Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.
The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.
As to restraints, you can put constitutional restrictions on a dictator. The English did it long before they formed a parliament.
I agree with one aspect here and that is it was easier for people fed up with the system to enact change. It wasn't about convincing the masses, many of whom are ignorant or don't care, but to just take action.
But you also had the Year of the 5 Emperors and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Pax Romana occurred because Rome dealt with all of its external threats before becoming an empire. Gauls, Parthians, Egyptians, Greeks... all of them crushed just before. And of course others like the Nubians were decimated either internally or by someone other than Rome.
The nature of dictators is very different from country to country. Some have had absolute power some have not. Some are military dictators whereas some are not. It all depends on who sets up the system and how one arranges it.
It's not Russian roulette. It's not up to chance, it's entirely dependent upon WHO sets it up, just how the nature of this Republic was dependent upon who set it up.
Different cultures set up different styles of each form of government. An American empire would be built around the constitution, around liberty.
Many cultures in the world set up violent and oppressive styles of government no matter what form of government it is, dictatorship or democratic. Other cultures set up peaceful styles, others again set up restrictive styles like in Japan, and others set up libertarian styles like the English speaking world.
The model of government may change but the style does not. The model changes when the current model begins to go against the cultures original vision of their style of government. Usually because of some kind of cultural contamination, in our current day example the contamination is a Marxist one.
Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.
The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.
As to restraints, you can put constitutional restrictions on a dictator. The English did it long before they formed a parliament.
I agree with one aspect here and that is it was easier for people fed up with the system to enact change. It wasn't about convincing the masses, many of whom are ignorant or don't care, but to just take action.
But you also had the Year of the 5 Emperors and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Pax Romana occurred because Rome dealt with all of its external threats before becoming an empire. Gauls, Parthians, Egyptians, Greeks... all of them crushed just before. And of course others like the Nubians were decimated either internally or by someone other than Rome.
I edited to respond to the 2A issue.
The nature of dictators is very different from country to country. Some have had absolute power some have not. Some are military dictators whereas some are not. It all depends on who sets up the system and how one arranges it.
It's not Russian roulette. It's not up to chance, it's entirely dependent upon WHO sets it up, just how the nature of this Republic was dependent upon who set it up.
Different cultures set up different styles of each form of government. An American empire would be built around the constitution, around liberty.
Many cultures in the world set up violent and oppressive styles of government no matter what form of government it is, dictatorship or democratic. Other cultures set up peaceful styles, others again set up restrictive styles like in Japan, and others set up libertarian styles like the English speaking world.
The model of government may change but the style does not. The model changes when the current model begins to go against the cultures original vision of their style of government. Usually because of some kind of cultural contamination, in our current day example the contamination is a Marxist one.
Fuck you and your stupid libertarian ideals
Yes. Fuck small government. I'm a big government conservative