Do you find Despotism and Decentralization acceptable?

So say, do you find both acceptable?

I find them acceptable because thanks to them appeared civilization. I think that under any other economic and politics form it wouldn't happened. Well, I'm not sure at 100%, but this is my POV anyways.

The other reason why I find them acceptable is this: both of them are the most sincere and realistic politic and economic systems ever. I know it sound strange, but we must recognize that human being always tends to form despotic goverments and his economy always tends to become a decentralized despotic one. So, if we have this natural tendency, why don't we accept it?

And the last reason why I find despotism acceptable is this: despotism is a form of goverment based on who has the REAL power on the people. I think that other goverment forms are deficient because they are based on other things but no people and the base of any real power is always people. Theocarcies are based on god(s), monarchies are based on nobility, democracy is based on who the hell voted those nuts down there and so on. At least despotism is right in this sense (and many other in my POV).

So, what's your opinion? Do you find both of them acceptable?

gangleri2001 said:

So say, do you find both acceptable?

I find them acceptable because thanks to them appeared civilization. I think that under any other economic and politics form it wouldn't happened. Well, I'm not sure at 100%, but this is my POV anyways.

The other reason why I find them acceptable is this: both of them are the most sincere and realistic politic and economic systems ever. I know it sound strange, but we must recognize that human being always tends to form despotic goverments and his economy always tends to become a decentralized despotic one. So, if we have this natural tendency, why don't we accept it?

And the last reason why I find despotism acceptable is this: despotism is a form of goverment based on who has the REAL power on the people. I think that other goverment forms are deficient because they are based on other things but no people and the base of any real power is always people. Theocarcies are based on god(s), monarchies are based on nobility, democracy is based on who the hell voted those nuts down there and so on. At least despotism is right in this sense (and many other in my POV).

So, what's your opinion? Do you find both of them acceptable?

Click to expand...

Despotism is ruled through fear my friend, its a horrible situation. There is no law, except what the despot makes it, the goivernment is incredibly centralized which ussually leaves the rest of the country in shambles and the leading party essentially has the rite to do whatever it wants, so long as they dont piss the king off. This is the reason in despotic states that fathers have there daugters married at very very young ages in despotic states where women are owned, to keep them from being "owned" by the kings men. Despotism is by far the worst form of government on the planet, I could go on and on and on and on about it, but I really dont feel like it, and you just sound uneducated.

And BTW, an absolute monarchy IS a despot.

edit Democracy, or more specifically, a republic, is actually IMO, the most effective form of government. But, seeing as how a true republic is very impractical in a country of one billion, we have to rely on representation. I also dont understand what the hell your talking about in your second parahraph, exactly what forms of goverment are based on "things and not people?

Is there football?

Despotism - Only if I get to be the despot and cities cheer "We love the Despot"!

Decentralization - Key to man's survival. Agricultural decentralization saved China. USSR tried agri-dentralization too late. One still exists because it utilized dentralization, the other does not. See how it can be important?

I find Decentralized government to be a +

Not so much in economics for several reasons I am not smart enough to explain properly.
When I say decentraized I mean some thing more decentralized than the United States economic policies - such as say each state having different rules on monopolies etc etc.

Despotism I don't like unless it's a country filled with fanatics ( like Iraq )

I dont really think the OP understands that a despot and a dictatorship are the same thing, did anybody else get that vibe when reading it?

Harbringer said:

Despotism is ruled through fear my friend, its a horrible situation. There is no law, except what the despot makes it, the goivernment is incredibly centralized which ussually leaves the rest of the country in shambles and the leading party essentially has the rite to do whatever it wants, so long as they dont piss the king off. This is the reason in despotic states that fathers have there daugters married at very very young ages in despotic states where women are owned, to keep them from being "owned" by the kings men.

Click to expand...

I know this and I find it acceptable. This is the real human nature, welcome to the real world.

Harbringer said:

And BTW, an absolute monarchy IS a despot.

Click to expand...

Not in my POV. Louis XIV said "I'm am the state" but I think that the state must be the despot's subordinate, not himself.

Harbringer said:

I dont really think the OP understands that a despot and a dictatorship are the same thing, did anybody else get that vibe when reading it?

Click to expand...

I'm telling you my POV and I see a difference between a despot and a dictator. This difference is how much they depend from social structures.

If independent = good despot
If dependent = f*****g coward dictator

gangleri2001 said:

I know this and I find it acceptable. This is the real human nature, welcome to the real world.



Not in my POV. Louis XIV said "I'm am the state" but I think that the state must be the despot's subordinate, not himself.

Click to expand...

Then you freely admit that you would rather have no liberties and live in constant fear all the time rather then in a govermnet that you can actually effectively vote to have some kind of change? Sure you could be electing a nutjob, but at least you had the chance to help choose, whereas in a despotism, you always get the nutjob. Lerts not forget either that you have no economic freedom either, becuase as soon as you get a penny, it the "law" that it be taken away.

Also, it doesnt matter what you think the state should be in a monarchy, its still what it was. Louis wasnt runnig an absolute monarchy, he was ruling a feudalistic society, he didnt have power becuase power was to an extent held by the varios feifs, and there was also the church to worry about. He could however get away with some pretty rediculous things, so long as to many of the feifdoms werent pissed off. So no, he doesnt count becuae he wasnt running an absolute monarchy.

gangleri2001 said:

I'm telling you my POV and I see a difference between a despot and a dictator. This difference is how much they from social structures.

