A Strong Dictatorship is Better than a Weak Democracy
This house would rather have a strong dictatorship than a weak democracy
Pros of having a dictatorship include:
No elections, imagine not having to deal with all the political rhetoric, you already have your leader for life.
Difference in opinions is ubiquitous and inevitable, and arises on every topic. For every opinion one man may have, there will always be another man opposing him (look at this debate, for example) and this may not always end well, maybe even resulting in potential Civil Wars. With a dictator, you have one ruler, one voice, a united voice. the economy could be more controlled and sustained by a dictatorship, as the economy would be run by the state.
Though a small minority of the population suffers from violence from the dictator, the vast majority of the population will exist in a nearly crime free society in large part because the smallest infraction of the law (or even the the perceived infraction) is dealt with severe punishments. The Soviet Union had very little street crime, and the Russian mafia was never grew to the size of the Italian-American mafia, or the plethora of other American criminal organizations because of the brutality of the Soviet regime. Saddam Hussein's regime provided free health care, access to affordable higher education, enviable for the region transportation systems, and other benefits. The Chinese government provides has better roads, railways, airports, ports, manufacturing facilities, than neighboring democratic India. The dictatorial nature of theChinese government and unquestioned decisions has benefits of massive infrastructure improvements. The Chinese building several hydro-electric dams, and moved several million people, which wouldn't have been able accomplished in a country with personal rights to property, or the power to self determine their own existence.
Taxes are usually low, because income is not an issue.
Free-market-oriented economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the
Pros of having a dictatorship include:
No elections, imagine not having to deal with all the political rhetoric, you already have your leader for life.
Difference in opinions is ubiquitous and inevitable, and arises on every topic. For every opinion one man may have, there will always be another man opposing him (look at this debate, for example) and this may not always end well, maybe even resulting in potential Civil Wars. With a dictator, you have one ruler, one voice, a united voice. the economy could be more controlled and sustained by a dictatorship, as the economy would be run by the state.
Though a small minority of the population suffers from violence from the dictator, the vast majority of the population will exist in a nearly crime free society in large part because the smallest infraction of the law (or even the the perceived infraction) is dealt with severe punishments. The Soviet Union had very little street crime, and the Russian mafia was never grew to the size of the Italian-American mafia, or the plethora of other American criminal organizations because of the brutality of the Soviet regime. Saddam Hussein's regime provided free health care, access to affordable higher education, enviable for the region transportation systems, and other benefits. The Chinese government provides has better roads, railways, airports, ports, manufacturing facilities, than neighboring democratic India. The dictatorial nature of theChinese government and unquestioned decisions has benefits of massive infrastructure improvements. The Chinese building several hydro-electric dams, and moved several million people, which wouldn't have been able accomplished in a country with personal rights to property, or the power to self determine their own existence.
Taxes are usually low, because income is not an issue.
Free-market-oriented economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the