When can a totalitarian regime be considered better than a democracy?

When can a totalitarian regime be considered better than a democracy?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Maybe you could come up with some kind of weird, contrived set of circumstances? I can't be bothered.

When the everyone but the leaders are so inept and retarded that democracy would outright harm everyone involved.

>When can a totalitarian regime be considered better than a democracy?
Gather around 50 people and try to decide things democratically and let me know how you feel afterwards.

Democracy is degenerate because it allows those who wouldn't survive in nature to vote, usually degenerates, leftists, egalitarian thinkers, people who believe in "natural rights", fascists, national socialists, etc, all of which are jewish.
Totalitarian regimes are degenerate because they limit human freedom, and nation states don't exist in nature.

>"Great and powerful governments, Commanding Peace, come into existence only in ages of decadence; when nations are on the downwardgrade. If the human animal lives a natural, cleanly life, out on the plains and forests away, where oceans rollers crash along the shore, or on the banks of the pouring rivers he requires no police-force to 'protect' him — no usurious Jew to rob him of his harvests — no tax-gathering legislators to vote away his property, and no 'priests of the Idol' to 'save' his soul.

>It is false standards of morality that debase and enfeeble individuals, tribes and nations. First, in obedience to some sovereign code, they lose their hardihood and increase their numbers. Then that all may live, they become laborious, submissive to Regulations; and finally-with Death held up by priestcraft as a fearsome Terror, all personal valor fades away. Thus nations of spaniels are manufactured.

>The normal man is the man that loves and feasts and fights and hunts, the predatory man. The abnormal man is he that toils for a master, half-starves, and 'thinks' — the Christly dog. The first is a perfect animal; the second, a perfect — monster. "

War of extermination. Textbook example: Soviet Union in WWII.

Seems like if you're part of the boot stomping side its pretty cool for the first bit. After a while the oligarchs start fighting each other, giving handouts to their kids, subverting the laws they enacted to gather support, etc.

Your perfect animal is easy to kill with guns.

well, yeah.
Animals are incredibly weak compared to monsters.

Go home Conan you're drunk.

Wrong board, motherfucker. This is literally a /pol/ question.

When the democracy is ineffectual and/or corrupt, or being manipulated by an internal or external - basically, when it fails.

Some democracies have provisions for when the former happens - the Roman Republic's dictator system had time limits, but was a useful way to deal with crises and political deadlocks that were a threat to Rome, which worked right up until it didn't (Sulla)


Some would say the limits on freedom imposed by a totalitarian regime (which is distinct from regular authoritarianism in that it is involved in every aspect of the subjects' lives) can never be a good thing, but if the regime were to be benevolent, efficient, and reasonably transparent and honest, then it might be considered better for a society. It'd probably have to be quite a small regime, one under a lot of threats, and have a wise and kind leader - an ideal Philosopher-King or an AI might work.

Also theoretically I guess you could have a democratic totalitarian state, though that's liable to be the worst of both worlds.

I mean, this thread is sure to fall into /pol/ from the outset, but I thought I'd give an answer.

Basically pic related

This is the dumbest shit I've ever read, and I've read some dumb shit in my life

Depend on so many factors that discussion is currently impossible.
This guy however has the right idea.

The best form of government is rule by an inhumanly competent, benevolent, all powerful tyrant
The worst form is rule by an inhumanly competent, malicious, all powerful tyrant
The main problem with the first is just making sure the next tyrant isn't any closer to the second

But basically as long as the regime is good at it's job and benevolent to the population, AND has some way to ensure it won't be corrupted, it's better than rule by vote, it's just that last one that makes things a bitch

You would probably be dead if left to your own devices in nature

Nothing about this prompt is Veeky Forums and it's still gonna go on for two hundred posts. The last few weeks of Veeky Forums have been fucking cancer.

...

reminder to sage and report

>democracy
Being a slave to horus the demonic fleshlight isn't democracy, heretic

An inhumanly incompetent, benevolent, all powerful tyrant would be pretty shitty too.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Quinctius_Cincinnatus

The vast majority of the time Democracy and Republicanism is superior, but during times of distress sometimes political gridlock can prevent decisive action that needs to be taken. Under these conditions a strong powerful leader can be more useful than a senate full of bickering politicians.

Also whenever AI is involved it can generally make the most efficient decision available, thus making AI dictatorships a good option.

Stop bumping this shitty thread

Its pretty funny tho.

...

How so?

40k. You can't take care of humanity if you don't know how to take care of a kid.

>I'm going to make life better for every, I'll take control of all food production!
>Ok, fuck, that wasn't a great idea. Growing just one vegetable, my favorite, and the ensuing blight killed 30% of the population! A lot of people are still sick... Wait...
>I'll take control of all medical services!

Oh, misread the post, didn't catch the
>Incompetent
Yeah, makes sense

Never

I will never understand how a bunch of warring pastoralist tribes in the Levant got a reputation as being inherently civilized and tied to the existence of cities and agriculture. Jewish people are no more inherently cosmopolitan than the Irish or Germans.

>totalitarian
>democracy
They're opposites. Can't function together. Mutually exclusive.