Maybe a study of a decade pre and post regime change, and then study quality adjusted life years, coupled with the economic and environmental measurements.
If you like watching Libya turned to rubble, ethnic cleansing of africans in libya, depleted uranium in war, economy turned to shit, and Gaddahfi sodomized and lynched on youtube or public TV. Who or what constitutes a dick-tator? Who knows. But US/NATO puppets are the biggest fools since the SS. Fuck'em.
A further comment: democracy is the rulership of the people. This is only possible if people have self-government first. But we are a nation of out-of-control people, who can't even govern our own weight and eating habits. Therefore, we are unfit to bring democracy to anyone else. We first need to topple our own dictators of greed and lust.
When you read the Wikipedia article on Gadaffi, you find out that he actually did a lot of good for his people, and even other parts of Africa. Perhaps the west didn't like that he was the first to demand a larger percentage of profits from the oil taken from his country. It seems we don't like dictators who make us pay more, but we are happy with those (and even set them up) who cooperate with our idea of commerce. And the "no fly zone"? They can't fly, but we can fly planes to bomb them??
Speaking more to this video, well, yeah that's a power vacuum for ya. I hate to say it's all in planning, but back when 'we' did it (USA!!), we had most of our ducks lined up before we threw off the oppressor; and we 'still' had a civil war. What will kill you faster? A gangrenous limb that you have to cut off, or a hemorrhagic gash you have when you decide to just chop it off and walk away, without cleaning the wound.
Democracy's failure is its lack of direction, The reason that groups naturally develop leaders is because they are efficient, and faults in modern examples of dictatorships are actually, simply, faults in their leaders and the systems that let them lead. The problem is when a dictator is able to rule with such power that he can target people who would speak out against him. The only real check and balance system a government requires, is one that ensures the ruler is a servant of the people.
Dictators can never be a good thing because the type of person who would ever want the job of dictator is the type of person who will brutalize other people.
@wwickeddogg But surely, democracy says that everyone's views are equal, but you would never take the opinion of an average 5 year old on architectural design. Extreme example, but the example shows that opinions are not equal.
So why should we assume, that the average person should be free to make their own decisions ?
@1337ASM I disagree with your assumptions. Democracy gives everyone equal opportunity to express their view with the purpose of allowing others to hear and determine for themselves what value the view has.
The average person should be free to make their own decisions because that is the only way that a society can be functional. You start to take away my freedom and I become disfunctional. I protest instead of working, I stop cooperating, I intentionally cause harm to society, etc.
We need to replace dictatorships that only care about themselves with a military dictator who actually gives a crap about the people. Tough love government.
libie has one this different... the change came from the people first.. The NATO only helped with a no fly zone and supplies here and there. The new government seems really organised.
Interesting thoughts but i'm inclined to say in this case that leaving Gadaffi to it would have been obviously the smarter option. We the western people of the world have been lied to about Gadaffi and his so called brutal dictatorship. America/Nato have funded rebels yet again to do their dirty work and overthrow a Monarch for their lust of Oil. So i see it like this, there was way more libyians happy to live under Gadaffis regime than ther were Rebels wanting change..
I have heard libyan nationals and libyan americans speak on this,and I heard some really intelligent sounding normal people who hope that this will be an oppertunity to get it right. I have also heard the same hopes from interviews with the rebels. with non-greed influenced support,change can occure. I believe a majority wants real peace and an end to oppression in the region.alqueda will get theirs. freedom does not come cheap. if not you, someone has paid.thoughts are ok,support is better.
So, this is what our kids are being taught in the public schools? Every liberal cause under the sun can be found in your classroom. I don't even know where to start? Since you get your lesson plan from NPR, maybe you should be talking about this "illegal war" and how Obama is "killing defenseless children." Oh wait, that kind of rhetoric is saved for Republicans like Bush. But, his wars were legal (Congress & the UN). So, why the liberal silence? Maybe because he's pushing the Socialist Agenda?
Giddafi doesn't have a problem his people love him for what he has done for his country! France and America are the ones with the problems They can't get their hands on the countries resources!
Gee, you're almost making some sense there. Another good example is Yugoslavia: Dictator Tito dies after holding the country together for forty years and within twenty years there's are permanent NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo to keep Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and Muslims from killing each other. They are all still pissed off about stuff that happened centuries ago.
Shaking up the bees nest without replacing it with a constitution of individual rights and a people who have some concept of that only makes the bees come out and go crazy.
@wonderingmind42 Dictatorship of any kind is bad, unless the dictator would minimize his egocentric urges and rule in order to provide as much "happiness" for everybody. Regrettably, imo dictators are self obsessed shit scared sadistic control maniacs, lacking vision or compassion beyond the obvious.
A glaring problem in this video is the false dichotomy. Wonderingmind42 makes it sound like the end of tyranny automatically leads to the beginning of liberty. But of course, he's wrong. People living in the hellish wake of a failed dictatorship are not free. So in typical Leftist fashion, he blurs the line between good and evil. To him, the free world isn't all that good and the captive world isn't all that bad. Why? Because to him, free human beings are a threat to his Earth Goddess.
It certainly SEEMS anomalous, wondering if dictatorship can be a good thing.
I put it to you that dictatorships (and, indeed, democracies) are neither "good" nor "bad" in themselves but instead have a lot of characteristics which we judge as good or bad.
Remember, too, that in the mature democracies, the "will of the people" is not absolute but rather is tempered with respect for the rights of minorities. Eschewing that restraint has been a common failing in recently de-colonised countries.
I agree that for both 'the international community' and the residents of the types of states discussed authoritarian states are preferable to anarchic regions. Nonetheless there are a couple of challenges to that opinion that I can think of. The first one being that it might be more difficult to emigrate from an authoritarian state than a state with a very weak central government. Secondly can an invasion by a state be more harmful than non-state actors committing violence across borders?
Ok first of all, no smart people say that dictators are entierly bad. If a dictator is smart and thinks about his legacy, then he will do all in his powers to save the nation. This is especially important during problematic times, becase voting takes FOREVER. also why would you thinkk kings stayed around sooooo long, because they didnt waste money on crap (like some dictators do) ,but on improving the econ and army to defend and conqer. PS sorry for my english, im not for an english/ US
@supremeuniverseruler Most political right & many left think communism & dictatorships are ALWAYS bad,that's why we persecuted communists for so long.
@madjimms well then they are all just stupid, yeah I said it MOST people ARE stupid
Search your feelings, you know it to be true......
PS. I never said anything about comunism (that is something entierly different that would take up 10 comments) but like dictatorship, some things about it are good (the concept of it is quite good)
and the usa interests have paid brutal dictaters billions so they can stay in power to render a situation--gadaffi and other ex or current leaders have been an ally to usa to suite a situation mainly buying peace while plundering oil supplies...its all the same-the world euro/ny stock exchange relies only on self interest--its all a vicious circle..always look in your own backyard--and always say--in the end nothing matters--louie b mayer.mgm
he is very confused. a country cannot be described as a democracy if they constantly go to war with out putting it to vote. they are hypocrites, and deliberately cause the instability in these countries to supplant their leaders.
this guy is a 1st class aynus, god help his students
point u have to consider: dont letting people dissent can make things look very stable, HOWEVER when a protest starts it can quickly turn in total chaos. On the other hand, absolutely no control makes hell break loose automatically, so there's probably an optimum that reconciles this two extremes.
The question here is a society that gets close to Anarchism vs a society that is based on Authoritarianism. It really comes down to would you rather live in a free yet chaotic society or oppresive yet orderly society. I would rather be free than oppressed; though life may be hell, at least I would have the satisfaction of freedom, of being my own man.
The questions are irrelevant. We're living in a new age dictatorship anyway. To get to the root cause and answer these questions entirely you have to bring in so many uncertain and arguable factors. I think it comes down to domination. Eventually there will be one single society (if the sun doesn't explode first, or the Earth freezes over) and I strongly believe it will be the United States. In any case, this suffering won't end until one country has all resources. That's what wars are for. :)
The basis for people suffering to overthrow a regime is that no amount of suffering can equate to the long term suffering caused by the current regime. The problem is that new governments that often take the place of dictatorships are either a form of anarchy that facilitates a new dictator in the end. Or you get a new government that is called "Dictator-Lite (now with sneakier crimes against humanity)". I want to know how an entire country can make a government transition for the better.
Dictatorship is controlled madness, other systems are free range madness. I prefer free range. Perhaps you could relocate to such a country and send us reports. Assuming of course you have access to the internet and still have your hands.
Reduce the pressure slowly. But the transition has to happen because the pressure cooker goes up anyway.
Here in Slovenia we are quite happy that we have now a free country - well, free market economy is a different case because it has not only good effects and is also not democratic.
A dictator's not a good thing unless he's dictating what's truly best for the people, in which case he's actually listening to the people, which makes his govt a true democracy!
A better question to ask is how did the situation come to be. The us has toppled all sorts of democracies and supported all sorts of dictators against the will of respective peoples. Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. Now it's full circle. If we'd left them alone to start there wouldn't be the trouble. Just less profits.
A dictators a great thing if your the dictator, a friend of the dictator, or agree with the dictator's ideology. A democracy is great if you agree with the majority. Otherwise both kind of suck. I'm fond of a republic like the constitution created with negative liberties for the government to give maximum liberties to every individual person. That's just me, though. To each his own including the people of Libya.
3 - Democracy and civil war. Civil war is not always an outcome of tribaism nor does it preclude a developed political system. The English Civil War heped found many of the UK's traditions of government and the US was shaped in a big way from your internal spat between 1861-1865. In both these countries, democracy has managed to flourish.
4 - Rwanda. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the genocide had less to do with tribe and more to do with demographics.
1 - Afghanistan in the Taliban era was still highly tribalised/ The Taliban is a Pashtin movement and the civil war was ongoing.
2 - Foreign fighters in Libya. There is almost no centralised control of the rebels and while it is possible that some Jihadists may be in some ranks of some groups, it is far easier to spot the mercenaries hired by Gadaffi
Or take the eample of America, where the newly freed colonials then went on a rampage of ethnic clensing and apartite in a westerly direction. Look how well that turned out.
There are two objections here:
1) Sometiems the heat is fueled by the dictator by focusing his people's rage against outsiders. See Israel.
2) You are taking a short term view. Asking how many more people have been killing in Iraq due to the war is the wrong question. Recalculate assuming the ragime lasts X more decades.
