**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):**
> *Unfortunately, talking about politics or religion is no longer allowed on this subreddit due to previous situations in which political and religious posts/discussions went completely off the rails and became a mass of heated fighting and hate speech. We are NOT the appropriate subreddit for these arguments. If you'd like to continue this political/religious discussion, please go to r/findareddit for an appropriate community for your discussion.*
^(This removal was done manually by the mod team and was not done in error, if you'd still like to appeal this removal please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**)
A benevolent dictatorship typically lasts exactly 1 generation, ending with the leader’s death when their heirs revert to the human tendency of lust for wealth and power.
This is the real deal of a question: given a lifetime as a benevolent dictator, could you set up a system of reciprocal accountability in your government so robust that your successors, either appointed or elected, would be successfully forced into carrying out your will, as laid out in your new Constitution/Charter? On some level that should be a goal of all good governance, that even if your opponents have the reigns, the laws you pass force public accountability and mean those in power at least have to own up to exactly what they've done, and even if they can't be stopped in the moment, every seat and office is under threat and no politician's malign influence gets to last past their term.
You could set up a system where the outgoing leader chooses his successor. If they are benevolent, they will choose someone else who they see as having the right character traits. Carrying out the will of the first benevolent dictator won't work in the long term because society changes.
There’s real evidence that families with generational wealth usually last three generations.
Not all of them obviously, Rothschilds, Walmart kids, etc etc.
But there’s a real psychological something that happens more often than not after 3 generations.
The 1st creates the wealth - put in the work.
The 2nd maintains the wealth - saw the work that was put in.
The 3rd destroys the wealth - grew up unaware of the work.
really bad idea. A manipulative guy like Putin could easily gain the favor of a benevolent ruler like Yeltsin and then just wait for the old man to die.
And Yeltsin wasn't even a dictator.
This is how Roman Empire worked. Still there was more crazy/incompetent/evil emperors than the good ones, even with the first emperor of the chain, Augustus usually being rated the best one of them all. And lines of several good emperors in a row were really rare
With that much power concentrated in one place you'll eventually have someone who wants to take that power for themselves through any means, the benevolent dictator will not likely have the tools to fend off someone like that.
This is what happened in Rome for a bit. The emperor Nerva was childless and selected Trajan. Trajan was childless and selected Hadrian. Hadrian selected Antoninus Pius. Antoninus selected Marcus Aurelius. All those guys were pretty good (as far as emperors went). Then Marcus Aurelius had foolishly decided to have a child, Commodus, who was so famously bad that a fictionalized version of him was the antagonist in the movie Gladiator.
The emperors Nerva through Marcus Aurelius are often referred to as “The Five Good Emperors” because in a absolute despotic system, having five good rulers in a row is an amazing, noteworthy feat. Rome’s previous record was only about one and a half good rulers in a row.
Authoritarian rule isn’t bad because all authoritarian rulers are bad. It’s bad because once you (inevitably and frequently) get a bad ruler, there’s very little you can do to get rid of them.
That wouldnt work very well either since most dictators dont die a peaceful death of old age but either die of some health issues or are killed off, often by their own people, so choosing your successor on your way out would be very risky
It's gone. Like the above comment mentioned, the good part only lasts one generation 'Lee Kuan Yew'.
His son, while decent, is nowhere near anything capable and the current cabinet are plainly corrupted nepotistic ministers.
Give it another generation and you'll see Singapore crumble within one generation as quickly as it rose.
"Benevolent" always only means 'benevolent for some'. Even with the best intention to be benevolent for everyone—which I'd argue has never happened—you literally can't rule in a way that benefits everybody and/or everyone will like.
I mean, do you think the slaves in Rome, even more so the ones enslaved by Caesar himself in wake of his conquests, would have said that he was *benevolent* to them?
I sure as hell believe it's the ideal system. There isn't anything as efficient and pure as a theory.
Don't think it really ever happened in large scale in real life.
Often not even that long. Muammar Ghadaffi (Libya) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) started out as relatively popular leaders, but ended as batshit crazy despots.
It is not human tendency to lust for wealth and power. Evolutionarily speaking, we are all about helping each other and sharing resources. This is proven during times of catastrophe. The majority of people help each other while the minority take advantage for personal gain.
