Possibly defying a court order. Urging his Justice Department to prosecute nemeses. Repeatedly calling the media 'illegal.' Declaring a predecessor's pardon null and void. U.S. President Donald Trump has done these things in the past few days.
A dictatorship may last for millennia, but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.
You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a sociopath’s dictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.
but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.
Not all government forms have the institution of citizenship
Why isn’t longevity the most important attribute? Any organization’s goal is to last as long as possible. All other goals come second.
You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a sociopath’s dictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.
Once again, duration is irrelevant to the claim of legitimate authority because time doesn’t solely and objectively provide any evidence of people’s willing acceptance of that group or individual’s authority. This is more commonly known as the social contract via consent of the governed.
The group/individual, of course, can make claims to not needing said consent via spurious arguments like the one you’re making, but the claim does nothing to objectively show any utility, and thus, merit, for the populace they seek to exert power and influence over.
Basically, if you say “I’m in control forever because I’ve always been in control and my goal is to always be in control.”, most thinking people, including myself, would rightly say “Gargle my bullets after gargling my balls.” Also, your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people, good at the task of governance, or even objectively good for yourself.
A similar argument to what you’re saying would be, “Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest.” It’s demonstrably false, to use your own words.
Whether you consider my opinion of your opinions and you as ad hominem or not is irrelevant.
your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people
You being good for people is secondary, less important parameter.
effective at the tasks of governance
I guess if your country managed to survive for 74 years before collapsing on its own, then we can conclude you were not effective.
Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest
This is not my argument. But if Ford really is the oldest car manufacturer, then it definetly scores them some points as a car manufacturer. It doesn’t mean their cars are good.
A dictatorship may last for millennia, but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.
You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a
sociopath’sdictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.Not all government forms have the institution of citizenship
Why isn’t longevity the most important attribute? Any organization’s goal is to last as long as possible. All other goals come second.
Unrelated to the discussion, ad hominem.
Once again, duration is irrelevant to the claim of legitimate authority because time doesn’t solely and objectively provide any evidence of people’s willing acceptance of that group or individual’s authority. This is more commonly known as the social contract via consent of the governed.
The group/individual, of course, can make claims to not needing said consent via spurious arguments like the one you’re making, but the claim does nothing to objectively show any utility, and thus, merit, for the populace they seek to exert power and influence over.
Basically, if you say “I’m in control forever because I’ve always been in control and my goal is to always be in control.”, most thinking people, including myself, would rightly say “Gargle my bullets after gargling my balls.” Also, your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people, good at the task of governance, or even objectively good for yourself.
A similar argument to what you’re saying would be, “Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest.” It’s demonstrably false, to use your own words.
Whether you consider my opinion of your opinions and you as ad hominem or not is irrelevant.
You being good for people is secondary, less important parameter.
I guess if your country managed to survive for 74 years before collapsing on its own, then we can conclude you were not effective.
This is not my argument. But if Ford really is the oldest car manufacturer, then it definetly scores them some points as a car manufacturer. It doesn’t mean their cars are good.