The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is problematic on two counts. First: it is assumed that there is a definition for the word "dictator", which in today's usage signifies an autocratic, tyrannical ruler - an inherently subjective definition. (Yes, one could re-name the ever-popular List of Dictators to List of people called Dictators or something, but time would be better spent at calling those rulers by their nominal title and instead discussing the political system in depth.)
Second: the fact that an autocrat might choose to pass on the anoint a family membe his successor is extremely trivial. Running a hgovernment racket is profitable and of course one chooses to keep the profits in the family.
Trivial, subjective stuff. Dr Zak 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Larry V ( talk | contribs) 08:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) reply
This is problematic on two counts. First: it is assumed that there is a definition for the word "dictator", which in today's usage signifies an autocratic, tyrannical ruler - an inherently subjective definition. (Yes, one could re-name the ever-popular List of Dictators to List of people called Dictators or something, but time would be better spent at calling those rulers by their nominal title and instead discussing the political system in depth.)
Second: the fact that an autocrat might choose to pass on the anoint a family membe his successor is extremely trivial. Running a hgovernment racket is profitable and of course one chooses to keep the profits in the family.
Trivial, subjective stuff. Dr Zak 07:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply