Dictatorships have always been one of the fastest forms of government, its one of the unironic benefits of it. What Big Dog says goes, everyone knows better than to question or delay, and bureaucracy works for him rather than against him.
That's of course why its also so terrible. Because if what Big Dog is saying is fucking awful, it still has to happen and it has zero impediments.
Dictatorships are not exactly the same as Autocracy. A Dictatorship isn't necessarily fast if the leader is slow, his enforcement is slow, his knowledge gathering is slow, or his assembly is slow. An autocrat is fast because it's in-built for him to be a kind of god-king for power. Was what he said reasonable, or even sane? Don't know, don't care, one way or another, every squirrel in the kingdom must be charged with sodomy.
What we have here is a strong executive fighting a bureaucratic state.
I understand why people are concerned about the executive having power. But there is no problem with the executive having power over his own apparatus. The issue is that the Legislature has basically ceded all authority to the bureaucracy and the executive; while the judiciary has become a confederate bureaucracy.
I would like for the Legislature to start asserting itself, but we currently keep filling it with cowards and criminals.
Historically a dictator was an appointed position in the Roman Republic who was given full power for a short period of time, basically only in times of emergency.
Before the empire there were dictators who led the country and then retired to farming. It only became a new word when the Caesers became dictators for life.
I had an interesting thought pop into my head a year or so back, that, while I'm sure people talk about in circles I don't run in, was all new to me, and kind of blew my mind when it occurred to me.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating for any of these forms of governance. Feudalism, monarchy, dictatorship, all that...it was all discredited, due in large part to poor living conditions. Well, that was more an aspect of the time than that style of leadership, generally. They didn't have the technology to have a super high quality of life.
We currently live in a time where we have the technology to live more comfortable lives, and our Democratic™ rulers have the technology to oppress us easily, without making most people even realize they're oppressed. Our "elected" representatives have more direct control over our lives than kings or dictators did a hundred years ago.
A half-functional modern monarchy or feudal system may - emphasis on may - actually provide more freedom. Doesn't even have to be a benevolent ruler, just not an outright awful one.
It's interesting to think about, trying to imagine old systems with current living conditions. As well as comparing current Democratic™ governance with older systems, and looking at things like tax rate.
People think they're free because they're told they are.
Again, not advocating for any of that. In fact, I'm generally opposed, but just pointing out they're probably nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. I do think something close to representational republics are ideal, if you can massively downsize it. But, again, we've seen the issues with this as well, and it doesn't stay downsized. Likewise, though, kings etc. don't stay benevolent or even competent either.
The strength of a feudal system, from a freedom perspective, is that the rulers are much closer to the people they govern. Your lord literally lives on the hill nearby. He not only wants your neighborhood to flourish because it's his as well, if he doesn't, you know where he sleeps.
I think the main issues with autocratic systems generally come from succession issues; even if the king/dictator/ruler has a handpicked successor, their acceptance by the common man or the elite isn’t a guarantee. Like republics or not, it would be extremely difficult to cause a genuine succession crisis without doing some major hijacking of the system due to the selection system.
But is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Or a neutral thing?
Biden was "allegedly" not the winner, and he was still allegedly President for a full term. JFK was assassinated, and all sorts of fuckery happened. Various other presidents have been ousted in suspicious manners. If the people at the top can install whatever leader they want, and the people just go along with it, isn't that at least potentially an angle for more oppression? The common man doesn't get a say in such a system, ironically.
So, yeah. Good? Less chance of conflict. Bad? Less chance of representation, sometimes. Neutral? Both systems can install good or bad people and get away with it, legitimately or illegitimately. Humanity is so complicated it's hard to reach one solid answer, but it's certainly not clear cut.
Given the progress of barely a week, you're not helping discredit dictatorships as a viable form of governance...
Dictatorships have always been one of the fastest forms of government, its one of the unironic benefits of it. What Big Dog says goes, everyone knows better than to question or delay, and bureaucracy works for him rather than against him.
