• shani66
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The issue with autocracy is it has far more power to make the world a better place, or a worse place, and a good leader does not guarantee another good leader when one dies. If there were very strong plans in place to transition to a form of government with some checks in it? Sure, I’d be more than happy to let a genuinely good and intelligent person (read: a person who agrees with my beliefs and morals) have control for awhile, the country would greatly benefit from it.

    • TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      The only argument anyone has made that has any semblance of reason is the succession question. When the leader dies, the values and trajectory may change. I agree.

      However be honest. Look at a democracy. The succession question must be asked every election cycle. That’s every 4 years in the USA.

      Most authoritarian regimes have checks and balances. The thought that the USA is the only one with it, is just false. And considering how well these checks have worked the past few years, I’d say they don’t work at all in the USA.

      Many modern authoritarian governments have councils. And in today’s global world, money is an excellent check for balance of power. It would be very easy to argue that is truly the only check and balance in the USA at this point too. Those with the gold make the rules in the USA and they also skirt justice. In an authoritarian regime with investment, if they decide to go crazy, they lose their own power.