Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2014, 04:59 AM
RE: Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good?
(29-03-2014 02:16 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(29-03-2014 01:21 AM)Caveman Wrote:  Also: abuse of power is not very accurate.
Does the US government abuse their power? No, they got their power through the democratic process, so they have it legitimately, so it cannot be abused.

I also think it's fair to make a distinction between dictators and tyrants.

Simply because a government gains it's power democratically, doesn't mean it's power can't be abused...

It really does.
Should have been more carefull in giving it.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2014, 08:00 AM
RE: Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good?
(29-03-2014 04:59 AM)Caveman Wrote:  
(29-03-2014 02:16 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Simply because a government gains it's power democratically, doesn't mean it's power can't be abused...

It really does.
Should have been more carefull in giving it.

The Nazi Party was elected in a legal and free Democracy. So was Mussolini's Fascist party. The means of acquisition of power do not limit the potential for abuse.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
29-03-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good?
(29-03-2014 04:59 AM)Caveman Wrote:  
(29-03-2014 02:16 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  Simply because a government gains it's power democratically, doesn't mean it's power can't be abused...

It really does.
Should have been more carefull in giving it.
It really does not.
Electing someone to office doesn't give them a free pass to do anything they want.

[Image: h8m4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
29-03-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good?
(29-03-2014 08:00 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(29-03-2014 04:59 AM)Caveman Wrote:  It really does.
Should have been more carefull in giving it.

The Nazi Party was elected in a legal and free Democracy. So was Mussolini's Fascist party. The means of acquisition of power do not limit the potential for abuse.

I was hesitant to bring up the Nazis, but they were the main basis for my objection, but now you've thrown it out there...

Not only did Hitler get into Chancellorship through proper democratic process, he also practically got himself voted dictator by the Reichstag (the circumstances are obviously tilted, but it wasn't illegal...)

By the logic of 'Getting into power democratically, you can't abuse your power', nothing he did was an abuse of power.

And before it is again said 'should have been more careful about giving it', that is hindsight. You can't make a hindsight argument here; how were the constituents of, say, Nixon to know ahead of voting time, that he'd be abusing his power and spying on other political parties using resources he gained in office in such a way? We can see it, 'cause he was a dick, but how could they? How can you reasonably expect any voting people to not vote for parties who will, unbeknownst to them, abuse their power in the future?
It is really easy to look at the past and say "Well, that ending was inevitable; they should have seen it coming."

We can see know that Hitler, Nixon, Power Abuser X were always going to do what they did because of our point in time in relation to them and their acts; I am 99.9999% certain that your average German voting for the Nazis or Nationalists could not peak into the future and see WWII or the Holocaust looming over the horizon. Is not deporting an entire ethnicity and slaughtering those you couldn't deport not an abuse of power, sir?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
29-03-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good?
Every government's main goal is to leave as little power to the people as possible, some governments just do a better job at it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good?
(17-03-2014 09:35 PM)pppgggr Wrote:  This is an interesting topic for debate that came up between a friend and I while we were discussing World War II and a lot of the totalitarian dictatorships that we'd learned of in our Western History classes. Though leaders such as Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler took complete control of their nations, they generally used their power for selfish gain...But what if they hadn't?

What if, as opposed to an intolerant, murderous racist like Hitler; someone with a genuine desire to improve the lives of the German people--Whether they be "Aryan" or Jewish--chose to dismantle the Weimar Republic and become Furor?

Is it moral to take the decision away from the majority and place it into the hands of the minority if the intentions of that minority are good?


Personally, I'm leaning towards no because it removes the concept of having an equal voice in what the country decides to do and takes away a certain level of fairness from the equation. My friend felt that equality wasn't quite as important as getting the job done quickly and bringing about happiness to the masses as quickly as possible. I don't think it matters how quickly the problem is fixed so long as it's fixed by the will of the majority and that everyone gets a say in how they want it done.

What d'you guys think? It's been a while since I've been on the TTA forums but I felt this was the best place beat the idea around a bit.
Sure, no. Dictators, no matter how good dictators, only produce slaves. Real leaders produce more leaders. Life of a nation is no task for centralized power, no single great ego can live our lives for us.
If a great man wants to help us, then he has to do it voluntarily and non-violently, through educating people about how great he is, if he is actually great. If we can't educate people non-violently, we've got no right to educate.

As for equal voice, who the hell would want an equal voice? If we had an equal voice in design of cars, bridges and airplanes, we'd all be dead. If we had an equal voice in building of sewers, we'd be knee deep in shit. Equality is the stupid man's replacement competence.
What we need is a good system of information and exchange to offer our various competences, such as Bitcoin or other non-socialized currency. When we have that, we can sell our skills productively and do whatever we are good at. We don't have to be the best at what we do - we can be top players or bottom feeders or whatever. But as long as we keep our money, we are masters of our lives. If we don't send our money to a big central pool far away called state budget, we don't have to send chumps as our representatives to vote what to do with these money, or rather to steal them at large. So much for democracy. The best democracy is keeping your money and voting with your wallet.
There is no majority or minority, we are all minorities of one. As long as governments exist, the greatest minority of all are people who do not sit in the government.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: