Dictatorship of Hard Pacifists or Democracy of Pugnacious Gunghos

[sephodwyrm]

A totalitarian state that is strictly pacifist and isolationist?
Or a democratic state that is militaristic and interventionist?

Lets just pretend for now that this is restricted for the term - 4 years.
Oh wait, I just robbed the democracy of its biggest potential of change!
Lets also just pretend for now that this democracy has a horrible habit of staying pugnacious and bellicose.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Democracy of the Militant Interventionist always be prepared for war.

[Sidmen]

I'll go a democratic state that is militaristic and interventionist, since if its actually a democratic state its people will be militaristic and interventionist themselves.

VS.

A totalitarian state that is strictly pacifist and isolationist, robing its people blind while its ruling elite keep increasing in both wealth and power, often leaving office wealthier than when they started their post, even without their actual pay included.
(see, I can add some negative side effects too.)

[Daovonnaex]

The totalitarian state is evil by definition. The democratic state might be treating its own people well, but probably not.

Not enough information to make a judgement.

Is this Cuba vs. the USA or something?

[Sidmen]

Lets say its the founding of a new country in say, africa.

he democratic state might be treating its own people well, but probably not.

If the state is truly democratic, and not oligarchical like what the US has now, the citizens will be treated well.

[Daovonnaex]

If the state is truly democratic, and not oligarchical like what the US has now, the citizens will be treated well.

Why?

[Sidmen]

Because rule by the masses will always make themselves comfortable.

[Daovonnaex]

Because rule by the masses will always make themselves comfortable.

So do the masses now understand the laws of economics?

[Sidmen]

Doesn't matter, they might be a poor ass 4th world country, but their government will respect their decisions - since they actually make the decisions. besides, a warlike democracy would sure as hell loot their conquered peoples. Natural resources, near slave labor, cheep exports whatever...
(Which is what the question asked)

[Athkara]

As far as economics goes, as a rule, the democracy will be better off; since the people, being free, will conduct buisness to make a profit. This is basic capitolism, where there is free competition buisnessess, aiming to make a profit, must produce quality products. Otherwise they fail to make a profit and go out of buisness. This promotes a healthy economy where inovation and progress are nessecary for success.

However in a totalitarian economy where the government has total control, it is free to run its own buisness and shut down any competition by making it illegal. What this leads to is a lack of inovation and progress since the government run buisness is not dependant on making a net profit to stay in buisness. Instead, the government has the power to simply steal more money from the people (taxes) to cover any losses. This creates a sitiation where the people are doubly screwed over; first they're provided with shoddy products, and secondly, the government takes even more of their money to continue to run the non productive government buisnesses.

Though none of this is to say the there should be no government regulation of buisness; since for instance, only the government has the power to prevent monopolies, which stamp out competition, from being created.