Fans of Dictatorship

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Well, but one wouldn't wait till there are hordes of angst-filled teens becoming neo-Nazis before cutting off access to Nazi websites. If the rationale for shutting down TRS was because it was racist and xenophobic (and not because it fuels racist and xenophobic activities on a regular basis), then shouldn't Stormfront be blocked too, for the sake of consistency?

No not necessarily. Hardly anyone here knows about Stormfront and, save for the odd wannabe Nazi or Hitler-sympathizer, couldn't give two hoots about "teh el Jewz". The Real Singapore on the other hand, is a website more familiar to Singaporeans, and consequentially whatever content that the website proffers is generally more accessible and carries a greater impact on the general populace.

I have, in fact, taken time off my holidays to travel to numerous bookshops all around the island, whether obscure or otherwise, and I've not been able to find a single copy of JBJ's books on sale anywhere (not even the Internet). CSJ's books, I've also noticed, are only found at Kinokuniya.

Probably because The Hatchet Man of Singapore never really sold well here.

Of course; I'm not disputing that they are as entitled to make use of the defamation suit as anybody else.

However, when 11 ministers sue a prominent opposition figure and cause him to become bankrupt (and consequently, booted from Parliament as per Commonwealth law), one can't help but have his suspicions about the intent of the ones doing the suing.

Then naturally that's an entire new ball game.

I don't see how Chee's… outspokenness… is a central tenet of the democracy that he espouses, though it's a given that a democratic society would be more tolerant of such acts than an authoritarian, quasi-regime.

It is. He has always been so fond of preaching (and 'practising') the notion of free speech and free assembly that is commonplace in the United States/Europe.

Furthermore, I daresay his public image has, as of this year's GE, been redeemed (at the very least, partially).

Garnering 30%ish of the vote in Holland-Bukit Timah says otherwise. Chee Soon Juan still has a lot of work to cover if he wants to market himself as a real contender for government. Until then, I'd rather hedge my bets on the Worker's Party or the PAP.

Definitely not; I'd have to agree with you there.

Having said that, though, people should also hold the PAP to similar standards, whether it's Choo Wee Khiang's Little India social media post, or Lim Wee Kiak's hearing aid comment.

Certainly, of course. Were it up to me, such people would've been cashiered and barred from political office. But I'm not Secretary-General nor Chairman of the PAP, sad to say.

[Pulau Singapura]

Well, but one wouldn't wait till there are hordes of angst-filled teens becoming neo-Nazis before cutting off access to Nazi websites. If the rationale for shutting down TRS was because it was racist and xenophobic (and not because it fuels racist and xenophobic activities on a regular basis), then shouldn't Stormfront be blocked too, for the sake of consistency?

No not necessarily. Hardly anyone here knows about Stormfront and, save for the odd wannabe Nazi or Hitler-sympathizer, couldn't give two hoots about "teh el Jewz". The Real Singapore on the other hand, is a website more familiar to Singaporeans, and consequentially whatever content that the website proffers is generally more accessible and carries a greater impact on the general populace.

I have, in fact, taken time off my holidays to travel to numerous bookshops all around the island, whether obscure or otherwise, and I've not been able to find a single copy of JBJ's books on sale anywhere (not even the Internet). CSJ's books, I've also noticed, are only found at Kinokuniya.

Probably because The Hatchet Man of Singapore never really sold well here.

Of course; I'm not disputing that they are as entitled to make use of the defamation suit as anybody else.

However, when 11 ministers sue a prominent opposition figure and cause him to become bankrupt (and consequently, booted from Parliament as per Commonwealth law), one can't help but have his suspicions about the intent of the ones doing the suing.

Then naturally that's an entire new ball game.

I don't see how Chee's… outspokenness… is a central tenet of the democracy that he espouses, though it's a given that a democratic society would be more tolerant of such acts than an authoritarian, quasi-regime.

It is. He has always been so fond of preaching (and 'practising') the notion of free speech and free assembly that is commonplace in the United States/Europe.

Furthermore, I daresay his public image has, as of this year's GE, been redeemed (at the very least, partially).

Garnering 30%ish of the vote in Holland-Bukit Timah says otherwise. Chee Soon Juan still has a lot of work to cover if he wants to market himself as a real contender for government. Until then, I'd rather hedge my bets on the Worker's Party or the PAP.

Definitely not; I'd have to agree with you there.

Having said that, though, people should also hold the PAP to similar standards, whether it's Choo Wee Khiang's Little India social media post, or Lim Wee Kiak's hearing aid comment.

Certainly, of course. Were it up to me, such people would've been cashiered and barred from political office. But I'm not Secretary-General nor Chairman of the PAP, sad to say.

Agree with you on the last part, of course I think that political party does not matter if we're talking about ethics and attitude.

[The Draemon Provinces]

Singapore is a great example, but it's more of a cultural thing. Just let their country do their own thing with their government style, the U.S. needs to stop trying to, basically flaunt their ideas over the entire world.

Most third world countries however don't seem to do too well with democracy though, take Ceylon for example.

[The Remote Islands]

Man, where did this thread go? Fascists and far-leftists, oh my.

Not that I'm a communist, but I keep hearing people say this about human nature like centuries of capitalism somehow didn't happen or something.

People are selfish. There is no such thing as true altruism. People who volunteer and give do so because they feel good. It gives them satisfaction. If we had an economic, political or social system that fails to recognize that truth, it would inevitably fail. Again Paris Commune, Free Ukraine territory are shitty examples. We don't live in a bubble. It sucks. I know.

Just wanted to pop in to say that this is essentially a tautology. "It is because it is, because it is m8 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)"

On that note, I'd say that people who feel good from volunteering might feel that way because they're altruistic, but that might be just me.

[San Lumen]

All you fans of dictatorship you must have really liked the Empire in Star Wars and were rooting for them to win.

[Red-China]

Because it definitely has nothing to do with technology or other improvements in the police force, and also nothing to do with the fact that people have simply become more peaceful over time.

And who made the improvements in the police forces? Who made the people more peaceful over time?

A. People
B. Not who, what. In this case, technology. We now have the ability to cry about anything that happens anywhere in the world, and more people cry out against wars and stuff. It has nothing to do with the existence of dictatorships.

[Calimera II]

All you fans of dictatorship you must have really liked the Empire in Star Wars and were rooting for them to win.

''Because all dictatorships are like that.''

[Red-China]

All you fans of dictatorship you must have really liked the Empire in Star Wars and were rooting for them to win.

''Because all dictatorships are like that.''

Haven't you heard? Stalin's purge wasn't because he was paranoid, it was because all of those officers failed him for the last time.

[ErVaReAn rEpUbLiC]

When people think of a society in which there are no elections, thoughts immediately go to Soviet-style Stalinism, Chinese style Maoism, or North Korean style Juche. But how about one in which there are no elections, but there is still freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, privacy (i.e. no surveillance), and where human rights are upheld (perhaps to a greater extent than today)? There is no single dictator, and the decision-making is carried out by several government institutions (much like how democracies function today, during the transitional period after a new election). Instead of politicians you have scientists, researchers, academics, lawyers etc. doing the decision-making, with no single person having all the power. A constitution makes sure to constrain the power of the institutions and people working there, and limits the wages that they can make.

The thing is, the infrastructure for all of this already exists in developed countries. The only thing politicians really are responsible for is the decision-making, the ones to carry out and administer the policies set by those are civil workers, bureaucrats, etc. Just move the decision-making from the politicians to experts, and while you do this also further limit their power. Everything else regarding the structure of the government could be kept intact. Especially since politicians today already mostly base their policies on what experts say, except they cherry-pick among the various proposals to find one that best adheres to their ideology (but is not necessarily the best one.)

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

When people think of a society in which there are no elections, thoughts immediately go to Soviet-style Stalinism, Chinese style Maoism, or North Korean style Juche. But how about one in which there are no elections, but there is still freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, privacy (i.e. no surveillance), and where human rights are upheld (perhaps to a greater extent than today)? There is no single dictator, and the decision-making is carried out by several government institutions (much like how democracies function today, during the transitional period after a new election). Instead of politicians you have scientists, researchers, academics, lawyers etc. doing the decision-making, with no single person having all the power. A constitution makes sure to constrain the power of the institutions and people working there, and limits the wages that they can make.

The thing is, the infrastructure for all of this already exists in developed countries. The only thing politicians really are responsible for is the decision-making, the ones to carry out and administer the policies set by those are civil workers, bureaucrats, etc. Just move the decision-making from the politicians to experts, and while you do this also further limit their power. Everything else regarding the structure of the government could be kept intact. Especially since politicians today already mostly base their policies on what experts say, except they cherry-pick among the various proposals to find one that best adheres to their ideology (but is not necessarily the best one.)

Speaking as a scientist-in-training, I got into science to do science, not be a bureaucrat or a politician. I would imagine most scientists feel similarly - otherwise they would be in politics, not working as researchers.

Besides, given the state of a lot of university departments I wouldn't want us scientists anywhere near the levers of real power.

