Have we been born into a benevolent dictatorship?

[titurel]

Are the UK and US governments benevolent dictatorships?

Or are they just dictatorships?

.

[tracker]

Are the UK and US governments benevolent dictatorships?

Or are they just dictatorships?

.

yes , we havebeen born into this dictatorship as our parents before us and so on for 7000 years .:cool:

[titurel]

yes , we havebeen born into this dictatorship as our parents before us and so on for 7000 years .:cool:
Good point!

[rhydra]

No dictator can oppress people without the majority being willing participants. They just have to realise how willing they are but I doubt that they ever will.

[size_of_light]

No such thing as a benevelont dictatorship.

[titurel]

No such thing as a benevelont dictatorship.
Perhaps you're right... but what is a benevolent dictatorship in theory then?

[size_of_light]

Perhaps you're right... but what is a benevolent dictatorship in theory then?

I can't imagine seeing a white shadow, and I can't conceive of a benevelont dictatorship.

[titurel]

I can't imagine seeing a white shadow, and I can't conceive of a benevelont dictatorship.
But a benevolent dictatorship wouldn't be white but grey. A grey shadow. That would sum it up.

[size_of_light]

But a benevolent dictatorship wouldn't be white but grey. A grey shadow. That would sum it up.

I don't see anything grey about benevolence, but to continue anyway, a benevolent dictatorship would be a contradiction in terms.

Benevolence is refraining from harm, and a dictatorship by nature imposes restrictions on the exercise of free will, which is harm in itself.

[titurel]

I don't see anything grey about benevolence, but to continue anyway, a benevolent dictatorship would be a contradiction in terms.

Benevolence is refraining from harm, and a dictatorship by nature imposes restrictions on the exercise of free will, which is harm in itself.
It's okay, we live in a democracy.

[titurel]

The word "benevolent" shouldn't be taken literally, when using it with dictatorship... it's a rhetorical adjective. A benevolent dictaorship is one that pretends to be good to the people, just like Bush's government and Brown's government, which are honourable governments.

For Brutus is an honourable man... ......... it's rhetoric

[size_of_light]

It's okay, we live in a democracy.

Sarcastic, right?

[size_of_light]

The word "benevolent" shouldn't be taken literally, when using it with dictatorship... it's a rhetorical adjective. A benevolent dictaorship is one that pretends to be good to the people, just like Bush's government and Brown's government.

All dictatorships pretend to be good to the people.

[titurel]

Sarcastic, right?
It's rhetoric, just as the term 'benevolent dictatorship' is rhetorical. The same for the title of Baum's novel, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". The word "Wonderful" in the title is rhetorical.

[titurel]

All dictatorships pretend to be good to the people.
Yes but most people do not associate George Bush with a typical dictatorial government as in China.

[size_of_light]

Yes but most people do not associate George Bush with a typical dictatorial government as in China.

No, but both pretend to be good to the people. Are we heading in any particular direction here, that you'd like to explore?

[titurel]

No, but both pretend to be good to the people. Are we heading in any particular direction here, that you'd like to explore?
Yes but people in the West generally regard China as being a dictatorship, whereas people in the West generally regard Western govs as being democracies. In reality, both are dictatorships but there's a difference in perception. The use of the word benevolent is purely rhetorical to describe a dictatoship that parades as a democracy. China does not parade itself as being a democracy.

[size_of_light]

Yes but people in the West generally regard China as being a dictatorship, whereas people in the West generally regard Western govs as being democracies. In reality, both are dictatorships but there's a difference in perception. The use of the word benevolent is purely rhetorical to describe a dictatoship that parades as a democracy. China does not parade itself as being a democracy.

But the term 'benevolent dictatorship' isn't applied by Western democracies to describe their own systems of government, and western populations don't conceive of themselves as living under a benevolent dictatorship, so who's perceiving what?

[titurel]

But the term 'benevolent dictatorship' isn't applied by Western democracies to describe their own systems of government, and western populations don't conceive of themselves as living under a benevolent dictatorship, so who's perceiving what?
Of course the term bd isn't used by Western governments, it's used by people who know that western govs aren't democracies but are dictatorships. It's a rhetorical term used by some to describe a government that is only democratic outwardly.

[titurel]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benevolent_dictator

Noun

benevolent (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benevolent) dictator (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictator)
(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benevolent_dictators)



A dictator (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dictator) that has power (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power) because the people (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/people) choose to allow him/her to; who must make wise use of power (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power) since the benevolent dictatorship (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/benevolent_dictatorship) system allows them to be peaceably removed from office.

[size_of_light]

Of course the term bd isn't used by Western governments, it's used by people who know that western govs aren't democracies but are dictatorships. It's a rhetorical term used by some to describe a government that is only democratic outwardly.

The point you seem to be making is that western societies aren't free, which is understood, and that western governments use the term 'democracy' to delude people into believing they're living within an open system of government.

Was the term 'benevolent dictatorship' ever used as a propaganda term that you're aware of, anywhere, or is it merely an academic term?

I'm not sure where you're leading with this - as I stated, a benevolent dictatorship is a contradiction in terms, so 'benevolent' becomes redundant, which is why I voted 'no'.

Is the form of government we live under, which we commonly refer to as 'democracy', in effect a dictatorship? Yes.

[titurel]

The point you seem to be making is that western societies aren't free, which is understood, and that western governments use the term 'democracy' to delude people into believing they're living within an open system of government.

Was the term 'benevolent dictatorship' ever used as a propaganda term that you're aware of, anywhere, or is it merely an academic term?

I'm not sure where you're leading with this - as I stated, a benevolent dictatorship is a contradiction in terms, so 'benevolent' becomes redundant, which is why I voted 'no'.

Is the form of government we live under, which we commonly refer to as 'democracy', in effect a dictatorship? Yes.
Please see the post above. I'm surprised you haven't heard of the term "benevolent dictatorship" before. If you have what did you think it meant?

[titurel]

The term "Benevolent Dictatorship" is a figure of speech:

Figure of Speech - definition:

An expression that uses language in a nonliteral way, such as a metaphor or synecdoche, or in a structured or unusual way, such as anaphora or chiasmus, or that employs sounds, such as alliteration or assonance, to achieve a rhetorical effect.

http://www.answers.com/figure%20of%20speech

I would put the term "benevolent dictator" in the catagory of an ironic figure of speech.
.

[size_of_light]

Please see the post above. I'm surprised you haven't heard of the term "benevolent dictatorship" before. If you have what did you think it meant?

Fewer people would understand the true rhetorical meaning behind the term 'benevolent dictatorship', (or frankly care), than would understand it to mean a 'good-natured dictatorship', which is a big misconception, yes.

That's why I went straight into dismantling the term itself.

Maybe the original point you were making with this thread (which is a valid one) would have been more effectively made by simply titling it "We're living under a less overt form of dictatorship labelled democracy" and then gone on to explain that this is referred to in more academic circles as a 'benevolent dictatorship.'

[titurel]

Fewer people would understand the true rhetorical meaning behind the term 'benevolent dictatorship', (or frankly care), than would understand it to mean a 'good-natured dictatorship', which is a big misconception, yes.

That's why I went straight into dismantling the term itself.

Maybe the original point you were making with this thread (which is a valid one) would have been more effectively made by simply titling it "We're living under a less overt form of dictatorship labelled democracy" and then gone on to explain that this is referred to in relatively more academic circles as a 'benevolent dictatorship.'
I'm surprised you weren't familiar with the term. It's not uncommon. Are you English?

[size_of_light]

I'm surprised you weren't familiar with the term. It's not uncommon. Are you English?

Australian.

[titurel]

Australian.
That might explain it. I keep forgetting we live in a global world now.

[size_of_light]

That might explain it. I keep forgetting we live in a global world now.

:eek:

[titurel]

Lol!

[lightgiver]

Benevolent Dictators

Enlightened absolutism (also known as benevolent despotism or enlightened despotism) is a form of absolute monarchy or despotism in which rulers were influenced by the Enlightenment. Enlightened monarchs embraced the principles of the Enlightenment, especially its emphasis upon rationality, and applied them to their territories. They tended to allow religious toleration, freedom of speech and the press, and the right to hold private property. Most fostered the arts, sciences, and education.

Enlightened absolutists' beliefs about royal power were often similar to those of absolute monarchs, in that many believed that they had the right to govern by birth and generally refused to grant constitutions, seeing even the most pro-monarchy ones as being an inherent check on their power. The difference between an absolutist and an enlightened absolutist is based on a broad analysis of how far they embraced Enlightenment. In particular, the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II can be said to have fully embraced the enlightened concept of the social contract. In contrast, Empress Catherine II of Russia entirely rejected the concept of the social contract while taking up many ideas of the Enlightenment, for example by being a great patron of the arts in Imperial Russia and incorporating many ideas of enlightened philosophers, especially Montesquieu, in her Nakaz, to a committee meant to revise Russian law.

In effect, the monarchs ruled with the intent of improving the lives of their subjects in order to strengthen or reinforce their authority. For example, the abolition of serfdom in some regions of Europe was achieved by enlightened rulers. In the spirit of enlightened absolutism, Emperor Joseph II said, "Everything for the people, nothing by the people."

Voltaire was a prominent Enlightenment philosopher who felt enlightened despotism was the only real way for society to advance.

The benevolent dictator is a more modern version of the concept, being an undemocratic or authoritarian leader who exercises his or her political power for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own self-interest or benefit, or for the benefit of only a small portion of the people. A benevolent dictator, for example, may focus government priorities on matters of public importance, such as healthcare, education, population control, or general city infrastructure. He or she may be committed to peaceful relations, rather than wars or invasions of other states, and may even allow for some democratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referendums.

[checkmate]

Democracy has always been an illusion just look at the history of oppression in most countries claiming to be democratic.

[hw spartan]

Depends wich country you where born in.:)
and in what time(year)

[hw spartan]

Democracy has always been an illusion just look at the history of oppression in most countries claiming to be democratic.

Democracy kills tyrany, but, Voteing kills democracy.:)

[umbrex]

But a benevolent dictatorship wouldn't be white but grey. A grey shadow. That would sum it up.

a dictatorship can't be benevolent since the intentions/energy systems of the handlers are malevolent ...period!

[titurel]

a dictatorship can't be benevolent since the intentions/energy systems of the handlers are malevolent ...period!
Please reveiw the posts on page 1 of this thread that explain this issue, where you will also find a more detailed definition of this term. The term, "Benovelent Dictatorship" is an ironic use of a figure of speech.