Indeed, I agree - and corrected myself as such in post #12.
I think you’re overstating the case a bit: it’s not like Singaporeans don’t have a (relatively) free press, or access to the internet and international media, or can’t leave the country and view it from outside (if not on a plane or a boat, the easiest way is by a simple bus ride that nearly 100% of the adult citizens have done at some point or other). It has a stern government that employs corporal and capital punishment, but on balance it is benevolent - if you’re not its victim. (But not totalitarian, in case any doubt lingers.)
There’s a difference between a ‘dictatorship’ and a ‘totalitarian government’. You can have a benevolent dictatorship, by simply having the dictator stay out of the affairs of the country.
But as soon as you attempt to control the economy or the people, you are going to wind up with all the trappings of a totalitarian state. Secret police, endless bureaucracies, regulations up the wazoo, and lots of cops to enforce them. The lack of free exchange forces people into the black market. There’s a reason why communist countries always wind up repressive. It’s the nature of a centrally managed economy.
How can you have any sort of a free press when you are able to harass the opposition? I mean, reporters who challange what President Bush say get accused of working for the opposition. I’m sure the government of Singapore is no more tolerant of an independent media, and also capable of doing something about it. If the government can act without criticism from the press and its opposition, you should assume tyranny. It is incumbent on the government to prove otherwise.
The Inca Empire was as totalitarian state as was possible with stone-age technology. The state’s bureaucrats controlled everything, down to periodically assigning spouses to unmarried people. Yet it’s generally considered a benevolent system, at least in that nobody went hungry and the emperor lived not much better than anybody else.
I don’t really mean to put myself in a position to defend the Singapore government, and I know most of what you’re saying is true.
It’s a tiny country, with a tiny media. The Straits Times, the main paper, gets leant on a lot by the government, and they’re scared of losing their license. Furthermore the government does indeed hassle negative opinions, which includes politicians and the media.
I also acknowledge that, if you transgress the laws that you had no choice in putting into place, then life can become a world of shit.
I’ve spent a lot of time there, and I’ve never met any Singaporean who was ill-informed about the status of their so-called “democracy”.
But, as I have said, Singaporeans have full access to all media outside their country, and are free to leave and travel whenever and wherever they want. I will repeat - life in Singapore is sweet for those who don’t transgress the (fairly) benign laws of the country.
Your statement is very Controversial. Take a look at some quotes [ http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/economy.htm ] for example. I think Star Trek and other fiction is certainly good ground to play with the ideas for successful future applications.
I have to slightly argue with you here - being an avid Trekkie, of course. The Federation is more like NATO - I personally think that’s what Ole’ Gene had in mind when he wrote the stuff. StarFleet/Earth forces act as our military might act – Military institutions are typically communist within themselves. You do a specific job exactly as ordered, submit to a non-elected heirarchy, then you get to eat at a non-commercial military cafetria and get pre-structured free time periods. I do believe that the military can be benevolent under the right leadership, even though many of their methods resemble communism or fascism, on occasion. Ultimately, as long as there is no draft, you don’t have to submit to being in the military. Some people appreciate that kind of order – that kind of person would not be me, but for many (some who I have met) that environment is necessary for success in life. But others, like myself, experience incredibly reduced productivity in those situations.
Yes there was. The ceremony was called “capacocha”. They’ve actually found bodies…the famous Incan “mummies”. Near as we can tell, the Incans would take a child of between like 7-15, take them up to a mountain, and kill them by crushing their skull.
You’re right – I’d forgotten about that. But then, it sounds less like an imperial policy than a traditional religious practice that may have predated the empire. Unlike the Aztecs – whose empire existed mainly for the purpose of providing the hungry gods with a steady diet of human hearts.
Actually, that’s never made clear. As Citizen Bob pointed out, all the main characters in all the ST series are military personnel, living in a hierarchical but otherwise communist institutional environment. Of the lives of civilians we see very little – but there’s nothing to suggest they live under any kind of communism or socialism. Some one-episode characters (e.g., Cyrano Jones and Harry Mudd from TOS) are spacefaring merchants. This suggests that there is more-or-less free commerce between the Federation’s member worlds.
I don’t know if you can divide the religious and the political up that neatly. Remember, the Inca Emperor was supposedly the son of the Sun God and derived his power from that status.
Also, even if the sacrifice predated the Inca Empire or the Cuzco state, the ceremony had political significance. Before the child was sacrificed, he or she, and their parents, would meet the emperor and be in a procession with him, and, since the victims were usually apparently the children of minor regional nobles, the sacrifices were a way to increase the loyalty of nobles on the hinterland.
According to a history prof of mine, George Washington’s nickname was “The New Cincinnatus” or something along those lines, and the city of Cincinnati named in his honor, apparantly because he decided not to declare himself king. On a tangentially related note, he was also apparantly the most highly respected general in England during the American Revolution (not that they weren’t all rooting for the King’s officers, but they just liked Washington more).
Looking at the Wiki article linked, it seems to mention something similar in regards to the city of Cincinnati (though the Wiki says it’s named after the Society of the Cincinnati" rather than after Washington’s nickname).
The problem with dictatorships is that even in free countries there is tons of opposition. Even in our democratic US government it is considered good when 60% of the public approves of the president and people are very vocal and emotional about politics. So a government that tries to squash opposition when opposition always exists is going to most likely resort to human rights abuses.
Saying that I can think of some examples of benevolent dictatorships. Not benevolant towards dissident though, I can’t think of any that were/are like that, unless you compare the post Stalinist dictatorships in the USSR to the dictatorship under Stalin which weren’t as bad by comparison with how they treated the people. But:
Under Park Chung Hee the South Korean economy grew at 10%+ a year. South Korea went from a 3rd world to 1st world nation under his watch.
Chile’s economy grew dramatically under Pinochet.
Saddam Hussein tried to eliminate illiteracy in Iraq. He won an award from UNESCO for it.
Several mideast dictatorships have endorsed reforms. The king of Qatar has instituted several reforms.
By and large I can only think of dictators who weren’t that bad or insituted a reform here or there. I can’t think of any that were actually good dictators. A good dictator would be one that boosted the economy while promoting human, civil and social rights. I can’t think of any that did that, but some probably exist somewhere.
Take a look at some quotes [