5 ms·

The next best thing after a president who has a long term vision for its country is a dictator who has a long term vision for his country. Sadly in the west we

The next best thing after a president who has a long term vision for its country is a dictator who has a long term vision for his country. Sadly in the west we don't really have any of the former, and the wannabe dictators we get are even more self absorbed and only interested in the next election cycle

ossobuco 2y ago
A dictator who serves the people's interests is more democratic than an elected official who harms them.
- dartos 2y ago
  Democratic != good for the people, just who the people wanted. Dictators don’t give people the choice. You’re just using the word “democratic” wrong.
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    I disagree, democracy is literally the power of the people. A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power, as opposed to a corrupt/inept elected official who will deny it.
    - dartos 2y ago
      > A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power Wtf? No. A dictator maintains all the power. The people have no power. Just because the interests of the people are supported by the actions of a dictator does not mean the people have any power. Because they don’t… Now you’re using the term “power” incorrectly. The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
      - ossobuco 2y ago
        > The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. > That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power. We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
        dartos 2y ago
        > A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. > We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end. Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors. Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power. Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution. You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.
        ossobuco 2y ago
        > This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I'm glad we agree on this, but I'll add that all so-called democracies suffer from the same problem. > I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. Yes, talking in the abstract is all we can do, because honestly, I can't find any true examples of democracy at the moment.
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      > I disagree Imagine disagreeing with the dictionary.
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        Do you believe dictionaries are descriptive or prescriptive?
        marcusverus 2y ago
        I believe in ignoring stupid questions.
  - miohtama 2y ago
    The only thing democracy guarantees is the peaceful transition of power... And this is always needed in the end.
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      It doesn't, there are countless examples of coups, cancelled elections etc.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    You are correct. “The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they... have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before... the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language" ~F.A. Hayek
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      The irony of quoting Hayek, the collaborator of Pinochet, one of the worst dictators of the last century, to warn about the dangers of totalitarian regimes. Even more ironic is that "use the old words but change their meaning" is something our "democratic" ruling class keeps doing very often.
      - marcusverus 2y ago
        Pinochet killed a few thousand people, which is awful but is not, by any objective reckoning, a reign that puts him in the company of the worst dictators of the last century[0][1] Those who do this in the ruling class always use it to dupe the people into opposing their own interests--hardly ironic. [0]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/09/data-on-mass-murder-by-government-in-the-20th-century/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/09/data-on-mass-murder-by-... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
nine_k 2y ago
There's no such thing as a country, if we remove the population from the country. Dictators' long-term visions for their countries rarely include population's prosperity as a key goal. Benevolent (near-)absolute monarchs existed, but they were even more rare than democratically elected great leaders. Say, Mr. Putin looked like a benevolent not-even-a-dictator for a decade or so, and his rule coincided with the rather obviously rising prosperity of most Russian citizens. But there is a catch. Always has been, but it became overt in 2022 when the kinda-benevolent leader turned a complete dictator and started a major war. Xi is already much more of a dictator than Putin can ever dream of. To hope that his benevolence will extend indefinitely, and will match your idea of benevolence, if to be delusional, sorry.
- xandrius 2y ago
  So, for you, Putin was a kinda-benevolent dictator until 2022? Did you miss a bunch of news?
  - nine_k 2y ago
    He tried hard to make an impression. Look, the prosperity grows, "Russia is rising from its knees", or what was the slogan by then. A political assassination here and there? Well, these were the enemies of the prosperity and order. Large demonstrations against his rule? They came, they went, nobody even got shot. "Re-election" for the third, fourth, fifth, whatever next presidential term? Well, everyone just somehow acquiesced to the notion that the "controlled democracy" is a game, the price of the "white glove" dictatorship; who did not, left the country. It looked sort of "benevolent", even though the rot under the surface was exposed time and again, with murders, multiple attacks on neighboring countries, and eventually a large-scale war in Europe. Those who think that Chairman Xi is benevolent and is doing good for China with his long-term wise planning may be up for a very rude awakening. They prefer to somehow push away from their picture of China things like people disappearing, businesses crushed, political commissars at every large business, the whole Xinjiang thing, and the battle dances around Taiwan. When they realize that these are integral parts of the "benevolence", and have been all along, it may be a bit late.
Gud 2y ago
Sorry no. The best thing for a country is a decentralized, direct democracy.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  > The best thing for a country is a decentralized, direct democracy. Best by what criteria, and, examples and/or argument supporting this claim?
  - Gud 2y ago
    Switzerland. Stable, prosperous.
    - lm28469 2y ago
      Yep, it has nothing to do with being the world leader in money laundering and a tax have lmao. This part of their wiki article is gold: > The country ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, while its banking sector is rated as "one of the most corrupt in the world" It's like saying Norway is prosperous because they eat a lot of fish, no, they're prosperous because they sit on a shit ton of oil. The Swiss case is much more complex than "direct democracy"
      - Gud 2y ago
        Where are you citing this from?
        lm28469 2y ago
        As stated, the swiss wiki page. It's not like it's a well guarded secret either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy_and_labour_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy_and_labour...
        Gud 2y ago
        Interestingly Switzerland drastically changed its banking lawsin 2019, one year after the report from 2018 you are referencing. What is the situation in 2025?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ossobuco 2y ago

A dictator who serves the people's interests is more democratic than an elected official who harms them.

