Small countries would probably be best environement. An example is Lee Kwan Yew and Singapore. Even then, some people don't like his strong-arm tactics (including a couple of americans with a sore bottom). But Singapore is VERY small, so it seems unlikely that a benevolent dictatorship could evolve in a larger country. Even Cuba, which isn't very large either, is a failed attempt. Could it work anywhere else? or does it all depend on the man OR woman in charge? OR is there no such thing as a benevolent dictator?
Just curious i guess.
[ October 06, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
Or do you mean a human?
Sure, you can have a benevolent dictator. Those Saud dudes aren't too bad, IIRC. But for most cases, a dictatorship is still undesirable, good intentions or no, because it's run by humans, and humans are fallible. Say all people mess up 30% of the time. If you have one dictator, then that dictator is going to mess up 30% of the time and screw up your country. But if you have 100 senators running your country, for example, the odds of half of them being wrong at the same time are significantly diminished.
Problem is finding that one good person, and solving the fact that you just can't please everyone (so someone will always want a revolt).
I stand corrected.
But I'm sure I could come up with a benevolent dictatorship...
SOLOMON! How 'bout that one?
quote:
Sure you can have a benevolent dictator. God, for example
I see. Benevolent dictators believe in letting their citizens crash airplanes into towers? In letter their citizens attempt mass genocide? C'mon ...
quote:
If you think about it, no dictator can prevent these things from happening, Mr. Snay
I'm sorry, I thought God was supposed to be omnipotent. Isn't that what gods are? Omnipotent?
For instance, if I, as Dictator, were to boot all Flat-Earther's out of the country, it would be a draconian act, but for a benevolent purpose... to rid the country of a detrimental segment of the population.
To effect any great change, quickly, you will be forced to annoy, anger, or otherwise 'oppress' SOMEONE.
If I, as Dictator, said 'we're not going to buy Oil from the Middle East anymore, Period, and we're going to divert our priorities to the development of solar/wind/geothermal power, I'd be accused of taking draconian steps and damaging the oil industry. The economy mighyt take a nosedive.
BUT, it could also be a benevolent act, aimed at reducing pollution, ending dependence on unstable political environments, promoting scientific advancement, and lessening the risk of terrorism.
One could keep a benevolent dictator going, by limiting the candidates to individuals who have passed a number of aptitude and psychological tests, and having the dictator hand-pick and train his successor from that group several years before stepping down.
At least, that's how the characters in the species I'm making for my Trek RPG do it. 'Course, they're a race of polymaths...
[ October 07, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
"For instance, if I, as Dictator, were to boot all Flat-Earther's out of the country, it would be a draconian act, but for a benevolent purpose... to rid the country of a detrimental segment of the population."
Just to play devil's advocate here, doesn't that logic make Hitler a benevolent dictator?
quote:
Every socialist country in history has had a so-called benevolent dictator.
Tony Blair is a benevolent dictator?
Or is Omega forgetting that socialism and communism aren't the same again?
I mean, c'mon, Omega consideres John McCain but not George W. Bush a liberal. And he defines liberal as someone for "big government" ... and as bloody obvious to anyone paying any sort of attention to the news in the past month or so, government is getting a lot bigger and more powerful since the terrorist attacks. Omega just sort of brushes it off as, to paraphrase, "they don't affect me so they don't count" ... I mean, the guy's not known for 1+1=2, but 1+1=560,000
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Oh, NO! They're gonna be able to get WIRETAPS slightly easier! We're doomed!
I think Omega defines Canada as socialist
Think again. Sol put it quite nicely.
Give it a rest, Jeff.
) He told me so on AIM. As a matter of fact, he tried ever so hard to convince me that Canada was practically the U.S.S.R. in it's youth because *gasp* socalists were in power!!!! He stated that they have fewer rights (I have to note that he did not bother telling me exactly what rights Canadians didn't have that we do have.) and that they didn't have as many MRI machines as we do. (Don't ask we why he brought this to the table. He simply did.) With regards to the MRIs; When you consider the fact that they have a smaller population than we do I don't think it is that bad.[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]
quote:
Think again. Sol put it quite nicely.
