5 ms·

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.
        brianmcc 2y ago
        As is so often the case in these sorts of "countries that function quite well", the Scandinavians aren't doing too badly: https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking USA is #36, a "deficient democracy". Not a surprise and sadly I can see it only dropping further in the near future. The scale, interestingly, goes: - Working Democracy - Deficient Democracy - Hybrid Regime - Moderate Autocracy - Hard Autocracy Further details on methodology -> https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix
  - 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

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.
        brianmcc 2y ago
        As is so often the case in these sorts of "countries that function quite well", the Scandinavians aren't doing too badly: https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking USA is #36, a "deficient democracy". Not a surprise and sadly I can see it only dropping further in the near future. The scale, interestingly, goes: - Working Democracy - Deficient Democracy - Hybrid Regime - Moderate Autocracy - Hard Autocracy Further details on methodology -> https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix https://www.democracymatrix.com/conception/democracy-matrix
- 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