The problem will eventually have to be solved. So postponing it will only make things worse later. If we didn't fight the civil war where would America be today? We are a lucky nation most have to go through several civil wars before becoming a functional government for the people of a Nation. Hopefully the days of oppressive Governments is coming to an end but thats not likely anytime soon. Hopefully Libya and other countries in that region will finally start listening to the people...
interesting, imagine here in the UK that absolute monarchy had continued from the middle ages, would 'we' be any worse off? it really depends on what one may describe as the nature of freedom, one could imagine a 'benevolent dictatorship'
but the two words may be mutually exclusive. there is something deeply human and decent about being able to think, and then write, perform, speak etc despite being the anathema to whatever system is in power
@thatwilldonicely Not necesarily mutualy exclusive. Originaly the dictator was of undisputible power and command, a sort of emergency power handed out for a brief time during crisis. It has how ever been slowly intermingled with the tyrant concept, meaning we today see dictator=tyrant.
But ultimate power can also be used for good. But like the saying goes, "power corrupts, absolute power...."
@BigSwede7403 Perfectly summed up by you there. A dictatorship is a perfectly legitimate form of rule. It works when the state is in a temporary state of crisis and there's no time to debate what to do: the enemy is at the gates. The problem is that when there is no crisis, a dictatorship is a very BAD form of rule. A 40 year dictator is a tyrant. In the US, the president actually fills the role of dictator (4 year term) - just he operates within a multipartate system instead of alone.
@andreasBeaverhausen But surely the US President operates in line with the rule of law and is "controlled/regulated by Congress?
If we take the title and role of the dictator back to the Roman Republic, didn't they completely suspend the usual laws and rights in favor of the supreme power of the dictator?
My US/ Roman politics is a little sketchy. I agree about your point that a dictatorship is times of exceptional national crisis can be acceptable in some circumstances.
@themrchris0426 OK, I agree. I regretted typing it the minute I hit enter. A President is democratically elected to a term of 4 years, after he is elected there is nothing you can do about his politics or policies (except perhaps a referendum, which is at state level) so in that particular sense he is like a 4-year dictator... but it's light years away from the system they have in Libya where Gaddafi came to power via a military coup and the only way to change ruler is to have a revolution.
@BigSwede7403 interesting comment thanks, i personally cannot see democracy solving the problems
of the world in the decades to come, huge numbers of peoples on the march (global warming), over population, crime etc etc people of the future will give up some liberties for stability and a 'sense' of freedom from fear (real or imagined) in their nations and local neighbourhoods, in the meantime i think i have finally cracked roulette!!
As dictators go, Moamar was not so bad a thing. He kept problems from overflowing his borders and didn't gas too many of his citizens. You could end up with a Taliban like Islamic state and even more trouble from that part of the world. Promoting democracy is all well and good, but it has to grow hand in hand with Rule of Law, or you get another Afghanistan.
the conclusion is americans should just stay in their country and mind their own business. what gives USA the authority to police other governments and overthrow them, even if they are dictators? and why do they only do it to small unpopular countries with abundant natural resources?
Notice how you said each time, "America toppled the government." That's the real issue. No oppressive government is a good thing, and that's why you get democratic uprisings like the ones that have taken place. But those occur naturally, without help. They come through popular struggle. When others get involved it often leads to the continuation of the same cycle of oppression.
As for the so-called benefits of dictatorship? You might like to ask the millions murdered by the dictators? The torture and coercion of all others. BTW ypu left out Idi Amin and Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan, etc. Anyway, isn't democracy a type of dictatorship? Since 49% of the people are disenfranchised. At least until the next vote. The U.S. and it's allies have supported dictatorships whenever it suits them. Then they take them down on the pretext of freedom
This is the same observation that I have made. On the one hand I couldn't see myself living under conditions where your life or your families life is always on the line. One misstep or some one ratting out a comment you made gets you terminated. For me that is not living.
I too have known people that have moved here to go to school from those very countries. They understand the dictator conditions and have lived their entire life under these conditions. When you're a goldfish you don't know ..
Iraq has been a damn mess every since Sadam was removed by the evil dictator (Cheney and his cobal). Yes, there are places where only a dictator can maintain the piece through brute force. And the USA is a republic at the federal level and not a democracy. The cobal that dictates its control over America steels the citizens hard earned pay and uses it to finance it's exploits in domination around the world !!!
Well Isn't the best dictator you can get will be like Stalin?Even then despite there cruelty is it worth it for even peace?Should peace be achived this way? Ah heck just divide them and give them a small chunk of the country Or let there be a fight to the death and who ever wins haves the whole country.Lets not give them a puppet for the us and let a true Lybian rule the country its there country let them do what they want with it.
Police fail to investigate serial rapist because there is a 50% chance that his existence is keeping a bunch of other guys from raping. A guy named Fred is ok with a few rapes if it mean a whole bunch of potential rapes might not happen.
Dictators, intentionally or not, make genocides: holocaust, gladomor, great leap "forward", gasing Kurds...
That being said, democracy is a botoms-up proces about self government, so it's insane to import and impose it.
What's possible is helping a spontaneous and genuine rebellion(not instigated!), and even then there will be trouble simply because transition is difficult.
Spoken from a country that went from dictator imposed federation to waring states to appreciated separation & democracy.
You do bring up some interesting points and if you take the traditional view of statehood many of the points made were valid ones.Much of European history has been filled with the same recurring pattern of war lords taking control after the worst ever king was deposed only to find the war lords had even worse ideas. But the paradigm shifts when you take in the new media and not for its power to organise rallies,but its power to breed resentment as those inside the pressure cooker look outward.
Dictators seem to me to have much more power than democracy. Without restraints, balances, checks, etc., a strong dictator can do much to change a country than a President or Congress ever could. But likewise, its a double edged sword; dictators dictate whatever they choose. While I'm sure we're familiar with the "bad" dictators of the past and present, I'm equally sure that we also know famous "good" dictators that have lead empires and countries incredibly well.
The problem here is that in some areas there simply is no good answer. If a population wishes to go to war with itself then the arguably "best" answer is the one which reduces the harms of war the most. In essence what you're doing is trading Liberty for Safety which is sort of trading down Maslow's hierarchy, I need safety I want self actualization and freedom. So while dictators are seldom desirable they are in some cases the lesser of two evils.
Democracy is a farse, human dictators are worse. There is only 1 dictatorship the human race has to succumb to, and that's the dictatorship of nature. We are governed by the physical laws of the natural world, and this is our dictatorship. Any form of human "leadership", be it an elected party, or an unelected dictator, are false institutions that cause more problems than they solve. We need to listen to our natural dictator, and nothing else.
I sort of agree with you, but it's not whether or not dictators can be a good thing that is the point. Military action, especially invasion, brings with it a whole host of social and economic problems - such as destruction of infrastructure, increase in crime and so on. That's why the Nuremberg trials determined that the act of waging war was the supreme crime in international law. It's not just the people you directly kill, but *everything else* that you are responsible for.
Sadly you are right - look at all the civilian deaths in Iraq. How many would have died if we had left Saddam where he was? ... Probably not as many... If freedom worth your whole family dieing? ..and what freedom anyway? The freedom to choose between McDonalds and Hungry Jacks. The freedom to work in a shit job for shit pay. What is freedom? Where is it?
Even US democracy becomes a dictatorship of rich if a guy with billions of dollars has bigger impact on the government than an average citizen. Dictators don't always have to be bad- I'm thinking of Cuba or Venezuela. Problem with Iraq and other countries you mentioned is that tribal/ethnic/religious divisions and tensions existed there long before dictators. Dictatorships did nothing to solve those tensions, they only controlled their impact on society, so by applying 3rd force they..
...only froze/stopped the changes that were needed. Good analogy with pressure cooker - we can't keep it secretly boiling indefinitely. When we take the cap off it explodes, but then it settles at last. I think those people should divide their countries between interested groups, live the way their ethnicity/religion dictates and maybe some time in future they'll decide to unite again on peaceful terms.
Cost benefit analysis formula: if current suffering from oppression > the suffering/uncertainty of revolution= true, then revolt; if false then status quo. The problem is that this formula only works with organic revolutions (like American revolution) where the people are willing to sacrifice/die for freedom. Add in foreign intervention (like USA) and the threshold is lowered (the indigenous people won't want it badly enough) and won't demand enough from the replacement regime.
What is the difference between a dictator and what you have in the USA right now?
you President just sent your military to war with out even talking to congress. The freedoms that were granted to you are under attack every day. Sure maybe it looks different because there are hundreds of politians all agreeing to screw the people instead of just one guy but in the end you still are getting screwed.
It is certainly a question that must be taken on a case by case basis. However, before we decide to overthrow a government however, we certainly need to take into consideration the possible consequences of a newly-led country. I believe in this situation, Libya is to unstable to have Gadaffi removed from power. Despite the fact he is a horrible man, he kept the country afloat.
"WE"? Since when do we have any choice? I thought Obomba was going to end the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, nope. I thought he was going to close the illegal prison in Cuba and give the accused criminals trials, nope. I thought he was going to end corporate welfare and the b*** tax cuts, nope.
I don't have a say in this shitty fucked up country.
Most of the examples of opressive regimes you cited were supported by the United States at one time or another. Furthermore, the only reason most of them were allowed to collapse was because they actually started to do something for their people in the way of social justice or egalitarianism. These ideas tend to go counter to the desires of "free market" and i use the term adviseadly. Open your markets OR ELSE!
As yousefamar said, the only way to release the pressure is to turn down the fire on the pressure cooker. The lid, if kept on, is opposing the pressure within; the people who are being controlled are not satisfied. If they are satisfied and the country is all well, then will there be hell breaking loose if we take off the lid? No. Will we need a lid in the first place if there is no pressure? I don't think so, and thus the start of Democracy. In a way, it can only occur if the people is at peace
@CommentorX Got the pink slip, but managed to keep my job. Same small rural high school of gringos and wetbacks. I godd*mn love that place.
As for "This week's thoughtbite," that's my ambition, so thought I'd put there to motivate myself some. I've got literally hundreds of thoughts dictated during my commute, but have finally made my family my priority, so projects like this only get done as time allows. Hence the spottiness.
@wonderingmind42 "Gringos and Wetbacks"? Surely with your phony portrayed genius and theoretical knowledge on global topics & your prestegious high school teaching credential(Yea, that's sarcasm) oh yea, & suito-intellectual persona, surely you could have chosen a less derogitory and racially skewed description of the kids your teaching and the people who are keeping you employed & thus enabling you to provide for your family? Gringo/Wetback? Do you mean Mexican? Oh your a racist? That explains
Unfortunately the propagation and reinforcing effects of crowd mentality in regards to stone-age religious views seeks to oppress education of it's flock so that they do not have the knowledge to refute their claims. Religious groups are run much like a Dictatorship in this way.
I do not think the you can free a country until you free their minds. Science can give us this perspective, that our actions have meaningful consequences to not just ourselves but everyone around us.
@Seii09 Before you extoll science over religion, note that we would not care about Libya's strife if we didn't need its oil for our technology. It is the economic disparity caused by the control of that oil that is causing this round of unrest in Libya.
/
Don't blame religion for problems caused by science. Before you urge others to free their minds, free your own.
@CommentorX I fail to see these two thoughts are related at all. There were many countries that looked on at the human rights violations in Libya as it's own government killed it's citizens mercilessly and cried out for justice. Even if the U.S intervened for their own selfish reasons, the conflict already existed and it has nothing to do with "problems caused by science". These people want a revolution. Science is just a tool humans have created to understand the world, you should check it out.
@CommentorX Both I would imagine. They do not need to be opposed, you think that a person can have only 1 opinion at a time? And yes he had been misappropriating oil but that's because he was the 4 longest ruling Dictator ever recorded and the only one of those still in power today. This guy is old school as hell, and Libya wanted real change. You think they'd be fighting for their lives just for oil? You're a fool if you think so.
I think the first step in any successful state is the education of the people. Leaders come and go but it is the people that must adapt to these situations. Whether they are living in a amicable Dictatorship or a corrupt Democracy the people must be the mediating force for good. They must be able to work together and decide what is best for all of them, it is only through education that people can really understand what it is that they need do to become the ideal state they dream of.
Yes, a dictator has the potential to lead to a greater well-being than democracy allows. A top-down approach prevents the tragedy of the commons where individual interests harm the collective resulting in less than when properly regulated.
The Dominican Republic had a really harsh dictator, however he took really good care of the environment and the economy, resulting in a happier nation than their neighbours: Haiti, which is essentially a failed state.
Of course a dictator can be good. It might be rare, but to claim a dictator is always bad is very close-minded. It´s always cercumstantial. Good video. I think many assume a dictator always equals bad.
A few statements from me, take them as you see fit:
1) A good dictator is a contradiction in it self, as he would need to use force to get in/stay in power.
2) You have to define freedom before you can safely give freedom to the people. Is it freedom to do what ever your mindset makes you strive to do? To suppress people you don't agree with, perhaps? Or is it freedom to do and think what you want while taking responsibility for your actions?
@ekhaat Think of it as no different than an army. He at the top calls the shots and everyone listens. It might not be a glorious life and you might have to work at it. The problem is that everyone wants to get off the hook for free. To get that out of the system of the general population takes a couple of generations, so people don't like it and immediately call foul. Take a look at history. The only democracy before recent history failed miserably.
@RockZord Well, he at the top is not really at the top unless he's the dictator, or ruler of what he would call his people. To really have have the last word he will have to be the head of state.
I think when a dictator has been rulling for a long time the dictatorship just doesn't stays in his orders and decisions but flows throught he governing machinery. So people who work for Government at any level gradually learn & become dictator to at least some extend. Also when people are treated badly they tend to return the favor. So the opressed have already learnt to be unkind n ready to take their turn. Once dictator is gone next generation has beter chance to be better and kind human.
First mistake is to present dictatorship as alternative to democracy, this is nonsense as there is no functioning democracy on planet. Dichotomy should be between dictatorship and oligarchy. Second mistake is that you assume that dictatorships are more oppressive then oligarchies. Often the opposite is true as dictator must appease public more them oligarchy to keep himself in power. This is why, for example, USSR provided better living standards then any of its oligarchic successor states.
Dictatorship only works if it's benevolent. If the people are happy and love their leader, the people have no reason to rebel. Brutal, unfair dictators that oppress their people sow the seeds of rebellion.
Also, there is an inherent problem in replacing a dictatorship with a republic. The people under a dictatorship for many years will have no idea how to govern themselves, as a democracy requires. There's going to be violence while they figure this out, and may lapse back into a dictatorship.
look man, to me this is just a nother war to reestablish order and keep the oil folowing. US and europe had no trouble buying oil to kadafi for 50 years, and now that they have a civil war, all exports are closed, so that´s a bad thing for europe and teh us, so the government uses their worn out excuse of "fighting for democracy" in order to reestablish order. They don´t care if the one that comes after kadafi is another dictator as long as they keep the bussiness as ussual.
First, Aristotle in his "Politics", stated that no one form of government works absolutely for all peoples. Though he favored the republic form of government (basically the US' form of government which erroneously is called democracy), he also understood that it too was not perfect.
Second, Don't take this the wrong way, but Hitler, aside from his Final Solution thing, was a wonderful leader. He brought Germany out of the Great Depression, due to massive debt and inflation caused by WWI.
@MasterStudios1 (continuing from above) Germans were happy, the economy was booming and the education system was superb. Scientific advancements made in Hitler's Germany often became building blocks for the technology we now use today. Now let's consider the ancient form of dictatorship: Emperors. The Persian Empire had a unique system of government, at least compared to other empires before and after it, in that they'd basically give their conquered provinces home rule, (to be continued...)
@MasterStudios1 and the only requirement was that they'd pay taxes to the Imperial Government. If you compare that system to the American system, it is very much similar to that, the only difference is that Persian Emperors were chosen by succession (generally by birth) whereas American Presidents are elected. However the Greeks didn't like the Persians having control over them, despite the fact that they could still do everything they wanted. Freedom is a matter of choice (continued...)
@MasterStudios1 take for example, Mexico. Under the control of France at the time, Mexico was made into an imperial province (more or less) and the unique thing was that Emperor Maximilian I (from Austria) believed that the role of the Emperor was to follow the will of the people, and he would raise his heirs to follow such a belief, however the faction led by Benito Juarez believed in "democracy" enticed by their big brother to the north. Look at Mexico now, it is overrun by drug cartels...
@MasterStudios1 the Mexican government is powerless to stop them. It all stems from the Ancient Greeks that the Western world believes that empires (or in modern lingo: dictatorships) are bad, and democracy is good. Well I think the track record speaks for itself.
Dictators should be toppled by the people who the dictators rule. Until the people can create their own government, no gov't appointed by another nation is successful.
The problem is that you always need police force that is strong. If you remove dictator and his army, well, you still need some control. Even democracy is not self obvious, because in democratic countries has been wars before. Some force then won the fight and democracy was established. But people don't establish democracy. It was some force, the winning side, that established democracy, and all the other parties agreed to it. But if there is no winning side, because US intervened -> chaos start
I have long held this opinion that a dictatorship is the only current system that will survive. Democracy cannot work for various reasons, such as the fact that politicians are chosen, not based on skill, but on popularity. And as you pointed out, if one person makes all the decisions, they are so much more organized, because everyone works towards the same goal. One problem is the fact that the rest of the world do not like dictators. Also, bad dictators do exist.
I think any system that is held in place artificially is bound to decompse or fail one day, and I'm not so sure that more people die in faild states then in brutal dictatorships.
Afghanistan, Irak, Egypt or Lybia are four totally differnent cases, and I don't think that overthrowing a dictator does necessarily lead into a failed state.
We can learn from history how and why some revolutions worked out better for the citizens and why others ended in even worse situations.
First time i've thumbed down one of your videos. The premise of your thinking here seems to be:
Dictator = Bad
Chaos = Bad
Dictator =/= Chaos
Dictator = Not Bad
I'm sorry but no, that's crap. Sure, keep the lid on if you want, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just ignores it in hopes the pressure inside will somehow drop on its own - and it NEVER does.
Whatever happened to "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." I mean, C'mon.
With that said democracy or republics does not gurantee the right person or the most qualify person is in charged. After all a democracy is a popularity contest and politicians have to appeal to the lowest denominator, but are they good rulers? I don't know. Today's American form of government I would argue isn't a democracy but rather a plutocracy in which only the rich has the resources to win a major political campaign. Is it still a democracy when both parties work for the same minority
Alright serious response. There's a difference between dictators and tyrants. Churchill once admired Hitler's system because it turned the German system around but Hitler became a tyrant when he started rounding up certain parts of his own population and invading his neighbours. Dictatorship is a form of government similar to a monarchy or a theocracy, they are forms of stability though not everyone likes the result and tends to evolve into tyranny if the wrong person is in charge.
I agree with many of your points. If we were honest, we would admit that our military actions to bring freedom to people in places like Iraq are really more for our own self interest. In this regard it is far better to have a secular dictator than a radical religious one. Removing Saddam Hussein may ultimately result in tribal violence and the rise of a radical cleric dictator. This would actually be more of a threat to the US than Saddam was. The same could be true of Libya.
Greg said he's "not advocating for a dictator." Yet all his environmental doomsday videos certainly do. Global Warming/Climate Change EcoFascists want to establish a "Green Dictatorship" where "deniers" like me become enemies of the Earth (i.e. State). Their 10:10 "No Pressure" campaign was a dictator's dream-come-true, where skeptics like me can be conveniently murdered with a simple press of a button. How did that ad get made? How did its sick and evil message get greenlighted?
Normally I like your videos very well as they are well thought out, well presented, and full of factual information. That Obama slip, that was childish. Even if it had been a "Bush", "Nixon", or "Clinton" slip, I would feel the same way.
We shouldn't get involved unless they ask us and even then we need to make sure we have the resources and manpower so we don't screw ourselves. anyway, isnt that what the UN is for?
It's strange... my grandparents lived in the old soviet union, and everyone was really happy. Yes, millions lost their lives maintaining the regime, but after Stalin's death, the government backed down with oppression.
But when the union split, everyone went their own separate ways, and many families broke up. Thousands of mothers/fathers were even deported. Can you imagine that?
I can not imagine what would happened if Korea got liberated. They are so brainwashed, they'd hate freedom...
A dictatorship is only a good thing if the people are happy. Keeping the lid on the pressure cooker is only cloaking one problem with another. The real solution is not to keep the lid on, but instead turn down the heat.
Of course this does not apply to every dictatorship but I think that one simply has to look at the short-term and long-term sum of all estimated suffering, that result from the array of choices one has, and act accordingly.
