Amazon.com Widgets

Is an autocracy better than a democracy for the people?

  • Supporter of autocracy

    Well I personally think if he or she is a decent person they should rule. I mean there's no such thing as being perfect , but as long as they are the right and moral things I'm fine. Besides having one ruler makes things simple. Also a house that's divided can't stand . COUGH the United States Gov.

  • In terms of potential only

    If the autocrat is a god-like figure, he knows what the people want, what the people need, he grants freedom of everything, he makes good policies, and he is never tiring, then yes. It is efficient and avoid rite rule.

    A herd of people can do the same. We can assume that this is a herd of reasonable people. Except they have to all get together and vote and argue with each other, and they may not always be right.

    That was purely hypothetical. In fact, in most modern cases, representative democracies do much better in terms of human happiness and achievement and happiness. But it is also important to note that these same countries are already filthy rich when they started to become democratic. Undeveloped nations NEED a strong hand instead of unregulated "mob rule" in a competitive world like this. Russia, China, Libya, would never have gotten so much better than before if it weren't for ruthless and reasonable authoritarian rule. Hopefully, when these societies ripe, they become more democratic.

  • Autocracy is simple

    No need too spend so much time on elections, We can keep it simple by only having one permanent and strong leader. Queen or King can decide how the rule and it doesn't always mean they have to be mean. What if they are kind? They probably are trying to only make things better.

  • Democracy has failed many countries.

    Many nations of Hispanic America are SUFFERING because of a corrupt or dictatorial power, even in a democracy people are being oppressed and progress is held back as corrupt politicians use the system to get rich and allow crime to grow rampant, never truly listening to people. Here's my take on crime. People want an end to the crime, they don't want to be treated like dirt anymore. That is why I denounce every single Hispanic Politician as weak, ignorant, and corrupt. What is needed is an intelligent, educated, benevolent, righteous and patriotic leader whose main goal is to see his people stand tall, happy, safe and healthy. I believe that what we NEED is for thieves, murders, rapist, and pedophiles to be punished severely measured according to the severity of their crime. For example, a thief should be obligated to return or compensate for his/her crimes and serve time in prison but not before being mildly punished through a tough dragging, think of it as a parent, discipline their child as many troublemakers are just children who have lost their way. A thief that is stealing for survival and not perverse reasons, should not be mistreated but helped as this person is so desperate that they feel the need to go so low. Survival reason may be explained later but that can be further elaborated at a later time. Yet all thieves should be forced to have re-educational practices on morality and always kept under a watchful eye, and if they continue their crimes they will literally be labeled a thief or mugger. Murders (not in self-defense) should be also dragged out but will be not considered innocent or guilty, but instead into a new category, keeping the innocent uncorrupted or psychologically scarred by other criminals, but to be kept until the due process can prove their true nature. If a person in question for murder is proven guilty, they should be thrown into a jail which shall only consist of VITAL necessities as anything more is too much of a luxury for them. Depending on the severity of their crime murderers should be executed as showing that they are no longer people but monsters. For example (real-life example), a 20-year-old man who killed his mother by beating and burning her, just for her house should be executed. Through highly funded through investigations must be done to prove every part of the story, in Crime filled cities this will not be as necessary. Pedophiles and rapist should be executed or forced under chemical castration and re-education. As this scum only degrades society. While ALL members of organized crime, terrorism, etc (other organized violent or abusive groups) should be destroyed and it's members executed as quickly as possible. To create an organized crime organization such as a mafia, are simply declaring war against the government's authority and threatening the safety of civilians. Therefore they are enemies of the state. With these methods, we can hope to bring safety to everyone.

  • A nation can focus on military power and national security rather than presidential elections under an autocratic leader.

    Take Russia for example. When Stalin came to power, and later dictators after him, in a matter of decades they were a global superpower. America's democracy took more than two centuries to become what it is now. Russia is now the largest nation in the world and ranks as one of the best economies and militaries in the world

  • Democracy doesn't work

    All nations need a strong leader. Not a new, lying politician every few years. Democracy only gives half or even less of the population what they want to hear. And the general population are too stupid to elect a good leader.
    "Democracy is when two wolves and one sheep vote on what they will have for dinner." spiralsun

  • When a population is completely divided, the flock needs a shepherd.

    In today's world, people have become too interested in their vested interests for democracy to be effective. A democratic government can only work if all the people place their State before themselves, and in today's world, nobody is ready to do that. In such a case, a single person is required, who will do so, who the people will follow without question. Another problem is, of course, the passage of ideas. No matter how good and thoughtful an idea is, it will always offend someone or the other. In this case, a democrat must bow, but an autocrat can take the idea forward for the good of the people at large.

  • The voice of the masses isn't really what's best for everyone.

    Democracy has gone obsolete due to ignorance and self-interest. It has become nothing more than a game of manipulating the masses. What humanity needs is an educated but benevolent dictator to lead. A leader who knows whats best for the people and knows how to get it. Not some government where almost no one can agree on anything.

  • YES. It is efficient!

    There would have to be free elections, and heavy research into the person. It would only be possible to run a large nation with smaller municipal governments advising and making small scale decisions, however on the Federal level one person making decisions would be MUCH faster. Plus we know all about this person before they are elected so they would make no policies that are a surprise. (There would probably also be a system that can kick out the leader if they screw up real bad...)

  • Democracy just doesn't seem to work...

    I believe we have too much freedom in the United States and that we should convert to an autocratic government. No one but servicemen and women should be allowed to buy guns. If we keep letting the people do almost anything they want, things are going to get out of control and we may be looking at a possible second civil war in the future.

