Democracy vs. Fascism

[Conscentia]

On what grounds are the two comparable?

Why should anyone have power without having merited it?

Who defines merit in the context of governance?

I'd say it's the people of a nation.
Being their elected representative therefore suggests one has merited the position of power.

[Distruzio]

On what grounds are the two comparable?

Why should anyone have power without having merited it?

In what way is, or should, power be merited? Why does the man who possesses the ego-besetted effrontery to tell me I need him to possess power over me because the other person would be a dick deserve that power where a monarch does not?

I don't.

Then with what actions has the monarch earned his place? Why should I give a shit about his "birthright" and follow him? Or rather: if he's a bad leader, why should I not rebel?

He is judged worthy by the quality of his inheritance. The good monarch is rewarded by the population with adulation and acceptance of his childs birth as a birthright. The bad monarch is not. You should "give a shit" out of deference to his father and/or his fathers father.

Why should you not rebel against a ruler who merited (somehow... which you have yet to qualify) his rule and yet turns out to be undeserving?

[Distruzio]

Why should anyone have power without having merited it?

Who defines merit in the context of governance?

I'd say it's the people of a nation.
Being their elected representative therefore suggests one has merited the position of power.

Indeed. And being their monarch suggests that ones parents have merited the position of power for him.

[New 4chania]

I don't like democracy I do like fascism and the british union of fascists.

[Distruzio]

I don't like democracy I do like fascism and the british union of fascists.

Why?

[Conscentia]

Who defines merit in the context of governance?
I'd say it's the people of a nation.
Being their elected representative therefore suggests one has merited the position of power.

Indeed. And being their monarch suggests that ones parents have merited the position of power for him.

Who gave the parents the authority?

[Distruzio]

Indeed. And being their monarch suggests that ones parents have merited the position of power for him.

Who gave the parents the authority?

Their parents. And the public, in accepting the new monarch, agrees.

[Conscentia]

Who gave the parents the authority?

Their parents. And the public, in accepting the new monarch, agrees.

Go back to the first monarch. On who's authority were they considered to worthy of governing?

The public are generally not asked, so whether or not the agree is not considered.

[Ljvonia]

Why should anyone have power without having merited it?

In what way is, or should, power be merited? Why does the man who possesses the ego-besetted effrontery to tell me I need him to possess power over me because the other person would be a dick deserve that power where a monarch does not?

He is judged worthy by the quality of his inheritance. The good monarch is rewarded by the population with adulation and acceptance of his childs birth as a birthright. The bad monarch is not.

The good leader is respected and revered, as is his due because of his actions. He leads the Nation well, heads the State to all our benefit, be he called King, Emperor or Duce - but when he passes, does the Nation not deserve another leader of the same quality? Is it not crucial to ensure that the nation is lead in the best maner possible? I admit: schooling one man to be the next leader has a nice touch... another approach would be to select the most gifted of the nations youth and hand them the same opportunity (something which the Hitlerites tried with their NAPOLA-schools) Many world leaders came from simple means and poor backgrounds, and yer they rose, so selecting an elite would be rather troublesome in my opinion...no, to me the only way is to ensure an equal starting point for every son and daughter of the Nation.

You should "give a shit" out of deference to his father and/or his fathers father.

Ridiculous idea. The moment the leader dies the need for a new one arises immediately - and that should be the most qualified man, a man of experience, of strength and vigour! Should the son of the deceased fit the bill he's welcome to lead for me - should he not then onto the dungheap he goes.

Why should you not rebel against a ruler who merited (somehow... which you have yet to qualify) his rule and yet turns out to be undeserving?

You mean someone who attains rule but cannot hold it? Simple: kill him.

[Wind in the Willows]

Both have their flaws.

[Castille de Italia]

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no doubt about that."

~ President George W. Bush

Anyways, both have their ups and downs. Democracy gives the people the ability for their nation succeed in based on their choices, while Fascism allows for those in power to make decisions to help their country succeed. Honestly, I don't care either way. It comes down to where and who you would be if you were in a Fascist state.

[Blasveck]

There's one thing I'd like to know from people who are against democracy and say it is failing:

How so?
Because some of the most prosperous and stable nations in the world today are democracies.
How exactly is democracy failing and/or not working?

[The USOT]

"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no doubt about that."

~ President George W. Bush

Anyways, both have their ups and downs. Democracy gives the people the ability for their nation succeed in based on their choices, while Fascism allows for those in power to make decisions to help their country succeed. Honestly, I don't care either way. It comes down to where and who you would be if you were in a Fascist state.

Fascism does not have that upside. All dictatorships historically have a WORSE ability to make descisions. Mainly because you can have 1 of 2 situations.

