lscmd on Nostr: This will be long, but I put thought into it, which is not normal. So consider this: ...

This will be long, but I put thought into it, which is not normal. So consider this:

- Dictator/non dictator is a weaponized label, Trump is democratically elected, but he acts as a dictator. Putin is (arguably) democratically elected and acts as a dictator.

In fact, most governments is dictatorial, and that's why there are so many anarchists.

I would not use the label because they are favorable to the west, just semantically.

- There are advantages to representative democracy (Modi, Trump): There is a need to not be too overt so as to not let people know that power behind the scenes is pulling all the strings (and they are)

- There are advantages to dictatorships (Putin, Xi): The dictator is clearly a target, everyone wants him dead, and he will die and someone new will come in. Putin will die and something else will come to be.

- The disadvantage of dictatorship is that you effectively have a "King" who could and usually do crazy nasty shit.

- The disadvantage of representative democracy is that the system will never change. 95% of people think the problem is the "other" party, and that voting is the key to a good government. So you will live forever in an oligarchy that gets shittier and over time.

Since there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and the label is weaponized by western (Zionist owned) media. Wouldn't it be better to stop relying on labels and arguing whether a the leader (or the oligarchy that control the leader) is good or bad?

I would.

BTW, there is monarchy and theocracy, probably more... and they suck much worse.