4 ms·

>> as dictatorships are highly efficient and effective at carrying out policy Hardly ever true. Most dictatorships are unstable and unable to do anything more

by 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.

by nec4b 5y ago

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.