Is dictatorship actually possible?

[Josh_LA]

Not to confuse the terms tyranny, totalitarian and authoritarian.

But is the idea of "one man" or "a few men" ruling over hundreds and thousands regardless of their opinion actually possible?

One man only has 2 arms and 2 legs, he cannot operate enough machines to do enough damage to force his will on hundreds of people.

The only time a man can be a "dictator" is when he's already earned the authority and trust, and has hundreds of people in the system working FOR HIM.

What I'm saying is, we cannot blame dictators for being dictators or even for doing what we believe is wrong, we should hold all those complicit equally responsible, for if they did not play along, the dictator could not be what he wants at all.

Example :
Bankers can print money, but only useful if people recognize the value of it.
A president can write executive orders, but that's only as valid as his female dogs are willing to follow through.

So what if a dictator makes nasty orders? He can't hold enough guns in his hand to enforce it! The fact is, dictators are NEVER acting alone, which means it's the Congress, the police, the people, the military who are enabling the crime!

Instead of crying about how crime is being legalized and the law is becoming subverted, we should focus our attention on whether we should still respect the laws that we disagree with!

We should stop focusing the blame on so called "dictators", who are "evil" because without cooperation, they have nothing, the pyramid tops cannot hold enough guns to carry out his will.

How about RESPONSIBILITY? We are ALL guilty for enabling wrongdoing, we are ALL responsible for respecting laws that we disagree with, we are ALL evil if we do not fight (yes, by fight I mean kill, insofar as self defense and retaliation) those who hurt others. I am obviously NOT advocating crime or violence, but I want people to look in the mirror, YOU are allowing things to happen. Stop pointing the finger at police and judges and elected officials, YOU LET THEM LIVE, YOU SUFFER THEIR CRIMES. (not that you can't complain, but don't expect anybody to listen)

 

[A. Havnes]

Post of the week.

The biggest problem with today's America, and you could argue world, is that people are under the impression that government is supposed to be a babysitter. Combine that with the fact that we worship celebrities and presidents like Obama can waltz into office. If the people wake up, these kinds of power maniacs won't get away with it.

 

[Josh_LA]

Post of the week.

The biggest problem with today's America, and you could argue world, is that people are under the impression that government is supposed to be a babysitter.

So they can blame them later if something goes wrong, or they don't want to take responsibility (oops, I repeated myself).

Combine that with the fact that we worship celebrities and presidents like Obama can waltz into office. If the people wake up, these kinds of power maniacs won't get away with it.

yes, IF and ONLY IF.

 

[Bryan]

One element you're not considering is a grid of control via threats, blackmail and the like. Yes, people act on their own will but when someone in power comes to you and says "do such and such and if not, we'll kill your family." - well, you have a serious decision to make. A good dictator can build a web of trust, reward and security around him while slowly enslaving the people with carefully calculated threats. Still yet, many argue that a dictatorship isn't really possible and that they are really an oligarchy with a front man (who looks like a dictator)- may be so, or it's just similar to the top circile in the web of trust and reward.

You could make the same argument of threat for any subject who is forced to pay taxes that supports evil- if they refuse to pay they'll be culled from the herd. If that is a guaranteed loosing proportion then an alternate approach to freedom may be in order.

 

[A. Havnes]

One element you're not considering is a grid of control via threats, blackmail and the like. Yes, people act on their own will but when someone in power comes to you and says "do such and such and if not, we'll kill your family." - well, you have a serious decision to make. A good dictator can build a web of trust, reward and security around him while slowly enslaving the people with carefully calculated threats. Still yet, many argue that a dictatorship isn't really possible and that they are really an oligarchy with a front man (who looks like a dictator)- may be so, or it's just similar to the top circile in the web of trust and reward.

You could make the same argument of threat for any subject who is forced to pay taxes that supports evil- if they refuse to pay they'll be culled from the herd. If that is a guaranteed loosing proportion then an alternate approach to freedom may be in order.

True, but you'd still have to have garnered enough support to actually get people to carry out those heinous orders your spewing. You'd have to convince those who work under said dictator (or bankers) to decide to think for themselves.

 

[torchbearer]

it is reality.

 

[Josh_LA]

One element you're not considering is a grid of control via threats, blackmail and the like.

I don't consider that a problem, because threats are still just warnings of potential harm which you are again responsible for protecting yourself against.

Yes, people act on their own will but when someone in power comes to you and says "do such and such and if not, we'll kill your family." - well, you have a serious decision to make.

No you do not, you have the choice to murder them first. Furthermore, you had the choice to not have property or family to be held hostage for.

A good dictator can build a web of trust, reward and security around him while slowly enslaving the people with carefully calculated threats. Still yet, many argue that a dictatorship isn't really possible and that they are really an oligarchy with a front man (who looks like a dictator)- may be so, or it's just similar to the top circile in the web of trust and reward.

Exactly my point, everybody in the web is equally responsible, for it takes only one bullet to rid the dictator of all powers (if indeed the dictator was only one person).

You could make the same argument of threat for any subject who is forced to pay taxes that supports evil- if they refuse to pay they'll be culled from the herd. If that is a guaranteed loosing proportion then an alternate approach to freedom may be in order.

I agree, I hate the fact I am forced to obey the law, but I still do because I'd rather not be in prison. I don't complain until I can actually do something about it. And I DO blame everybody that goes with the system.

 

[Josh_LA]

True, but you'd still have to have garnered enough support to actually get people to carry out those heinous orders your spewing. You'd have to convince those who work under said dictator (or bankers) to decide to think for themselves.

exactly.

and even oligarchies and monarchies are hardly possible without the masses going along with it.

Why does US politics have one two parties? Because the rest of the country sits back and allows it (with too much respect to property and life for those who do not in return).