@yousefamar While I like this analogy, I think I have to end it: you can't turn down the heat unless you have access to the oven. This is endothermic - the pot is not an oven - it would be difficult if not impossible to dive in and help resolve inter-tribal differences before the removal of the lid. We don't have the convenience of thermal dynamics here - we can't just stick them in the fridge.
@prozacgod Then let them resolve it themselves the same way the monarchies of the past and the age of absolutism dissolved. It's not like they're harming anyone outside of their country. If the medieval west could do it without external help, they can too. Eventually it will get cooler. That's what I think anyway.
@yousefamar maybe I missunderstood the point of the argument, but while I do tend to agree with you, the thought experiment was on how to prevent deaths when cracking the top - and the best way would be to stop the internal warfares or create some situation that makes it less "interesting" to be a ruler/warlord/thug/etc - before you open the can of worms, then - hopefully few/some/most(pick one) people won't be opportunistic and try to fill in for the now missing head.
@prozacgod These governments don't rely on the people though; dictators get their power from controlling the country's resources and as a result controlling the people. I simply don't believe that the population of a country has to suffer endlessly just so that others outside the pot don't have to. If cooling the situation down really does require external intervention, then so be it, but if the change comes from within and then they slowly transition into a happier country, it's win-win, right?
@yousefamar I look at it like "are dictators a good thing" (necessary evil) like looking at it from a numbers game then with @wonderingmind42's original posit: [with dictators: death rate of X] and [without dictators: death rate > X] then perhaps, but winning this kind of war, my argument was to protect those people from intra-tribal warfare - by protecting their resources & individuals, and assisting an internal change. But I don't think countries like this will be able to settle on their own.
@prozacgod Fair enough. I think as long as the goal of any external intervention is to assist internal change rather than sustain a dictator who keeps things contained or pull an "Iraq" then it's all good. Probably the only thing I disagree with is that Libya can't take care of it on their own. As an Egyptian myself I don't think more people will suffer under a democracy in general than under Gadaffi but I guess it's debatable. What matters is that those internal problems are solved either way.
@yousefamar also - I get what you're saying and agree whole heartedly. People should not HAVE to suffer so I can have a "comfortable war" - but I do believe that +/- 6months is an okay delay - things like this have to be planned and executed quite well, to avoid unnecessary blood shed - I wonder if a thing like this could be won by propaganda: Flyers of "U.S. support your rebellion" (literacy rates notwithstanding) but with suggestions of what we can/will do for a representative government.
The globalists want as many people as they can to die. We are now Post Peak Oil and since we are PPO crops will have to be grown using old methods the monopolies controling large swaths of land are going to have to be broken up to smaller sections water land will have to be farmed by labor and less machinery. Power will become more localized justice too will devolve to more of shame based penalties. World is about to get a lot smaller. This global economy needs a cheap fuel oil to function.
There are clearly benefits of Dictatorships, or the people would never be content enough for the countries to stabilize. China is an excellent example, the people's access to information is (somewhat) limited, but they're a prospering world power. Another benefit is a single point of decision. There's something to be said for a fair government, but sometimes the majority is hard to convince of reality, see Evolution/Global warming being shunned by christians. Hard to see that happening in China.
Maybe we should be looking at this in another way: Is the US brand of Democracy that we are trying to "build" in other countries actually good for that country? This question might go hand and hand with the dictator question. Each country, dictator, culture, economy, etc is different-and at different times in history. The brand of Democracy we have now in the US is failing even its own citizens. If we struggle to make it work here, how can we make it work there?
The US super glorifys EVERY single thing that has to do with their country [Ex. Canada won the war of 1812 and we burned down the white house, but they treat it like a victory, you dont realize how much propaganda exists in america. They think their way is the only way, and that way being a President with no control over a dual party house system that refuses to cooperate with eachother because their personal beliefs get in the way of their constituancy's.
@TheRimDoctor - Actually I do realize how much propaganda exists in the US. That is why I am bringing up the questions regarding the US' "democracy" (notice the quotes), and the fact that our leaders think they have the right to "spread" it.
Indeed. Not to mention your political system is cracked, and you have almost no intellectual independants. The general concensus is that intellectuals vote democratic, rednecks, racists and homophobes vote republican, both are staunchly for one or the other, and then you have the Undecided voters who can be swayed by listening to MSNBC or god forbid Fox News.
And the "you dont realize how much propaganda exists in america" is not directed at you, directly, more of a general crowd
@skeletonmom Are we spreading democracy or capitalism? If the nation's resources are firmly in the control of foreign corporations, is the puppet government really democratic, just because it was elected? Or is it just a smokescreen to pacify the "all hell breaking loose"?
Dictators should always be overthrown. Remember that Hitler was ruthless, yet he made the trains run on time. Never mind he killed 6+ million people. No. Dictators should always be overthrown.
@sappha58 you shouldn't base your opinion on one event, hitler wasn't really sane to begin with. and when trying to get an opinion on something look at as many POV as possible. with this question i would say hitler created the same effect (not killing people) but tearing down germanys federal republic and creating a very controlled dictatorship. when the USA goes to countries they try to tear down the government and create democracy like ours, which usually fails and creates chaos.
One of the key ways dictators use to stay in power is by creating the illusion of the only alternative to them is anarchy. We saw this when Mubarak in Egypt sent his paid for thugs into Tahrir square, some of them on camels (so chaotic!), it made it seem without his control there would be anarchy. On top of this you have the fact that without democratic institutions and infrastructure a transition from authoritarian rule to democracy is always going to be difficult.
You just said it yourself Greg. Dictators keep things together for better or worse.
In Iraq before the western "liberation", parents could send their children to school without fear. That is no longer the case. I just doubt that a "soft" transition would be feasibly. Either you have a strong central force (whatever shapes it) or you don't.
In *theory* that strong central force could be a occupying West that keeps things (relatively) civil while old hatreds are vented in a controled manner.
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
Let's talk in theory: A dictator would give a country a strong leader who can act without being afraid of losing his position even if he makes the hard choices.
In a democracy the people often vote stupidly saying "We want more services from our government but want to pay less taxes" which most of the times is a oxymoron and vote for the party which makes the bigger promise which never gets fullfilled.
A dictator can make the choice without fear of being replaced. Sadly dictatorship doesn't work
Man, you go life in Afganistan under the orderly Taliban.
Funny that many western people go for the romantic opression
koertje 2 weeks ago
Maybe a study of a decade pre and post regime change, and then study quality adjusted life years, coupled with the economic and environmental measurements.
endomorphosis 2 weeks ago
Thumbs up if you saw m-ilk--can in the title xD
TheXmasProductions 3 weeks ago
US dictators can be a good thing.
If you like watching Libya turned to rubble, ethnic cleansing of africans in libya, depleted uranium in war, economy turned to shit, and Gaddahfi sodomized and lynched on youtube or public TV. Who or what constitutes a dick-tator? Who knows. But US/NATO puppets are the biggest fools since the SS. Fuck'em.
waterspindle 3 weeks ago
A further comment: democracy is the rulership of the people. This is only possible if people have self-government first. But we are a nation of out-of-control people, who can't even govern our own weight and eating habits. Therefore, we are unfit to bring democracy to anyone else. We first need to topple our own dictators of greed and lust.
fz1844 2 months ago
@fz1844 not just that in order to have democracy you need education and vigilance. Without that democracy is useless as a viable system.
RZMaslic 4 weeks ago
When you read the Wikipedia article on Gadaffi, you find out that he actually did a lot of good for his people, and even other parts of Africa. Perhaps the west didn't like that he was the first to demand a larger percentage of profits from the oil taken from his country. It seems we don't like dictators who make us pay more, but we are happy with those (and even set them up) who cooperate with our idea of commerce. And the "no fly zone"? They can't fly, but we can fly planes to bomb them??
fz1844 2 months ago
Speaking more to this video, well, yeah that's a power vacuum for ya. I hate to say it's all in planning, but back when 'we' did it (USA!!), we had most of our ducks lined up before we threw off the oppressor; and we 'still' had a civil war. What will kill you faster? A gangrenous limb that you have to cut off, or a hemorrhagic gash you have when you decide to just chop it off and walk away, without cleaning the wound.
TheSnackbomb 2 months ago
Democracy's failure is its lack of direction, The reason that groups naturally develop leaders is because they are efficient, and faults in modern examples of dictatorships are actually, simply, faults in their leaders and the systems that let them lead. The problem is when a dictator is able to rule with such power that he can target people who would speak out against him. The only real check and balance system a government requires, is one that ensures the ruler is a servant of the people.
TheSnackbomb 2 months ago
finally! i found someone who speaks out what i've been thinking for a long time
machinevos 2 months ago
This video makes a person think. GREAT JOB! Thank you!
KatzeMPDX1984Canada 3 months ago
Dictators can never be a good thing because the type of person who would ever want the job of dictator is the type of person who will brutalize other people.
wwickeddogg 4 months ago
@wwickeddogg But surely, democracy says that everyone's views are equal, but you would never take the opinion of an average 5 year old on architectural design. Extreme example, but the example shows that opinions are not equal.
So why should we assume, that the average person should be free to make their own decisions ?
1337ASM 2 months ago
@1337ASM I disagree with your assumptions. Democracy gives everyone equal opportunity to express their view with the purpose of allowing others to hear and determine for themselves what value the view has.
The average person should be free to make their own decisions because that is the only way that a society can be functional. You start to take away my freedom and I become disfunctional. I protest instead of working, I stop cooperating, I intentionally cause harm to society, etc.
wwickeddogg 2 months ago
We need to replace dictatorships that only care about themselves with a military dictator who actually gives a crap about the people. Tough love government.
UsenameUnavailible 5 months ago
libie has one this different... the change came from the people first.. The NATO only helped with a no fly zone and supplies here and there. The new government seems really organised.
heoTheo 5 months ago
Interesting thoughts but i'm inclined to say in this case that leaving Gadaffi to it would have been obviously the smarter option. We the western people of the world have been lied to about Gadaffi and his so called brutal dictatorship. America/Nato have funded rebels yet again to do their dirty work and overthrow a Monarch for their lust of Oil. So i see it like this, there was way more libyians happy to live under Gadaffis regime than ther were Rebels wanting change..
openyourleftside 5 months ago 2
Good points.
wespeakforthetrees 5 months ago
I have heard libyan nationals and libyan americans speak on this,and I heard some really intelligent sounding normal people who hope that this will be an oppertunity to get it right. I have also heard the same hopes from interviews with the rebels. with non-greed influenced support,change can occure. I believe a majority wants real peace and an end to oppression in the region.alqueda will get theirs. freedom does not come cheap. if not you, someone has paid.thoughts are ok,support is better.
