[Golden Legacy]

Nearly two and a half centuries of a monarchy have come to an end in Nepal. Royal rule will be abolished in favour the nation becoming the world's newest republic.

http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/7424302.stm

[Ravenblade]

Interesting stuff - the only thing that worries me is that they're Maoists. But then Nepal is too small to be a threat really I guess.

Good for them. Another win for democracy.

Not that I believe in it.

[Eugine]

What do you believe in then Raven?

Anyway, congrats Nepal.

[Ravenblade]

I believe in Liberal Dictatorships.

Not that we've ever had one. But in theory, it would be better than democracy. More efficient, and a greater force for good, less tied to corporations and to winning over voters based on the skin colour/gender/political tricks of its representatives.

[Eugine]

And what is liberal dictatorships?

[Ravenblade]

Call it, a dictatorship that did its utmost to help the people of its country without having to worry about hanging onto power. They people who run it can be voted by other members of the government, but not by the people. The people, by and large, are too stupid to be given a vote. Look at the West...

Anyways, I guess Nepal will be heading our way in ideology now. Has it become an out and out democracy?

[Eugine]

And what country is the best example of liberal dicatorship?

[Ravenblade]

Well, obviously, cos its me talking, I'd say China. It isnt as liberal as we are, but its the nearest dictatorship to us.

They call it Socialist Democracy.

[Ironsight]

I'm probably missing something, but how can it be for the people if they can't decide on who's in charge?

[Eugine]

Oh. I think a country needs to be between. Too much democracy isn't good, and so is too much dictatorship.

[Ravenblade]

DarkSword, on May 28 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

I'm probably missing something, but how can it be for the people if they can't decide on who's in charge?

You mean Nepal or my shameless off topic references to liberal dictatorships?

If the latter, then I would say look at China once again. The CCP could be overthrown if the Chinese people wanted, but haven't been cos they're doing a good job.

[Eugine]

So Raven, you like how my communist neighbour Cuba government works?

[Ravenblade]

Gotta be honest, I dont know anything about Cuba.

Apart from that its Communist. Is it similar?

For that matter, is Nepal now Communist?

[Eugine]

Anyway, I should go read the article GL posted now -__-

And I dunno myself xP Raven. I think they're similar to China. They do massively support gay rights though (I don't think China do lolz).

[Ironsight]

All I know about Cuba is that you can't have cell phones, and you only earn about 3USD per week on average.

[Eugine]

You can have cellphones, and you earn $5 actually. People don't need money there since everything is free.
Free food. Free housing. Free education. Free electricity. Free everything.

[Ironsight]

Well, now you can have cell phones. And having everything free isn't always good.

[Eugine]

Well, people there don't die there cuz they can't afford a heart surgery. And they don't end up on the streets cuz they can't pay their mortgage ^_~
Neither do anyone end up in huge debt or don't even go to college cuz they can't afford it...

[Ironsight]

Yes but, Eugine, why do you're parent's go to work?

[Eugine]

To earn the greenz.

Hey, I rather Cuba be a democratic country, but um, it's not as bad as the US media protrays it.
Ask Michael Moore ^-^

lolz, actually, Cuba is doing reaaallly well despite being embargoed by the US.

[Ironsight]

Exactly Eugine, to earn money. But if everythin is free, then why go to work? Nothing gets done without an incentive.

Yeah, and while I'm listnening to that douche, why don't I have sex with a guy, burn down my house, and go on a suicidal rampage?

[Eugine]

I dunno, but if you don't go to work, the government wouldn't provide the free services to you?

[Ironsight]

Why would anybody bother filling out the paperwork?

[Eugine]

I don't know >_<
The system works in Cuba pretty well anyway >_<

[Ironsight]

Yeah well, I like being here in America. I could care less about what goes on in Cuba as long as it doesn't involve missles.

[Eugine]

lol, well the US government cares a lot about what's going on in Cuba.

[Ironsight]

Too bad they don't seem to care about what goes on in America itself.

[Eugine]

So, about that Nepal...

[Gio]

Somebody explain to me what a maoist is plz. It is a religion isn't it?

Also I am glad democracy has another win.

@raven
I agree that communism is the best form of government in theory, but not when actually practiced.

[Ravenblade]

Who said anything about Communism? China isnt Communist XD

Communism isnt the same as liberal autocracy, which is what I was suggesting.

[Eugine]

Um, what's the difference? -__-

[Ravenblade]

Well for one thing, Communism isn't liberal <.< It dictates ideology and the way you live your life.

[Ironsight]

Yeah, that's what we have Democrats for.

[Gio]

Ravenblade, on May 30 2008, 06:16 AM, said:

Well for one thing, Communism isn't liberal <.< It dictates ideology and the way you live your life.

So basically the governments does everything for them, they just have to work.......that reminds of democrats which just happen to be....liberal :(

[Nyktos]

Communism isn't a form of government.

[Ravenblade]

Gio, on May 30 2008, 07:50 PM, said:

So basically the governments does everything for them, they just have to work.......that reminds of democrats which just happen to be....liberal :(

Well then you're on the right lines - except that this would be an autocracy. Which is why its different - im not proposing any new theories here, I'm combining two that have never been combined.

EDIT - Nyktos, very observant. But you knew what we meant right? So really you're just debating semantics.

I keep referring to autocracies anyway - thats the main point.

[Gio]

Nyktos, on May 30 2008, 04:06 PM, said:

Communism isn't a form of government.

yep I knows that. It was formed by Mr. Carl Marx. He hate capitalism which is why he created communism and those two things happen to be two different kinds of economies.

@Raven
explain to me what you mean by autocracy, because the only definition I could find said that it was similar to a dictatorship but that it wasn't exactly the same. It said that the ruler was self appointed and could be turned on by the military at any moment. That just doesn't tell me a lot.

[Eugine]

Um, what are we talking about again? -__-

[Nyktos]

Ravenblade, on May 30 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

EDIT - Nyktos, very observant. But you knew what we meant right? So really you're just debating semantics.

I keep referring to autocracies anyway - thats the main point.

I was replying to your "communism and liberal autocracy aren't the same thing", which they aren't, but they aren't mutually exclusive either. That was my point.

[Ravenblade]

@Nyktos: Fair enough.

@Gio: Yes, usually self appointed - but they would have to be cos it would defeat the point to elect someone to stay in power forever. I would imagine this would work best if someone simply took power during some sort of disaster and then just held it.

Perhaps the better term would be an oligarchy? But then, my understanding of those is that they operate beneath a figurehead, which wouldn't be necessary for this to work. But anyways, yeah, someone who becomes the leader and stays there. In an ideal world, this leader would be concerned with the fate of the nation and would work to better peoples lives (or risk being overthrown). Said ruler would not have to worry about winning votes, and would not have to adopt stupid, backward policies in order to appease the generally not so well educated masses of people.

The ideal solutions to the political problem, are dictatorships - they develop faster than democracies and are less restricted by the collective ignorance of their people. However, they are very susceptible to corruption and misuse of power.

As I detailed earlier, this would be very difficult in my equation because the system of government would dictate that the leader would be 'elected' from a small group of higher governmental officials, who would choose him based on his leadership skills. He wouldn't have to be the most appealing candidate, he would just have to be the best one.

Democracies are won by those with the most appeal, and we are fortunate if the same person is also the most qualified.

The part about it being liberal is simply another restraint on the government to keep it from totalitarianism.

It is of course possible that the entire government could be corrupt, but you would think that this would quickly become apparent and that the ensuing outcry would put paid to it.