Can a dictatorship be more free than a democracy?

[opebo]

Yes, obviously.  The majority of people in any society dislike freedom, and certainly love to oppress minority groups - whether of race or opinion. 

[opebo]

In theory, it certainly can be. For all practical purposes, the possibility is so remote that I would answer No.

Actually on the whole I would have to say that, in the area of social freedoms, a dictatorship is likely to be more free than a democracy.  No great mass of prudish bourgeois voters to pander to.

Yes, obviously.  The majority of people in any society dislike freedom, and certainly love to oppress minority groups - whether of race or opinion. 

Look who's talking, homophobe.

[opebo]

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.

You're missing the point angus - democracy is not necessarily 'free'.

[opebo]

By all means one can argue by counterexample that a condition characterized by superficial lack of freedom can be assigned to individuals which have greater individual freedom than those described by conditions which are characterized by Will.  For example, in many ways the slaves of the wife of a Ming Dynasty emperor are freer than the wife of the emperor.  But I'd rather be the wife of the emporor than her slaves.  Having to lie with the emperor from time to time seems such a small price to pay for all that radically hip stuff in the apartment.  And the slaves have to wash their own undergarments.   ewww.   And dictatorships vs democracy?  Sure, the friends of Fidel are much freer in some ways than those poor bastards in the slums of Johannesburg, in one of the world's great democracies.  No doubt.  I certainly wouldn't argue that the case can't be made for the negative.  I just wanted to suggest that in the greater sense of freedom, and neither are truly free, the democracy at least offers a chance of choice.

No, again you're missing the point.  I'm not talking about comparing individual cases of people living under one system or the other.

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.

[opebo]

if you and every one else will admit to playing silly word games so will I.  the thing is, opebo, you have six thousand years of evidence to the contrary but can't see it.  You think, "Hey, Akhenaten was something of a dictator, and decided on a whim to change the primary deity, so therefore dictation is free, because democrats can't just do that.  Hell, they can't even impose religion on the people."  So they're not as free.

What does imposing anything on people have to do with freedom?  Freedom is precisely the opposite of that - not imposing things on them.  Dictatorships can and often are more free precisely because the dictator is probably less likely to care to meddle in one's personal life - as long as one doesn't threaten his rule - than the nosy busybody prudes that make up the electorate.  And I assure you democracies can impose anything on anyone - democracy merely means majority rule, not any guarantee of individual rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I am relating only to those subjects, not akhenaten.  I am saying that akhenaten, or Saddam Hussein, or any dictator simply may not care as much about whether I can hire a prostitute as the bourgeois prude that elect government in a democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My position has nothing to do with money.  And I would much rather put my hopes in the whim of one busy dictator than the collective will of a bunch of freedom-hating busybodies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, of course, but my point is that one is much more likely to 'luck out' with one dictator than with the majority, since he will be busy retaining rule and enjoying the fruits of it.. he will also generally be an exceptional person, from the upper classes, ruthless, etc., so he is less likely to be taken in by the absurdity of bourgeois morality than the pathetic wage-slaves and conformist social climbers that make up the electorate in a democracy.  Thats not to say he won't violate one's rights, but at the very least his intellectual justification of it will be an honest one - might makes right - and not the repellant claims of an objective morality one gets from the envious, anhedonic commoner.

[opebo]

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.

Good point.. I suppose in small nations one has a better chance of a majority of non-prudes.

[opebo]

Dictation, no matter how freely the impositions leave you to roam, is still imposition, whereas laws democratically decided, no matter how severe you may view them, are not imposed, but collectively chosen.

No, they're still imposed by 51% on the whole.  I am just as subjugated in a democracy as I would be in a dictatorship.  The only people that have any reason to prefer a democracy are those who might be in the majority - and one thing is for sure, that will never be me.