When did "Dictatorship" started having a negative meaning?

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

Since Sulla

after the end of the roman republic

With Sulla and then Ceasar abusing it.

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.

(((WWII)))

>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

where could my pipe be?

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.

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

>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.

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

>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.

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

>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.

Monarchy is something completely different. user 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.

400 bc

...

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.

>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.

>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.

...

>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

>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.

Will be the best day of my life

This

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

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.)

That explains why they act like autists

Everybody except for these two are historically illiterate.

>evil
No.

Dictatorship always had a negative connotation, even among monarchies.

>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

When America had cultural hegemony over Europe

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

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.

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

>Evil

Wew

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

>false dualisms

wew

>goys

>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

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

Ancient Athens.

You forgot Carthage.

industrialisation

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

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

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

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

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

So they should go to /pol/?

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!

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

>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

when people started experiencing the advantages of democracy

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.

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

>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

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.

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

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!

Pic related, it's you.

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.

>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

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

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

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.

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.

>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

>Still no historian democracies
Fuck the world.

>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 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.

My president is a historian

he's a total imbecile though, would not recommend

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

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.

>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.
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.

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.”

debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/

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

wrong

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.

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

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.

>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

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?

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.