.
Also, many ancient societies were dictatorships (either in reality or effectively) and were very successful, far more so than any modern country.
I would mostly agree with this, though would probably prefer to have authority resting with some sort of broad aristocracy than with a single individual. An authoritarian regime could give a greater sense of direction to society than the party politicial squabble we call democracy (which is mostly just rule by money and media).