  • Of course not!

    Autocracy is where leader leads a whole bunch of people and if you don't listen-it's the end of your life. Democratic areas such as America, you are allowed to rebel as long as you don't murder people. In autocratic areas, it is the leader, the autocrat that kills people. :(

  • The inconvenience of liberty far is negligible compared to that of tyranny.

    All people deserve a say in their Government. I for one support a democratic Republic, but when I speak of Democracy in this context, I simply mean the people having control of the Government.

    Democracies have always shown to be the model for successful and long-living nations. The vast majority of the developed world are democratic in nature.

  • Is either really good?

    A true democracy is utterly useless , very inefficient and will simply be based on a majority decision, and is in fact this is rather dangerous for any minority who could be marginalized. This majority is not necessarily fixed, just look at the popularity of gun control before and after a shooting. Within a month all the emotion has died done and reality has set in, and these emotionally based decisions could hurt our nation, especially if it has a strong central government. A dictator on the other hand can take away any rights at any time without notice and do irreversible damage to the country with his military strength, like in Libya.

  • An autocracy will give no rights to the people.

    A democracy will give all rights to the people. There is no reason to believe that tyranny by one will be better than tyranny by the majority. In a democracy, at least 51% of the people will be happy. However, in an autocracy, 99.9% of the people have the potential to be unhappy. Switzerland has elements of direct democracy, and North Korea is an autocracy. Now which place would you rather live?

  • Tuc t7tvv u

    A3esrdtyfugihojpihugytrew4a3serdtfgyuhijokpl[okijuhygtfrd5e4sw3ax dbsibbef bf8ywbf8ybf bf8wfb8fwb fbwybfywb bfwyfb wybfwbf wbydbywbd bdywbdu wdybb bwy bwyh byw bwydb bywbd bywbd nnn b y bywd udufb hdhd huwd duw dydw duwd uddw hu7w dgghdu hgwu hu7dhgd u h7wdhgwug h w7dh7wdgh7uw 7hwdgd7uwdgh7uw 7wdh7wdhw7ud wd7hgw7gduw dwh7uwdhwdu 7g7g7g g7u7gg7 bd bdhddg befgbygfdgdwgd bfdwdbd ydwgwygdw ydhudwwd bywwdygdw bygwdgwyd gywdg

  • Autocrats of all powerful leaders only work if the mora needs of all citizens are satisfied.

    Assuming an individual autocratic leader was perfectly moral, able to fulfill the financial needs of his/her people, and also able to maintain the trust and confidence of his/her citizens from the perspective of the citizens of the type of governance could this work. Because of our history of the moral state of humanity I would say that this type of governance would not work today or in the future(unless we were perfectly moral, unified in all doctrinal standards and philosophy).

    Today most autocratic leaders are very wealthy individuals by inheritance, being born into what some subjectively consider "royalty," or through religious significance regarding a specific individual.

    We see in some middle eastern countries that are autocratic that the dictator gains loyalty and obedience of his people through the ability to give financial benefit and authority over others, to those who he/she wills and are willing to follow his orders. Most of the time with royal autocratic leaders such as Kings, Princes, Queens, princesses, etc... Nepotism is almost always the means of inheritance or transfer of power/Dictatorship. Monarchy is an autocratic form of governance where the transfer of power is most commonly passed on to the oldest male son of the leader. The death of the autocratic leader is the most common event to take place in order for their to be a transfer of power to another individual.

    Many would argue in western society that autocratic governance is morally wrong but the morality of a specific governance is mostly relative to the followers of the autocratic leader. North Korea is a great example of a dictator is praised and considered worthy to be their leader.

    Remember, today's view of morality is post-modernistic so Moral standards are subjective to each individual persons beliefs or standards which are usually influenced by faith, religion, or nurtured moral standards, and cultural moral standards.

  • A Democracy listens

    In comparison, an autocracy is worse, because if a decision needs to be made no debates/conversations are processed and the decision is just followed through. It prevents people like citizens to be able to do anything. Even people in the government have little to no power and could only convince the leader if they want their ideas to become true.

    On the other hand, democracies takes the idea of people in power, refines it, and make it into to something far greater then what it should have been if one person were to create an idea.

  • Democracy is far better than any other rule

    It is not necessary that every king or dictator is good. What if he/she becomes unfair afterwards??? Democracy give people the power to rule their country by a correct method that is elections. By this in a democratic country the government is accountable for its actions and is also answerable but in an autocracy the government can do anything without an explanation.

  • Obvio democracy is good!

    People get the freedom and their are many advantages of democracy some of them are here-
    The first advantage in democracy is that there is sometimes self-government in small places like villages, coming to the second one that is every individual has a vote and even they have power in their hand because every vote counts, talking about the third right, during a conflict united civilians stand together which results into many different perspectives which could be helpful for developing a dependable solution for the conflict, one of the main point, the fifth point is that you can correct your mistake. If the civilian thinks that the person is not right for the country they can vote again for the next time, every 5 year an election is held for the civilians to choose their new representative for the country.

  • Democracy is better

    Because democracy values the opinions of the people.All wars lost are because of loss of democracy &the united states haveexpereinced the worst of autocracy. They know its better to be a democrat instead of a autocrat. I know that many of you will have a different opinionso just think about the state you were in, if your opinions were not valued.Thenwhat you use know wontbe there.There will be several wars.INDIA LOST AGAINST BRITISH BECAUSE OF THE LACK F UNITY.

    -A


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>