Philosophy Now Forum

My answer is yes. If the citizens behave the way the dictator would like them to, then it may happen.

PhilX

philosopher wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:49 am I don't really want a dictatorship or torturing nazis and send them to death camps or opening fire against demonstrations. It's just that I fear for the welfare state, and I want to protect the Ethics using brute force. Seems like I can't without ruining both.

That is correct. Liberal ideals are contrary to the use of force against dissenters.
The only permissible violent action is self-defense against violent attack, which means the enemy must make the first move.
You can win a political victory only through a moral victory: by convincing the majority of people that your way is the better way.
And you can never keep a political victory for long, because not everyone will be satisfied, no matter what you do, and the dissatisfied are easily roused, easily swayed by rhetoric, however empty.
And you will always be at a disadvantage, because the repressive faction is never hindered by the constraints of truth or civility.

There are left-leaning dictatorships. But if I were strictly using the definition of 'liberal' to mean what it is suppose to, no.

There is no reason why there couldn't be, but unfortunately humans like their dictators brutal and two-dimensional.

A glorious new liberal dictatorship shall be ushered in as extreme moderates take control!

The new edict is thus:

Thou shalt not bomb things unless working in demolition, fireworks or in other agreed scenarios.

Thou shalt not steal, kill or generally hassle or cynically exploit others. There are exceptions, yes, so please use your good judgement here.

Thou shalt not be a killjoy and interfere unduly with people harmlessly playing music, smoking, walking dogs off leash, making drunken fools of themselves and suchlike - simply being human.

If said music, smoking, walking dogs off leash or drunken foolishness interferes with you and your circle's wellbeing as might be defined by a "reasonable person" then thou may interfere if thou wishes, but thou does not have to.

Thou shalt mind thy own business and especially not politically or socially interfere with any matter even remotely concerning other people's genitalia and their activities, attributes or absences.

Thou shalt, for the most part, keep thy genitalia and its concerns and devices to thyself, with obvious exceptions.

Thou shalt generally try not to be nasty or cruel to other living things.

~~~~~

If thoust breaketh these demands, this would greatly displease the Great Liberal Dictator, and thusly an email expressing her dismay as such shall be sent to your address. (Please check your spam folder). Let this be a lesson to you, and it is hoped that more cooperation and community spirit shall be displayed in the future.

Well, we've seen what democracy can lead to...


World wars accomplished: 1


World wars accomplished: TBD

QuantumT wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:08 am Well, we've seen what democracy can lead to...

You should possibly examine what had been done to the process and infrastructure of each nominally democratic system before these end results. All the same, democracy can give rise to conservatives, extreme conservatives, fascists, emperors and theocrats, as well as economic dictators.
But none of these dictators are, or can be liberal.

Just remember that Jonestown was the sweetheart of liberals -- including California's present governor.

Stripped of the emperor’s clothes by constitution and karma, the nakedly revealed, petty tyrant declares:

Because I Am you must obey!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 5clY5JWE54

If liberals are good, and benevolence is good, then how can a benevolent dictatorship be run by bad old conservatives?

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:14 am If liberals are good,

Where did you get that valuation?
Liberal means leaving people free, instead of forcing them to believe or obey or act according to some prescribed notion of propriety.
That's neither good nor bad; it's just what the word means.
Conservative means preserving something - a culture, a way of life, a value system or a power structure; resisting change.
That's neither good nor bad; it's just what the word means.

and benevolence is good,

Obviously. That is what the word means.

then how can a benevolent dictatorship be run by bad old conservatives?

It can't. In the real world, no dictatorship is benevolent.
The very process of acquiring dictatorial power entails ruthless ambition, deceit and corruption, force and threat of force.
If such a thing did exist, it would be a kind of hereditary patriarchy - monarchy, chiefdom or theocracy - and it would work for the benefit of all, so long as all the people had the same values, moral compass and desires. As soon as there was dissent, some form of punishment would have to be devised, and the benevolence would give way to the dictatorial nature of the governance. With every protest, the dictatorial response would grow at the expense of its benevolence. If there were various and protracted opposition, the conservative ruler would, indeed, become both old and bad.
or dead by assassination

Dictatorships can do conservative and liberal things. Lee Kuan Yew was called the benevolent dictator of Singapore and he made the good life possible for his subjects by not conservatively clinging to the old agrarian ways.

A dictatorship "doing liberal things" is a dictatorship divesting itself of power.

It doesn't make sense. How do you force people to be free?

How? Look at Singapore.

Rags to riches.

When you can do what you say you’re going to do, then you’re free.

Same goes for a society.

You are confusing 'economically progressive' with 'liberal'.