When did "Dictatorship" started having a negative meaning?

WWII

>>2733015
Enlightenment era maybe.

>>2733023
Probably this.

And the fetishisation of 'democracy' by the French and American revolutions.

Never. Unless you're a westerner.

>>2733015
Since the Freemason era

>>2733038
For good reason though. Dictatorship got its ass kicked by Democracy and winners get to write history.

Democracy is the most practical form of technocratic government that exists.

>>2733015
When Donald j trump turned America into the liuteral kkk

>>2733072
Unless you live in Switzerland, Iceland or a European micro-state your "democracy" is a joke no better than a dictatorship in terms of your ability to actually control or influence you government. Sorry to burst ya bubble.

In the last 20 years when neo-liberalism became widespread.

>>2733015
Pretty early on, there was a reason Caesar was killed.
Greek city states had elaborate systems to prevent dictatorship.

>>2733015
Since Sulla

after the end of the roman republic

>>2733015
With Sulla and then Ceasar abusing it.

>>2733079
You're completely misunderstanding why representative Democracy has worked far better than any system that has ever existed.

It doesn't stop leaders and politicians from manipulating voters and exploiting systematic advantages. It just makes it much harder for them to do so, which makes for inherently more qualified leaders.

Dictatorships are always doomed to fail because there are no checks in place to tell them when they are fucking up until it's already too late, and instability in their country has reached critical mass. In a democracy, even before leaders often realize, society will signal the ineffectiveness of their leaders by gravitating towards populism and voting in ways they didn't expect.

>>2733023
(((WWII)))

File: garfield.jpg (45KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x400px

>>2733072
>tfw you realize that both fascists and communists claimed they were the real democrats
Dictatorship was historically a form of emergency rule anyways.

after WW2

>>2733205
where could my pipe be?

>>2733205
Forget it, they either cannot distinguish between Monarchy and Dictatorship, or then are /pol/tards who simply don't know about history.
Interesting, Switzerland still has a de facto Dictator position during wartime in their constitution.

>>2733291
are you talking about the literal pipe or the metaphorical pipe of life

>>2733015

>When did "Dictatorship" started having a negative meaning?

From the very beginning. The only times dictators were ever tolerated was during times of severe emergency. Otherwise, people have always been quite justifiably suspicious of giving all political power in society to 1 man with no checks or balances.

>>2733015
only to soc dems desu, not like democracy ever worked desu.

File: Xi Jingping and Hu Jintao.jpg (102KB, 900x794px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 900x794px

>>2733072
>Democracy is the most practical form of technocratic government that exists.
>I'm saying words I don't know the meaning of.
Most cunt's in a democracy have lawyering and civil servantship as background.

You want a technocracy? Modern China. Almost everyone are from STEM.

>>2733194
Isn't the Singaporean/Chinese/Russia 1 party system the future?

>>2733342
>people have always been quite justifiably suspicious of giving all political power in society to 1 man with no checks or balances.
History sure has shitloads of Monarchies around.

>>2733375
Monarchy is something completely different. Anon was talking about the first democracies in Greece, which where republics. A dictator is the sole ruler of a Republic, and as stated this was only permitted during emergencies.

>>2733015
400 bc

File: 1493112841975.gif (46KB, 598x172px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 598x172px

>>2733333

>>2733385

Honestly, the biggest difference between a dictator and a monarch is how the leader is portrayed in propaganda.

>Monarchy
>The Royal Family was chosen BY GOD to lead this nation! The leader IS A MAN OF GOD and to betray him is to BETRAY GOD.

>Dictatorship
>The Dictator was chosen BY THE PEOPLE to lead this nation! The leader is a MAN OF THE PEOPLE and to betray him is to BETRAY THE PEOPLE.

>>2733364
>>2733362
>Best parts of China are heavily westernized

The west doesn't try and block Chinese influence, but China continually tries to shield it's citizens from Western influence. There in lies the problem for China.

They can't win a cultural war with the west, and the closer China comes to reaching a modern standard of living, the harder it will be to stop their citizens from becoming exposed to western liberalism.

