5 ms·

There's no getting around living under "authoritarian" control. You could categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands

by Rury 5y ago

There's no getting around living under "authoritarian" control. You could categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority - Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority is authority - Anarchy: Power in everyone's hands, everyone is authority (or no one is depending on how you look at it) In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more power is equally distributed amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes. When you're in complete Anarchy, might/ability is what ultimately determines the outcomes in conflicts, and those who wield it typically end up becoming the "authority". Hence, over time, Anarchy will naturally develop into the other more stable forms of government. Notice however, all forms of government have the following issue: when there's a conflict in wants between people, someone (ie authority) will have their way, someone won't. You can't get rid of this reality, no matter how you structure government, which is to say: oppression is unavoidable so long as there exists conflicts in what people want. Thus, I honestly don't see why people think a dictatorship is necessarily more oppressive than other forms of government. Some people are quite happy with their dictators, even if there's other people living under the same dictator that aren't; but this is true of any form of government. And it's not hard to see why there can be people happy with their dictators, as dictatorships are highly efficient and effective at carrying out policy. If your dicator is competent & beneveloent towards your wishes, it's arguably the best - most effective form of government. But understandably, if your dicator is not competent or benevolent to you, its among the worst...

javajosh 5y ago
>oppression is unavoidable Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! I think we can all agree that even losing the vote on every issue is far preferable to losing the ability to vote on any issue. But that's not true if, by losing a vote, or a court case, or an administrative decision, you consider yourself 'oppressed'. You lost, true. Maybe unfairly. But that's necessary but not sufficient to prove oppression! Like, if I could wave a magic wand and grant all American voters the (apparent) super-power of gracefully losing, I would. If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence. No-one wants to live in that world, so we need to give people a way to take their licks at the polls and then work together to solve the world's problems. And you know what, if you want to go to war over abortion, have at it, but do you really want to die on that hill? Aren't there issues that are more urgent, and more clearly dire than abortion? Or gay people? Or racist people? Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change, nuclear armaggedon, income inequality and the backsliding of democracies into autocracies? And aren't all of these at least 5 orders-of-magnitude more important than whether or not a trans woman can compete in NCAA sport? (Why don't we hear our senators debating the important issues of the day? Why aren't they erudite men, well versed in many fields of endeavor, hosting daily podcasts of debates, singly and in groups? Is this not their job? And isn't it our job to second-guess all of them mercilessly??)
- Rury 5y ago
  >Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! Wants themselves do have ranks, as does the amount of oppression felt by not getting them. As you can imagine, there are likely some people who want 2nd vacation homes, but would prefer not having a 2nd home over not having food if they were ever forced into a situation where they had to compromise. But it's not as black and white as you'd might think. People don't all share the same wants, let alone to the same degree. There are people in this world who would prefer to own 3 homes not caring that there are homeless people wanting just 1 (greed). There are people out there who prefer to go without buying food, dumpster dive, and work minimum wage jobs despite having better offers, all in order to save up to buy a house (I personally know a guy - and this is pride). People who like to go without food (ie fast) for weeks (me). And yet, people who prefer to remain homeless, people who want to help the homeless, and people who don't want to help. >If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence Whether something is a moral imperative is subject to opinion - whether you personally deem it so. But yes, especially at some extreme point, that is reality, and you cannot escape it. This is exactly the sort of thing political philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke argued in their social contract theories. It's why when loss is deemed to be so terribly bad under tyrannical governments, that there are violent revolutions. It's the reason for wars. It's literally what lead to the foundation of the United States. That said, you can learn to go without most wants. It's what Buddhist monks teach and practice. Additionally, wants have ranks, as I mentioned above. So winning is not always a moral imperative for everyone in every case. Some people simply don't care that much about certain topics, and don't care if they lose the outcome. >No-one wants to live in that world Yes, that's why true Anarchy doesn't last long. Anarchy, or the state of nature, can often be brutally violent. Wild animals often kill each other just for fun, it's called surplus killing. Power hierarchies naturally form within same species, just to avoid constantly having to violently fight to determine the outcomes for conflicts. The suffering of being subjugated is often preferred to the suffering of being violently maimed (or mere risk of it) by your neighbor, but pushed to a point it can obviously flip, leading you back into a revolution. As you put it, no one wants to live in that violent world, (at least not very long), so a hierarchy eventually forms in order to avoid having to live in it. >Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change ... Yes and no depending on how you look at it. Do we all have opinions on those topics? Yes. Do they affect us in some way? Yes. Do we all share the same opinions over them? No. Do we all rank those issues at the same level of importance? Probably relatively to some degree, but ultimately no.
nec4b 5y ago
>> as dictatorships are highly efficient and effective at carrying out policy Hardly ever true. Most dictatorships are unstable and unable to do anything more than a bare minimum. Hierarchy is not the same as dictatorship. Dictatorships means unlimited power. There is also hierarchy in democracies, but it is more about the separation of power, rather than of concentration.
- Rury 5y ago
  >Hardly ever true. Most dictatorships are unstable and unable to do anything more than a bare minimum Dictatorships are only as effective as their leaders competence, so you can make that argument. But relavtive to other forms of governments, dictatorships are efficient and effective at carrying out policy simply because there is minimal questions, debates, delibrations over decisions and conflicts. In democracy, you MUST debate, vote, count votes, and come to an agreement about a topic amongst many people, before you can enact policy. This is often a lengthy (ie inefficient/bureaucratic) process. In dictatorships, this is a shorter process, as one man decides, and it's do as your told, no questions asked. In this aspect, dictatorships are faster at enacting/delivering policy. >Hierarchy is not the same as dictatorship A heirarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. Dictatorships are a heirarchy, namely a heirarchy consisting of 1 man having unlimited authority over everyone. But not all heirarchies are dictatorships, as you can have many other possible forms of heirarchies.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    I doesn't help you much if you are the fastest widget maker if every widget you produce is defective because you didn't take the time to do it right. So no, there is no law of nature decreeing dictatorships are more efficient or effective than other forms of government. It is actually the other way around, skipping important input is what makes dictatorships historically almost universally worse than other forms of government from the offset.
    - Rury 5y ago
      >I doesn't help you much if you are the fastest widget maker if every widget you produce is defective because you didn't take the time to do it right You're conflating effectiveness at "making good policy" with effectivness in "delivering policy". I never said they were most effective at "making good policy" but in "carrying out policy" (meaning time to deliver policy). >So no, there is no law of nature decreeing dictatorships are more efficient or effective than other forms of government And again, I never made that claim (if you mean efficient/effective at making good policy). I said they were when it came to delivering policy (whether that's good or bad policy) and it depends on their competence. IF their leaders are competent (in making good policy and decisions), they naturally are more efficient and effective governments. This holds true, because, of the words 'if' and 'competent' and the reasons I explained prior. As far as waiting for input vs skipping input goes, it's a double edged sword not a one way street. Extra time spent in gathering input means slower to act. Slower to act means missed action/opportunities, which is a terrible aspect to have in an immediate crisis. This is exactly the reason why the executive branch of the US functions more similarly to a dictatorship than a democracy - it's so that it can respond faster in times of crisis. It's because dictatorships are actually better in this aspect, when compared to other forms of government.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I mean Gaddafi had a pretty stable dictatorship for a pretty long time, but dictatorships are anything but stable and they are always challenged. As soon as the dictatorship cannot deliver mainly economic prosperity, they will fail. True for other forms as well, but the economic growth comes with desires of political participation at some point. > I honestly don't see why people think a dictatorship is necessarily more oppressive than other forms of government. To be honest, that isn't too creative of you.
javajosh 5y ago
A friend once wondered why there are nations. I responded that because even one nation will expand until it is stopped by another. (A nation usually meaning one geographical location and it's people, language, etc. Or, uniquely for the US, meaning one set of values. Used to mean enlightenment values, but now means Jerry Springer, WWF, Payday loan values. But I digress.)

