what's wrong with the concept of an absolute leader (or dictator)?

[Tohu wa-bohu]

When we teach kids to never initiate violence I would prefer to call that "teaching them good values" instead of "brainwashing", because brainwashing has such a negative connotation.

Ok, so you do that. While other cultures will find this idea laughable, and will take advantage of your "never initiate violence", and outright attack you civilization and take all that they can.

The correct perspective is to teach both modalities, and let the people decide which is right for which time/situation.

[Tuor]

been thinking: unless you choose to believe the idea of voting is a lie/rigged, the fact you can choose who to lead your country as free people seems to have consequences. Donald Trump will go down in history for various reasons concerning this.

so I want to honestly know what's wrong with having one absolute leader until the end of his lifespan, who isn't voted to be put into office but decided based on political figures. The problem is most people view the terms of absolute leadership with evil because just about every recognizable figure ever has been comically evil or self-serving.

But what if it's done with a benevolent person? Could it ever work?

A dictator is always a ditactor, he will do things its way, and he will expect other people to do so, if not, he will force them.


This guy didn't thought he was hurting people, the fact is that he forbided any sort of political oposition, created a political police, ordered concentration camps to be built, instaured a censorship systhem, all of that because he thought he was acting in the interest of people.

[Azadina]

Most of the religious Jews fled Germany, the secular Jews who thought they would be accepted because they integrated into the society where surprised though, yeah. Religious Jews know that until the exile ends they will always be put through the furnace.

Even now, in the West anti-semitism is increasing. Not sure what your argument is however, that some people will not like living under certain kingdoms? I agree with you on that, they won't.

Seems to me like my argument is against dictatorship in favor of democracy. The complete opposite of the argument you've made in the thread. You can't seem to back up your argument with real reasons why however. I can keep coughing up examples to make my case some more if you like. Perhaps you could indulge me in explaining the positives of dictatorship?

[Tohu wa-bohu]

Seems to me like my argument is against dictatorship in favor of democracy. The complete opposite of the argument you've made in the thread. You can't seem to back up your argument with real reasons why however. I can keep coughing up examples to make my case some more if you like. Perhaps you could indulge me in explaining the positives of dictatorship?

You are equating dictatorship and kingdoms. I am not. I am talking about Just Kingdoms, where a King is responsive to his subjects. As to Democracy I view it the same way Socrates did.

It could work so long as people accepted bitter medicines over sweet sellers. But that is not the age we live in now. So we have made a full cultural circle.

I go back to what George Orwell wrote in 1940, in review of Hitler's book "Mein Kampf": http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks16/1600051h.html

Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don't only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. However they may be as economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin's militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation "Greatest happiness of the greatest number" is a good slogan, but at this moment "Better an end with horror than a horror without end" is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.

That is not to say that I am for, or against this; only that we are in the same (start of a) cycle of strife; and the only way we could correct it, won't happen perhaps until much later.

[PC2]

You weren't talking about education. You were talking about procedures that fundamentally and irrevocably change an individual's desires and beliefs, against their will.

No I already said in post #4 that not having consent is unethical so if there was a procedure in the future that could cure murderers and rapists they would have to agree to the procedure of their own volition.

While we might teach kids to not be violent, guess what? Some of them still use violence.

That's only because we don't currently have the knowledge to get all of them to be 100% non-violent for their entire life.

[Draco-Onis]

That's only because we don't currently have the knowledge to get all of them to be 100% non-violent for their entire life.

You can't out teach nature we have to evolve out of it that cannot simply be taught.

[Endus]

No I already said in post #4 that not having consent is unethical so if there was a procedure in the future that could cure murderers and rapists they would have to agree to the procedure of their own volition.

Then your argument falls apart the moment anyone sees your re-education offer and says "nah".

That's the point. Unless you're forcing them into it, it cannot possibly achieve your goal, because people are free to refuse.

[PC2]

Ok, so you do that. While other cultures will find this idea laughable, and will take advantage of your "never initiate violence", and outright attack you civilization and take all that they can.

Which is why we'll have a military for as long as there are cultures that think it's okay to initiate violence.

The correct perspective is to teach both modalities, and let the people decide which is right for which time/situation.

Sure we should teach people to consider all ideas and let each person decide. That's why we have law enforcement, to arrest anyone who decides to initiate violence.

[Tohu wa-bohu]

Which is why we'll have a military for as long as there are cultures that think it's okay to initiate violence.

This part conflicts with your 100% non-violence education. Which is why a lot of soldiers come back with "shell shock". They are shielded from a lot of the brutal truths of the human condition in school, and then exposed to it while in service, and psychologically fall apart from no fault of their own.

But due to idiotic education from people that think they purely think rationally.

Sure we should teach people to consider all ideas and let each person decide. That's why we have law enforcement, to arrest anyone who decides to initiate violence.

This conflicts with your idea again. Teaching both is not teaching 100% non-violence.

[PC2]

Then your argument falls apart the moment anyone sees your re-education offer and says "nah".

No, it's totally fine to reject therapy and treatment.

That's the point. Unless you're forcing them into it, it cannot possibly achieve your goal, because people are free to refuse.

No because I think this problem is soluble through voluntary interactions. Eventually everyone seeks improvement. If you think people will always be doomed to violence well then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Felya]

That's only because we don't currently have the knowledge to get all of them to be 100% non-violent for their entire life.

What? Uhm... actually, we have... people don’t like it...



- - - Updated - - -

No because I think this problem is soluble through voluntary interactions. Eventually everyone seeks improvement. If you think people will always be doomed to violence well then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Because you are trying to fix the wrong problem. You don’t fix people to be less violent, you fix the environment to remove what necessitates violence. Drones are not good for society... violence is passion... violence is exuberance...

[Mihalik]

You are equating dictatorship and kingdoms. I am not. I am talking about Just Kingdoms, where a King is responsive to his subjects. As to Democracy I view it the same way Socrates did..

Again. As Karl Popper pointed out there was a direct line from Plato's Philosopher King to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mussolini and ilk.

People accepted "bitter medicines" like the Holocaust, Holodomor, Gulags, Concentration camps, WAR and other such top down social engineering "solutions" to perceived problems.

I'm quite critical of democracy and I think anarcho syndicalism on local small scale levels combined meritocratic technocracies on larger scales would probably be a better alternative model. But the very notion of a benevolent autocracy is dumb.

[Shadowferal]

Imagine how some countries are applying the idea today.

As an adjunct, if "you" were the such a dictator today, what controversial policy would get enacted and enforced?

[Tohu wa-bohu]

Again. As Karl Popper pointed out there was a direct line from Plato's Philosopher King to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mussolini and ilk.

People accepted "bitter medicines" like the Holocaust, Holodomor, Gulags, Concentration camps, WAR and other such top down social engineering "solutions" to perceived problems.

I'm quite critical of democracy and I think anarcho syndicalism on local small scale levels combined meritocratic technocracies on larger scales would probably be a better alternative model. But the very notion of a benevolent autocracy is dumb.

And science (and the Enlightenment) is the direct line to Eugenics, and the Atom Bomb, obviously we should stop teaching science/enlightenment values.

Science is afterall colonialism:

Science Still Bears the Fingerprints of Colonialism
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ism-180968709/


[Infraction]

[KOUNTERPARTS]

Jesus fucking Christ, that video was hard to watch. Are you kidding? This is legitimately legit?


Not to mention the "speak your opinions" part, then proceeds to demand the guy "apologize to the panel" because it was a (get ready for it!) a different opinion...


...but this part: "I did science throughout high school, and there are a lot of things I just, um.... yeah" and I am not the only one who referenced this (YouTube comments) like, holy shit, lmaooooooooo

[Tohu wa-bohu]

Jesus fucking Christ, that video was hard to watch. Are you kidding? This is legitimately legit?


Not to mention the "speak your opinions" part, then proceeds to demand the guy "apologize to the panel" because it was a (get ready for it!) a different opinion...


...but this part: "I did science throughout high school, and there are a lot of things I just, um.... yeah" and I am not the only one who referenced this (YouTube comments) like, holy shit, lmaooooooooo

If you find this bad, I present you the evolution of it:

[Rozz]

This thread is closed, discussion is all over the place.