China is, as it's always been throughout its entire history, a paper tiger.

File: cartoon_king_on_thron_450.jpg (28KB, 450x299px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 450x299px

>>2733375
>Monarchies are autocracies
You know how I know you're American?

Lol, jibes aside, Monarchies aren't totalitarian. From Europe to China they always have some clause they have to fulfill like what living up to god's divine mandate, or in Islam, the shadow of the supreme law here in this world, or in China to keep the mandate heaven granted them via making the realm prosperous and peaceful, or in feudalism everywhere where the King has to protect the rights and privileges of his subjects, particularly the feudal aristocracy.

In addition, Monarchs may not have official checks and balances, but they sort of do within the court, considering that they are supported by a massive decision making staff who did the real work (ministers n shiet), in addition to all the competing interests from the aristocracy.

File: american-ed.jpg (21KB, 400x398px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x398px

>>2733405

File: 23b.jpg (61KB, 599x599px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 599x599px

>>2733072
>dictatorship got its ass kicked by oligarchy

Yeah that was a weird typo, "democracy" like wtf even is that, only plebians think that their votes matter and that the elites aren't just fooling them 100% of the time

File: 1255234112313.jpg (51KB, 353x339px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 353x339px

>>2733405
>democracy
>The President was chosen by THE PEOPLE to lead this nation! The is a MAN OF THE PEOPLE and to betray him is to BETRAY THE PEOPLE

always.

roman dictators were a temporary necessary evil.

>>2733077
Will be the best day of my life

>>2733023
>>2733047
This

>>2734633
Oligarchy has the worst track history when it comes to winning wars.
>Athens 413-411
>Venice with the exception of Lepento

>>2733364
Singapore doesn't have a 1 party system in the same way as China, the PAP have a very real chance of being ousted from power if they keep fucking up. Singapore is more like Japan or Taiwan in that respect (the latter two were also "1 party states" until they weren't.)

>>2733362
That explains why they act like autists

>>2733153
>>2733165
Everybody except for these two are historically illiterate.

>>2734644
>evil
No.

Dictatorship always had a negative connotation, even among monarchies.

>>2733194
>In a democracy, even before leaders often realize, society will signal the ineffectiveness of their leaders by gravitating towards populism and voting in ways they didn't expect.
>he actually belives that
It surevis wonderful that Trump did everything he promised before he was elected

>>2733015
When America had cultural hegemony over Europe

>>2734925
Which is why caesar really didn't want to be called dictator in perpetuam as part of the peace deal

Since americans stated demonizing the term

>>2733362

Is that why everything they build collapses in a year

Should just have weighted voting.
Like 3 tiers of voting.
Based on income only, not education or anything else. (if your 50+ and retired your votes still counts as whatever it did before it)
So someone who has inheritance money doesn't count, your vote would still be valued at 1.

Then you vote for a "semi dictator" every 5 years.
And a constitution that can't be changed, with fundamental rights, like dictator can only run once, no pension for dictator, all politicians gets middle class wage, and you'd need like 3 different dictators all wanting same change for a right to change.
>The dictator dictates.
>It no longer takes 3 years for a new law or whatever to take effect.

blah blah blah
benevolent dictatorship
"but what stop XYZ from happening?"
Same thing that stops any other government.

>>2734965
>3 dictators is 15 years
>15 years is less than 3 years
How the fuck does this make sense

>>2734644
>Evil

Wew

>>2735060
>not knowing what the term necessary evil means
This is who we share the board with goys

>>2735301
>false dualisms

wew

>goys

>>>/pol/

>>2735404
>false dualisms
Do I tip or do I bow to honourable ancestors
>pol
Nope just typing on mobile with autocorrect turned off and couldn't be bothered to change it

>>2735432
Wew, you type "goys" so often that your autocorrect corrects to "goys" instead of "guys"?

>>2733015
Ancient Athens.

>>2734666
You forgot Carthage.

industrialisation

>>2735008
I think he meant having more than one dictator at a time?