TheZwieblekopf 5 months ago
So, this is what our kids are being taught in the public schools? Every liberal cause under the sun can be found in your classroom. I don't even know where to start? Since you get your lesson plan from NPR, maybe you should be talking about this "illegal war" and how Obama is "killing defenseless children." Oh wait, that kind of rhetoric is saved for Republicans like Bush. But, his wars were legal (Congress & the UN). So, why the liberal silence? Maybe because he's pushing the Socialist Agenda?
baddogonline 6 months ago
Giddafi doesn't have a problem his people love him for what he has done for his country! France and America are the ones with the problems They can't get their hands on the countries resources!
ARBS6bfxtn 6 months ago
Gee, you're almost making some sense there. Another good example is Yugoslavia: Dictator Tito dies after holding the country together for forty years and within twenty years there's are permanent NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo to keep Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and Muslims from killing each other. They are all still pissed off about stuff that happened centuries ago.
ram0166 6 months ago
Shaking up the bees nest without replacing it with a constitution of individual rights and a people who have some concept of that only makes the bees come out and go crazy.
MrApplewine 7 months ago
@wonderingmind42 Dictatorship of any kind is bad, unless the dictator would minimize his egocentric urges and rule in order to provide as much "happiness" for everybody. Regrettably, imo dictators are self obsessed shit scared sadistic control maniacs, lacking vision or compassion beyond the obvious.
thomazz2000 7 months ago
A glaring problem in this video is the false dichotomy. Wonderingmind42 makes it sound like the end of tyranny automatically leads to the beginning of liberty. But of course, he's wrong. People living in the hellish wake of a failed dictatorship are not free. So in typical Leftist fashion, he blurs the line between good and evil. To him, the free world isn't all that good and the captive world isn't all that bad. Why? Because to him, free human beings are a threat to his Earth Goddess.
stuntbaby63 7 months ago
I agree completely!
frizzzzzzal 7 months ago
There's a price to be paid ether way. Its nor good nor bad. Even in America only the side with the right votes get it there way. Catch 22
kloveless82 7 months ago
It certainly SEEMS anomalous, wondering if dictatorship can be a good thing.
I put it to you that dictatorships (and, indeed, democracies) are neither "good" nor "bad" in themselves but instead have a lot of characteristics which we judge as good or bad.
Remember, too, that in the mature democracies, the "will of the people" is not absolute but rather is tempered with respect for the rights of minorities. Eschewing that restraint has been a common failing in recently de-colonised countries.
gerardjlaw 8 months ago
USA don't have the right to put people apart for idealogical reasons
USA has to share the oil with China or start the WW3
USA has to switch to green energy just like Europe
USA is a strong country but with a poor history experience
USA is making people slaves and one day they will wake up
USA have to put a value to there money, and not true people works
USA will lose the battle again China and collapse in 2016 just like Rome
People ! don't serve the state ! serve God
fidorf 8 months ago
@fidorf Wow! A smidgen of incomplete knowledge is dangerous in the mind of an idiot.
ram0166 6 months ago
@ram0166 just teach your daughter to pass a truck
fidorf 6 months ago
Comment removed
fidorf 8 months ago
I agree that for both 'the international community' and the residents of the types of states discussed authoritarian states are preferable to anarchic regions. Nonetheless there are a couple of challenges to that opinion that I can think of. The first one being that it might be more difficult to emigrate from an authoritarian state than a state with a very weak central government. Secondly can an invasion by a state be more harmful than non-state actors committing violence across borders?
DodgeballGuy1 8 months ago
Guys, this man speaks the truth.
madjimms 8 months ago
Ok first of all, no smart people say that dictators are entierly bad. If a dictator is smart and thinks about his legacy, then he will do all in his powers to save the nation. This is especially important during problematic times, becase voting takes FOREVER. also why would you thinkk kings stayed around sooooo long, because they didnt waste money on crap (like some dictators do) ,but on improving the econ and army to defend and conqer. PS sorry for my english, im not for an english/ US
supremeuniverseruler 8 months ago
@supremeuniverseruler Most political right & many left think communism & dictatorships are ALWAYS bad,that's why we persecuted communists for so long.
madjimms 8 months ago
@madjimms well then they are all just stupid, yeah I said it MOST people ARE stupid
Search your feelings, you know it to be true......
PS. I never said anything about comunism (that is something entierly different that would take up 10 comments) but like dictatorship, some things about it are good (the concept of it is quite good)
supremeuniverseruler 8 months ago
and the usa interests have paid brutal dictaters billions so they can stay in power to render a situation--gadaffi and other ex or current leaders have been an ally to usa to suite a situation mainly buying peace while plundering oil supplies...its all the same-the world euro/ny stock exchange relies only on self interest--its all a vicious circle..always look in your own backyard--and always say--in the end nothing matters--louie b mayer.mgm
simonmoves 8 months ago
he is very confused. a country cannot be described as a democracy if they constantly go to war with out putting it to vote. they are hypocrites, and deliberately cause the instability in these countries to supplant their leaders.
this guy is a 1st class aynus, god help his students
YEeeeeeSSSS 8 months ago
point u have to consider: dont letting people dissent can make things look very stable, HOWEVER when a protest starts it can quickly turn in total chaos. On the other hand, absolutely no control makes hell break loose automatically, so there's probably an optimum that reconciles this two extremes.
LucBertolotti 8 months ago
The question here is a society that gets close to Anarchism vs a society that is based on Authoritarianism. It really comes down to would you rather live in a free yet chaotic society or oppresive yet orderly society. I would rather be free than oppressed; though life may be hell, at least I would have the satisfaction of freedom, of being my own man.
TheSmartChild13 8 months ago
The questions are irrelevant. We're living in a new age dictatorship anyway. To get to the root cause and answer these questions entirely you have to bring in so many uncertain and arguable factors. I think it comes down to domination. Eventually there will be one single society (if the sun doesn't explode first, or the Earth freezes over) and I strongly believe it will be the United States. In any case, this suffering won't end until one country has all resources. That's what wars are for. :)
ViperXXXXXXX 9 months ago
nice hat :)
DarthCupcake666 9 months ago
i have to say your hats are funny
FearOps 9 months ago
The basis for people suffering to overthrow a regime is that no amount of suffering can equate to the long term suffering caused by the current regime. The problem is that new governments that often take the place of dictatorships are either a form of anarchy that facilitates a new dictator in the end. Or you get a new government that is called "Dictator-Lite (now with sneakier crimes against humanity)". I want to know how an entire country can make a government transition for the better.
really1337 9 months ago
Yo Mr Greg, you should get fucked up this upcoming friday. I come in science class high as shit, it makes everything more interesting.
Negr0id 9 months ago
@Negr0id hahaha
giannaluva65 9 months ago
once the pot bubbles and boils over it eventualy stablizes to a normal boil then {if you keep the heat on high) it evaporates.
slr70 9 months ago
Dictatorship is controlled madness, other systems are free range madness. I prefer free range. Perhaps you could relocate to such a country and send us reports. Assuming of course you have access to the internet and still have your hands.
theMacvarish 9 months ago
KYAG
slackkeylady 9 months ago
Reduce the pressure slowly. But the transition has to happen because the pressure cooker goes up anyway.
Here in Slovenia we are quite happy that we have now a free country - well, free market economy is a different case because it has not only good effects and is also not democratic.
fischX 9 months ago
A dictator's not a good thing unless he's dictating what's truly best for the people, in which case he's actually listening to the people, which makes his govt a true democracy!
A better question to ask is how did the situation come to be. The us has toppled all sorts of democracies and supported all sorts of dictators against the will of respective peoples. Iran, Iraq, Libya, etc. Now it's full circle. If we'd left them alone to start there wouldn't be the trouble. Just less profits.
TheWingflyer 10 months ago
Do a video analyzing what Osama Bin Laden's death means to America, thanks.
pavelow235 10 months ago
A dictators a great thing if your the dictator, a friend of the dictator, or agree with the dictator's ideology. A democracy is great if you agree with the majority. Otherwise both kind of suck. I'm fond of a republic like the constitution created with negative liberties for the government to give maximum liberties to every individual person. That's just me, though. To each his own including the people of Libya.
poonjabinator 10 months ago
Nice hat
tbone12354 10 months ago
@wondermind42 (cont.d)
3 - Democracy and civil war. Civil war is not always an outcome of tribaism nor does it preclude a developed political system. The English Civil War heped found many of the UK's traditions of government and the US was shaped in a big way from your internal spat between 1861-1865. In both these countries, democracy has managed to flourish.
4 - Rwanda. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the genocide had less to do with tribe and more to do with demographics.
thinkingguy87 10 months ago
@wonderingmind42
A few techincal points:
1 - Afghanistan in the Taliban era was still highly tribalised/ The Taliban is a Pashtin movement and the civil war was ongoing.
2 - Foreign fighters in Libya. There is almost no centralised control of the rebels and while it is possible that some Jihadists may be in some ranks of some groups, it is far easier to spot the mercenaries hired by Gadaffi
thinkingguy87 10 months ago
Or take the eample of America, where the newly freed colonials then went on a rampage of ethnic clensing and apartite in a westerly direction. Look how well that turned out.
There are two objections here:
1) Sometiems the heat is fueled by the dictator by focusing his people's rage against outsiders. See Israel.
2) You are taking a short term view. Asking how many more people have been killing in Iraq due to the war is the wrong question. Recalculate assuming the ragime lasts X more decades.
anticarrrot 10 months ago
The problem will eventually have to be solved. So postponing it will only make things worse later. If we didn't fight the civil war where would America be today? We are a lucky nation most have to go through several civil wars before becoming a functional government for the people of a Nation. Hopefully the days of oppressive Governments is coming to an end but thats not likely anytime soon. Hopefully Libya and other countries in that region will finally start listening to the people...
holyphantomcow 10 months ago
interesting, imagine here in the UK that absolute monarchy had continued from the middle ages, would 'we' be any worse off? it really depends on what one may describe as the nature of freedom, one could imagine a 'benevolent dictatorship'
but the two words may be mutually exclusive. there is something deeply human and decent about being able to think, and then write, perform, speak etc despite being the anathema to whatever system is in power
thatwilldonicely 10 months ago
@thatwilldonicely Not necesarily mutualy exclusive. Originaly the dictator was of undisputible power and command, a sort of emergency power handed out for a brief time during crisis. It has how ever been slowly intermingled with the tyrant concept, meaning we today see dictator=tyrant.