1) The leader dictates as much as possible: Contrary to popular beleif, this makes things take stupidly long. Its still got to go down the chain of command, with thousands of actions to be dictated constantly, not neccesarily in the order they are needed to and not enough at any given time, this being the opposite of a situation in which a constant mass of people can pass on thousands of edicts at once. Furthermore, on the lower level things are slowed down by a constant chain of approval.

2) The leader dictates as less as possible: In which case the lower party is constantly vying for the leaders approval to get even more things done (for the leader no longer dictates as much) and those who are able to get a job done quickly are replaced by those better able to pander to the leader (e.g. In Nazi Germany Schact vs Goering for control of the German economy, with Goering winning out despite not knowing a damn thing about the economy and contradictory commands eventually being sent down to the local Gau).

Note btw, if George W Bush tries to sound brilliant, its probably an indicator that there is something stupid about the statement.

[Kaito Corporation]

If the fascist government is benevolent and removes religious influences and supports personal freedom while restricting political freedoms. I'd take Fascism any day.

[Blasveck]

If the fascist government is benevolent and removes religious influences and supports personal freedom while restricting political freedoms. I'd take Fascism any day.

Good luck keeping a fascist government benevolent.

[Murray land]

If the fascist government is benevolent and removes religious influences and supports personal freedom while restricting political freedoms. I'd take Fascism any day.

I would not because a fascist government which restricts political freedoms could use there "political power" to trample the personal freedoms of the people. I will take democracy and keep my guns money and freedom.

[Kaito Corporation]

If the fascist government is benevolent and removes religious influences and supports personal freedom while restricting political freedoms. I'd take Fascism any day.

Good luck keeping a fascist government benevolent.

Then it would be like Franco's Spain where Franco just died and it became democratic after.

*shrugs*

[The New Lowlands]

Good luck keeping a fascist government benevolent.

Then it would be like Franco's Spain where Franco just died and it became democratic after.

*shrugs*

You realize that was because of the efforts of Franco's successor, Juan Carlos I, not because of a natural process?

He pretty much insisted that Spain become a democracy.

[Luveria]

If the fascist government is benevolent and removes religious influences and supports personal freedom while restricting political freedoms. I'd take Fascism any day.

Good luck keeping a fascist government separate from religion. There hasn't been one fascist movement not in bed with religion.

[Kaito Corporation]

If the fascist government is benevolent and removes religious influences and supports personal freedom while restricting political freedoms. I'd take Fascism any day.

Good luck keeping a fascist government separate from religion. There hasn't been one fascist movement not in bed with religion.

I just realized that mistake I put in.

FUDGE LIFE I am messing a whole... lot... today. Clearly I need sleep.

[Benierra]

Then it would be like Franco's Spain where Franco just died and it became democratic after.

*shrugs*

Or in the USSR where Lenin died and Stalin took power by pretending he was Lenins heir and forced his dictatorship upon Russia.
Shure there is a big diffrence between Lenin's and Franco's dictatorships but the same problem apply to most dictatorships when the leader dies without directly appointing an heir.

[The Misotheist Reich]

Democracy of any kind represents you right? So what if a majority of your representatives arent part of your party. Are they representing you then? No. You may use your argument of " its the peoples choice". But is a Democracy really representing you? If a vast majority of your nation had a very low IQ would you want them to vote, for you the minority who has a brain? Why not simplify it. Instead of just letting 300,000, 000 idiots vote against 48, 000, 000 of everyone else. Fascism advocates a government that is not affraid to take action. A government that does not have mindlessly sumbit to the idiotic request of the incompetent masses. A government that can make descisions, with no having to stop proggress because members of the other party want this or that. The government can make descision, take action. A government that will not cooperate with its self is doomed to fail. Absolute calboration caused by a one party system is the only solution. Politicans should not be spineless thralls, intoxicated by the incompetent masses. Fascism has a strong government.

[Duvniask]

A government that does not have mindlessly sumbit to the idiotic requests of the incompetent masses.

Instead, it submits to the idiotic requests of the few in power.

[Sayenka]

DemocracyFTW!

[The USOT]

Democracy of any kind represents you right? So what if a majority of your representatives arent part of your party. Are they representing you then? No. You may use your argument of " its the peoples choice". But is a Democracy really representing you? If a vast majority of your nation had a very low IQ would you want them to vote, for you the minority who has a brain? Why not simplify it. Instead of just letting 300,000, 000 idiots vote against 48, 000, 000 of everyone else. Fascism advocates a government that is not affraid to take action. A government that does not have mindlessly sumbit to the idiotic request of the incompetent masses. A government that can make descisions, with no having to stop proggress because members of the other party want this or that. The government can make descision, take action. A government that will not cooperate with its self is doomed to fail. Absolute calboration caused by a one party system is the only solution. Politicans should not be spineless thralls, intoxicated by the incompetent masses. Fascism has a strong government.

So looking at the underlined, you have a very good reason for why Fascism has always failed, and why it always will.

Seriously, your rhetoric aside do you even look up the history of fascist regimes?