1. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes have flourished throughout history because those who campaign or rule in this manner are able to limited the amount of opposition they faced by the people they rule. This is done before and during the stead of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. In the beginning, citizens are persuaded towards these regimes due to fear mongering, false reports, and aggravation of racial undertones, among other things. During these regimes, they flourish because the regimes overall control becomes insurmountable for the general population, whose liberties and ability to organize have been significantly limited.
2. A dictatorship could theoretically contribute to a good life for the citizens residing within the country if the dictator were truly benevolent. That is to say that with supreme authority an individual who values the personal freedoms and liberties of his countrymen could provide them with a good life. A good life is characterized by access to human essentials (food, water, shelter, and clothing), personal freedom (free speech, freedom of movement, civil rights, etc.), equality, and fairness or justice for all.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Non-Democratic Ideologies".
3. I would never trade political freedoms or civil liberties for “bragging rights.” How do bragging rights directly affect the quality of my individual life? It is my opinion that bragging rights have zero impact on the every day occurrences I experience in my life. For this, I perceive bragging rights as overt nationalism. In this specific case, these nationalistic sentiments are not backed by things like a strong infrastructure, quality health care, the right to speak freely, or low tax rates (i.e. things that can arguably make one’s life easier). The referenced bragging rights are military strength or, more broadly, having my country be a world superpower. The first things I mentioned would definitely directly affect my life, presumably for the better. The second grouping of bragging rights only benefit those in power of the superpower country. In that scenario, my civil liberties are removed and only those whom are in power truly benefit. Further, pride or nationalism is a worthless tool leaders use to rally support for their own agendas. Authoritarian and even democratic leaders show outward support of flag and country because they know that doing so will appeal to the sense of nationalism border create. I am of the opinion that borders or not, the only thing that concerns me is fairness, equality, and attention to the well being of a given territory’s inhabitants.
4. This proposition is a question of privilege. There are some who would readily take this offer because it would be a great improvement on their current lives. For example, considering the current wage gap problem in the United States, many individuals, even though they live in a purportedly free country, would eagerly jump at the prospect of having a great salary or many of the other mentioned benefits. However, the list (free health care, free education, free transportation, great jobs and salaries with paid time off, cheap vacations, cheap energy, affordable consumer goodies, etc) is vague and also does not address the non-materialistic aspect of the human experience. First, in terms of vagueness, the king’s offer says I would get “free health care” or “free transportation,” but this does not give reference to the quality of those items. It is very possible, especially under the rule of a king, that these items might be very poor quality, come with severe caveats, or be consistently inconsistent. In short, this sounds like a “too good to be true” offer. Further, the offered items on the king’s list only include infrastructure related items or material items. Those sorts of things do augment individual well-being, but the human experience (for almost everyone) requires much more. The number one thing that comes to mind is love. Love can be characterized as romantic, platonic, familial, or even sex, for the purposes of this argument. The king’s offer omits this kind of freedom, which is very important. I would never trade free transportation, a great job and salary, or cheap housing if it meant that I would be restricted from freely spending time with friends, a significant other, or my family.
