If we look at the history some countries got maximum development in Dictator ship while some got maximum development in democratic government. Every system has it's own flaws and benefits. What do you like ? if we talk about the welfare of general people.
The main thing is not what he preaches politics, but how he does and what people feel at the same time. Personally, it is important that I and all people live in a normal society and can afford all the essentials, rather than survive in the state with corruption and the complete absence of government as an organ. 
Topic: Democracy or Dictator ship ? - page 7. (Read 2736 times)
It's not a true democracy. Not even on paper due to the existence of the electoral college. And in reality it doesn't matter who's inside the WH.
Why not? I have studied the electoral college system in the United States and I could say that it is having both positives and negatives. But it is better than some of the other systems. As I told you earlier, one of the advantages with this system is that it gives voice to the sparsely populated states.
But it is still dictatorship with a few twists. Why? Because:
1. The majority rules, which means the majority is dictator over the minority;
2. The majority simply decides who the popular leaders will be;
3. Then the leaders make their rulings and laws and statutes;
4. Then the leaders turn the responsibility of turning the rulings, laws, and statutes into codes, which are interpretations made by the code writers;
5. Then the enforcers interpret the codes even differently, in whatever ways they feel they want to.
The enforcers are the cops and judges in the courts, and usually the lower courts. The way they interpret may not at all be the way that the winning majority wanted in the first place, or even what the popular leaders thought they had passed into law.
The result is that we have an anarchistic dictatorship. The cops and judges are the dictators.
It's not a true democracy. Not even on paper due to the existence of the electoral college. And in reality it doesn't matter who's inside the WH.
Why not? I have studied the electoral college system in the United States and I could say that it is having both positives and negatives. But it is better than some of the other systems. As I told you earlier, one of the advantages with this system is that it gives voice to the sparsely populated states.
Democracy for me is the best to the country that people fallow the policy strictly becouse we have freedom , but other country of Dictator ship is very dangerous to those who cannot fallow the policy!
First, true democracy doesn't exist. Just look at USA, it's not a democracy, it's more of a representative democracy, like, you elect a guy who will then make his own vote for the president. So, the president isn't actually elected by the people, but instead, by 50 old politicians.
The American system is a little bit complex. It is a true democracy, but the presidential elections are conducted in such a way that even the smallest state gets its say on the matters. If the election was conducted solely based on the popular vote, then no one will be campaigning in states such as Wyoming and Vermont. That is why they have the electoral vote system.
First, true democracy doesn't exist. Just look at USA, it's not a democracy, it's more of a representative democracy, like, you elect a guy who will then make his own vote for the president. So, the president isn't actually elected by the people, but instead, by 50 old politicians.
The American system is a little bit complex. It is a true democracy, but the presidential elections are conducted in such a way that even the smallest state gets its say on the matters. If the election was conducted solely based on the popular vote, then no one will be campaigning in states such as Wyoming and Vermont. That is why they have the electoral vote system.
First, true democracy doesn't exist. Just look at USA, it's not a democracy, it's more of a representative democracy, like, you elect a guy who will then make his own vote for the president. So, the president isn't actually elected by the people, but instead, by 50 old politicians.
Secondly, dictatorship isn't as bad as we think: sometimes, it's better to give all the power to one person, as long as this person has insight and common sense. I'd like to live under the reign of a Gandhi-like dictator. I wouldn't mind giving the lead of a whole country to such a guy.
Sometimes, even a bad dictator is better than a lazy democracy. Syria stands as a good example, in my humble opinion
Secondly, dictatorship isn't as bad as we think: sometimes, it's better to give all the power to one person, as long as this person has insight and common sense. I'd like to live under the reign of a Gandhi-like dictator. I wouldn't mind giving the lead of a whole country to such a guy.
Sometimes, even a bad dictator is better than a lazy democracy. Syria stands as a good example, in my humble opinion
Democracy is not perfect, but over history dictatorship has been proven to be much worse.
I'm not so sure how a totally libertarian society would be, but I guess the transition would be slow, and until then, democracy is the best thing we have.
I'm not so sure how a totally libertarian society would be, but I guess the transition would be slow, and until then, democracy is the best thing we have.
If we look at the history some countries got maximum development in Dictator ship while some got maximum development in democratic government. Every system has it's own flaws and benefits. What do you like ? if we talk about the welfare of general people.
Definitely democracy..Yes this is lenient compared to a dictatorship form of government wherein almost everything is controlled. But the same is still true with democracy. I don’t think that a military form of government would be ideal in our country today since our people are much more defensive compared before. If we look at the history some countries got maximum development in Dictator ship while some got maximum development in democratic government. Every system has it's own flaws and benefits. What do you like ? if we talk about the welfare of general people.
Benefits of a DictatorshipAs referenced earlier, elections are imperfect things. While the majority of a population is represented, there is always going to be a portion of the population that is not.
The tyranny of the majority wiki is a good read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
If we look at the history some countries got maximum development in Dictator ship while some got maximum development in democratic government. Every system has it's own flaws and benefits. What do you like ? if we talk about the welfare of general people.
Benefits of a DictatorshipAs referenced earlier, elections are imperfect things. While the majority of a population is represented, there is always going to be a portion of the population that is not.
The tyranny of the majority wiki is a good read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Money can buy anything yes! But not happiness Ye let say this your happy because you can buy any material thing you like ! But until when?
Wrong thread?
Money can buy anything yes! But not happiness Ye let say this your happy because you can buy any material thing you like ! But until when?
Democracy for sure . It's of the people for the people and by the people and so it is the people who chose and the people who get the power . Its utmost important
The problem is that most people don't know what they are talking about, but keep talking. Democracy isn't really different from peer pressure or a group of bullies that you can't do anything against. It's pretty close to just having a single dictator and gets romanticized way too much.
Democracy for sure . It's of the people for the people and by the people and so it is the people who chose and the people who get the power . Its utmost important
When it comes to the welfare of all the citizens then I would pick Democracy than Dictatorship. Dictatorship is not all bad but the point is what if the Dictator is like some bad leaders who only cared about themselves and not their own citizens.
Both are good, democracy's flaw is manipulation of opinions to affect decisions. Dicatatorship's flaw is lack of leadership affecting the people.
But for me dictatorship is.
But for me dictatorship is.
If we look at the history some countries got maximum development in Dictator ship while some got maximum development in democratic government. Every system has it's own flaws and benefits. What do you like ? if we talk about the welfare of general people.
Dictatorship should never be in the discussion of bringing countries to progress as this is not the way to go and it comes with a price like freedom and nlood. Dictators succeed on the putside because dissenters get imprisoned or worse killed and their plans enacted. Which have a high cost that is not the price for progress.
If we look at the history some countries got maximum development in Dictator ship while some got maximum development in democratic government. Every system has it's own flaws and benefits. What do you like ? if we talk about the welfare of general people.
Sometimes, it depends on the state of the country if dictatorship is needed or democracy. For those countries that as well off and its citizens know their responsibilities, then democracy is best fit. There are those countries as well that you can't run through democracy because of rotten leadership
need just 51% of the votes for a win.. 
Never the less it's still a win..DEMOCRACY..
Never the less it's still a win..DEMOCRACY..
Sometimes, it needs 30% or less votes to win an election (if the fight is triangular or quadrangular). The problem with this system is that a particular ethnic or religious group with 30% or 35% of the population can win the election with their demographic power, and then sideline the other groups. This is exactly how the problems started in multi-ethnic countries such as Sri Lanka (majority Sinhalese vs minority Tamils), Malaysia (Malays vs Chinese), and Afghanistan (Pashtuns vs Tajiks).
Jump to: