Castro offically steps down

[fett]

You bet your Turkish ass. There are prices I have no power over. And that sucks. But a controlled economy doesn't even give them a chance. That is unless there is a Black Market.

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

that point would be good if it wasn't for the fact that people die in rafts getting out of everywhere, illegal immigrants are rife everywhere these days....who knows where they'll turn up. some time u find shipfulls below deck...

U.S Census data shows that in the first fifteen years after Castro took power, over 640,000 people fled the island. The total for over forty years of Castro’s regime has passed 1.5 million people.

In 1994 when he announced that anyone who wanted to leave could do so, 35,000 people tried to raft their way to the US. Try to understand that- people crafted makeshift rafts and hopped on them, pushed off into the ocean, not knowing if they would live or die, just for freedom. Death by drowning, death by sharks, death by dehydration… Yep, Cuba must be a real paradise if these choices trumped life on the island. So my point was directed towards how the people love Castro, which the numbers show otherwise.

[Tashtego]

I can't tell if you are joking or not. Machiavelli was writing for a Medici audience that ruled over a largely illiterate populace and contended for power with ecclesiastical authorities and other nobility.

Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" that the absolute best form of government is a benevolent dictator, i.e. someone who cares for his people and has absolute power.

Just an argument against a representative government being the best.

[Cygnus X1]

So Lucy...Essplain to me all those leftie politico's here and the big celebs that celebrate Castro?

What do I not understand?

[Spivonious]

I can't tell if you are joking or not. Machiavelli was writing for a Medici audience that ruled over a largely illiterate populace and contended for power with ecclesiastical authorities and other nobility.

Nope, completely serious. If the U.S. was ruled by one person who truly wanted the best for his/her people, then I believe we'd be in much better shape right now. None of this time wasted in debate and lobbying.

[Cygnus X1]

Nope, completely serious. If the U.S. was ruled by one person who truly wanted the best for his/her people, then I believe we'd be in much better shape right now. None of this time wasted in debate and lobbying.

Absolute Power=Absolute Corruption.
Hugo Chavez anyone?
Or Aristeed?
Or Saddam Hussein?

Ah, the list is too long.

[Tashtego]

I'm sorry, there is only one appropriate response ....

:ROTF:

Nope, completely serious. If the U.S. was ruled by one person who truly wanted the best for his/her people, then I believe we'd be in much better shape right now. None of this time wasted in debate and lobbying.

[GodOfRhythm]

Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" that the absolute best form of government is a benevolent dictator, i.e. someone who cares for his people and has absolute power.

Just an argument against a representative government being the best.

Absolute power corrups absolutely.

Kudos to tashtego who seems very knowledgeable on the subject!

I can not think of a SINGLE instance in history where a dictatorship has governed a happier populace than a representative or democratic system does/would.

The only thing I can think of right now is Augustus and a few of his subsequent rulers. And even they had to keep in check or were at risk of being taken out by their Praetorian guard, which by that time was renowned for their special own 'system' of 'checks and balances' on their emperor's rule.

Ethically, in this day and age, you can NOT predispose and superseed the opinion of one person above those of everybody else. The question of ethics doesn't even come into the picture anymore, would that ever happen, since you'd have effectively given this person complete and utter moral and ethical superiority. So it is a paradox, one can not judge an absolute ruler to be unfair or unjust, if he himself embodies absolute power and thus is the only governing force of what is morally, politically, socially, spiritually,.... right. He would therefor, naturally, always be just and right. Once this notion gets implanted deep into minds of people, combined with a sick lack of humanity and a hunger for power, you end up with the Castros and Il-Sungs of the world.

Your argument and opinion is fundamentally flawed.

[fett]

Other than a few years when Castro was sending his Bullshistas overseas to forment revolution, just what did lil' ole' Cuba do to us? The Cuban Missle Crisis was interesting. I was 13 when that was an issue. It was a little scary. I think we just were pissed off that we couldn't make Cuba another PR.

[yard dawg]

Maybe we should ask them if they want to be the 51st state? I know Puerto Rico would be pissed but who cares?

[fett]

They are just 12 million people, 90 miles away, trying to get by. The Castros are just old farts that pissed us off in 1959. Granted the Cold War. Someone should do a study to determine what it has cost the US to hold a 50 year grudge. The MOB is just chomping at the bit.:ROTF:

[åron]

Absolute power corrups absolutely.

Kudos to tashtego who seems very knowledgeable on the subject!

I can not think of a SINGLE instance in history where a dictatorship has governed a happier populace than a representative or democratic system does/would.

The only thing I can think of right now is Augustus and a few of his subsequent rulers. And even they had to keep in check or were at risk of being taken out by their Praetorian guard, which by that time was renowned for their special own 'system' of 'checks and balances' on their emperor's rule.

First you say you can't think of a single instance in human history, and then you bring up a substantial example. That's 200 years of history, generally thought of as a height of human happiness. Yes, it was a benevolent dictatorship. Yes, the empire fell into decline. (Queue a comment about slavery...)

There are other examples backing up Machiavelli's comment, including the Incan Empire. If you're really interested in an academic study of the relative traits of capitalist, socialist and dictatorial societies throughout recorded history, check out Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant.

Ethically, in this day and age, you can NOT predispose and superseed the opinion of one person above those of everybody else. The question of ethics doesn't even come into the picture anymore, would that ever happen, since you'd have effectively given this person complete and utter moral and ethical superiority. So it is a paradox, one can not judge an absolute ruler to be unfair or unjust, if he himself embodies absolute power and thus is the only governing force of what is morally, politically, socially, spiritually,.... right. He would therefor, naturally, always be just and right. Once this notion gets implanted deep into minds of people, combined with a sick lack of humanity and a hunger for power, you end up with the Castros and Il-Sungs of the world.

Your argument and opinion is fundamentally flawed.

Right on. You can't say that benevolent dictatorships are a prescription for anything. The cycles are clear: no good system of government stays free from corruption. We sway from capitalist to socialist tendencies in the US. As the capitalist ways lead us to grind the common man into dust, the socialist lead to amotivation and stagnation. We find balance or we go extinct, imo.

[fett]

Ypu guys can take all history out of context and revise it all you want.And then try to apply to the last 200 years. I don't buy it. It doesn't matter what Mach wrote. It doesn't matter what the Romans did. It's all about the founding of the United States. That is the benchmark as screwed up as we are.

[GodOfRhythm]

First you say you can't think of a single instance in human history, and then you bring up a substantial example. That's 200 years of history, generally thought of as a height of human happiness. Yes, it was a benevolent dictatorship. Yes, the empire fell into decline. (Queue a comment about slavery...)

There are other examples backing up Machiavelli's comment, including the Incan Empire. If you're really interested in an academic study of the relative traits of capitalist, socialist and dictatorial societies throughout recorded history, check out Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant.

I highlighted the Pax Romana because I KNEW it was not a correct example of Macchiavellian ideals, since you can not use an example as outdated as that and plant it on a modern day situation like the one Spivonious was suggesting. That'd be the mortal sin ( ) of hineininterpretierung!

I am unsure as to how exactly you factor in slavery in the supposed 'decline' of the Roman Empire and I'd love to hear your ideas on it.

[Bengal]

Fuck Cuba and anyone arguing about Cuba...

Kidding...

I like turtles...