[ErVaReAn rEpUbLiC]

When people think of a society in which there are no elections, thoughts immediately go to Soviet-style Stalinism, Chinese style Maoism, or North Korean style Juche. But how about one in which there are no elections, but there is still freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, privacy (i.e. no surveillance), and where human rights are upheld (perhaps to a greater extent than today)? There is no single dictator, and the decision-making is carried out by several government institutions (much like how democracies function today, during the transitional period after a new election). Instead of politicians you have scientists, researchers, academics, lawyers etc. doing the decision-making, with no single person having all the power. A constitution makes sure to constrain the power of the institutions and people working there, and limits the wages that they can make.

The thing is, the infrastructure for all of this already exists in developed countries. The only thing politicians really are responsible for is the decision-making, the ones to carry out and administer the policies set by those are civil workers, bureaucrats, etc. Just move the decision-making from the politicians to experts, and while you do this also further limit their power. Everything else regarding the structure of the government could be kept intact. Especially since politicians today already mostly base their policies on what experts say, except they cherry-pick among the various proposals to find one that best adheres to their ideology (but is not necessarily the best one.)

Speaking as a scientist-in-training, I got into science to do science, not be a bureaucrat or a politician. I would imagine most scientists feel similarly - otherwise they would be in politics, not working as researchers.

Besides, given the state of a lot of university departments I wouldn't want us scientists anywhere near the levers of real power.

Obviously they don't want to, given how broken the political system is, and politics in general. The social environment of the government needs to change to be more similar to the social environment in a scientific institution. And of course, it is completely up to each scientists/academic/etc. whether they want to enter the government body responsible for the decision-making.

[Singaporean Transhumans]

All you fans of dictatorship you must have really liked the Empire in Star Wars and were rooting for them to win.

Yeah, but that's just the general impression left by the amount of badassery it outputs.

You see, rabid anti-commies can like Soviet music and the sort.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

When people think of a society in which there are no elections, thoughts immediately go to Soviet-style Stalinism, Chinese style Maoism, or North Korean style Juche. But how about one in which there are no elections, but there is still freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, privacy (i.e. no surveillance), and where human rights are upheld (perhaps to a greater extent than today)? There is no single dictator, and the decision-making is carried out by several government institutions (much like how democracies function today, during the transitional period after a new election). Instead of politicians you have scientists, researchers, academics, lawyers etc. doing the decision-making, with no single person having all the power. A constitution makes sure to constrain the power of the institutions and people working there, and limits the wages that they can make.

The thing is, the infrastructure for all of this already exists in developed countries. The only thing politicians really are responsible for is the decision-making, the ones to carry out and administer the policies set by those are civil workers, bureaucrats, etc. Just move the decision-making from the politicians to experts, and while you do this also further limit their power. Everything else regarding the structure of the government could be kept intact. Especially since politicians today already mostly base their policies on what experts say, except they cherry-pick among the various proposals to find one that best adheres to their ideology (but is not necessarily the best one.)

Speaking as a scientist-in-training, I got into science to do science, not be a bureaucrat or a politician. I would imagine most scientists feel similarly - otherwise they would be in politics, not working as researchers.

Besides, given the state of a lot of university departments I wouldn't want us scientists anywhere near the levers of real power.

I don't understand why you don't want the people that actually have knowledge to be in charge of things.

[Genivaria]

Speaking as a scientist-in-training, I got into science to do science, not be a bureaucrat or a politician. I would imagine most scientists feel similarly - otherwise they would be in politics, not working as researchers.

Besides, given the state of a lot of university departments I wouldn't want us scientists anywhere near the levers of real power.

I don't understand why you don't want the people that actually have knowledge to be in charge of things.

I do want my representatives to be well educated yes, but that doesn't mean that they absolutely have to have a masters degree in a hard science.

I'd rather my representatives simply be smart enough to listen to their scientific advisors.

[Frank Zipper]

Hardly anyone here knows about Stormfront.

What in holy fuck makes you think that?

[Calimera II]

When people think of a society in which there are no elections, thoughts immediately go to Soviet-style Stalinism, Chinese style Maoism, or North Korean style Juche. But how about one in which there are no elections, but there is still freedom of speech, conscience, assembly, privacy (i.e. no surveillance), and where human rights are upheld (perhaps to a greater extent than today)? There is no single dictator, and the decision-making is carried out by several government institutions (much like how democracies function today, during the transitional period after a new election). Instead of politicians you have scientists, researchers, academics, lawyers etc. doing the decision-making, with no single person having all the power. A constitution makes sure to constrain the power of the institutions and people working there, and limits the wages that they can make.

The thing is, the infrastructure for all of this already exists in developed countries. The only thing politicians really are responsible for is the decision-making, the ones to carry out and administer the policies set by those are civil workers, bureaucrats, etc. Just move the decision-making from the politicians to experts, and while you do this also further limit their power. Everything else regarding the structure of the government could be kept intact. Especially since politicians today already mostly base their policies on what experts say, except they cherry-pick among the various proposals to find one that best adheres to their ideology (but is not necessarily the best one.)