>>2735455
>autocorrect turned off
>it will still work
Great reading skills there

>>2735731
>I'm not /pol/ it's just autocorrect replacing everything I say with /pol/ memes I swear!!

>>2735743
>goys isn't even a word in English
>I-I SWEAR IT'S AUTOCORRECT

>>2735773
Honestly /pol/ should just all leave to some nazi page where they can jack off to intolerant racist ideas.

>>2735792
So they should go to /pol/?

>>2735796
That's not what /pol/ was meant for, but if nothing else, they should at least go there and stay there.

Sick and tired of their bullshit!

>>2733130
>Pretty early on, there was a reason Caesar was killed.
Romans had dictators way before Caesar.It was a temporal thing though

>>2733194
>You're completely misunderstanding why representative Democracy has worked far better than any system that has ever existed.
Not true.Even currently the most prosperous countries outside of microstates and oil countries are soft dictatorships

>>2733015
when people started experiencing the advantages of democracy

>>2733015
>>2733038
Notice how all the people defending dictatorship are almost always spoiled, white, first-world teenagers? Talk to nearly anybody from third world countries with actual dictatorships and they'll admit it sucks ass. People vote with their feet and barely anyone wants to actually migrate from a western liberal democracy to some despotic cesspit. If that weren't the case, we'd have seen west Germans back in the day flooding to the East. Yet for "some reason" it was the other way around. Just face it you contrarian fags: dictatorships are shit, genocide is evil, and you're all absorbed in autistic power fantasies. Whatever trivial complaints you have about social media and gay parades pale in comparison to actually living in an authoritarian country.

>>2735821
City states have higher GDP than nation states. No shit.

>>2734644
>were a temporary necessary evil
They didn't see it as such. And a military junta rulling during times of war is just the smart thing to do.You can look at what Athenians did in Sicily to realized that democracy during war should be abolished

File: 78a4e7417c4a3b121ef7b9ddbb1deaaa.jpg (99KB, 736x919px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 736x919px

>>2735815
Yes, but he was not going to relinquish power. Traditionally they were dictator for a year or two. Caesar was styling himself like a monarch, remaining seated when the Senate visited. Not good Republican affectations.

>>2733015

usualy they get a negative meaning when they start terrorising murdering and torturing people to stay in power, also because they are known for nepotism and corruption, as well as often being completely incompetent to start with

also, OP is a fag

>>2735834
You twat, that's exactly what that means. If they thought they could do without they would have. If a dictator doesn't step down, and enough people support him, you have created a king! That's the ultimate evil in an oligarchy founded by men who chased off or killed kings!

File: HSVDk9V.jpg (70KB, 479x640px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 479x640px

>>2735824
Pic related, it's you.

>>2734965
Why should rich people have more votes than poor people? They can already lobby to a far greater extent and control most of the media. This is just retarded Victorian era classism.

>>2735832
>City states have higher GDP than nation states. No shit.
China is doing way better than India for a reason. Democracies are very instable early on and specially with a very uneducated population,the middle east and North Africa is a pretty good example of this.They are also very short term oriented as the voting is done based on recent experience.That is why it is so common for presidents to take unpopular decissions early on while taking popular ones in their last year.

Since Jews brainwashed me into thinking it's bad for one person to have all the power and that the power must be split and given to Jews instead.

I am a good goy

>>2733072
>>2733079
So basically Oligarchy is the most effective form of government?

>Rome conquered the medditerranean when it was a oligarchy
>USA rules the world today as an oligarchy
>China re-emerged as a superpower to rival USA as an oligarchy

>>2733362
Durrr I wonder why legislators possibly need to be educated in law. STEM doesn't teach people empathy or leadership skills, bud.

>>2735845

What prevents people on welfare from just voting for more welfare spending ad infinitum? When Calvin Coolidge was President, only the top 2 percent of earners in the entire country paid any federal income tax at all. Now, everybody pays federal income taxes, regardless of income level.

