Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:41 pm

It may sound like a contradiction. After all, liberalism equals human rights and personal liberty, while Dictatorship equals to controlling the masses through use of military force.

But what if a Liberal Dictatorship has it as its goal to protect the weak & sick, the elderly and the homeless from the angry mobs of the common people?

This scenario sounds fine to me. I have no problems accepting ban on free speech and censorship, if the stuff that is censored is the anti-welfare speeches, like "There are too many disabled people on disability benefits" or "Unemployed people should be forced to work".

Instead, such a dictatorship would implement a Basic Income, levelled according to income to be financially sustainable of course, high taxes on other sources of income and Conscription will be replaced by a Defence Tax with highly skilled professional soldiers.

Their task would be to handle the crowds of the angry mobs, controlling them and - if need be - opening fire against them to protect the weaker members of society from the wrath of the mob.

It actually sounds like a good idea.

Necromancer · Post by **Necromancer** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:04 pm

"Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?"

No! N-O ! (What would such a thing do extra as opposed by the further development of Democracy, Human Rights (UDHR) and the legal systems?)

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:36 pm

if Jack, able-bodied and of sound mind, doesn't wanna work: that's okay by me, but I got no interest in payin' a Jack a stipend, no interest in takin' care of someone who's capable of fending for himself.

Starve, Jack.

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:51 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:36 pm if Jack, able-bodied and of sound mind, doesn't wanna work: that's okay by me, but I got no interest in payin' a Jack a stipend, no interest in takin' care of someone who's capable of fending for himself.

Starve, Jack.

I understand your opinion, but in when this is put into reality, those who are sick, severely disabled and not of sound mind either, are forced to work too, and if they CAN'T (but want, but can't because of illness) they are regarded as bums and parasites and left with nothing.

This happens in Denmark and Sweden, right now, exactly because of this idea you put forth.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:19 pm

"This happens in Denmark and Sweden"

It doesn't happen here, in the US.

Here: we bend over backwards to tend to our legit infirm (and our bums and parasites as well).

A goodly chunk of the federal budget (and each and ever state budget) is spent on 'entitlements'.

So: come to America, philo...we'll take care of you.

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:29 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:19 pm "This happens in Denmark and Sweden"

It doesn't happen here, in the US.

Here: we bend over backwards to tend to our legit infirm (and our bums and parasites as well).

A goodly chunk of the federal budget (and each and ever state budget) is spent on 'entitlements'.

So: come to America, philo...we'll take care of you.

1. You have a lot of welfare recipients in America.
2. Conservatives want to cut down on those who are not genuinly in help - right?

Now this is what happens:

1. The Conservatives get their welfare cuts.
2. This is not enough. They want more.
3. They launch a campaign saying that "If you genuinly cannot work, you should still work" - this happened in Denmark, UK, Sweden, Norway etc. There is no reason it won't happen in the US as well.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:49 pm

1. You have a lot of welfare recipients in America.

Yep.

2. Conservatives want to cut down on those who are not genuinly in help - right?

Not really. There's lip service paid to reining in spending, but year after year more money is funneled into 'entitlements'.

As to why cuts won't happen in America: the 'entitled' keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who...

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:13 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:49 pm 1. You have a lot of welfare recipients in America.

Yep.

2. Conservatives want to cut down on those who are not genuinly in help - right?

Not really. There's lip service paid to reining in spending, but year after year more money is funneled into 'entitlements'.

As to why cuts won't happen in America: the 'entitled' keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who keep votin' in folks who keep funnelin' money into 'entitlements' for the 'entitled' who...

I don't buy that argument. I don't trust you're right on this, because I read the news including the ones concerning the US, and it says people vote politicians who want to abolish "obama care" at the like. Isn't "Obamacare" welfare benefits?

As far as I know, welfare incapacity benefits (like disability benefits, care etc.) except health care, is very low in the US compared to many European countries. Well, health care isn't a right in the US, so that would count as low too.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:22 pm

Well, I live here and I'm tellin' you plain: that's all lip service.

Take a look at the federal budget over the past ten, twenty, thirty, forty years. Take a look at the the line items. Show me where 'entitlements' have taken a hit, substantial and long-lasting.

No, 'entitlements' are here to stay (in America).

"As far as I know"

Yeah, if what you 'know' is comin' out of a rag or a broadcast, then you don't 'know' diddly-squat.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:31 pm

Hell, here in Louisiana 40% of our state budget is dedicated to Medicare, and you -- way the hell over 'there' -- wanna tell me 'heath care' is a low priority over 'here'.

Man, shut the fuck up.

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:45 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:31 pm Hell, here in Louisiana 40% of our state budget is dedicated to Medicare, and you -- way the hell over 'there' -- wanna tell me 'heath care' is a low priority over 'here'.

Man, shut the fuck up.

Your taxes are low. May I guess... you pay a maximum of 10-15 % income tax? (I'm guessing).

That's not much tax income for the funding of a 40 % state budget - I doubt it can fund all the welfare for the needy.

I pay between 30-50 % of my income. It is low. Others with slightly higher income pay 55 %, and others pay 60 %. We also have a 25 % VAT.

44 % is Social Security (pensions, unemployment benefits etc.).
15 % Health Care.

henry quirk · Post by **henry quirk** » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:00 pm

"Your taxes are low. May I guess... you pay a maximum of 10-15 % income tax? (I'm guessing)."

It varies: in my state, combined state and federal taxes run in the 30% range; in New York state it runs in the 60% range.

And yeah, none of it covers the costs, which is why America has ran in the red for years...no balance to our budgets, borrow and spend, deeper in debt we go (yet, all the while, 'entitiements' continue to roll out to ever-increading numbers).

gaffo · Post by **gaffo** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:49 am

Skip · Post by **Skip** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:12 am

no
Dictatorship is not a liberal concept.

philosopher · Post by **philosopher** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:49 am

Skip wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:12 am no
Dictatorship is not a liberal concept.

I don't really want a dictatorship or torturing nazis and send them to death camps or opening fire against demonstrations. It's just that I fear for the welfare state, and I want to protect the Ethics using brute force. Seems like I can't without ruining both.

Philosophy Now Forum

Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?

Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?

Re: Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?

Re: Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?

Re: Can there be such a thing as a "Liberal Dictatorship"?