Sign In
Register
Help
Add Reply
QUOTE (Slade @ Jan 28 2005, 09:44 AM)
The problem is that there's nothing to stop future dictators from imposing tyranny.
Supes, your argument boils down to this: "Pick the triumverate dictatorship, because we're with you on the issues! Those crazy SlaLecHofJMLaughs haven't even said what they are going to do!" Give us a good reason to support the form of government before you go around saying what your government will do. Can we keep on the subject at hand for two seconds?
Supes, your argument boils down to this: "Pick the triumverate dictatorship, because we're with you on the issues! Those crazy SlaLecHofJMLaughs haven't even said what they are going to do!" Give us a good reason to support the form of government before you go around saying what your government will do. Can we keep on the subject at hand for two seconds?
To the first point. You are completely correct Slade, and you'll also should note that this is exactly what I outlined when I first pitched by stance as a dictator. I am well aware of the danger associate with future rulers misusing their power. In fact, I believe I pretty much said that this is what would inevitably happen. What I'm stating is that it will not be the case while I'm in control. I and my collegues will do all that we can to ensure that when power is handed over it is handed to individuals of like minds to ourselves. In all reality, we would be handing over to individuals such as SlaLecHofJMLaughs. However, I am not so naieve to assume that such passing of the baton, so to speak, would always lead to the correct people being in place in the future. History simply does not bare out this idea. But it does not mean that a democratic approach is going to be any more successful. In fact I believe it will lead to the usurping of control and a degredation in the basic services we're all looking to provide much more rapidly. Look at the democracies we currently have. These are the thins that Hoffman is so often raging against for the inequities that they promote. It's almost impossible to get anything of any substance (except for going to wars) because of the continued fight to stay in power and maintaining the popularity vote with the people.
As to the second point. Well I believe I've explained this earlier and also in this little mini rant. I simply believe that the Triumvirate I've proposed and the people I have called into it will work for the betterment of all. There is no need to squabble for power and constantly look over ones shoulder at the opposing party. There isn't one. We can concentrate on making sure that we are not just coming up with ways to improve the lives of all, but we can actually get to and do it. We can actually take the time to listen to what it is that people are asking for and can really critically weigh up the pros and cons. As mentioned before, we are not looking to supress peoples voice, but rather give it a more potent means of being heard.
We cannot control what future generations choose, but we can try to provide them with a positive set of role models and a positive structure in which to continue that development.
So let me know what else you would like to see from us. We have not advocate inflexability in any way. Talk to us about what you would like to see and it's more than likely that we can incorporate some of your own vision in the way we do things. It is far easier for three constant people to discuss and make descisions that it is for a parliment of 50 to 100 regularly changing men and women. The idea of the tirumvirate actually ensures that no single individual has absolute power. I suppose for this reason I should be recanting the use of dictatorship, because it has ceasecto be this from the moment I invited Barend and Madam Corvax. It simply is the SupCorBar Triumvirate.
MultiQuote