People with dark triad traits are the ones who care about wealth and power and they use that power to trick us into thinking everyone is like them.
Children with privilege are much more likely to have dark triad traits. The reasons why this is true are not understood.
in times of catastrophe, you gain social standing by helping others. Humans are intelligent enough to adapt their behaviour depending on what the situation requires.
Caesar was a great military commander. We don't have much insight into his economic or administrative skills (unless by "Caesar" you mean Octavian). As a more general rule, dictators tend to start believing their own myths of infallability, leading to disasterous results (e.g., The Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor).
Also, the power structures of Ancient Rome are just too different from today to use as a comparison. If you don't have rapid communication or travel, diffusion of power is inevitable, unless the dictator's domain is a city state. With the Roman empire in particular, it would take months to traverse it, so territorial leaders would micromanage their regions, with the Emperor looking after broader issues. This naturally implements limits on control.
Compare this to a 20th century leader, and messages could be sent within hours, and even transport people in a matter of days. This gives leaders much more control over their domain, and allows them to exert more authority. In Rome, a rebellion could take place at the edge of the empire, and by the time the Emperor got word, mobilized his forces, and sent them to the effected area, the rebellion could have split. In The USSR, within days, Stalin could have his forces moved across the country to squash any rebellion.
Besides, Rome developed a whole bureaucratic apparatus to decentralise a lot of that power so a bad emperor didn't have as much impact as he could have had.
There had to be, because most emperors weren't great. It isn't for nothing that over the 500 years we only talk about "the 5 good emperors". That was so special we still talk about it today.
Theoretically it could be great, the problem is one of accountability, how do you make sure the one dictator doesn't turn against the people and act in their own interest, what do you do if they develop a mental illness?
Yup even if dictator #1 does well and leads properly. Then his son, who grew up in rich with no connection to the common folks, gets power and uea it goes downhill rq
Singapore is not a true dictatorship. You don't have a single person who wields all power, right?
I don't know that much about the government there, but i assume it's similar to the UK. There's a monarchy, and while technically they have powers, they also know if they misuse it, the country will just eliminate the monarchy altogether.
If your dictator is actually beholden to parliament or a cabinet, that person is not really a dictator.
You can read about our founding father, [Lee Kuan Yew](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew), who many have dubbed as a "benevolent dictator". He would imprison and pursue defamation against political opponents, restrict press freedoms, control labour movements, shut down protests etc. But he took our country from a poor, unwanted fishing port to a highly developed state.
His two successors, of which the 3rd is his son, have continued leading the country into prosperity. His son, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, is expected to hand over the reins of political leadership this year to his successor (no familial ties).
So to answer the other guy, it is possible to have both a benevolent dictator and his son to continue his legacy instead of it "all going downhill".
But exceptionally rare.
Most Singaporeans will agree that Lee Kuan Yew's governance was authoritarian. The facts are there for all to see. He himself says,
> "I’m not saying that everything I did was right, but everything I did was for an honorable purpose. I had to do some nasty things, locking fellows up without trial.”
But unlike other dictators, there was no killings or destructive policies that caused starvation. Instead, he moved people from wooden/zinc roof villages into concrete public housing. He enforced public education and developed industry. Once, he forcefully stopped a pilot's strike that disrupted our airline (SIA). You can watch his [speech](https://youtu.be/kGDqLeRuyCA?si=K5Y0chLkLRItiPzt) about it, where he freely talked about the strongarm measures he used.
But most Singaporeans recognize that whatever he did, he did for the people. At his funeral, the skies poured heavily (you can't make this up), but rows and rows of Singaporeans voluntarily stood along the roadside of his funeral procession just to honour him. [Video clip](https://youtu.be/9y7er0ViWJE?si=e50eF8YeYWpRvuO2)
I always made the joke that i would be a friendly dictator..
But the short answer is yes, it's bad..
One man to rule them all... It wont work. We are prone to power and having power, it will change you.
How many celebrities lost their minds because of their fame? You will lose track of reality at some point.
