Describe a world with a dictatorial regime in which you would be willing to live on your own. What criteria, what structure and goals should it have, and what features should it have?

By Category :

8 Answers

  1. The most difficult part of answering this question is to describe a situation that could at least be roughly implemented in practice, and not an absolute utopia.

    Most of the concepts proposed on this topic suffer precisely from the fact that they are fundamentally unrealizable… I will try.

    First, as Golding rightly showed in Lord of the Flies, the lack of parental control turns most children into animals. That is to say, the lack of a rigid demanding government will turn into animals most �population (not you, You are a minority, You will not turn, I know…) �Derive the brackets that Golding had in mind, above all, hard and demanding internal power, power �God and conscience over the person and the remainder will receive the need for external dictatorial power for most (not for you, I told you…)

    Secondly, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, it is the total dictatorial power that contributes to its maximum personal selflessness. The famous case of Peter I sending only two boxes of personal luggage from Holland (one of which is tools), while the members of his retinue had only 12 boxes of silverware – from the same series as Stalin's personal inheritance in the form of felt boots and a military jacket. The one who controls everything, does not abuse and does not steal-temporary workers and those who are attached steal.�

    Third, as numerous sociological studies have shown, inequality contributes as much as possible to social unrest among the people:� social and material. The greater the gap between the “rich” and the “poor”, the more heterogeneous the population in its social and financial situation – the more unstable the society.�

    Fourth, the second key destabilizing factor in society is ethnic and cultural diversity. The more homogeneous a society is in terms of its ethnic and national composition, and the fewer cultural conflicts it has (which, unlike official and legal conflicts, are fundamentally unavoidable), the calmer and more comfortable it is. The success of the so – called “Scandinavian paradise” – Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden-which occupies the top lines of all social ratings is determined precisely by the highest material equality and ethno-cultural uniformity (and that is why Sweden is not in these ratings for long).�

    Let's summarize.

    Bude I would have been under the rule of a dictator, I would prefer to be part of the most homogeneous ethnic and cultural composition of society, equal in financial position (ravnonogie as Denmark, or ravnomernoe like Cuba or North Korea), in which the question of the struggle of an ordinary member of society for survival �– either in the form of guaranteed income (benefits) or extremely cheap internal market for goods and services.

    And the main function of the leader in such a society is the function of an independent and equal shepherd, a guarantor of the rights to life and security.�

    If you want to be a sheep, then you have a shepherd whose wolves don't even come close to the flock, whose dogs guard it, and don't tear it for dinner, and the sheep are full and satisfied…)

  2. It's funny, but only a strong government can make people live.. correct enough.

    The more freedom a person has ( meaning real, not on paper) the more opportunities he has to be a bastard.

    But… You know, I'd rather stay in a society where a person remains a person and decides for himself what to be.

    Dictation is good in theory… in practice, this is a person's life as in the army)) only in the endless army and without days off.

  3. Libya under Gaddafi. I don't see any point in describing the details, so you can Google it. But you can tell by the size of it:
    – oil was nationalized;
    – the population tripled during his rule;
    – a Libyan woman was paid 7,000 dollars for the birth of a child;
    – Libya had no external debts.

  4. The Kingdom of God with the Dictates of Truth, righteousness, and Universal Law in general.
    Build? Theocracy.
    Goals? Universal Harmony and bliss.
    Criteria? All the people around you are honest, modest, truthful, loving, simple-minded, pure.
    To agree to any other dictate without permission, in my opinion, symbolically means one thing-I will go anywhere as long as I get good food on the way. This is low, again for my taste.

  5. there is direct democracy, when all issues are resolved at a gathering / referendum, in this case, back and forth.�

    but in a large state, a person is always under a dictatorship, even if it is a dictatorship of formal democracy. there is a banal restriction of the freedom of smokers in America/Europe, maybe there were referendums on these issues? No, imperatively democratically elected authorities have passed laws and regulations(as has the pension reform).

  6. I don't like a dictatorship (I distinguish it from a monarchy), so unless I was left with no choice. Any dictatorial regimes in the history of mankind have been either situational dictatorships (for the sake of personal power, for the sake of repelling an attack during an invasion), or “degradation” dictatorships (society degrades, the government fails to manage and passes to a dictatorial form, relying on the dictatorship), or anti-development dictatorships (society is forced to change, but the political and economic ruling class is against changes and fixes a certain state of society by the dictatorship, blocking changes), or “development” dictatorships (the development of society is too rapid, new progressive social relations are being formed, but the resistance of the old one is too strong and a dictatorship is emerging based on new strata of society). In fact, only the “dictatorship of development” it suits me.

    The system is either feudal – estate (early type with overcoming the collapse and chaos of the former slave-owning order), or socialist (I can't stand capitalism and slavery). Again, if I was left with no choice, because I will not choose a dictatorship voluntarily.

    Features: religious monotheism and / or religious tolerance, no aggressive external militarism, a fairly large sovereign state (I don't want to live under the occupation of the country by a foreign state).

    The goals of the society are harmonious development and overcoming the problems that arise in society.

    Another such question – you can answer in the comments to this post: a society that historically existed on Earth (back in the past)is assumed or is the society in another world/on another planet?

  7. Good question! But who should I be: a dictator or an ordinary person living in a country with a dictatorial regime? I'd rather be that dictator.
    So, there is a head of state, called either the president, or something else, that is, I myself. There is a government made up of smart and decent people. There is no Parliament. The word “deputy” is forgotten. The benefits of these deputies are like milk from a goat, and they row like an excavator.
    Everyone has what they deserve.
    Scientists, inventors – all conditions, all benefits. After all, there is still a lot to invent and create. But to do serious work, not some stupid research.
    In the army-voluntarily, not forcibly (well, almost). Now, if a person is not a warrior in any way, and it will be much more useful in another place, why should he join the army? However, all sorts of idlers are still yes, maybe the army will make people out of them. But teach what can really be useful. In war or similar conditions, a marching step will not help much. And do not paint the grass, do not wear round and roll square.
    At work, do exactly the work, and not some garbage. Less bureaucracy and reporting. A whole army of accountants and office workers is not needed. “One with a bipod, seven with a spoon” is unacceptable.
    And don't worry about losing your job, they'll always find it for you. What, isn't there a job? Yes, its nemeryano!
    All sorts of checks – only if it was stated about some kind of disgrace, and if there is really a need. And to show up as if to your home, rummage through papers, interfere with the normal course of work, interrupt people from their work for nothing, fool the sra…, sorry, head-it is forbidden.
    Sort through and use all the garbage, clean the water, air. Cut down only dry trees, and live ones-only in exceptional cases.
    Why go to jail for any crime? To prison – only those who are dangerous to society. For example, bribe takers are not dangerous, so for them – forced labor, for food. And you will have to work for a long time (well, depending on the size of the bribe received). The death penalty is applied to murderers, but only if there can be no doubt that this particular set of molecules is the killer. After all, a person can take on someone else's guilt, unsuccessfully appear at the scene of a crime, pick up a murder weapon and leave fingerprints on it, be a double of the criminal.
    Introduce responsibility for rudeness. For example, 1 crooked word is a day of forced labor.
    Produce and show good, useful films and programs, and not just any nonsense, mochilovo, porn.
    If the money is not enough, at least print it, and not constantly take out loans. And how will we return it? And it is forbidden to even think about any inflation. Sooner or later, everything will settle down and fall into place.

  8. Yes, it is not so different from the existing world..
    1. No need to survive. Let my basic needs be met by the state/tsar/corporations or whatever, but I should not make any effort beyond the minimum possible.
    2. Procreation is a privilege, not a universal right.
    3. The level of development – as it is now in the world. The progress rate is the same. How it will be implemented is not my concern)
    4. Euthanasia and the death penalty.
    The formation and goals should be such that I am not forced to do anything.

    It seems simple, but like utopia pohlesche many.

Leave a Reply

Categories