Who would assume the position of dictator?

[BRG253]

Rand warned about the possibility of future dictatorship, Peikoff has alluded to his belief that we may be heading toward a dictatorship ruled by religion, and Onkar Ghate recently remarked that attacks on freedom of speech are warning signs that we are headed toward a real dictatorship. If it comes to pass as these philosophers have warned, who will occupy the role of the dictator?

[TheEgoist]

We won't be seeing a dictatorship anytime soon, IMO. Not in the predictable future (The next 5-10 years)

[Jake_Ellison]

It will be some surprising, radical young go getter, with a religious, anti immigration, anti free trade, anti technology platform, from way outside the Beltway. (might come up as a religious or political activist, union organizer, who knows--a lot like Obama came up, except even more thuggish and even less distinguished. He would also have to generate a lot more controversy, since he will likely not have CNN's backing in the beginning)

I would say the historical figure he would most resemble would be Hitler, not any of the other monsters. Either way, by the time we see him, there's no stopping him. If you kill him, there will be another one behind him.

[Limelight]

Either way, by the time we see him, there's no stopping him. If you kill him, there will be another one behind him.

Not if we prepare for it. It's too pessimistic to think that fascism possesses such inviolability over liberty.

[DavidOdden]

I'm skeptical that we could predict who, right now. For one thing, I think a Reichstag-scale catapulting event would be necessary. Or 9/11 -- but it didn't happen. While I agree that religion is the most persistent long-term reliably dangerous source of fascism, the slow-but-steady approach could be trumped by a clever catastrophe, which could either be economic or environmental. A really clever future dictator would ground their destruction of free enterprise in vision of 'Day the Earth Stood Still' god-like melt-down of planet Earth.

[Limelight]

I just wonder what is more of a threat- religion or socialism?... I seem to disagree with Peikoff's rationalization of voting for Kerry in 2004, as he held religion as a greater threat at the time as well. There is an array of political beliefs held by those religious, but most seem to favor less federal power and property rights. I'd personally prefer to see us live in a libertarian country- even if those in office were religious- than to have our country run under Marxist ideology- even if it meant religion would cease to exist.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Limelight

[JMeganSnow]

Religious people are not "libertarian" and do not respect liberty in principle. They simply consider certain aspects of man's life to be unimportant and thus not worth government control. As many people on the Left are explicitly religious and pushing for religious initiatives as on the "right". Which you'd rather have is no argument.

It *seems* that the U.S. isn't ready for a single dictator and that it is more likely that the country would erupt into warring factions. But it is precisely this situation, historically, that has given rise to dictatorships. I highly recommend reading the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg to get a look of the history of would-be dictators in the U.S. It's a very polite book and thus fails at condemning the aspects of fascism that need to be condemned utterly, but the history is fascinating.

The increasingly vicious partisan nature of politics is actually a bad sign in this regard, because would-be and actual fascist dictators in the past have ridden to power by claiming to be a "third way" between the arguing factions. In addition, they play on the disgust that most people have with endless futile arguing by displaying their Nietzschian "will to power" and their willingness to run roughshod over these "petty rules" that stand in the way of "getting things done".

It is an interesting interrelationship. First you have the increasing belief that the state should "fix things", which leads to the rise of the bureaucrats--the 10,000 dictators each with their personal area of influence that they will defend to the death and are always seeking to expand. This, in turn, leads to a proliferation of contradictory rules for them to fight over, and eventually a breakdown that one dictator can capitalize on to become the final arbiter.

But who actually manages to do so is basically random, as Ayn Rand described Wesley Mouch: he was the zero between forces unleashed in mutual destruction against each other.

[nanite1018]

I cannot predict who. Though, I am unconvinced that any such thing would come to pass. Anyone rising to gain essentially absolute power in the US would, I believe, be deposed in a coup d'e'tat by the military. The military has been drilled that it is subservient to civilian governmental control, but its first and foremost duty is the preservation of our republic. If America is being destroyed, if the government is being dismantled and replaced by the autocratic authority of one person, I do not believe the military (or at least some number of generals) would follow along. Any such dictatorship wouldn't last long, and would be replaced by a military provisional government in short order. What this group does then is an interesting question, which I honestly cannot predict.

On the other hand, I am not certain that a dictatorship is a bad thing. We often connect dictatorships with fascists and statists, but it is possible that a the Supreme Leader, or whatever they wish to be called will set up a firm system of laws based on individual rights, and work to enforce this objective system of laws with the full power of the military and police forces, against civilian unrest. This happened in some former Soviet Republics, where the dictator simply declared that the market would be free and enforced it. Obviously these countries haven't done great thus far, but it gives the basic idea of what I am talking about.

I haven't ever seen anything about elections or democracy which makes it so much better than oligarchy or a limited suffrage republic or some form of dictatorship, as a matter of principle. In fact, I dare say this country was much better off when suffrage was limited to those with property (I think this is the major reason why the US has been failing over the last hundred to hundred fifty years, not because the vote was extended to all races and both sexes; those are merely coincidence). The "every person gets a vote" principle, in my view, greatly endangers any constitution which has the capacity to be amended, even if the majority required is inordinately large. Much better to limit suffrage to those with property, intelligence, and education, so that they are less likely to be swayed by envious sentiments and blatantly illogical worldviews.

[JMeganSnow]

Intelligent, educated people put Hitler into power. The primary control on government is the populace of the country. If they maintain a rational philosophical base, their gov't will be, for the most part, benevolent. If they become irrational, the only thing that can slow the onset of tyranny is a gov't that is constructed to get in its own way and make new legislation as difficult as possible to enact.

Of course, this can backfire, encouraging dictators with a "will to power" who can "get things done" because they step all over the constitutional limitations. But, ultimately, it is the power of good philosophy that creates good government.

[Lasse K. Lien]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001525/

But I could be wrong...