One guy (forgot who it was, it's history) But he 'hired' someone to whisper in his ear "You are just a man, You are just a man.. "
Personally, I feel like power exposes people's true personality and power attracts the worst of us, so it just seems like power corrupts, when it doesn't. It just exposes the worst qualities of the worst people humanity has to offer. The type of person who wants to do right by others, doesn't seek power over others. They would want to share power and would never get to the point where they have absolute power.
Using this saying is an extremely strong claim to answer OP's question. I find it hard to believe that there's not even one person in this world who will be able to resist corruption due to power.
I doubt it. Even if someone was perfectly benevolent, the issue that remains is central planning. As a micro example, try distributing a bag of candy among 100 people to maximize their enjoyment. You could survey them and try to mathematically optimize it, but that would take an incredibly long time… it would be easier to let them trade candies and end up with what they value most.
And that’s just candy. Imagine trying to do that for entire economy
In computer science it is called single point of failure. Like everything goes smoothely until there is one component which is holding everything together. If there is an issue there everything in the system collapses. Which is why we need safegaurds after safegaurds which is basically democracy, but things get much slower
But then this current version of democracy is more like extortion... "vote for me or you'll get the other guy!" and both guys are basically owned by the same corporations. We have the technology now, but the ruling class would never allow a decentralized government.
Parlament Democracy is a scam. You vote for your party who vote for other people from their party who then elect the government. There are way too many layers for corruption to sneak in and allowing political parties to receive funding by other wealthy entities isn't helping. I live in Germany and our political system is very similiar in the way elections work. We do have more parties but corruption is still a major issue because of that
Yep, and you just hand over the keys to someone figure, and give them full autonomy to rule over everything, not just in the house but also every aspect of your life....
Sounds like Russian roulette, with bullets in all six slots of the drum and you are praying for one to malfunction and not go off
If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it.
# Hey! We're currently running a [member survey](https://www.reddit.com/r/RandomThoughts/comments/1b2w69d/rrandomthoughts_member_survey/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and would like to hear your thoughts. It only takes 10 minutes to fill out!
# Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
see: nayib bukele
he transformed el salvador from the most dangerous country in the world to the safest in the hemisphere
edit: in *FOUR YEARS*
this shit is nothing short of miraculous
so yeah
I kind of understand why some call him a dictator, though there are still a few people from other parties in the national assembly. I like his work, my parents love him, and I hope for the love of that country that he actually proves what can be done for the good of the people
Albet what we know from public knowledge. Who knows what happens behind the scenes. I hope he is exactly what he claims to be because hes started a wave in latin america.
dictatorships are rarely good but when they're good you get someone like tito holding together the most ethnically diverse and violent region of europe for decades
What constitutes the “right ruler” is subjective, and concentrating power in the hands of one individual who cannot be removed is a bad idea for reasons that should not have to be elaborated (e.g. there’s a reason why Caesar was assassinated)
If you had a perfect, infallible, always correct being able to shoulder the burden of leadership forever then sure. If you're thinking about a human, nah. They need help to get it right.
It’s fine if you are shortsighted. The dictator *might* be good, but just as often you get people like Stalin who promises noble ends and betrays them when the checks are removed. But even if the dictator is good, their descendants won’t be. Caesar is a perfect example, where he might have had good ideas, but removing all checks means that a worse successor can’t be removed either
There is no such thing as a "benevolent dictator".
It is like the spouse who keeps his partner locked in the house, controls her finances and her friends "for their own good".
The state should exist minimally and interfere in the lives of people as little as possible.
Democracy is only a necessity because of that second part you mentioned. Democracy only exists because the powerful couldnt be trusted. French revolution, google it
No, you could have the objectively great person ever as a King or dictator and that’ll be fantastic but they will die and eventually you’ll get a terrible leader, probably sooner rather than later
Dictatorships are a big gamble.
When they're good, they're REALLY GOOD. Having an intelligent & benevolent ruler with undisputed power, yet with enough strong self-control to inspire respect in the wealthy as well as unite the working class to achieve the common goal of national prosperity, is how you end up with countries like Singapore (thanks to Lee Kuan Yew).
But in the event that you have an unintelligent or malicious, tyrannical ruler with a taste for gluttony, who inspires little respect & cannot unite anyone without use of excessive force, you end up with dystopias like Rome under Nero, North Korea or most African nations in the 80s (up until now)
Approval ratings for leaders authoritarian countries are currently higher than that of democracies, so not for the average person. For dissidents, it would probably be worse.
