4 ms·

> You just have to make sure the totalitarian ruling that state isn't some kind of psychopath. If the dictator is overall benevolent then it's not all that bad.

> You just have to make sure the totalitarian ruling that state isn't some kind of psychopath. If the dictator is overall benevolent then it's not all that bad. I think that's the issue though. Totalitarian states rarely have guard rails for such contingencies of having a bad ruler or series of bad rulers. China historically solved this issue with very bloody rebellions -- it's estimated that tens of millions of people died during the An Lushan rebellion of the Tang dynasty. The whole "mandate of heaven" thing is just a wrapper around this concept -- basically if things get bad enough the people can always rise up and violently replace one dynasty with another. With that in mind, Chinese dynasties either did a good job of ruling the country or repressed the hell out of the people when things aren't going well. Democracy, on the other hand, has a nonviolent means of changing the trajectory. It may not always guarantee good results but a non-violent way of changing government is preferable to a violent one.

deltaonefour 5y ago
>It may not always guarantee good results but a non-violent way of changing government is preferable to a violent one. I think it's because we've had good times throughout most of US history. Things haven't gotten bad enough for a revolt. Also US history is basically a minuscule fraction of Chinas' history.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
notahacker 5y ago
I agree that democracy providing the theoretical mechanism for peaceful removal of bad leaders makes it a better system, but I think the distinction is more relevant when you're a local person deeply invested in the politics of the country which determine your family's future or as a matter of principle then when you're a foreigner looking for somewhere cheap to live (poorer democracies are generally pretty flawed and not immune to violent upheaval anyway). "Totalitarian" tends to imply pretty extreme leadership, but there are a fair few non-democracies with non-extreme leadership which are pretty safe for expats, and a fair few developing world democracies where election time ratchets up the risk of violence.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Even when you're a local the politics largely don't even matter that much for certain countries like China.

deltaonefour 5y ago

>It may not always guarantee good results but a non-violent way of changing government is preferable to a violent one. I think it's because we've had good times throughout most of US history. Things haven't gotten bad enough for a revolt. Also US history is basically a minuscule fraction of Chinas' history.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

notahacker 5y ago

I agree that democracy providing the theoretical mechanism for peaceful removal of bad leaders makes it a better system, but I think the distinction is more relevant when you're a local person deeply invested in the politics of the country which determine your family's future or as a matter of principle then when you're a foreigner looking for somewhere cheap to live (poorer democracies are generally pretty flawed and not immune to violent upheaval anyway). "Totalitarian" tends to imply pretty extreme leadership, but there are a fair few non-democracies with non-extreme leadership which are pretty safe for expats, and a fair few developing world democracies where election time ratchets up the risk of violence.

deltaonefour 5y ago
Even when you're a local the politics largely don't even matter that much for certain countries like China.