But ultimate power can also be used for good. But like the saying goes, "power corrupts, absolute power...."
BigSwede7403 10 months ago
Comment removed
andreasBeaverhausen 10 months ago
@BigSwede7403 Perfectly summed up by you there. A dictatorship is a perfectly legitimate form of rule. It works when the state is in a temporary state of crisis and there's no time to debate what to do: the enemy is at the gates. The problem is that when there is no crisis, a dictatorship is a very BAD form of rule. A 40 year dictator is a tyrant. In the US, the president actually fills the role of dictator (4 year term) - just he operates within a multipartate system instead of alone.
andreasBeaverhausen 10 months ago
@andreasBeaverhausen But surely the US President operates in line with the rule of law and is "controlled/regulated by Congress?
If we take the title and role of the dictator back to the Roman Republic, didn't they completely suspend the usual laws and rights in favor of the supreme power of the dictator?
My US/ Roman politics is a little sketchy. I agree about your point that a dictatorship is times of exceptional national crisis can be acceptable in some circumstances.
themrchris0426 10 months ago
@themrchris0426 OK, I agree. I regretted typing it the minute I hit enter. A President is democratically elected to a term of 4 years, after he is elected there is nothing you can do about his politics or policies (except perhaps a referendum, which is at state level) so in that particular sense he is like a 4-year dictator... but it's light years away from the system they have in Libya where Gaddafi came to power via a military coup and the only way to change ruler is to have a revolution.
andreasBeaverhausen 10 months ago
@BigSwede7403 interesting comment thanks, i personally cannot see democracy solving the problems
of the world in the decades to come, huge numbers of peoples on the march (global warming), over population, crime etc etc people of the future will give up some liberties for stability and a 'sense' of freedom from fear (real or imagined) in their nations and local neighbourhoods, in the meantime i think i have finally cracked roulette!!
thatwilldonicely 10 months ago
As dictators go, Moamar was not so bad a thing. He kept problems from overflowing his borders and didn't gas too many of his citizens. You could end up with a Taliban like Islamic state and even more trouble from that part of the world. Promoting democracy is all well and good, but it has to grow hand in hand with Rule of Law, or you get another Afghanistan.
RyuDarragh 10 months ago
the conclusion is americans should just stay in their country and mind their own business. what gives USA the authority to police other governments and overthrow them, even if they are dictators? and why do they only do it to small unpopular countries with abundant natural resources?
apatheticwretch 10 months ago
Notice how you said each time, "America toppled the government." That's the real issue. No oppressive government is a good thing, and that's why you get democratic uprisings like the ones that have taken place. But those occur naturally, without help. They come through popular struggle. When others get involved it often leads to the continuation of the same cycle of oppression.
BlitzSageFFVI 10 months ago
Ummm, I'm not sure who you mean be "we"?
As for the so-called benefits of dictatorship? You might like to ask the millions murdered by the dictators? The torture and coercion of all others. BTW ypu left out Idi Amin and Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan, etc. Anyway, isn't democracy a type of dictatorship? Since 49% of the people are disenfranchised. At least until the next vote. The U.S. and it's allies have supported dictatorships whenever it suits them. Then they take them down on the pretext of freedom
hirundine 10 months ago
Comment removed
magnum54 10 months ago
This is the same observation that I have made. On the one hand I couldn't see myself living under conditions where your life or your families life is always on the line. One misstep or some one ratting out a comment you made gets you terminated. For me that is not living.
I too have known people that have moved here to go to school from those very countries. They understand the dictator conditions and have lived their entire life under these conditions. When you're a goldfish you don't know ..
magnum54 10 months ago
Iraq has been a damn mess every since Sadam was removed by the evil dictator (Cheney and his cobal). Yes, there are places where only a dictator can maintain the piece through brute force. And the USA is a republic at the federal level and not a democracy. The cobal that dictates its control over America steels the citizens hard earned pay and uses it to finance it's exploits in domination around the world !!!
Engineer245 10 months ago
Sorry I wasnt listening. Your hat distracted me
TheJoeholiday 10 months ago
Well Isn't the best dictator you can get will be like Stalin?Even then despite there cruelty is it worth it for even peace?Should peace be achived this way? Ah heck just divide them and give them a small chunk of the country Or let there be a fight to the death and who ever wins haves the whole country.Lets not give them a puppet for the us and let a true Lybian rule the country its there country let them do what they want with it.
wize11 10 months ago
Dictatorship, IMO, is a good thing ONLY when it is morally upright. But that would be like a sci fi fantasy story.
galiant609 10 months ago
youtube.com/watch?v=x4BR11KLCw0 my video resonse to Wonderingmind42 and SWDYTHINK
Nortatem 10 months ago
to put it another way:
Police fail to investigate serial rapist because there is a 50% chance that his existence is keeping a bunch of other guys from raping. A guy named Fred is ok with a few rapes if it mean a whole bunch of potential rapes might not happen.
EricDredd 10 months ago
Dictators, intentionally or not, make genocides: holocaust, gladomor, great leap "forward", gasing Kurds...
That being said, democracy is a botoms-up proces about self government, so it's insane to import and impose it.
What's possible is helping a spontaneous and genuine rebellion(not instigated!), and even then there will be trouble simply because transition is difficult.
Spoken from a country that went from dictator imposed federation to waring states to appreciated separation & democracy.
akylae101 10 months ago
You do bring up some interesting points and if you take the traditional view of statehood many of the points made were valid ones.Much of European history has been filled with the same recurring pattern of war lords taking control after the worst ever king was deposed only to find the war lords had even worse ideas. But the paradigm shifts when you take in the new media and not for its power to organise rallies,but its power to breed resentment as those inside the pressure cooker look outward.
visigothic67 10 months ago
Dictators seem to me to have much more power than democracy. Without restraints, balances, checks, etc., a strong dictator can do much to change a country than a President or Congress ever could. But likewise, its a double edged sword; dictators dictate whatever they choose. While I'm sure we're familiar with the "bad" dictators of the past and present, I'm equally sure that we also know famous "good" dictators that have lead empires and countries incredibly well.
EvilJamJar 10 months ago
@EvilJamJar - agreed. I don't think that you'll disagree if I say that Napoleon was a fantastic dictator during the first few years of his rise.
goodcommentguy 10 months ago
No. I will die before I sacrifice my freedoms for order. Fuck that.
HighLordConz 10 months ago
'Pal' (meant in a friendly way this time)
I have to agree with you on this one. "Be careful what you wish for".
Lets just sit back and enjoy the fact that we can agree on something for a change.
Yup... feels pretty good.
budedees 10 months ago
The problem here is that in some areas there simply is no good answer. If a population wishes to go to war with itself then the arguably "best" answer is the one which reduces the harms of war the most. In essence what you're doing is trading Liberty for Safety which is sort of trading down Maslow's hierarchy, I need safety I want self actualization and freedom. So while dictators are seldom desirable they are in some cases the lesser of two evils.
MilesCochran 10 months ago
Democracy is a farse, human dictators are worse. There is only 1 dictatorship the human race has to succumb to, and that's the dictatorship of nature. We are governed by the physical laws of the natural world, and this is our dictatorship. Any form of human "leadership", be it an elected party, or an unelected dictator, are false institutions that cause more problems than they solve. We need to listen to our natural dictator, and nothing else.
sugarcanegray 10 months ago
I sort of agree with you, but it's not whether or not dictators can be a good thing that is the point. Military action, especially invasion, brings with it a whole host of social and economic problems - such as destruction of infrastructure, increase in crime and so on. That's why the Nuremberg trials determined that the act of waging war was the supreme crime in international law. It's not just the people you directly kill, but *everything else* that you are responsible for.
plevyman 10 months ago
Sadly you are right - look at all the civilian deaths in Iraq. How many would have died if we had left Saddam where he was? ... Probably not as many... If freedom worth your whole family dieing? ..and what freedom anyway? The freedom to choose between McDonalds and Hungry Jacks. The freedom to work in a shit job for shit pay. What is freedom? Where is it?
piginasack 10 months ago
Even US democracy becomes a dictatorship of rich if a guy with billions of dollars has bigger impact on the government than an average citizen. Dictators don't always have to be bad- I'm thinking of Cuba or Venezuela. Problem with Iraq and other countries you mentioned is that tribal/ethnic/religious divisions and tensions existed there long before dictators. Dictatorships did nothing to solve those tensions, they only controlled their impact on society, so by applying 3rd force they..
(cont)
smych1 10 months ago
@smych1
(continued)
...only froze/stopped the changes that were needed. Good analogy with pressure cooker - we can't keep it secretly boiling indefinitely. When we take the cap off it explodes, but then it settles at last. I think those people should divide their countries between interested groups, live the way their ethnicity/religion dictates and maybe some time in future they'll decide to unite again on peaceful terms.
smych1 10 months ago
Cost benefit analysis formula: if current suffering from oppression > the suffering/uncertainty of revolution= true, then revolt; if false then status quo. The problem is that this formula only works with organic revolutions (like American revolution) where the people are willing to sacrifice/die for freedom. Add in foreign intervention (like USA) and the threshold is lowered (the indigenous people won't want it badly enough) and won't demand enough from the replacement regime.
MerrillMedia 10 months ago
What is the difference between a dictator and what you have in the USA right now?
you President just sent your military to war with out even talking to congress. The freedoms that were granted to you are under attack every day. Sure maybe it looks different because there are hundreds of politians all agreeing to screw the people instead of just one guy but in the end you still are getting screwed.
TimmyOFlinn 10 months ago
It is certainly a question that must be taken on a case by case basis. However, before we decide to overthrow a government however, we certainly need to take into consideration the possible consequences of a newly-led country. I believe in this situation, Libya is to unstable to have Gadaffi removed from power. Despite the fact he is a horrible man, he kept the country afloat.
TransFatForThought 10 months ago
"WE"? Since when do we have any choice? I thought Obomba was going to end the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, nope. I thought he was going to close the illegal prison in Cuba and give the accused criminals trials, nope. I thought he was going to end corporate welfare and the b*** tax cuts, nope.
I don't have a say in this shitty fucked up country.
wwickeddogg 10 months ago
Most of the examples of opressive regimes you cited were supported by the United States at one time or another. Furthermore, the only reason most of them were allowed to collapse was because they actually started to do something for their people in the way of social justice or egalitarianism. These ideas tend to go counter to the desires of "free market" and i use the term adviseadly. Open your markets OR ELSE!
dvictorbrown 10 months ago
As yousefamar said, the only way to release the pressure is to turn down the fire on the pressure cooker. The lid, if kept on, is opposing the pressure within; the people who are being controlled are not satisfied. If they are satisfied and the country is all well, then will there be hell breaking loose if we take off the lid? No. Will we need a lid in the first place if there is no pressure? I don't think so, and thus the start of Democracy. In a way, it can only occur if the people is at peace
goodcommentguy 10 months ago
Why do you say "this week's thought bite" when you haven't done a video in a month?
/ And have you found another teaching position yet?
CommentorX 10 months ago
@CommentorX Got the pink slip, but managed to keep my job. Same small rural high school of gringos and wetbacks. I godd*mn love that place.
As for "This week's thoughtbite," that's my ambition, so thought I'd put there to motivate myself some. I've got literally hundreds of thoughts dictated during my commute, but have finally made my family my priority, so projects like this only get done as time allows. Hence the spottiness.
wonderingmind42 10 months ago 2
@wonderingmind42 "Gringos and Wetbacks"? Surely with your phony portrayed genius and theoretical knowledge on global topics & your prestegious high school teaching credential(Yea, that's sarcasm) oh yea, & suito-intellectual persona, surely you could have chosen a less derogitory and racially skewed description of the kids your teaching and the people who are keeping you employed & thus enabling you to provide for your family? Gringo/Wetback? Do you mean Mexican? Oh your a racist? That explains
jmflyer55 9 months ago
@jmflyer55 lol why do you hate the guy? Dont answer that
obviously you're a (i hate to use this word) "hater"
giannaluva65 9 months ago
Unfortunately the propagation and reinforcing effects of crowd mentality in regards to stone-age religious views seeks to oppress education of it's flock so that they do not have the knowledge to refute their claims. Religious groups are run much like a Dictatorship in this way.
I do not think the you can free a country until you free their minds. Science can give us this perspective, that our actions have meaningful consequences to not just ourselves but everyone around us.
Seii09 10 months ago
@Seii09 Before you extoll science over religion, note that we would not care about Libya's strife if we didn't need its oil for our technology. It is the economic disparity caused by the control of that oil that is causing this round of unrest in Libya.
/
Don't blame religion for problems caused by science. Before you urge others to free their minds, free your own.
CommentorX 10 months ago
@CommentorX I fail to see these two thoughts are related at all. There were many countries that looked on at the human rights violations in Libya as it's own government killed it's citizens mercilessly and cried out for justice. Even if the U.S intervened for their own selfish reasons, the conflict already existed and it has nothing to do with "problems caused by science". These people want a revolution. Science is just a tool humans have created to understand the world, you should check it out.
Seii09 10 months ago
@Seii09 Did its citizens cry for justice - or just for a bigger piece of the oil revenue?
CommentorX 10 months ago
@CommentorX Both I would imagine. They do not need to be opposed, you think that a person can have only 1 opinion at a time? And yes he had been misappropriating oil but that's because he was the 4 longest ruling Dictator ever recorded and the only one of those still in power today. This guy is old school as hell, and Libya wanted real change. You think they'd be fighting for their lives just for oil? You're a fool if you think so.
Seii09 10 months ago
I think the first step in any successful state is the education of the people. Leaders come and go but it is the people that must adapt to these situations. Whether they are living in a amicable Dictatorship or a corrupt Democracy the people must be the mediating force for good. They must be able to work together and decide what is best for all of them, it is only through education that people can really understand what it is that they need do to become the ideal state they dream of.
Seii09 10 months ago
Yes, a dictator has the potential to lead to a greater well-being than democracy allows. A top-down approach prevents the tragedy of the commons where individual interests harm the collective resulting in less than when properly regulated.
The Dominican Republic had a really harsh dictator, however he took really good care of the environment and the economy, resulting in a happier nation than their neighbours: Haiti, which is essentially a failed state.
BaileysBeads 10 months ago
Of course a dictator can be good. It might be rare, but to claim a dictator is always bad is very close-minded. It´s always cercumstantial. Good video. I think many assume a dictator always equals bad.
Astillion 10 months ago
A few statements from me, take them as you see fit:
1) A good dictator is a contradiction in it self, as he would need to use force to get in/stay in power.
2) You have to define freedom before you can safely give freedom to the people. Is it freedom to do what ever your mindset makes you strive to do? To suppress people you don't agree with, perhaps? Or is it freedom to do and think what you want while taking responsibility for your actions?
I think you are right to ask the question.
Cheers
ekhaat 10 months ago
@ekhaat Think of it as no different than an army. He at the top calls the shots and everyone listens. It might not be a glorious life and you might have to work at it. The problem is that everyone wants to get off the hook for free. To get that out of the system of the general population takes a couple of generations, so people don't like it and immediately call foul. Take a look at history. The only democracy before recent history failed miserably.
RockZord 10 months ago
@RockZord Well, he at the top is not really at the top unless he's the dictator, or ruler of what he would call his people. To really have have the last word he will have to be the head of state.
Other than that, I agree.
Cheers
ekhaat 10 months ago
You make a very good Devils Advocate
robertsmetek 10 months ago
I think when a dictator has been rulling for a long time the dictatorship just doesn't stays in his orders and decisions but flows throught he governing machinery. So people who work for Government at any level gradually learn & become dictator to at least some extend. Also when people are treated badly they tend to return the favor. So the opressed have already learnt to be unkind n ready to take their turn. Once dictator is gone next generation has beter chance to be better and kind human.
SFoziaK 10 months ago
First mistake is to present dictatorship as alternative to democracy, this is nonsense as there is no functioning democracy on planet. Dichotomy should be between dictatorship and oligarchy. Second mistake is that you assume that dictatorships are more oppressive then oligarchies. Often the opposite is true as dictator must appease public more them oligarchy to keep himself in power. This is why, for example, USSR provided better living standards then any of its oligarchic successor states.
ZoneofA 10 months ago
are you pausing to fact-check everything?
soulrisk1010 10 months ago
Dictatorship only works if it's benevolent. If the people are happy and love their leader, the people have no reason to rebel. Brutal, unfair dictators that oppress their people sow the seeds of rebellion.
Also, there is an inherent problem in replacing a dictatorship with a republic. The people under a dictatorship for many years will have no idea how to govern themselves, as a democracy requires. There's going to be violence while they figure this out, and may lapse back into a dictatorship.
ChaosDeathSaurer 10 months ago
look man, to me this is just a nother war to reestablish order and keep the oil folowing. US and europe had no trouble buying oil to kadafi for 50 years, and now that they have a civil war, all exports are closed, so that´s a bad thing for europe and teh us, so the government uses their worn out excuse of "fighting for democracy" in order to reestablish order. They don´t care if the one that comes after kadafi is another dictator as long as they keep the bussiness as ussual.
shreder89 10 months ago
First, Aristotle in his "Politics", stated that no one form of government works absolutely for all peoples. Though he favored the republic form of government (basically the US' form of government which erroneously is called democracy), he also understood that it too was not perfect.
Second, Don't take this the wrong way, but Hitler, aside from his Final Solution thing, was a wonderful leader. He brought Germany out of the Great Depression, due to massive debt and inflation caused by WWI.
MasterStudios1 10 months ago
@MasterStudios1 (continuing from above) Germans were happy, the economy was booming and the education system was superb. Scientific advancements made in Hitler's Germany often became building blocks for the technology we now use today. Now let's consider the ancient form of dictatorship: Emperors. The Persian Empire had a unique system of government, at least compared to other empires before and after it, in that they'd basically give their conquered provinces home rule, (to be continued...)
MasterStudios1 10 months ago
@MasterStudios1 and the only requirement was that they'd pay taxes to the Imperial Government. If you compare that system to the American system, it is very much similar to that, the only difference is that Persian Emperors were chosen by succession (generally by birth) whereas American Presidents are elected. However the Greeks didn't like the Persians having control over them, despite the fact that they could still do everything they wanted. Freedom is a matter of choice (continued...)
MasterStudios1 10 months ago
@MasterStudios1 take for example, Mexico. Under the control of France at the time, Mexico was made into an imperial province (more or less) and the unique thing was that Emperor Maximilian I (from Austria) believed that the role of the Emperor was to follow the will of the people, and he would raise his heirs to follow such a belief, however the faction led by Benito Juarez believed in "democracy" enticed by their big brother to the north. Look at Mexico now, it is overrun by drug cartels...
MasterStudios1 10 months ago
@MasterStudios1 the Mexican government is powerless to stop them. It all stems from the Ancient Greeks that the Western world believes that empires (or in modern lingo: dictatorships) are bad, and democracy is good. Well I think the track record speaks for itself.
MasterStudios1 10 months ago
Dictators should be toppled by the people who the dictators rule. Until the people can create their own government, no gov't appointed by another nation is successful.
Graffight 10 months ago
The problem is that you always need police force that is strong. If you remove dictator and his army, well, you still need some control. Even democracy is not self obvious, because in democratic countries has been wars before. Some force then won the fight and democracy was established. But people don't establish democracy. It was some force, the winning side, that established democracy, and all the other parties agreed to it. But if there is no winning side, because US intervened -> chaos start
Kratax 10 months ago
I have long held this opinion that a dictatorship is the only current system that will survive. Democracy cannot work for various reasons, such as the fact that politicians are chosen, not based on skill, but on popularity. And as you pointed out, if one person makes all the decisions, they are so much more organized, because everyone works towards the same goal. One problem is the fact that the rest of the world do not like dictators. Also, bad dictators do exist.
Cyber000000 10 months ago
I think any system that is held in place artificially is bound to decompse or fail one day, and I'm not so sure that more people die in faild states then in brutal dictatorships.
Afghanistan, Irak, Egypt or Lybia are four totally differnent cases, and I don't think that overthrowing a dictator does necessarily lead into a failed state.
We can learn from history how and why some revolutions worked out better for the citizens and why others ended in even worse situations.
DeletedDelusion 10 months ago
First time i've thumbed down one of your videos. The premise of your thinking here seems to be:
Dictator = Bad
Chaos = Bad
Dictator =/= Chaos
Dictator = Not Bad
I'm sorry but no, that's crap. Sure, keep the lid on if you want, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just ignores it in hopes the pressure inside will somehow drop on its own - and it NEVER does.
Whatever happened to "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." I mean, C'mon.
9thgate 10 months ago
With that said democracy or republics does not gurantee the right person or the most qualify person is in charged. After all a democracy is a popularity contest and politicians have to appeal to the lowest denominator, but are they good rulers? I don't know. Today's American form of government I would argue isn't a democracy but rather a plutocracy in which only the rich has the resources to win a major political campaign. Is it still a democracy when both parties work for the same minority
Mennion3 10 months ago
Alright serious response. There's a difference between dictators and tyrants. Churchill once admired Hitler's system because it turned the German system around but Hitler became a tyrant when he started rounding up certain parts of his own population and invading his neighbours. Dictatorship is a form of government similar to a monarchy or a theocracy, they are forms of stability though not everyone likes the result and tends to evolve into tyranny if the wrong person is in charge.
Mennion3 10 months ago
I agree with many of your points. If we were honest, we would admit that our military actions to bring freedom to people in places like Iraq are really more for our own self interest. In this regard it is far better to have a secular dictator than a radical religious one. Removing Saddam Hussein may ultimately result in tribal violence and the rise of a radical cleric dictator. This would actually be more of a threat to the US than Saddam was. The same could be true of Libya.
klusmanp 10 months ago
I like your hat :)
Mennion3 10 months ago
Greg said he's "not advocating for a dictator." Yet all his environmental doomsday videos certainly do. Global Warming/Climate Change EcoFascists want to establish a "Green Dictatorship" where "deniers" like me become enemies of the Earth (i.e. State). Their 10:10 "No Pressure" campaign was a dictator's dream-come-true, where skeptics like me can be conveniently murdered with a simple press of a button. How did that ad get made? How did its sick and evil message get greenlighted?
stuntbaby63 10 months ago
Normally I like your videos very well as they are well thought out, well presented, and full of factual information. That Obama slip, that was childish. Even if it had been a "Bush", "Nixon", or "Clinton" slip, I would feel the same way.
kasumiheyes 10 months ago
We shouldn't get involved unless they ask us and even then we need to make sure we have the resources and manpower so we don't screw ourselves. anyway, isnt that what the UN is for?
DrLsw 10 months ago
It's strange... my grandparents lived in the old soviet union, and everyone was really happy. Yes, millions lost their lives maintaining the regime, but after Stalin's death, the government backed down with oppression.
But when the union split, everyone went their own separate ways, and many families broke up. Thousands of mothers/fathers were even deported. Can you imagine that?
I can not imagine what would happened if Korea got liberated. They are so brainwashed, they'd hate freedom...
cyberdemon107 10 months ago
A dictatorship is only a good thing if the people are happy. Keeping the lid on the pressure cooker is only cloaking one problem with another. The real solution is not to keep the lid on, but instead turn down the heat.
Of course this does not apply to every dictatorship but I think that one simply has to look at the short-term and long-term sum of all estimated suffering, that result from the array of choices one has, and act accordingly.
yousefamar 10 months ago 17
@yousefamar While I like this analogy, I think I have to end it: you can't turn down the heat unless you have access to the oven. This is endothermic - the pot is not an oven - it would be difficult if not impossible to dive in and help resolve inter-tribal differences before the removal of the lid. We don't have the convenience of thermal dynamics here - we can't just stick them in the fridge.
prozacgod 10 months ago
@prozacgod Then let them resolve it themselves the same way the monarchies of the past and the age of absolutism dissolved. It's not like they're harming anyone outside of their country. If the medieval west could do it without external help, they can too. Eventually it will get cooler. That's what I think anyway.
yousefamar 10 months ago
@yousefamar maybe I missunderstood the point of the argument, but while I do tend to agree with you, the thought experiment was on how to prevent deaths when cracking the top - and the best way would be to stop the internal warfares or create some situation that makes it less "interesting" to be a ruler/warlord/thug/etc - before you open the can of worms, then - hopefully few/some/most(pick one) people won't be opportunistic and try to fill in for the now missing head.
prozacgod 10 months ago
@prozacgod These governments don't rely on the people though; dictators get their power from controlling the country's resources and as a result controlling the people. I simply don't believe that the population of a country has to suffer endlessly just so that others outside the pot don't have to. If cooling the situation down really does require external intervention, then so be it, but if the change comes from within and then they slowly transition into a happier country, it's win-win, right?
yousefamar 10 months ago
@yousefamar I look at it like "are dictators a good thing" (necessary evil) like looking at it from a numbers game then with @wonderingmind42's original posit: [with dictators: death rate of X] and [without dictators: death rate > X] then perhaps, but winning this kind of war, my argument was to protect those people from intra-tribal warfare - by protecting their resources & individuals, and assisting an internal change. But I don't think countries like this will be able to settle on their own.
prozacgod 10 months ago
@prozacgod Fair enough. I think as long as the goal of any external intervention is to assist internal change rather than sustain a dictator who keeps things contained or pull an "Iraq" then it's all good. Probably the only thing I disagree with is that Libya can't take care of it on their own. As an Egyptian myself I don't think more people will suffer under a democracy in general than under Gadaffi but I guess it's debatable. What matters is that those internal problems are solved either way.
yousefamar 10 months ago
@yousefamar also - I get what you're saying and agree whole heartedly. People should not HAVE to suffer so I can have a "comfortable war" - but I do believe that +/- 6months is an okay delay - things like this have to be planned and executed quite well, to avoid unnecessary blood shed - I wonder if a thing like this could be won by propaganda: Flyers of "U.S. support your rebellion" (literacy rates notwithstanding) but with suggestions of what we can/will do for a representative government.
prozacgod 10 months ago
The globalists want as many people as they can to die. We are now Post Peak Oil and since we are PPO crops will have to be grown using old methods the monopolies controling large swaths of land are going to have to be broken up to smaller sections water land will have to be farmed by labor and less machinery. Power will become more localized justice too will devolve to more of shame based penalties. World is about to get a lot smaller. This global economy needs a cheap fuel oil to function.
cdltpx 10 months ago
To compliment what you said after 3:19...
And how many more people will grow up with an utter hate of the United States.
duderseb 10 months ago
Democracy as it exists today is just a system which allows us to choose our dictator every few years.
destronia123 10 months ago 2
thanks for this, very honest good sir
chillbers 10 months ago
There are clearly benefits of Dictatorships, or the people would never be content enough for the countries to stabilize. China is an excellent example, the people's access to information is (somewhat) limited, but they're a prospering world power. Another benefit is a single point of decision. There's something to be said for a fair government, but sometimes the majority is hard to convince of reality, see Evolution/Global warming being shunned by christians. Hard to see that happening in China.
arkne 10 months ago
Maybe we should be looking at this in another way: Is the US brand of Democracy that we are trying to "build" in other countries actually good for that country? This question might go hand and hand with the dictator question. Each country, dictator, culture, economy, etc is different-and at different times in history. The brand of Democracy we have now in the US is failing even its own citizens. If we struggle to make it work here, how can we make it work there?
skeletonmom 10 months ago 19
@skeletonmom
The US super glorifys EVERY single thing that has to do with their country [Ex. Canada won the war of 1812 and we burned down the white house, but they treat it like a victory, you dont realize how much propaganda exists in america. They think their way is the only way, and that way being a President with no control over a dual party house system that refuses to cooperate with eachother because their personal beliefs get in the way of their constituancy's.
TheRimDoctor 10 months ago
@TheRimDoctor - Actually I do realize how much propaganda exists in the US. That is why I am bringing up the questions regarding the US' democracy.
skeletonmom 10 months ago
@TheRimDoctor - Actually I do realize how much propaganda exists in the US. That is why I am bringing up the questions regarding the US' "democracy" (notice the quotes), and the fact that our leaders think they have the right to "spread" it.
skeletonmom 10 months ago
@skeletonmom
Indeed. Not to mention your political system is cracked, and you have almost no intellectual independants. The general concensus is that intellectuals vote democratic, rednecks, racists and homophobes vote republican, both are staunchly for one or the other, and then you have the Undecided voters who can be swayed by listening to MSNBC or god forbid Fox News.
And the "you dont realize how much propaganda exists in america" is not directed at you, directly, more of a general crowd
TheRimDoctor 10 months ago
@skeletonmom Are we spreading democracy or capitalism? If the nation's resources are firmly in the control of foreign corporations, is the puppet government really democratic, just because it was elected? Or is it just a smokescreen to pacify the "all hell breaking loose"?
CommentorX 10 months ago
@CommentorX - Agreed!
skeletonmom 10 months ago
Dictators should always be overthrown. Remember that Hitler was ruthless, yet he made the trains run on time. Never mind he killed 6+ million people. No. Dictators should always be overthrown.
sappha58 10 months ago
@sappha58 you shouldn't base your opinion on one event, hitler wasn't really sane to begin with. and when trying to get an opinion on something look at as many POV as possible. with this question i would say hitler created the same effect (not killing people) but tearing down germanys federal republic and creating a very controlled dictatorship. when the USA goes to countries they try to tear down the government and create democracy like ours, which usually fails and creates chaos.
DrLsw 10 months ago
One size fits all is the biggest lie ever.
th3dig1tal0n3 10 months ago
One of the key ways dictators use to stay in power is by creating the illusion of the only alternative to them is anarchy. We saw this when Mubarak in Egypt sent his paid for thugs into Tahrir square, some of them on camels (so chaotic!), it made it seem without his control there would be anarchy. On top of this you have the fact that without democratic institutions and infrastructure a transition from authoritarian rule to democracy is always going to be difficult.
ReVVAdAUL 10 months ago
You just said it yourself Greg. Dictators keep things together for better or worse.
In Iraq before the western "liberation", parents could send their children to school without fear. That is no longer the case. I just doubt that a "soft" transition would be feasibly. Either you have a strong central force (whatever shapes it) or you don't.
In *theory* that strong central force could be a occupying West that keeps things (relatively) civil while old hatreds are vented in a controled manner.
NielsC68 10 months ago
Daniel 4:17
This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.
limchulsu 10 months ago
Let's talk in theory: A dictator would give a country a strong leader who can act without being afraid of losing his position even if he makes the hard choices.
In a democracy the people often vote stupidly saying "We want more services from our government but want to pay less taxes" which most of the times is a oxymoron and vote for the party which makes the bigger promise which never gets fullfilled.
A dictator can make the choice without fear of being replaced. Sadly dictatorship doesn't work
RazielKain 10 months ago