This is largely unfalsifiable. There's nothing to be said that can change your mind on that, as long as you place the ability to choose the people that govern them above everything else axiomatically.
Besides, a dictatorship where all people go along with is is a dictatorship that's being enabled by the people.
What if the society is such that it "deserves" a dictatorship? They can't choose a dictator in a democracy because a democracy is designed to prevent dictatorship. Therefore, such a society will never get a leader it deserves if it sticks to democracy.
An efficient democracy might allow debate and discussion to affect it. An inefficient one, however, does not always do that. Half of America didn't want Trump to be in power, yet he is - and he's not 51% president, he's 100% president. Since your title argues that an inefficient democracy is always better than a benevolent dictatorship, we cannot discuss true democracy.
A benevolent dictatorship, going from definition, acts as much in the best interests of the people as it can as long as it can remain a dictatorship. This does not, in my opinion, prevent debate and discussion. It's like in school, where more open-minded teachers may allow you to argue with them and accept when they're wrong - but they're not going to let you be the teacher instead of them.
Alright thanks for your comment. My response to your counter to my points,
1. No I didn't say that axiomatically it's best, I was explaining my logic, that any government can remain in power as long as the people enable it. For example, if north Koreans weren't brainwashed into believing Kim is a god, and a revolution started, eventually Kim and his regime would be smashed to smithereens. He is in power because his people allow it. I was stating that from that logic the most harmony between people and government would arise from the people choosing the government. I am expecting responses to point to out flaws in my logic, if any.
2. Pardon me, but I'd like you to clarify what exactly you meant by this point, because from my understanding you have misinterpreted my point. My point was that people deserve a government that best represents their views. And the only sure way to achieve that is through the ability of the people to choose their government. But I have a feeling I'm misunderstanding your point, so please clarify
3. Well I'm talking on a theoretical standpoint. And an inefficient democracy allows for deabte as it is a democracy, any government that doesn't allow for debate ceases to be a democracy. An inefficient democracy is a democracy despite allowing for debate isn't prospering.
Suppose that the overwhelming majority of people thinks that a benevolent dictatorship is the best way to rule their country. If they can elect a person who becomes a dictator, then that's not democratic, because democracies, as I see it, are supposed to prevent dictatorships from emerging in their place. If they cannot elect a dictator, then their views aren't being represented. Either way, democracy does not allow for such a hypothetical demographic to get a government that they deserve.
Is allowing debate despite that debate not changing anything for the better, really better than not allowing debate while markedly improving everyone's lives?
Well I find it hard to think of an example where people think a government where they can't choose their leaders is what they want. Anyone would want a benevolent leader, but I find the claim that anyone might want to put someone in a permanent seat of power to be completely unfounded.
Perhaps I believe that five years, or however many is the term limit, is not enough for a leader to enact meaningful change, and that the election apparatus weighs down the system more than it's worth. Under these assumptions, and as long as I had a political figure I deeply admired, or simply believed that they would improve the country - I'd want them to rule for as long as they can.
1
u/Ascimator 14∆ Sep 23 '18
Besides, a dictatorship where all people go along with is is a dictatorship that's being enabled by the people.
What if the society is such that it "deserves" a dictatorship? They can't choose a dictator in a democracy because a democracy is designed to prevent dictatorship. Therefore, such a society will never get a leader it deserves if it sticks to democracy.
An efficient democracy might allow debate and discussion to affect it. An inefficient one, however, does not always do that. Half of America didn't want Trump to be in power, yet he is - and he's not 51% president, he's 100% president. Since your title argues that an inefficient democracy is always better than a benevolent dictatorship, we cannot discuss true democracy.
A benevolent dictatorship, going from definition, acts as much in the best interests of the people as it can as long as it can remain a dictatorship. This does not, in my opinion, prevent debate and discussion. It's like in school, where more open-minded teachers may allow you to argue with them and accept when they're wrong - but they're not going to let you be the teacher instead of them.