>>2733194
Also, delegates in a dictatorship typically over report surplus resources and become yes men to avoid upsetting Dear Leader. Meaning shit like food shortages and other problems are just par for the course and don't really get addressed.

>>2735850
>STEM doesn't teach people empathy or leadership skills, bud.
You can't teach empathy and lots of projects in engenieering and science are done in groups. Having a class called "leadership" doesn't make you a better leader than someone with experience

>>2733362
>Still no historian democracies
Fuck the world.

>>2735890
>Still no historian democracies
You sound like the dudes that claim that programmers should have nobiliary titles

When we transitioned to oligarchy as the predominant power structure.

Some Italian city states were successful oligarchies but they were trading cities and did not have much impact. The Dutch renaissance expanded this and kicked off after the Anglo glorious revolution.

This is when the freemasons emerged as >>2733047 mentions. Though they only included a small proportion of the overall elite so they are not as relevant as the conspiracy theorists claim, also at worst they wielded similar powers to a dictatorship yet /pol/ glorifies dictatorship while portraying the freemasons as some great evil. /pol/'s view is not accurate.

In contrast to Louis XIV's absolutism, Britain and the low countries were a land of freedom where you wouldn't be brutally tortured to death for drawing a funny cartoon depicting the king or some other powerful politician. It can also be contrasted to ancient Athens and renaissance Italy, both of which felt a strong need to promote reason amongst the populace so that the oligarchy functions better instead of acting like an emotional mob, but never quite achieved the same cold logical calculating attitude of the Anglo.

File: Gjorgje Ivanov.jpg (110KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1920x1080px

>>2735890
My president is a historian

he's a total imbecile though, would not recommend

>>2733015
When (((they))) figured out they couldn't control anymore

>>2735840
I like Tim Krieder, but that cartoon has flaws, as well as your usage of it. The Aztecs were closer to the dictatorships I deride than the western liberal democracies of today. Secondly, it ignores the actual historical context of a famine and drought ravaged bronze age society where human sacrifice was accepted in the general area of mesoamerica. People don't just pull utopias out of their ass, if they do that without real world reference it typically just leads to an even worse post-revolutionary dystopia. I would welcome a system superior to democracy, but dictatorship has been tried and I don't think it's that system.

>>2735860
>What prevents people on welfare from just voting for more welfare spending ad infinitum?

Funny you say that, because the poorest states in the US typically vote Republican and unemployed whites were a big contingent for Trump. Your claims don't stand up to reality and they ignore that people's voting preferences are more based on identity posturing and the media than self-interest. Secondly, you seem to imply welfare is a bad thing, but austerity actually does not benefit a GDP:debt ratio. The rise in welfare during a downturn creates expenditure that stimulates an economy.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/economic-linkages/

Unemployment below 5% is really not desirable - look at Japan where artificial employment lead to high inflation due to redundant jobs. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and seem to make the same old fiscally conservative mistake of comparing macroeconomics to household finances.

>>2736244

Is this the old "Republicans are poor rednecks" canard again?

>Financially, Republicans fare better than either Democrats or Independents, and tend to identify themselves as such. Republican candidates gain a significantly higher percentage of votes from individuals with incomes over $50,000 per year, and the advantage increases along with the income level, to a height of 63 percent of individuals earning $200,000 or more a year supporting Republicans. This level is the direct inverse of individuals earning less than $15,000 a year, who support Democrats at 63 percent and Republicans at only 36 percent.

>Republicans also express a much higher level of satisfaction with their personal financial situation than either Democrats or Independents. Before the U.S. economy’s downturn, an all-time high of 81 percent of Republicans expressed satisfaction with their personal financial situation. That number dropped to 61 percent in 2009, but it is still significantly higher than the corresponding 52 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Democrats. A much larger proportion of Republicans than Democrats also identify themselves as “haves” versus “have-nots.”

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/

>>2735824
I grew up with my now wife in Bosnia getting bombed to hell, democracy blows

File: Sulla.jpg (151KB, 500x540px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 500x540px

>>2733023
wrong

>>2736276
None of what you posted actually contradicted what I said. Though seemingly contradictory, it's perfectly possible for higher income on an individual level to correlate with Republican voting, but not on a state level. That's totally ignorant of the statistical ecological fallacy and the Simpson's paradox.