Speaking as a scientist-in-training, I got into science to do science, not be a bureaucrat or a politician. I would imagine most scientists feel similarly - otherwise they would be in politics, not working as researchers.

Besides, given the state of a lot of university departments I wouldn't want us scientists anywhere near the levers of real power.

I think it just depends on the person.

[ErVaReAn rEpUbLiC]

I don't understand why you don't want the people that actually have knowledge to be in charge of things.

I do want my representatives to be well educated yes, but that doesn't mean that they absolutely have to have a masters degree in a hard science.

I'd rather my representatives simply be smart enough to listen to their scientific advisors.

Would it not be better to just have the advisors run things directly, then? That would free up labor resources, and politicians could be employed where they actually belong: stand-up comedy.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Obviously they don't want to, given how broken the political system is, and politics in general. The social environment of the government needs to change to be more similar to the social environment in a scientific institution. And of course, it is completely up to each scientists/academic/etc. whether they want to enter the government body responsible for the decision-making.

The political system really doesn't enter into it. Running government is a full time job - you can't be both a government administrator/legislator and a scientist at the same time, since there are physically not enough hours in the day to do both jobs.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

I don't understand why you don't want the people that actually have knowledge to be in charge of things.

Because the people that 'have knowledge' don't want to be in charge?

[Novus America]

I do want my representatives to be well educated yes, but that doesn't mean that they absolutely have to have a masters degree in a hard science.

I'd rather my representatives simply be smart enough to listen to their scientific advisors.

Would it not be better to just have the advisors run things directly, then? That would free up labor resources, and politicians could be employed where they actually belong: stand-up comedy.

No. Because they are specialists. Leaders need a more general skill set. You need a generalist to combine inputs from specialists into a general whole product.

And scientists often make poor leaders due to their specialization and way of thinking. Humans are unpredictable and often illogical. Leadership is very different than the physical scientists.

[Geilinor]

I do want my representatives to be well educated yes, but that doesn't mean that they absolutely have to have a masters degree in a hard science.

I'd rather my representatives simply be smart enough to listen to their scientific advisors.

Would it not be better to just have the advisors run things directly, then? That would free up labor resources, and politicians could be employed where they actually belong: stand-up comedy.

The advisors don't have time to do research and run things at the same time.

[Novus America]

Speaking as a scientist-in-training, I got into science to do science, not be a bureaucrat or a politician. I would imagine most scientists feel similarly - otherwise they would be in politics, not working as researchers.

Besides, given the state of a lot of university departments I wouldn't want us scientists anywhere near the levers of real power.

I don't understand why you don't want the people that actually have knowledge to be in charge of things.

Vote for knowledgeable people then. Who judges knowledge? And knowledge of what? And there is a different between specialized and generalized knowledge.

[The Prosperous Peoples]

Seeing that this entire post has likely been flooded with people saying how Dictatorships are terrible, and I'm not even going to bother to check, I'm just gonna post a comment. I agree with the author of this forum, Dictatorships are great. If one person is in absolute control, and actually knows what they're doing instead of just being their for some monetary purpose, I feel that it's better than democracy could ever hope to be. Sure, dictatorships in the past have had their problems, but that's simply due to the method of choosing leaders. If we converted to a system sort of like what China has where people take a test to determine their place in society, but instead limit it to the place of dictatorship, we could essentially choose the best possible leader from among the entirety of the nation according to what we believe our country needs. And, with absolute power, they would be able to solve any issue that people refuse to move on for the stupidest reasons. One example of such reason is an Issue I've seen multiple times in this game: Compulsory Organ Donation. It pits the idea of the dead giving up their organs to help those who live up against a man who's only argument against it is "It's my body! I do what I want with it!" A dictator would be able to help chose over that option without civil rights activists freaking out. What the world needs is a dictatorship, but not just any dictatorship, as there are some corrupt examples, but a moral one, to do what is best for their people, not their pockets. In short: Dictatorships are good when they're moral, and that's what the world needs.

(Side Note: No, I do not mean the entire world should be run as my nation has been, but I do mean it should closely resemble it. My nation is simply my idea of paradise)

[Seraven]

Thailand's is a bit of interesting case. It has democracy but it is increasingly unstable with both political powers fought for leadership, and it seems that the military is the only solution.

[Geilinor]

Thailand's is a bit of interesting case. It has democracy but it is increasingly unstable with both political powers fought for leadership, and it seems that the military is the only solution.

It looks like the Thai military is able to keep the instability in check but having democracy keep getting overthrown isn't a good sign for the system.