And MIB put it nicer.
quote:
Oh, NO! They're gonna be able to get WIRETAPS slightly easier! We're doomed!
Bigger government is still bigger government. And one must question the motives of an administration whose press secretary has told Americans that they must "watch what they say."
Shame on you, Omega.
In America IT IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT TIME TO CRITICIZE THE GOVERNMENT.
We have a paper with some rights on it, and we thought that that one was so important, we put it first.
oh, and..
quote:
doesn't that logic make Hitler a benevolent dictator?
There IS a difference between booting people out (deporting) and putting them in gas chambers. One is less severe and a good deal less permanent.
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
"We have a paper with some rights on it, and we thought that that one was so important, we put it first."
Erm... Have you ever taken a look at the US constitution? There's a whole bunch of stuff that comes long before the freedom of speech. You do realize that the "amendments" were called that for a reason, right? They're the stuff that got left out the first time around, and got tacked on as afterthoughts.
quote:
And one must question the motives of an administration whose press secretary has told Americans that they must "watch what they say."
You're AGAINST this?
Why, a major part of the Left-wing platform is getting laws on the books which not only cover what we SAY, but what we're allowed to THINK.
"PC Laws." "Hate speech" Laws. The people who classify a personalized licence plate that says 'GLOCK' as "Extremist." The people who lable you racist when you ask why a blacks-only organization is okay, but an all-white club isn't. Ring a bell?
"Watch what you say" is actually good advice, along the lines of "Don't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" or "Don't yell 'HI, JACK!' you your buddy Jack when you meed him in the airport" or "Don't argue semantics with First of Two."
As for the "Amendments." The point missed is that the Bill of Rights, despite LOOKING like an afterthought, was most definitely NOT an afterthought.
It was only the guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be added in that form that enabled the Constitution to be passed by the delegates. If it hadn't, there would have been no Constitution. The Bill of Rights was ESSENTIAL.
[ October 08, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Or are you saying that the government can be criticized, but the media CAN'T?
And the President's staff, when standing behind a podium with the Great Seal of The President of The United States of America are not expressing their individual expressions. They are being the mouthpiece of the executive branch of our government.
And I am thankful this is a purely academic issue and that it is only the words of the administration to bill we are discussing. If they had taken action against him, then we would be in a whole other world of shit.
Since no threat was made, i.e. "Watch your mouth or you'll go to jail." There is no grounds for assuming that restrictions were being placed on anybody's freedom of speech. What was said could simply be taken as 'a word to the wise.'
There are nutballs out there, you know, who might decide to 'get' Bill if he speaks too much like a sympathizer with the enemy. Such an act should NEVER be condoned, but a wise man would still accept the possibility.
It's no more a threat than say, if the government official had said to you "Watch what you say about First of Two's gf."* The government won't do anything to you if you say anything bad... but someone else (me) just might remove some of your vital organs without benefit of anesthetic. 
*just an example. I know you haven't said a thing.
Now, if Rush Limbaugh were to get on the radio (apparently, in an unrelated bit, he's got some sort of ear problem, so he can't hear his callers, but he can still talk to them, convenient) and say, "Americans need to watch what they say!" people would dismiss him as the hot bag of racist, homophobic air he is. If Ari Fleisher stands up behind the podium in the press room and says the same thing, it gives a sense of legitimacy to what he's [Fleisher, not Limbaugh] saying. People will pay more attention to the exact same quote [mind you, I'm not saying Limbaugh said for Americans to watch what they say, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did, last time I tuned in he was bitching out the peace movement] from a respectable source. I'm not advocating censorship of government officials ... just that they think about what they say and how it can be interpreted. They've got a greater responsibility then the average joe does. Wasn't that one of the gripes about Clinton? He wasn't "responsible"?
[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Telling people they cannot speak is not.
"Loose lips sink ships" was responsible.
quote:
"Loose lips sink ships" was responsible.
I need you to clarify something. Are you saying Bill Maher's statements could lead to the destruction of the U.S., or that Fleisher didn't think before he spoke?
Speaking of which, what do you think of what Maher said? Which essentially boiled down to (and I'm paraphrasing): "It's more cowardly to attack a target by firing a missile from an off-shore ship, then to boarding a plane and dying in order to blow something up"
I think Maher has confused courage with fearlessness, when there's a huge difference. Suicide bombers are fearless, not courageous. Courage is being afraid, but doing the job anyway.
