Could you give up your democracy for a lifetime of luxuries

Nitefly said:
Not being able to leave the country is the clincher for me. No thanks, there are too many exciting things to see and i fail to see what I could have more of now in terms of luxuries that would make me any happier.
Click to expand...

I'm going on the assumption that such an utopian society is founded on a global position as everyone would want to live in such a benevolent and "land of milk and honey" society and in that benevolence no-one, be it individual or nation would be refused...thus you would be able to travel wherever you so wished without ever leaving the country as the country would be the world.
 
I would. At least in a dictatorship you know how you are being shafted. In a democracy you get told you are not getting shafted whilst being shafted anyway.
 
Last edited:
Naffa said:
No way. :)

There is no way that anybody will ever rule over me without my consent.
Click to expand...

People rule over us without our consent all the time....Democracy doesn't address 100% representation in governance.

A lot of of depends on how individually invasive a dictatorship is, if it was entirely benevolent and worked entirely for the good of the people then by definition there would be some form of representation of the people....a meritocracy whereby those that rule are appointed by merit and ability rather than elected by popularity.
 
Castiel said:
A lot of of depends on how individually invasive a dictatorship is, if it was entirely benevolent and worked entirely for the good of the people then by definition there would be some form of representation of the people....a meritocracy whereby those that rule are appointed by merit and ability rather than elected by popularity.
Click to expand...

it would also be a far better system, unbelievably better system. No red tape, no watering down of ideas.
The issue with dictatorship is not that it's a dictatorship, but the dictator always goes power crazy.

Likewise democarcy gets nothing done fast and everything is diluted to the point it barely functions as everyone tugging in opposite directions.
 
feriso said:
OP - what you refer to is the ideal version of communism which would work brilliantly; however there is one small flaw - humans - they are not perfect and will always want more (greed)
Click to expand...

We used to live in communist societys, small groups where everybody shared basically everything.

Greed probably only came into things after we invented money. We are not naturally greedy.

I dont think much of the so called democracy we have now, a few parties all the same. I could live in a dictatorship, better that than the illusion of choice.
 
In theory a dictatorship where the dictator is an intelligent, kind and excellent ruler is the most effective form of government. Of course sadly as we cannot ever guarantee that the ruler would be such a person, the reality is that dictatorships end up being quite harsh.
 
Wikipedia said:
Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which science would be in control of all decision making. Scientists, engineers and technologists who have knowledge, expertise or skills would compose the governing body, instead of politicians, businessmen and economists. In a technocracy, decision makers would be selected based upon how knowledgeable and skilful they are in their field.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting to me, but it won't work in real life.
 
If I was stuck in the US and not allowed to leave, but have everything I could ever wish for, then sign me up! I'd be quite happy being stuck in California or somewhere similar, with plenty of cars, a mansion and lots of money (unless you meant reasonable wants). Also, if it's the UK, then no thanks.

Why would I miss voting for idiots who never do any good?
 
Vinni3 @H|H said:
Sounds interesting to me, but it won't work in real life.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't work as not everything can be based on science.
However lots can be based on science and other experts in specialised fields. Rather than mps who don't really now anything and influenced by public opinion and we also generally do not know anything.

For each law/deacon should be designed and reviewed by a group who fully understands it and those other people in government shouldn't have a say in it, or a much reduced say on some fringe elements.
 
Vinni3 @H|H said:
Sounds interesting to me, but it won't work in real life.
Click to expand...

which is why you could have a meritocracy, which would enable those fields which require that kind of decision making to have the best people appointed to them, and the same for other fields, such as economics, politics, social services, municipal management and so on and so forth...all with the oversight of a benevolent dictatorial oversight committee. There is also no reason why the people themselves could not be represented in the decision making processes, either for the positions in Government or the positions within the Oversight Committee......all relevant to their ability of course.
 
if such a government existed even in a democracy they would never lose any election (how would you compete against them?) so even with democracy you'd be st6uck with that party for ever.

Also isn't this the ultimate goal of democracy, once you reach a perfection that works flawlessly then you kinda stop looking for alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom