Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Dutchling]

if you say it works best, find me an example of a contemporary enlightened despot

I seem to recall a certain African dude who changed the name of his country and did a pretty good job at despoting. Not sure what country it was but it went to shit when he died.

[Mr. Strange]

Democracy is only as effective as general awareness and knowledge of your average voter.

*looks at USA*

[Erils]

if you say it works best, find me an example of a contemporary enlightened despot

I seem to recall a certain African dude who changed the name of his country and did a pretty good job at despoting. Not sure what country it was but it went to shit when he died.

A functional system of government is one that can function even after a new leader takes power  in it. One time occurences don't show that a system of government works.

Democracy is only as effective as general awareness and knowledge of your average voter.

*looks at USA*

All too true. That's why education is so important. That and an unbiased News station (any suggestions?).

[Sirus]

NBC doesn't seem so bad to me as far as bias goes, but I'm sure someone will come along and correct me shortly.

[Culise]

if you say it works best, find me an example of a contemporary enlightened despot

I seem to recall a certain African dude who changed the name of his country and did a pretty good job at despoting. Not sure what country it was but it went to shit when he died.

I hate to point it out, but there are quite a few African dudes who changed the name of their country and had everything go downhill after they died.

"Pretty good job at despoting" is also subject to debate due to the subjective nature of doing a good job in the first place.  For instance, you might look at what they did in life and consider that (fairly) to be a pretty good job, but to me, if they couldn't provide for a stable succession and thus made everything they built up reliant on a fundamentally impermanent state of affairs, then in the final tally, they didn't do all that well regardless of their other merits.  I just value the latter far more than you do, or rather, ascribe more of the blame for it to them than you do, but that subjectivity makes it difficult to pin down. 

[Erils]

NBC doesn't seem so bad to me as far as bias goes, but I'm sure someone will come along and correct me shortly.

MSNBC can be quite biased toward the left wing of things sometimes, though not nearly as often as FOX NEWS is biased toward the right wing. Personally, I try to watch (or painfully sit through) them both and CNN to get multiple perspectives and draw my own conclusions.

[Steeled]

if you say it works best, find me an example of a contemporary enlightened despot

I seem to recall a certain African dude who changed the name of his country and did a pretty good job at despoting. Not sure what country it was but it went to shit when he died.

Rhodesia was doing pretty good until the commies got them

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Who loves shortshorts? Rhodies love shortshorts

[Erils]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Who loves shortshorts? Rhodies love shortshorts

That is hilarious.

[Steeled]

Say what you want about Rhodesia, their military men had smooth legs and a sharp fashion sense.

[GlyphGryph]

I should add that the American judiciary system is a functioning meritocratic system, any not only in large part non-democratic but where it IS democratic many people believe it should be.

In fat, the vast bulk of the American government is non-democratic and, provisionally, meritocratic - though often it is simply bureaucratic and crony-tastic.

The entire point of the american executive branch having only such a limited number of elected members is that their primary duty is often to uphold the principles of meritocratic assignment as best they can - there's a reason why there's a long idealistic traditional myth of appointing opposition figures to important government positions within the US, simply because they are the best man (or woman) for the job. Mind you, this, like the filibuster, is probably less true in reality than people might imagine, but the image people have for what the role of president is for is often pretty clear here. This is why the President can appoint people but the congress is supposed to "confirm" that they are in fact the best for the job.

There is a reason for the whole "Electoral College" thing - the executive branch was always supposed to be more meritocratic than democratic, with democratic influence but "controls" in place to insure that wasn't the only consideration.

I think there are better ways to handle this than the current American system - I think we could do quite a bit to make our meritocratic government elements more pronounced and more effective (and less culpable to cronyism and other such problems) by scaling back a number of democratic elements.

I think that ultimately any superior system WILL require democratic elements, just like any effective government requires meritocratic and bureaucratic elements, but I think that often times less democracy can result in a better government. Democracy serves a number of incredibly useful functions for a government, but any effective government is going to be a "mixed system", if you will, and I think our current democracy-dominated systems might not be as effective as a well-tailored system with less democracy.

[Erils]

-snip-

I think that a mixed system is probably the best sort of system as it can fill in the weak points of one system with the strong points of another. Maybe what the US needs is just to make it's people more meritocratic, not the government. Then they will vote meritocratically but without as much risk of inter-governmental corruption due to the term lengths.

[Culise]

if you say it works best, find me an example of a contemporary enlightened despot

I seem to recall a certain African dude who changed the name of his country and did a pretty good job at despoting. Not sure what country it was but it went to shit when he died.

Rhodesia was doing pretty good until the commies got them

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Who loves shortshorts? Rhodies love shortshorts

Yep, nothing says national prosperity like a decade-long civil war systematically eroding the government's ability to assert authority, institutionalized apartheid, and an economy that, in spite of an early boom, gradually began to fall apart under continuing pressure from sanctions, the independence of Mozambique under a hostile government, and a startling 40% of the total GDP being devoted to defense.  There's a reason the "commies got them," after all.

But short shorts, you know?  ^_^

[BFEL]

NBC doesn't seem so bad to me as far as bias goes, but I'm sure someone will come along and correct me shortly.

MSNBC can be quite biased toward the left wing of things sometimes, though not nearly as often as FOX NEWS is biased toward the right wing. Personally, I try to watch (or painfully sit through) them both and CNN to get multiple perspectives and draw my own conclusions.

Apparently the reason FOX is so hilariously biased is that the ENTIRE THING, EVERY SINGLE LINE SAID ON AIR, is run by one dude who's a kooky right wing nutjob
Basically the owner of FOX network saw how the ratings/profits went when this guy was calling the shots and immediately said "You run everything now, go nuts" and he did. Theres a book out called "The Loudest Man in The Room" or something to that effect that serves as something of a documentary on him.

[Mr. Strange]

Apparently the reason FOX is so hilariously biased is that the ENTIRE THING, EVERY SINGLE LINE SAID ON AIR, is run by one dude who's a kooky right wing nutjob

So, it's Conservapedia on tv?

[mainiac]

Democracy is only as effective as general awareness and knowledge of your average voter.

Other then being untrue, great point.