That's of course why its also so terrible. Because if what Big Dog is saying is fucking awful, it still has to happen and it has zero impediments.
Not necessarily.
Dictatorships are not exactly the same as Autocracy. A Dictatorship isn't necessarily fast if the leader is slow, his enforcement is slow, his knowledge gathering is slow, or his assembly is slow. An autocrat is fast because it's in-built for him to be a kind of god-king for power. Was what he said reasonable, or even sane? Don't know, don't care, one way or another, every squirrel in the kingdom must be charged with sodomy.
What we have here is a strong executive fighting a bureaucratic state.
I understand why people are concerned about the executive having power. But there is no problem with the executive having power over his own apparatus. The issue is that the Legislature has basically ceded all authority to the bureaucracy and the executive; while the judiciary has become a confederate bureaucracy.
I would like for the Legislature to start asserting itself, but we currently keep filling it with cowards and criminals.
Then the police raid their homes and shoot them.
Historically a dictator was an appointed position in the Roman Republic who was given full power for a short period of time, basically only in times of emergency.
Before the empire there were dictators who led the country and then retired to farming. It only became a new word when the Caesers became dictators for life.
A dictatorship with a good leader is extremely rare, but highly prosperous when it happens.
A government with good leaders is extremely rare, to be fair.
True, but a gimped government with bad leaders is preferable to a powerful government with bad leaders.
Our government certainly isn't gimped, though. Sadly.
I had an interesting thought pop into my head a year or so back, that, while I'm sure people talk about in circles I don't run in, was all new to me, and kind of blew my mind when it occurred to me.
Disclaimer: I'm not advocating for any of these forms of governance. Feudalism, monarchy, dictatorship, all that...it was all discredited, due in large part to poor living conditions. Well, that was more an aspect of the time than that style of leadership, generally. They didn't have the technology to have a super high quality of life.
We currently live in a time where we have the technology to live more comfortable lives, and our Democratic™ rulers have the technology to oppress us easily, without making most people even realize they're oppressed. Our "elected" representatives have more direct control over our lives than kings or dictators did a hundred years ago.
A half-functional modern monarchy or feudal system may - emphasis on may - actually provide more freedom. Doesn't even have to be a benevolent ruler, just not an outright awful one.
It's interesting to think about, trying to imagine old systems with current living conditions. As well as comparing current Democratic™ governance with older systems, and looking at things like tax rate.
People think they're free because they're told they are.
Again, not advocating for any of that. In fact, I'm generally opposed, but just pointing out they're probably nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. I do think something close to representational republics are ideal, if you can massively downsize it. But, again, we've seen the issues with this as well, and it doesn't stay downsized. Likewise, though, kings etc. don't stay benevolent or even competent either.
Anyway, there's my ramble.
The strength of a feudal system, from a freedom perspective, is that the rulers are much closer to the people they govern. Your lord literally lives on the hill nearby. He not only wants your neighborhood to flourish because it's his as well, if he doesn't, you know where he sleeps.
I think the main issues with autocratic systems generally come from succession issues; even if the king/dictator/ruler has a handpicked successor, their acceptance by the common man or the elite isn’t a guarantee. Like republics or not, it would be extremely difficult to cause a genuine succession crisis without doing some major hijacking of the system due to the selection system.
But is that a good thing, or a bad thing? Or a neutral thing?
Biden was "allegedly" not the winner, and he was still allegedly President for a full term. JFK was assassinated, and all sorts of fuckery happened. Various other presidents have been ousted in suspicious manners. If the people at the top can install whatever leader they want, and the people just go along with it, isn't that at least potentially an angle for more oppression? The common man doesn't get a say in such a system, ironically.
So, yeah. Good? Less chance of conflict. Bad? Less chance of representation, sometimes. Neutral? Both systems can install good or bad people and get away with it, legitimately or illegitimately. Humanity is so complicated it's hard to reach one solid answer, but it's certainly not clear cut.