If independent = good despot
If dependent = f*****g coward dictator

Click to expand...

Where are these "good" despots you speak of?How many of these men were "praised" for there rule?

Nylan said:

Is there football?

Click to expand...

Only if the strong like Football and since all strong people like Football, they MVP of the superbowl wuld probably be the next Despot.

Fallen Angel Lord said:

Only if the strong like Football and since all strong people like Football, they MVP of the superbowl wuld probably be the next Despot.

Click to expand...

Then I'm in

Well, I'm gonna tell you my POV. I think that civilization was only created to ensure the survival of mankind. As long as a regime ensures this, I personally don't care if I got to live in constant fear and I have no freedom. I even don't care if this regime kills. As long as mankind survives, the rest I don't care. And I prefer despotism to other forms because I see that democracy&capitalism or totalitarism&communism don't do so. And here you got some examples:

- Aral sea
- Introdution of gen-modifeid plants in order to ensure coorporation's profits, not food, but PROFITS! that's outrageous.
- Destruction of atmosphere
- Lack of a "what to do" plan if earth becomes too small for the whole mankind
- Destruction of jungles, that jungles that provide us MEDICINES and OXYGEN! That's also outrageous
- Etc...

Harbringer said:

Where are these "good" despots you speak of?How many of these men were "praised" for there rule?

Click to expand...

A good despot is a strong leader who ensures the survival of mankind. Genghis Khan is good example of a good despot.

Do you not understand what a despotism is? It is there only to serve the despot and no one or no thing else. Not the enviroment, not the welfare of the people, and sure as hell not to ensure the survival of mankind. and also....

gangleri2001 said:

Well, I'm gonna tell you my POV. I think that civilization was only created to ensure the survival of mankind. As long as a regime ensures this, I personally don't care if I got to live in constant fear and I have no freedom. I even don't care if this regime kills. As long as mankind survives, the rest I don't care. And I prefer despotism to other forms because I see that democracy&capitalism or totalitarism&communism don't do so. And here you got some examples:

Click to expand...

?????


Then, tell me why, a lets say, democracy cant do all of the things you describe above, and why only a dictatorship can?

gangleri2001 said:

Well, I'm gonna tell you my POV. I think that civilization was only created to ensure the survival of mankind. As long as a regime ensures this, I personally don't care if I got to live in constant fear and I have no freedom. I even don't care if this regime kills. As long as mankind survives, the rest I don't care. And I prefer despotism to other forms because I see that democracy&capitalism or totalitarism&communism don't do so. And here you got some examples:

- Aral sea
- Introdution of gen-modifeid plants in order to ensure coorporation's profits, not food, but PROFITS! that's outrageous.
- Destruction of atmosphere
- Lack of a "what to do" plan if earth becomes too small for the whole mankind
- Destruction of jungles, that jungles that provide us MEDICINES and OXYGEN! That's also outrageous
- Etc...

Click to expand...

the destruction of the atmosphere isnt really because of capitalism, and well not only capitalists need wood, so you can scratch that last one. and how do you know a despot would have plan for when the earth gets to crowded?

Nylan said:

Then I'm in

Click to expand...

You think Tom Brady would make a good Despot for a year?

Well, Despotism and near complete decentralization are probably the exact things that gave rise to civilization, this is true. But thats just because they are among the easiest systems to create and maintain. One guy rising to power in a village or farm community is a fairly easy thing to accomplish. It is significantly more difficult for the same group of farmers to get together and form a democracy complete with a Constitution and Bill of Rights from scratch.

Despotism was a necessary evil, and we owe it a debt. It's also a fantastic society as long as the Despot is wise and accommodating to his people; but that is inevitably not that case. In todays world, we can do better, and regressing to a Despotic state is nothing to look forward to.

gangleri2001 said:

- Aral sea
- Introdution of gen-modifeid plants in order to ensure coorporation's profits, not food, but PROFITS! that's outrageous.
- Destruction of atmosphere
- Lack of a "what to do" plan if earth becomes too small for the whole mankind
- Destruction of jungles, that jungles that provide us MEDICINES and OXYGEN! That's also outrageous
- Etc...

Click to expand...

There is no reason these things wouldn't happen in a despotic state. In fact, the first point you made there, namely the Aral Sea Crisis, is something that arose due to Soviet farming practices. And the Soviet Union was damn near a Despotism. It could be better described by an Oligarchy, but that's just Despotisms little , more manageable little brother.

Nor are modern pollution problems and deforestation products of Capitalism, Democracy, Communism, Welfare States, or any other political buzzword you want to toss in. Massive deforestation has occurred in tribal states with Despotic/Tribal governments as well, leading to a complete ecological and societal collapse (the fate of most of the Pacific Islands). These things are instead a failure of a government to enact strong, positive policy, regardless of what type of government it may be.

Thats part of my pont though, there are not "good" despots, and there never have been.

hossam said:

the destruction of the atmosphere isnt really because of capitalism, and well not only capitalists need wood, so you can scratch that last one.

Click to expand...

You're right. Economic needs existis also under despotism. But a despot is smart enough to don't destroy what can help his own life. So, what would a despot do? Replace wood and other stuff with things from mines (if possible). And how would he do this? Killing those who cut trees.

hossam said:

and how do you know a despot would have plan for when the earth gets to crowded?

Click to expand...

Killing people in order to let others survive.