14 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyThat's people wanting to murder - not opposition. You said all laws were to suppress opposition.
Of course it is, you are supressing people from wanting to murder. I think the distinction is that everyone favors supressing opposition as long as that opposition that they are supressing is harming others.
Wanting to murder isn't opposition.
Now you could say that all laws removed a bit of freedom and I'd agree with you, but I'd disagree that this is inherrently evil in all cases - such as murder. We agree that murder is wrong and it's ok to supress your freedom to murder others.
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyIf a dictator is at the helm he has absolute control. The question of the thread is if such a person can be benevolent...
Lets cut to the chase, the state has absolute control regardless of whether or not a dictator is at the helm. The issue here is, is it better to have centralized control or shared control?
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyyou aren't suppressing people from wanting to murder as you can't control what people think or want to do. You are simply making murder illegal with sever consequences. 'Supressing opposition' is used when referring to 'political opposition' which a dictator will always want to supress--while other forms of government encourage oppostion. Opposition does not refer to 'people that want to break the law'...
Of course it is, you are supressing people from wanting to murder. I think the distinction is that everyone favors supressing opposition as long as that opposition that they are supressing is harming others.
14 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenPerhaps there will be some that are more benevolent than others. However, considering the human condition no one could be 100% benevolent 100% of the time unless they were God. What then become concerning is if you have someone in power that you consider benevolent, who will take their place? You may get lucky once or twice but more than that is just pushing your luck.
If a dictator is at the helm he has absolute control. The question of the thread is if such a person can be benevolent...
14 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenI see, so we are only talking about policial opposition. So if someone is a dictator, must such policial opposition be supressed in a dictatorship? I think it possible to allow voices of opposition and still be a dictator. The two are not mutually exclusive although pretty unlikely.
you aren't suppressing people from wanting to murder as you can't control what people think or want to do. You are simply making murder illegal with sever consequences. 'Supressing opposition' is used when referring to 'political opposition' which a dictator will always want to supress--while other forms of government encourage oppostion. Opposition does not refer to 'people that want to break the law'...
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by whodeyGod 100% benevolent? I sure hope you're not talking about the christian god! 😀
Perhaps there will be some that are more benevolent than others. However, considering the human condition no one could be 100% benevolent 100% of the time unless they were God. What then become concerning is if you have someone in power that you consider benevolent, who will take their place? You may get lucky once or twice but more than that is just pushing your luck.