Print

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

[Nikov]

I have to disagree that a benevolent dictatorship would be better, since such centralized governments always assume the one can make better decisions than the many. This is of course flawed, since no one man knows more about the world than even two men put together. The best thing to do is decentralize power as much as possible and then what power which does exist should be given checks and balances. I speak of course of the constitutional republic, such as the U.S. Without strong central government (or even with it) the best economic system is equally decentralized so that individuals can make the best decisions for their own personal situation and be personally responsible if they make bad decisions but profit if they make good decisions. This is capitalism.

I think where people fall on this issue has as much to do with their opinion on the perfection or imperfection of man as anything else. Someone who thinks people can be perfect if given enough education or resources would naturally be opposed to capitalism, since those with education and resources become more perfect and thus more powerful, while those without education or resources would become less perfect and less powerful. Its easy to see stratification being inevitable from that mindset. However if you think people are imperfect and make mistakes regardless of education or resources, then you begin to see how large organizations or powerful men still manage to lose everything. I do not understand how people can see Rome rise from a single backwater city to a continent-spanning empire only to collapse and not think a start up business can become a corporation only to stagnate and flounder. Someone even posted the logical absurdity that large corporations are more efficient than small ones. In what field of human endevour does adding complexity to a group improve its performance? Do large armies march faster?

I agree completely with you regarding anarchy.

[DJ]

Try watching a Parliament session sometimes and then tell me with a straight face that an individual wouldn't make better decisions, and faster as well. The only problem with benevolent dictatorship is that dictators don't tend to be very benevolent.

[Grakelin]

I watch Parliament sessions all the time (You can watch Canadian Parliamentary proceedings live on CPAC, even though people always complain that shit happens behind closed doors), and I can honestly say that an individual wouldn't make better decisions. Every time the incumbent government makes a decision, the opposition fiercely tears them apart over the small details, sometimes forcing them to go back and fix their mistakes (and sometimes not, which is what gets people angry).

People will also try to tell you (as they do me) that the opposition doesn't care about Canada either blah blah they just want to further their political careers blah blah but the Opposition Parties are doing exactly what we're paying them for by doing this. It's why they exist, and it's always been a fundamental of Canadian government.

The decision take longer to be made, but they are rarely catastrophic decisions (keep in mind that dozens of decisions are made per day, and you only hear about controversial ones in the news unless you actually pay attention). And a quick decision is never a good one.

[Nikov]

Try watching a Parliament session sometimes and then tell me with a straight face that an individual wouldn't make better decisions, and faster as well. The only problem with benevolent dictatorship is that dictators don't tend to be very benevolent.

No, they wouldn't make a better decision. In Congress (I was not speaking of Parliament) government is hindered and restrained by the two party system, the constant need for majority votes, and all the various checks and balances. Congress can make quick decisions when nessicary, as evidenced by the next-day declaration of war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. However on matters requiring proper deliberation, such as the health care bill, the debate can take a year. Now if you would really prefer an autocrat running roughshod over the minority opinion or even the majority opinion, then you probably would prefer living under Hitler, who himself bemoaned the inefficiency of Parliment and wished only to do away with it so he could make the nessicary decisions for a better nation.

Edit: Grak, I didn't read your post expecting it would make me nerdrage. Instead it seems we are in agreement. Let us take a screenshot to remember this occasion in our old age.

[DJ]

Well, an individual certainly wouldn't attach 150 riders to every single bill.

[Josephus]

You guys realize the Inquisition was only for Catholics and was one of the best documented legal systems in Europe, right?

Also, they didn't exactly go on a killing spree across Europe.

There was persecution, a shit-ton of it, but nothing like the ridiculous and elaborate torture schemes people seem to imagine the Inquisition entailed.

[Nikov]

Well, an individual certainly wouldn't attach 150 riders to every single bill.

No, an individual would simply ram through a hundred and fifty bills. The whole point of those riders is part of the dealmaking and compromising between the two parties and serves as part of the negotiation process.

And thank you Josephus.

Modern historians have begun to study the documentary records of the Inquisition. The archives of the Suprema, today held by the National Historical Archive of Spain (Archivo Histórico Nacional), conserves the annual relations of all processes between 1540 and 1700. This material provides information on about 44,674 judgements, the latter studied by Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras. These 44,674 cases include 826 executions in persona and 778 in effigie. - Wiki

The War on Drugs probably persecutes more people than the Spanish Inquisition did. And that's just putting the can of worms on the table. Lets not actually open it here.

[Virex]

It would be pretty unfair to compare them by exact numbers, after all at the time of the inquisition, there were barely a billion humans alive, as compared to todays 6 billion.

[Josephus]

Yes.

But!

1604 executions does not a genocide make.

[ProZocK]

Everything in history is probably exaggerated or made seem less of a deal.
The whole point of the Inquisition debate was because it was said in a discussion about today's world that a theocracy could be a valid system. It is of no significance if the Inquisition killed 1000 our 100000 people, the important thing is to ask yourself,if a Religion was given the power to totally control a state, would we end up in a position were people would be killed for not following the teachings of the religion or doing experiments that contradict it?
The inquisition happened, and I honestly do not have the information to say how big it was. The point here is, they killed people because they would not follow their religious ideals. How do we see that in today's world?

[Nikov]

The Holodomor.

[Josephus]

*snip*

Naturally. But that's the case when a zealously guarded ideology is taken to its extreme. We're not only talking about religion here; any idea or political alignment, if viewed as sufficiently important by a ruling class of questionable character and moral fiber, or as an instrument of their continued power, will be taken as a justification for torture, murder, persecution, and other sorts of injustice, justified by the protection of that ideology.

Or to put it another way, "Religion doesn't persecute people. People persecute people!"

Also: see the U.S.S.R. An avowedly non-religious state nonetheless engaging in wide-spread persecution, suppression, and murder of "seditious" parties, often on trumped up charges. Basically, anything taken to the extreme is bad, and generalizing that a religious state would cause this sort of thing is true... but only inasmuch as any other state with a single powerful ideological stance would cause that sort of thing.

[DJ]

Kinda like persecution of people who do no harm to others just because they smoke a harmless drug.

[Footkerchief]

And thank you Josephus.

I'm still waiting on your reply to this:

You guys realize the Inquisition was only for Catholics

Your use of "for" is ambiguous here, but the Inquisition punished tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews by expelling them from the country.  They also targeted Muslims and Protestants.

was one of the best documented legal systems in Europe, right?

What does that have to do with anything? 

1604 executions does not a genocide make.

Expelling tens of thousands of Jews is not genocide, but it definitely fits the definition of ethnic cleansing -- as in the Trail of Tears, the leadup to the Holocaust, over and over in the Balkans, etc.

[Josephus]

Kinda like persecution of people who do no harm to others just because they smoke a harmless drug.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

For example, I smoke tobacco, which is arguably as harmful if not more so than the old reefer. If the government regulates tobacco, or restricts my smoking areas to, well, practically nowhere, is that persecution, or protection of the public?

I'm not really a fan of marijuana, but knowing the economic background behind the criminalization of any or all hemp-based products (fuck you, W.R. Hearst!)... well, like I said, that's a different issue entirely.