Likewise, self-reported satisfaction is a measure of fuck all compared to actual income. No shit, a poor Republican is more likely to believe he deserves his station than a poor Democrat. As I said, this ties into politics being based on identity. If people voted strictly on financial self interest, Republicans would never win, because the rich by definition are a minority.
I like how you had no actual argument as to cyclical welfare programs benefitting GDP, either.

>>2733015
AMERICA!
FUCK YEAH!
COMIN' AGAIN TO SAVE THE MOTHERFUCKIN DAY YEAH!

>>2734638
but in democracy, the president is only a figurehead
in the American democratic system, there are up to 535 actual leaders of the United States of America.

>>2736276
>It's an "innumerate retard is unable to realize that both stupid poor people and wealthy people wanting a tax cut may be able to vote for the same party" episode

>>2736390

Who says that I was trying to contradict? All I did was put your claims in proper context. You claimed that "the poorest states vote Republican." This may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant because looking at the question from an individual level makes more sense to begin with. The fact is that the Republicans, on average, have much higher incomes than Democrats do. But sure, Georgia having a smaller economy than California "proves" that Democrats have more money even if that is plainly inaccurate on the individual level.

What are some good examples of positive dictatorships?

>>2736342
I never said democracies can't be involved in war, but regardless, they tend to having a much higher standard of living, and more people immigrate from non democracies to democracies than the inverse. Your country is just an outlier.

>>2736523

That's entirely subjective. The U.S. has supported many dictators over the years, like Pinochet and Batista. "Good" or "Bad" can depend entirely on political alignment.

>>2736523
Cinncinatus of course.

>>2735743
No seriously I'm not a pollack I just don't have autocorrect turned on, how hard is that for you to understand

>>2734666
>>2735613
and Novgord

>>2736562
>That's entirely subjective.
Disctators that worked for the common good, and didn't used his power for egoistic interests.

>>2733015

This
>>2736350

Tyranny had a negative meaning at least since the archaic era in Greece, and dictatorship essentially has the same meaning today.

>>2735773
U and o are only two keys away on a keyboard, how can (You) not understand

File: ayyy.jpg (301KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1024x680px

>>2733023
this, studebaker literally made a car in the 30's called the dictator.

>>2736604
Novgorod

>>2736470
>Who says that I was trying to contradict?
>Backpedaling this hard

Wew lad

>but it is irrelevant because looking at the question from an individual level makes more sense to begin with

Makes more sense... because you say so? Okay faggot. Electoral constituencies are divided by state and swing states determine the federal election. The same applies for districts on a smaller scale. Individuals simply are less relevant.
Also, what "question"? You sure seem argumentative for someone apparently trying to contradict me, probably because you were arguing with a strawman that I never made. Never mind that the initial argument was based on pro-austerity arguments, which I refuted, and you were too dumb to respond to. Voters elect representatives; they don't directly determine welfare policy, and welfare helps GDP in periods of downturn, provided it's cyclical. You're just economically uneducated like every retarded advocate of fiscal conservatism out there.

File: 1493027129065.jpg (63KB, 634x679px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 634x679px

>>2736640

When did I backpedal? All I've ever said is that Republicans have more money, on average, than Democrats. And that's undeniably true. You're the one who turned this into a partisan thing, BTW.

File: Pliny the Elder.jpg (234KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 800x1000px

>>2736224
>The Aztecs were closer to the dictatorships I deride than the western liberal democracies of today.
You're 100% right about this.

The defining feature of liberal democracies is that people vote for politicians who represent their interests and use civic spending to stimulate the economy.

Dictatorships, empires, fascist states, whatever you want to call them, the thing they all have in common is that they use military spending to stimulate the economy, and turn it into a profitable behavior through injections of foreign capital... by using said military to take it from them.

The Aztecs were a tributary empire, not conquering their neighbors outright, just invading them once every other generation or so when their economy had recovered enough to make it pillage-worthy again, and maintaining a network of satellite peoples they plundered in a manner like a fucked up version of rotating your crops.

>>2735882
You're still a faggot who doesn't know what the word technocracy means

>>2735824
>People vote with their feet and barely anyone wants to actually migrate from a western liberal democracy to some despotic cesspit.
This needs to be repeated. I always tell it to the native idiots and diaspora faggots in my EU country when they try to praise Russia or any other "stronk leader" country.

>>2734965
What if the dictator just gives certain segments of people government jobs that pay lots?

>>2734638
>chosen by the people
>didn't win the popular vote

nice jokes

>>2735824
/pol/ BTFO

>>2735824
>Notice how all the people defending dictatorship are almost always spoiled, white, first-world teenagers?
westerners make the best republics and the best dictatorships

notice those oriental and african "democracies" are ALSO shit, just like their dictatorships.

has the Arab Spring taught you nothing?

The greek word for king is tyrant.

File: dsc_4772.jpg (118KB, 1187x890px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1187x890px

>>2735890
Pic rel.

>>2738508
The Greek word for king is Basileus dummy, turannos is tyrant

>>2738522
Basileus is Emperor

>>2735804
Fuck off back to Plebbit faggot

File: executed for bantz.jpg (66KB, 870x700px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 870x700px

>>2733310
You're clearly a retard who doesn't know anything about political ideologies other than the one taught in school as "the good one".

Capitalist "democracy" only allows for a public voice to those who serve the entrenched interests. There are only a handful of companies that control most of the mainstream media and use it to shape opinion. Any political party that steps out of line (IE Golden Dawn in Greece) is quickly shut down by the powers. Free speech is supported, but only so long as it supports the agenda (IE no "hate speech"). Etc.

When Europe was "liberated" from the fascists, the former governments, intellectuals and journalists were executed. So much for freedom of speech. Pic related is one example in France.

They hide behind a veneer of "rule by the people" but this exists in name only. According to a study by princeton, the US government policy is actually enacted by an oligarchy.

So tell me how an oligarchy that suppresses political freedom, silences dissent, and does not represent the people in any capacity, is not a tyranny? And how exactly is it more "democratic" than a dictatorship that actually represents the people (the "demos" in democracy)

>>2736611
No, in ancient Greece, a "tyrant" was basically synonymous with "warlord". It did not hold the same connotations as dictator or king. A "Tyrant" was basically someone who hired a mercenary army and took control of a state by force.

A leader with total power who served the people was not considered a tyrant. Monarchs were not considered tyrants, and were often considered a better form of rule than democracy. At times the word democracy held connotations of mob rule.

>>2733015
Sulla really needs to be better known. Hardly anyone in here actually knows jack shit about dictatorship.

>>2735840
The Aztecs may have had some gruesome religious rituals, but their actual government was fairly sound. Cities had districts or neighborhoods, which elected a local noble to represent them. Those nobles formed a city council and from among themselves they selected something akin to a prime minister to run the government. A handful of these nobles were also chosen to form a royal council and from that council the monarch was chosen. The rest of the royal council acted as his advisers. The monarch was primarily responsible for diplomatic and military matters and didn't play a huge role in actually governing. All in all, its structure wasn't terribly different from a modern federal government.

>>2736421
>euromutts actually believe this

In reality its a small collective of oligarchs who actually shape this country, the government is a meme. Also after Obama expanded the Executive Branch so much, we'll be going full empire mode soon

>>2738284
>what is the tyranny of the majority

Read more Montesquieu

>>2738538
autokrator is emperor, basileus is King. In greek the persian king is called Basileus ton Basileon, King of Kings

>>2739033
>tyranny of the majority
>when electing a president from two choices

way to totally take that principle out of context. It is meant to ensure that laws are not made to discriminate against powerless minorities based on majority crowd mentality, it is not an excuse for the blatant corruption in our government, and the electoral college is extremely corrupt to the core.