 

[Bryan]

True, but you'd still have to have garnered enough support to actually get people to carry out those heinous orders your spewing. You'd have to convince those who work under said dictator (or bankers) to decide to think for themselves.

Yes, and they can get that support by threats and blackmail- thus making it a growing ring of evil. They can think for themselves and see their self-preservation as being a superior choice to the small amount of evil they have to do... the problem however is the accumulation of evil.

No you do not, you have the choice to murder them first. Furthermore, you had the choice to not have property or family to be held hostage for.

It's not possible to live if you are totally alone, have nothing and are nothing- you need a source of food and water at the very least-- even that could be taken away from you. Anything else you have could be taken away as well. So to buck a dictator you need to be prepared to have everything you have taken away and see everyone you care for mercilessly tortured and killed before you are.

Exactly my point, everybody in the web is equally responsible, for it takes only one bullet to rid the dictator of all powers (if indeed the dictator was only one person).

The problem is, you can't get that one bullet anywhere near the dictator since there are many, many redundant buffering layers of protection. That's what makes one a successful dictator- else they will be off'ed within a week.

I agree, I hate the fact I am forced to obey the law, but I still do because I'd rather not be in prison. I don't complain until I can actually do something about it..

Understood, and people that are threatened by dictators hate the fact that they are forced to obey them since they'd rather not be in prison or see their family tortured and killed. They don't complain until they can actually do something about it.

And I DO blame everybody that goes with the system

Question for you. If someone does the minimum needed to keep within the system (such as paying taxes) but uses the balance of what they have to remove the evil should they be blamed if their damage to the evil exceeds what they are forced to put into it?

 

[Josh_LA]

It's not possible to live if you are totally alone, have nothing and are nothing- you need a source of food and water at the very least-- even that could be taken away from you. Anything else you have could be taken away as well. So to buck a dictator you need to be prepared to have everything you have taken away and see everyone you care for mercilessly tortured and killed before you are.

Yes, you need certain things to survive, and a gun. They can take it away from you, but it takes a few, not one. Does a dictator not have money, family and his own cherished property to lose? Doesn't it work both ways, just a matter of who owns the soldiers?

The problem is, you can't get that one bullet anywhere near the dictator since there are many, many redundant buffering layers of protection. That's what makes one a successful dictator- else they will be off'ed within a week.

That's my point, the whole system around him is complicit, making him no longer a dictator who makes sole decisions, all others carry it out with him and he can't do without them.

Understood, and people that are threatened by dictators hate the fact that they are forced to obey them since they'd rather not be in prison or see their family tortured and killed. They don't complain until they can actually do something about it.

ok then.

Question for you. If someone does the minimum needed to keep within the system (such as paying taxes) but uses the balance of what they have to remove the evil should they be blamed if their damage to the evil exceeds what they are forced to put into it?

I'm not sure I understand, but I think I'd say yes, what evil you're talking about, and in all fairness, isn't the game always about evil against evil anyway?

Yes, and they can get that support by threats and blackmail- thus making it a growing ring of evil. They can think for themselves and see their self-preservation as being a superior choice to the small amount of evil they have to do... the problem however is the accumulation of evil.

You can't fool all the people all the time, the threat in the first place came from evildoers (workers of the man) who went with the evil man (not yet a dictator).

Don't people who are threatened have the right and obligation to kill those who threaten them (given the alternative)?

 

[Kraig]

I subvert all of the unjust laws that directly apply to me. Not everyone is playing along with the system.

 

[silverhawks]

I would have to say that a dictatorship is an oligarchy with great PR.

A member of a political group steps forward as the leader that dictates the rules; that still doesn't eliminate the group behind the dictator who they rely on to enforce the rules.

 

[Josh_LA]

I would have to say that a dictatorship is an oligarchy with great PR.

A member of a political group steps forward as the leader that dictates the rules; that still doesn't eliminate the group behind the dictator who they rely on to enforce the rules.

exactly, and there is no PR or oligarchy without the sheep that hold them up.

 

[LATruth]

I thought it was our CIVIC DUTY to disband ANY Government that wasn't representative of the people. Not to wait 4 years and HOPE someone "not as bad" gets into power to continue on the same course.

We can go in circles all day on this argument, I'd rather not feed the machine and perpetuate the problem.

 

[pcosmar]

I thought it was our CIVIC DUTY to disband ANY Government that wasn't representative of the people. Not to wait 4 years and HOPE someone "not as bad" gets into power to continue on the same course.

We can go in circles all day on this argument, I'd rather not feed the machine and perpetuate the problem.

I'm sorry, but we can't discuss that CIVIC DUTY here,
1. it violates forum rules
2. it violates operational security
3. most people are scared of the implications.

 

[Josh_LA]

I'm sorry, but we can't discuss that CIVIC DUTY here,
1. it violates forum rules
2. it violates operational security
3. most people are scared of the implications.

agreed.

 

[A. Havnes]

According to the GIVE ACT, volunteers would be prohibited from church functions, boycotts, strikes, campaigning for someone running for an office, influencing legislation, ect. I'll try to find the link.

That's dictatorship!

 

[Kraig]

I'm sorry, but we can't discuss that CIVIC DUTY here,
1. it violates forum rules
2. it violates operational security
3. most people are scared of the implications.

But you don't have to initiate violence to rebel. Stop cooperating and then the government holds no power over you, you don't have to go out of your way to hurt them, just don't give them what they want.

 

[Josh_LA]

But you don't have to initiate violence to rebel. Stop cooperating and then the government holds no power over you, you don't have to go out of your way to hurt them, just don't give them what they want.

agreed

 

[A. Havnes]

I'm having a brain fart. In American Revolution times, who committed the first act of aggression?