Can a dictatorship be more free than a democracy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think so. Imagine if Utah became an independent country with a democratic government. It'd hardly be free at all. It could draft it's own constitution, and the prudery would become even worse than what it is today. Hell apparnetely in Utah, every bar must have a "membership" that you have to pay like $15 for to go in, that means you must buy a $15 membership card if you want to just stop in a bar for a few minutes to talk with your friends even if you have no intention of ever going back! What an awful law.

Now theoretically, let's imagine there was a military coup in this new Utah country by some non-prudes, who set up a military regime. And their first actions would be to repeal most of the awful bans and restrictions on things like alcohol, porn, prostitution and strip clubs. The country would be non-democratic, but more free.

Of course real world examples are tough to find, and it isn't likely. But it is theoretically possible, so I vote yes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So BRTD you've been to Utah and you know how "bad" it is I take it?

I've been there but I was so young I can't remember anything. I've just heard awful things though. Remember they banned sodomy before Lawrence v. Texas. They also have a government employee whose only job is to fight pornography. And that's with the federal government and constitution.

No (normal)

And if Utah is so bad, how come the state is booming?

Prudes, Mormons and rich people who buy homes in the mountains and have them in other states.

The bottom line, I most certainly would not like living there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd rather live in a dictatorship with lots of porn, strip clubs, sex and alcohol, and a lack of misogyny and equality for women rather than a democracy where all that is banned and women are treated like slaves (like Iraq is about to turn into)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

BRTD, it's very unlikely a dictatorship would be very 'free'.  They are called dictatorships becuase they have a severe lack of individual freedoms.  A better poll question would be "can absolute monarchies be more free than a democracy"?

An absolute monarchy is a form of dictatorship. Of course this is true, although not really applicable in today's context. But just compare England before Cromwell took over to Cromwell's rule for proof that is can.  Theoretically the same could happen today. Actually Freedom House scores once gave Ecuador and Honduras, which I assume both were under some sort of military regime, scores of 7,3, which put them higher in civil liberties than many countries with essentially democratic governments. So examples do exist today, even though they are rare.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'd rather live in a dictatorship with lots of porn, strip clubs, sex and alcohol, and a lack of misogyny and equality for women rather than a democracy where all that is banned and women are treated like slaves (like Iraq is about to turn into)

indeed you would.  most mindless drones would prefer dictatorship to democracy.  Freedom is harsh.  Freedom is cold.  Freedom can be starvation or freedom can be great riches.  Freedom is long-lasting wonderful orgasms at the end of the Act of Making Love, or bitter 3-minute gropefests in the back seat of a 72 cutlass on the side of the road.  Freedom is deciding things for oneself.  Why settle for the thrill of the chase when you can have the kill, delivered on a platter?  No one here is surprised that a person such as yourself would decline that offer in favor a God or Government which gives you all the answers.  And no one is surprised that, in spite of all that garbage about the ennui of surburbia and picket fences, deep down you're about as Zoroastrian-influenced, security-conscious, scared simple surburbanite as they come.

No, that's not really the point. The point is that here we have a democracy which is NOT free, due to tyranny of the majority. Of course freedom is better, and I certainly don't support the Patriot Act because of any security concious nonsense, nor a dictatorship, but theoretically one could be more free under a dictatorship than such a democracy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But just compare England before Cromwell took over to Cromwell's rule for proof that is can.

I appear to be missing something here but... are you seriously suggesting that England was "more free" before the Commonwealth than during or after it? If so, I suggest you read up on the period a lot more...

Admittedly I don't know much about it, but from what I do know I'd take the absolute monarchy over Cromwell's Puritan regime and its banning of literature, alcohol, theater not to mention the great decrease in religious freedom that happened as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you actually know what Puritan meant back then? Not to pick on you or anything, because most people don't...

Was it the same as the people who did the Salem Witch Trials?

Er... no. No... I don't think that literature was banned

I was very stupid here, I meant to type "dancing" and for some reason typed that instead.

I don't think that was ever banned as such; certain Major Generals (the people responsible for running the various Districts) did crack down on ale houses though.
Their main target was cock-fighting and the like.

well even if not enforced this was a goal of Cromwell's government even if certain areas did not follow it.

Again, I think this was only in certain Districts.

see above

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear... who on earth told you that? What actually happend as far as religious freedom went was the reverse of that... to give a couple of examples; the Church of England was abolished, people were no longer fined for not attending Anglican services, the persecution of the Dissenters and Seperatists was ended... and the ban on Jews was finally lifted.

Well the person who told me that was Irish. And from what I've heard the Irish probably would disagree here...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The point is, democracy is majority rule.  The majority are freedom-hating, tyrannical prudes; therefore democracy leads to tyranny.  In a dictatorship if the dictator doesn't particularly care about your personal habits, you're likely to be more free 'socially' than under democracy.

Not everywhere neccesarily. The Netherlands is pretty nice, and if San Francisco became independent you wouldn't have that problem. However I agree in a country where most people are freedom hating prudes who can't mind their own business it'd be better to have a dictator who does than democracy.