>>2739257
>way to totally take that principle out of context. It is meant to ensure that laws are not made to discriminate against powerless minorities based on majority crowd mentality, it is not an excuse for the blatant corruption in our government, and the electoral college is extremely corrupt to the core.

No you moron its an argument in favor of representative democracy because direct democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority. The country being a two party system has nothing to do with that.

>>2739309
you can have an indirect democracy without the electoral college you fucking retard. There are literal examples in other countries you can look at that don't have this prestigous secret club designed to make the popular vote a sham. A direct democracy is impossible in any case, it is an ideal that does not exist in reality and never did, that doesn't mean you can use the tyranny of the majority principle to justify the electoral college, that is clearly bullshit. That argument was used to justify republicanism and government itself, which can exist alongside a popular vote. All indirect democracy means is that the people don't make the decisions, they vote for people that do. But if their votes no longer matters in deciding who makes the decisions, the entire cornerstone of Republican government is corrupted, and you don't justify that with some semantics garbage taken out of context.

>>2739309
tyranny of the majority is an argument for individual rights. As a minority you shouldn't have your rights taken away by a majority just because they made a vote they don't even have to justify. It has nothing to do with the electoral college such a thing did not exist when that term was coined.

>>2733028
I agree with you, probably around the time when citizens, for example the French, started to revolt against the kings.

>>2733072
The form of governance a country has was never consequential to how well it fared in the rat-race of the nation-states. The inherent Hard-Power of a Nation such as their natural resources or their comparative technological advantage; these were the main determinants of "kicking ass". For all the '-ocracies' or '-ships' there were in history, it never mattered at the slightest when one dude had a bigger stick than the other.

>>2739383

Democracies were certainly much more adept at diplomacy, however, and that makes a very large difference at times.

>>2739338
No you fucking moron non republican systems are AIMING for direct democracy, something you just said doesn't work.

>>2739354
You're an idiot, the electoral college in the US is what prevents that massive nation into splitting into different countries and further federalization is prevented by the electoral college on purpose to stop urban centers from being able to rule of rural areas they have no connection to whatsoever. Its something literally designed for a special standard that the US makes up for - we're not just one nation we are many nations living under a country with an electoral system to balance us out.

Stop being retarded.

>>2739386
Democracies are more culturally inclined as the tenets of their nationhood would imply, but what you just said sounds like you would apply that Fascists are plainly better at war; kind of like a Sid Mires Civ game....

>>2733015
Right after the empire started to become a dictatorship. The dictator wasn't meant to be all-powerful, all the time. The increase of the powers related to the title was the erosion of the Rule of Law.

The Romans were proud of being ruled by laws, rather than kings. Even if the system of law wouldn't be considered "fair" by today's standards.

>>2739386
Democracies are more adept at diplomacy with other democracies. But dictatorships are all over the place.

>>2734638
Modern dictatorships did and do generally pay a degree of lip service to democratic ideals.

>>2735804
You should probably kill yourself with how much you're whinging about something so easily ignored.

>>2735846
>China is doing way better than India for a reason.
Because modern India is a colonial invention with a large number of states with little in common, and China has a millennia-long history of efficient bureaucratic administration during times of peace?
>The high-level equilibrium trap is a concept developed by environmental historian Mark Elvin to explain why China never underwent an indigenous Industrial Revolution, despite its wealth, stability, and high level of scientific achievement. Essentially, he claims that the Chinese pre-industrial economy had reached an equilibrium point where supply and demand were well balanced. Late imperial production methods and trade networks were so efficient and labor was so cheap that investment in capital to improve efficiency would not be profitable.

>>2735840
Aztecs had a good system though. It was better under Aztec rule than Spanish colonial rule for an amerindian.

>>2739541

>Aztecs dindu nuffin

>>2733023
No

The real answer is 1848. That was the year the civilized world started characterizing absolute rule as always negative

>>2734644
The only thing you got right was the temporary part. They were chosen base on merit, they were given all the power to 'fight' off temporary adversities. But this was controlled to some extent.