The rule of tyrants doesn't work (recovered)

[Edric O]

This is one of two topics which were posted last week and which deal with the issue of democracy vs. dictatorship. Since I was the one who started this particular topic, I have been able to recover the first post so I can re-post it. As far as the rest of this topic is concerned, however, I can only recover my own posts. I have described the recovery method in this topic. Hopefully, other people will be able to use it to recover their posts.

This was the initial post of the original topic:

Before we determine whether a certain political model works or not, we must first decide what exactly we mean by "working".

I believe the purpose of government is to serve the people - to enact the wishes of its citizens. In this case, tyranny obviously doesn't work. A tyrant does not care for his people, and a dictatorship government is little more than a mafia-like organization that exists only to serve itself while exploiting and oppressing its people.

But let's be a little more indulgent. Let's assume that the purpose of government is not necessarely to follow the will of the people, but only to ensure their safety and welfare. Can a dictatorship government work in this case? Only if the dictator is a flawless super-being blessed with the gift of omniscience and who never makes any mistakes. And most of all, he would have to be completely incorruptible.

No human dictator will ever ensure the safety and welfare of his people, even if he could, simply because absolute power corrupts absolutely - so he will be busy hoarding wealth and abusing his power.

Finally, let's drop all standards of achievement and focus on the ultimate fate of all dictatorships: to be overthrown by their people, either peacefully or violently. The number of all-out dictatorships left in the world has been steadily dropping over the past 200 years, and it continues to drop.

It's true that many of our "democracies" - especially the most capitalistic ones - are not particularly democratic, but they are far more democratic than the systems that existed before them.

The fact that even the most brutal dictatorships must disguise themselves as democracies in order to survive should say something. It says that the age of tyranny is over, at least as far as legitimacy is concerned. It also says that the people of the world have woken up, and they are not the sheep they used to be. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that the 20th century has seen more revolutions and popular uprisings than the rest of history combined.

The fatalists on this forum lamenting over their strawman version of democracy are forgetting one thing: Tyranny and dictatorship have never worked and will never work - the only field in which they surpass democracy is that of suffering, torture and genocide.

And the people of the world have had enough of those.

[Edric O]

My reply to a post made by TMA was as follows:

All governments styled after the protection of the people seem to currupt themselves.

Yeah, after hundreds of years of prosperity and stability, which is more than the vast majority of dictatorships ever achieved. And besides, what would you expect them to do? Last forever? TMA, all forms of government must collapse sooner or later. Then they are replaced by a new form of government, which is usually better than the old one. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but the overall trend of human history is from worse to better - from tyranny to democracy.

Greece with it's city-state Athens, patterning a quasi democracy fell to tyrants. Rome destroyed it's republic for an emperor's rule, so many examples.

The Athenian quasi-democracy was destroyed by outside factors - namely the fact that it suffered disastrous defeats in a number of wars.

Rome is pretty much the ONLY example you have. And Roman "democracy" was never particularly democratic. The Roman Republic was an oligarchy. When the Republic turned into the Empire, it was an oligarchy turning into an autocracy - the Romans only swapped one form of tyranny for another.

The governments which take the rule of the people seem to fall to conspiracy. People revert to tyrannys because of their sin nature.

Again, you have no historical evidence to back up this claim. Most democracies DO NOT revert back to tyranny - and even when they do, the tyranny is quickly overthrown afterwards.

This is the most important thing though, and I think you would agree. What matters most is what benefits the people for the longest amount of time?

A democratic-type government

Or a tyrannical government.

A democratic government, without any doubt.

Why? Because absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no such thing as a "benevolent" tyrant. If you give a human being absolute power, he will abuse it, and his people will suffer. Tyranny can only work if the tyrant is perfect in every way, and 100% altruistic. No human being can fit that profile.

Besides, it's common sense that a system of government will always serve the interests of those who hold the power. In a democracy, the people hold the power, so the system serves their interests.

I honestly think though that democratic government styles seem to fizzle out too quickly...

For the millionth time: Democratic government NEVER "fizzled out quickly". You are clinging on to an unsubstantiated myth.

[Edric O]

And a reply to Tenzul:

Shouldn't that be the only purpose a government should have? The will of the people isn't always the best.

That may be so, but no one knows what you need better than you do. The people may not be correct ALL the time, but they are correct more often than any dictator could be.

Besides, how do you know what is "best"? Who has the right to decide what is "best" for the people, if not the people themselves?

People are immoral

By whose standards?

if they weren't controlled and could do whatever they want we would have absolute freedom

Yes, and that's a GOOD thing.

which would result in canceling of all laws and chaos.

No, it would mean that the people get to make the laws. Which would guarantee that the laws are made with the best interest of the people in mind.

People accept laws only because of a highier authority. Because they would be punished if not doing so.

No, they accept laws because they know that they are better off with them than without them. The purpose of law is to guarantee your own safety and well-being.

There is no higher authority than the people, and only small children think in terms of "this is bad because I get punished for it". Mature human beings think in terms of "this is bad because it hurts everyone, possibly including myself".

If my neighbour kills me, he'll be sent to prison. This is the only reason why he won't do it.

If that were true, then your neighbor and everyone else like him should be voting for a party that wanted to legalize murder. Eventually, the people always get what they want (especially in a democratic state). If the people truly wanted chaos and lawlessness, they would have it by now.

Or, for that matter, they would have never established a state in the first place.

But the truth of the matter is that your neighbor doesn't want to get killed. He doesn't want a society in which he could kill you, because that would mean that someone else could do the same to him.

People generally want to live in harmony - even the most selfish of men want to do so, because it is in their own personal interest. Peace and co-operation are in everyone's interest.

it's a highier chance that we'd get a good leader

The chance for that is ZERO. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No "good leader" stays good for too long after you give him too much power.

But you need tyrany to make changes in society when they're

necessary and most of the people are against.

If the people are against, then the changes are not in the interest of the people. If the changes are not in the interest of the people, then in whose interest are they, and why are they "necessary"?

There aren't many other ways to defeat those corrupt masses.

"Corruption" means putting your personal greed above the needs of the people. The masses cannot be "corrupt". The very phrase "corrupt masses" is an oxymoron.

Ultimately, it all comes down to this:

Who are YOU to tell the people what to do and how to live their lives?

[Sardauker-Kirov]

There are bad people and good people.

People that are truly evil could almost be compared with Saddam.

He kills his own people, he doesn't care about them, he is arrogant and selfish. The only thing he wants is to stay in power, no matter what.

And there are good people, doing good in their own ways.

You can safely say that the evil people are in the minority.

If people were so 'immoral' then the whole world would be one big mess.

True evil or true good doesn't exist.

So don't take the word 'truly' too serious.

Humans are always social. But these social skills are often degraded by the experiences of their environment.

For example; If someone has been raised in a highly capitalistic world.

If he plans to start up a company and wishes to hit the upper ladder, he will be forced to be capitalistic/greedy.

He'll still be social, but in a compressed way. (Or maybe not)