by Rury 5y ago

javajosh 5y ago

>oppression is unavoidable Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! I think we can all agree that even losing the vote on every issue is far preferable to losing the ability to vote on any issue. But that's not true if, by losing a vote, or a court case, or an administrative decision, you consider yourself 'oppressed'. You lost, true. Maybe unfairly. But that's necessary but not sufficient to prove oppression! Like, if I could wave a magic wand and grant all American voters the (apparent) super-power of gracefully losing, I would. If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence. No-one wants to live in that world, so we need to give people a way to take their licks at the polls and then work together to solve the world's problems. And you know what, if you want to go to war over abortion, have at it, but do you really want to die on that hill? Aren't there issues that are more urgent, and more clearly dire than abortion? Or gay people? Or racist people? Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change, nuclear armaggedon, income inequality and the backsliding of democracies into autocracies? And aren't all of these at least 5 orders-of-magnitude more important than whether or not a trans woman can compete in NCAA sport? (Why don't we hear our senators debating the important issues of the day? Why aren't they erudite men, well versed in many fields of endeavor, hosting daily podcasts of debates, singly and in groups? Is this not their job? And isn't it our job to second-guess all of them mercilessly??)

Rury 5y ago
>Otherwise very nicely put, but surely there is a useful distinction between "not getting what you want" and "oppression"! Wants themselves do have ranks, as does the amount of oppression felt by not getting them. As you can imagine, there are likely some people who want 2nd vacation homes, but would prefer not having a 2nd home over not having food if they were ever forced into a situation where they had to compromise. But it's not as black and white as you'd might think. People don't all share the same wants, let alone to the same degree. There are people in this world who would prefer to own 3 homes not caring that there are homeless people wanting just 1 (greed). There are people out there who prefer to go without buying food, dumpster dive, and work minimum wage jobs despite having better offers, all in order to save up to buy a house (I personally know a guy - and this is pride). People who like to go without food (ie fast) for weeks (me). And yet, people who prefer to remain homeless, people who want to help the homeless, and people who don't want to help. >If every loss is oppression, then winning becomes a moral imperative, possibly requiring escalation to violence Whether something is a moral imperative is subject to opinion - whether you personally deem it so. But yes, especially at some extreme point, that is reality, and you cannot escape it. This is exactly the sort of thing political philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke argued in their social contract theories. It's why when loss is deemed to be so terribly bad under tyrannical governments, that there are violent revolutions. It's the reason for wars. It's literally what lead to the foundation of the United States. That said, you can learn to go without most wants. It's what Buddhist monks teach and practice. Additionally, wants have ranks, as I mentioned above. So winning is not always a moral imperative for everyone in every case. Some people simply don't care that much about certain topics, and don't care if they lose the outcome. >No-one wants to live in that world Yes, that's why true Anarchy doesn't last long. Anarchy, or the state of nature, can often be brutally violent. Wild animals often kill each other just for fun, it's called surplus killing. Power hierarchies naturally form within same species, just to avoid constantly having to violently fight to determine the outcomes for conflicts. The suffering of being subjugated is often preferred to the suffering of being violently maimed (or mere risk of it) by your neighbor, but pushed to a point it can obviously flip, leading you back into a revolution. As you put it, no one wants to live in that violent world, (at least not very long), so a hierarchy eventually forms in order to avoid having to live in it. >Aren't we ALL kind of in the same boat with respect to climate change ... Yes and no depending on how you look at it. Do we all have opinions on those topics? Yes. Do they affect us in some way? Yes. Do we all share the same opinions over them? No. Do we all rank those issues at the same level of importance? Probably relatively to some degree, but ultimately no.

nec4b 5y ago

>> as dictatorships are highly efficient and effective at carrying out policy Hardly ever true. Most dictatorships are unstable and unable to do anything more than a bare minimum. Hierarchy is not the same as dictatorship. Dictatorships means unlimited power. There is also hierarchy in democracies, but it is more about the separation of power, rather than of concentration.

Rury 5y ago
>Hardly ever true. Most dictatorships are unstable and unable to do anything more than a bare minimum Dictatorships are only as effective as their leaders competence, so you can make that argument. But relavtive to other forms of governments, dictatorships are efficient and effective at carrying out policy simply because there is minimal questions, debates, delibrations over decisions and conflicts. In democracy, you MUST debate, vote, count votes, and come to an agreement about a topic amongst many people, before you can enact policy. This is often a lengthy (ie inefficient/bureaucratic) process. In dictatorships, this is a shorter process, as one man decides, and it's do as your told, no questions asked. In this aspect, dictatorships are faster at enacting/delivering policy. >Hierarchy is not the same as dictatorship A heirarchy is a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. Dictatorships are a heirarchy, namely a heirarchy consisting of 1 man having unlimited authority over everyone. But not all heirarchies are dictatorships, as you can have many other possible forms of heirarchies.
- nec4b 5y ago
  I doesn't help you much if you are the fastest widget maker if every widget you produce is defective because you didn't take the time to do it right. So no, there is no law of nature decreeing dictatorships are more efficient or effective than other forms of government. It is actually the other way around, skipping important input is what makes dictatorships historically almost universally worse than other forms of government from the offset.
  - Rury 5y ago
    >I doesn't help you much if you are the fastest widget maker if every widget you produce is defective because you didn't take the time to do it right You're conflating effectiveness at "making good policy" with effectivness in "delivering policy". I never said they were most effective at "making good policy" but in "carrying out policy" (meaning time to deliver policy). >So no, there is no law of nature decreeing dictatorships are more efficient or effective than other forms of government And again, I never made that claim (if you mean efficient/effective at making good policy). I said they were when it came to delivering policy (whether that's good or bad policy) and it depends on their competence. IF their leaders are competent (in making good policy and decisions), they naturally are more efficient and effective governments. This holds true, because, of the words 'if' and 'competent' and the reasons I explained prior. As far as waiting for input vs skipping input goes, it's a double edged sword not a one way street. Extra time spent in gathering input means slower to act. Slower to act means missed action/opportunities, which is a terrible aspect to have in an immediate crisis. This is exactly the reason why the executive branch of the US functions more similarly to a dictatorship than a democracy - it's so that it can respond faster in times of crisis. It's because dictatorships are actually better in this aspect, when compared to other forms of government.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I mean Gaddafi had a pretty stable dictatorship for a pretty long time, but dictatorships are anything but stable and they are always challenged. As soon as the dictatorship cannot deliver mainly economic prosperity, they will fail. True for other forms as well, but the economic growth comes with desires of political participation at some point. > I honestly don't see why people think a dictatorship is necessarily more oppressive than other forms of government. To be honest, that isn't too creative of you.

javajosh 5y ago

A friend once wondered why there are nations. I responded that because even one nation will expand until it is stopped by another. (A nation usually meaning one geographical location and it's people, language, etc. Or, uniquely for the US, meaning one set of values. Used to mean enlightenment values, but now means Jerry Springer, WWF, Payday loan values. But I digress.)