dartos 2y ago
Democratic != good for the people, just who the people wanted. Dictators don’t give people the choice. You’re just using the word “democratic” wrong.
- ossobuco 2y ago
  I disagree, democracy is literally the power of the people. A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power, as opposed to a corrupt/inept elected official who will deny it.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > A dictator who serves the people's interests is effectively concretizing that power Wtf? No. A dictator maintains all the power. The people have no power. Just because the interests of the people are supported by the actions of a dictator does not mean the people have any power. Because they don’t… Now you’re using the term “power” incorrectly. The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power.
    - ossobuco 2y ago
      > The difference is that in a democracy the people can vote out corrupt individuals, at least theoretically. A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. > That can’t happen in a dictatorship because, again, the people have no power. We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end.
      - dartos 2y ago
        > A system where elected representatives always serve the interests of a select few is essentially an oligarchy in disguise. When the available choices are just two variations of the same corruption, it becomes difficult to view it as a genuine form of power. This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. > We always have the power, and it's called revolution. Historically, it's how corrupt dictatorships have met their end. Yes and no. A lot of revolutions against dictators have other nations as sponsors. Also, having the physical power to revolt is not the same as having political power. Often post revolution, those with previous political power (who were not the dictator) maintain some, all, or even gain power after a revolution. You’ll never see Joe Schmoe office worker gaining political power through revolution unless they amass support (a.k.a. Political power) beforehand.
        ossobuco 2y ago
        > This is pretty much describing the US, which is both not a democracy (it’s a republic. And a bad example of one) and not what I’m talking about. I'm glad we agree on this, but I'll add that all so-called democracies suffer from the same problem. > I’m talking about democracy and dictatorships as forms of governance in the abstract. Yes, talking in the abstract is all we can do, because honestly, I can't find any true examples of democracy at the moment.
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    > I disagree Imagine disagreeing with the dictionary.
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      Do you believe dictionaries are descriptive or prescriptive?
      - marcusverus 2y ago
        I believe in ignoring stupid questions.
- miohtama 2y ago
  The only thing democracy guarantees is the peaceful transition of power... And this is always needed in the end.
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    It doesn't, there are countless examples of coups, cancelled elections etc.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  You are correct. “The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they... have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before... the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language" ~F.A. Hayek
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    The irony of quoting Hayek, the collaborator of Pinochet, one of the worst dictators of the last century, to warn about the dangers of totalitarian regimes. Even more ironic is that "use the old words but change their meaning" is something our "democratic" ruling class keeps doing very often.
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      Pinochet killed a few thousand people, which is awful but is not, by any objective reckoning, a reign that puts him in the company of the worst dictators of the last century[0][1] Those who do this in the ruling class always use it to dupe the people into opposing their own interests--hardly ironic. [0]https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/09/data-on-mass-murder-by-government-in-the-20th-century/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/09/data-on-mass-murder-by-... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

nine_k 2y ago

There's no such thing as a country, if we remove the population from the country. Dictators' long-term visions for their countries rarely include population's prosperity as a key goal. Benevolent (near-)absolute monarchs existed, but they were even more rare than democratically elected great leaders. Say, Mr. Putin looked like a benevolent not-even-a-dictator for a decade or so, and his rule coincided with the rather obviously rising prosperity of most Russian citizens. But there is a catch. Always has been, but it became overt in 2022 when the kinda-benevolent leader turned a complete dictator and started a major war. Xi is already much more of a dictator than Putin can ever dream of. To hope that his benevolence will extend indefinitely, and will match your idea of benevolence, if to be delusional, sorry.

xandrius 2y ago
So, for you, Putin was a kinda-benevolent dictator until 2022? Did you miss a bunch of news?
- nine_k 2y ago
  He tried hard to make an impression. Look, the prosperity grows, "Russia is rising from its knees", or what was the slogan by then. A political assassination here and there? Well, these were the enemies of the prosperity and order. Large demonstrations against his rule? They came, they went, nobody even got shot. "Re-election" for the third, fourth, fifth, whatever next presidential term? Well, everyone just somehow acquiesced to the notion that the "controlled democracy" is a game, the price of the "white glove" dictatorship; who did not, left the country. It looked sort of "benevolent", even though the rot under the surface was exposed time and again, with murders, multiple attacks on neighboring countries, and eventually a large-scale war in Europe. Those who think that Chairman Xi is benevolent and is doing good for China with his long-term wise planning may be up for a very rude awakening. They prefer to somehow push away from their picture of China things like people disappearing, businesses crushed, political commissars at every large business, the whole Xinjiang thing, and the battle dances around Taiwan. When they realize that these are integral parts of the "benevolence", and have been all along, it may be a bit late.

Gud 2y ago

Sorry no. The best thing for a country is a decentralized, direct democracy.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> The best thing for a country is a decentralized, direct democracy. Best by what criteria, and, examples and/or argument supporting this claim?
- Gud 2y ago
  Switzerland. Stable, prosperous.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    Yep, it has nothing to do with being the world leader in money laundering and a tax have lmao. This part of their wiki article is gold: > The country ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, while its banking sector is rated as "one of the most corrupt in the world" It's like saying Norway is prosperous because they eat a lot of fish, no, they're prosperous because they sit on a shit ton of oil. The Swiss case is much more complex than "direct democracy"
    - Gud 2y ago
      Where are you citing this from?
      - lm28469 2y ago
        As stated, the swiss wiki page. It's not like it's a well guarded secret either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy_and_labour_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Economy_and_labour...
        Gud 2y ago
        Interestingly Switzerland drastically changed its banking lawsin 2019, one year after the report from 2018 you are referencing. What is the situation in 2025?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]