Courage is NOT murdering unarmed children, no matter if you die doing it.
Maher is more of a comedian than a social scientist, and he'd be better off keeping his day job. Even Howard Stern razzed on him, when he was a call-in guest on his show. "Admit it, Bill, you said a stupid thing."
I think the government official's statements were probably off-the-cuff, and have been blown out of proportion. (Typical.)
quote:
courage n : a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger of pain without showing fear
I'm afraid that the Lexical Gods are smiling upon Bill, not you, First.
fear�less (f�rls)
adj.
Without fear; brave.
In other words ... they mean essentially the same thing.
Of course, you could argue that this definition of courage exists solely to promote a certain moral viewpoint, and you'd be right. So, uh, yeah.
Is it "better" to be fearless then to be courageous?
How do you know the terrorists were one but not the other?
What were the firefighters, fearless or courageous?
A man who is fearless is generally one or more of three things: insane, a fanatic, or a fool.
If you want a good example... the Jem'Hadar are fearless. The Starfleet Officers who face them are courageous.
Being without fear leads one into making decisions that are more likely to get one killed unnecessarily.
The fearless man will wrestle the crocodile because he can.
The courageous man will wrestle the crocodile only to save his friend, and will still take care to avoid the jaws.
But why are the terrorists fearless and not courageous? Why are the fire-fighters courageous and not fearless?
The firefighters were there to save lives. The terrorists were there to take them.
quote:
courageous people don't go on suicide missions with no legitimate purpose.
It doesn't matter if you think it had a legitimate purpose, it only matters if those terrorists thought it had a legitimate purpose.
What about the pilots of the Doolittle raids on Tokyo? Most of them died -- what purpose did those raids serve? Were they fearless, or courageous?
Since those terrorists believed their actions had a legitimate purpose, your attempt to define them as not courageous fails. Nice try, though.
quote:
The firefighters were there to save lives. The terrorists were there to take them.
Could you answer the question, though?
Are the firefighters courageous or fearless? Why? Is "attitude" that which determins what is courage? If that dead chaplain believed in God, isn't it possible he doesn't fear death, thus he went into the building fearless?
I swear, you and Rob are a headache and a half. You see only black and white ... the world is shades of gray.
[ October 10, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
The terrorists KNEW they were going to die, and DESIRED to. That is fearlessness.
The firemen and others knew they MIGHT die, and did NOT desire to, but acted anyway. That is courageous.
And might I respond that YOU see only shades of grey, while some of the world IS black-and-white.
quote:
The terrorists KNEW they were going to die, and DESIRED to. That is fearlessness.
Uh, no, that just means they're suicidal.
Why is fearless undesireable and courageous desireable? I just saw a blurb for the "A-Team" on cable ... "Fearless" was one of the words used to describe them. Is the "A-Team" in the same category as the terrorists?
Why is fearless undesireable and courageous desireable?
Courage is the ability to face down fear. It requires inner strength. Fearlesness is the total LACK of fear, which requires a mind which is either deranged or well-trained.
quote:
Fearlesness is the total LACK of fear, which requires a mind which is either deranged or well-trained.
Or someone who thinks that when they die they'll go to a better place, yes? That is what these terrorists were promised? 70 virgins or some-such?
I'm just trying to figure out why fearless is used to describe terrorists ... why is it hard for people to accept the possibility that they were courageous? And how can people speak with such certainty that they were one way or the other?
But, as I said, it depends upon what the terrorists were thinking at the time. Which we don't know. So, labelling them "fearless" is just a (somewhat educated) assumption.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
You're reduced to calling up poorly written blurbs for a bad TV show?
Omega, YOU have crossed the line. A-Team rocks man. ROCKS! WOOHOO!
Mr. T is the best thing to come out of '80s of America since...well ever.
"Mr. T is the best thing to come out of '80s of America since...well ever."
You do realize that that's hardly much of an accomplishment, right? *L*
We call them merciless and cowards.
Therefore I do not understand why they are being called courageous in the first place.