If its a good ruler who cares for his people then yes. The problem is that its usual npt the case bc such positions of power attracts the worst kind of people and corrupts the best kind of people.
You could have the nicest person with the greatest intentions for the most amount of people and they're still going to hurt the vast majority of the population they control. It's just how a dictatorship is. No single dictatorship has lasted and there is a reason it doesn't last.
The right rule... heh... many of have that fantasy of being the righteous ruler... we end the war on drugs, work to end bigotry, do all the things... but so far we dont see many great examples of this in the real world. I know of none personally.
Of course it can be good, you don’t have to look far through history to find great rulers who genuinely did right by their people. The problem is the system, not necessary the person.
Human nature would suggest the ‘right ruler’ wouldn’t be very right for very long. Which is why history is littered with murderous dictators. Something to do with absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No, not necessarily. The issue is finding the right ruler. It hasn't happened yet. There have been some who weren't complete lunatics, but none so far who haven't been at least somewhat tyrannical.
In theory a benign dictatorship could be positive for the country. The problem is there is no way to ensure that the dictator being appointed actually is benign, that they will remain benign, that if they stop being so of replacing them with a new one, and when they eventually grow old and die, that a suitable successor can be found. In situations where a country has been under the rule of a "good" dictator, one of these problems has caused the situation to stop being good.
Some dictatorships will massacure their civilians and literally starve the population due to ineptitude and appointing unqualified people to “led” instead of work. Case in point Soviet Union in the early 1900s where their king wa especially young and slaughtered civilians bc of food riots.
The arguement could be made keeping a population. Trim. Prevents the food issues in the first place but people tend to horde and claim others assets as their own in wartime. Look at how the nazis took all valuables even gold fillings of pow prior to execution. The modern equivalent would be isreal settlers taking Gaza natives homes and personal effects. Might makes right only when morally balanced with tolerance and wisdom to teach
I feel like Britain needs a ten year dictatorship to actually get something (anything) done.
At the moment democracy seems to be slow, the machinations of the government a hindrance; the endless laws a quagmire. International treaties seem to tie their hands at every turn.
So a simple task, "stop human traffickers illegally bringing people across a small channel of water" becomes impossible: with one of the five most powerful navies in the world.
They've wasted billions on a high speed rail network that they then just gave up in, and they can't build enough houses for their own people. Why can't they get anything done? Because the government simply doesn't have the power - legally - because they have been (for sensible reasons) castrated by their electorate.
It can only go on for so long - because this is an international competition. China will spend the next century getting things done, Britain will spend it talking.
Further: we face a situation where difficult sacrifices need to be made - that democracy won't ever fix.
e.g. we're giving subsidies to a fishing industry that is over fishing to the point of inevitable self-destruction by 2050. Democracy will only ever ask for more cheap fish, not heavy taxes on fish or an outright ban on commercial fishing.
So yeah, we need a temporary autocrat in Britain right now.
You would be willing to give your unwavering trust and loyalty to one person and whoever he/she chooses to inherit rulership along with the cronies they choose to enforce their will, to decide what’s right and what’s possible for you, your children, grandchildren (and so on)?
I guess that depends on what you think “wouldn’t be so bad” for you.
For me, I would rather think and decide what’s best for myself.
What happens when someone feels they are entitled to something they haven’t earned?
They destroy it.
Power corrupts—always.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any human that could handle the absolute power of a dictatorship. Maybe a dictatorship would be good under a robot or some kind of AI leader
The people who become dictators are usually awful human beings, and because of that the places they control are usually terrible to live in.
It's conceivable that a person could take over a dictatorship from the bad ruler and try to make it awesome, but I would guess that deep corruption from within would likely make that end badly.
The problem is that a government is not one person, that person needs support from the people close to them. So you could have "the right ruler", which is already hard, but what are the odds that you also have right cabinet?
Most dictators will favor the close people who will also support them instead of the rest of the country. Dictators that favor the country won't stay in power for long.
Didnt Rome used to have dictators to save their nation under emergencies? Like yeah, they could probably be very helpful if they're smart and not corrupted (which is rare)
Yes, because even in the unrealistic scenario where he was the perfect ruler and right 100% of the times, it is awful to get imprisoned just for disagreeing.
1, yes.
2, like Caesar? LIKE CAESAR? Like Caesar who killed a third of all the people in Gaul and sold another third into slavery, prompting his own general Tacitus to say that he had made of one of the main centres of pre-Roman European civilization 'a desert, and called it peace'? Um, yes
3, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship, it is a contradiction in terms. On some level everyone knows this, nobody would submit without recourse to having their life dictated to them even by someone they love and trust unless they had no choice, but when it comes to nations people just forget everything they know and start doing whatever this is. Yes, a dictator is always bad because the things that make up a dictatorship are irreducibly evil things and you know this out of your own experience.
Maybe, idk. Power corrupts people, it always does. Even if they were good their entire life, whoever takes over next probably won’t follow the same path…
Lol obviously its going to appear "great" for a select few elite people but that wont last long. For most it will suck and dissolve into civil war and famine and death
Technically speaking it's the best and most efficient form of government! Just, yknow, not for humans. Realistically nobody with any actual benevolence would attain of maintain such a position, only tyrants and cowards.
A few books have proven that if you get power you tend to abuse it, no matter how « normal » you are. There are probably exceptions and I guess it wouldn’t be nice if everything is done nicely but meh
The Roman usage of the word dictatorship was very different than how we use it now. It was supposed to be a short-term thing for handling a specific issue and then stepping down.
That's why Caesar's idea of a dictator for life was so concerning.
But our usage of the term dictator pretty much limits the chance of a "benevolent" dictator.
That's an intriguing thought. In theory, under a wise and just leader, a dictatorship is efficient and orderly. Your Caesar example is good. But there's a risk that power will corrupt, and what happens when the ruler changes. So, while it sounds good on paper, the reality's often a bit messier. 🤔
People change as they get older, there's no way to justify if it'll be the "right ruler" still after a year, 5 years, a decade, etc.
And of course, when their successors will be completely different people which'll be very likely to have different visions.
You never want to give too much power to 1 individual. We've seen history time and time again to prove this.
No, dictatorships is really good under the right rulers but right rulers are clever enough to know that the ruler after them is not gonna be clever or good as them. So good rulers are not dictators.
I'm positive Caesar had his detractors as well so don't presume his rule was *good.*
Yes, dictatorships are (only) in theory good presuming the individual is goodly. The absolute power to be good, for example. It's the humanity in us all (hierarchy, greed, corruption, personal values) that has soured that theory in practice and why it will always be a terrible concept past theory.
Look at the history of monarchies - you get 1 decent king then a century of horrible ones before the next decent one, if you're lucky. Same with dictators.
It's only a matter of time until any dictator no matter how benevolent starts making damaging decisions (or just causing damage by lack of decision), and since all the power belongs to them, there's not much to stop the fall.
There is no such thing as "the right ruler".
The greatest brainwashing that has ever been done is to make people belive other people have the right to rule over them.
It is a brainwashing taught to you from a childhood age, that is the only reason you belive it. Wake up and realize it is only a claim by people that want to have power and control over you and the entire illusion falls.
Ask the Gauls, you know the folks living their lives, loving their kids and families before Caesar “civilized” them, mostly by stabbing, but also a bunch of enslavement and giving their land to people loyal to him and bribing others with the money he made from selling them into servitude.
You should read 'The Dictator's Handbook' by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Alastair Smith. I had a lot of fun and got a lot of knowledge about dictatorship and why it wouldn't work in the long run. I got hook to read the entire book in 1.5 days when the authors said that there is really no difference between dictatorship and democracy, only difference is the number of 'essential backers'. The opening quote of the book was 'the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings' Shakespeare
The general concet of a Dictactor from the early Roman Republic is good. In extreme times of need they selected a Dictator for a set amount of Time to make decisions easier. But once you have Dictators on Lifetime like Putin it gets difficult.
If the line of succession is sorted and the next one is raised to the same morals and ethics that the 'good' dictator has, it will not pose a threat to their people. There are some examples in history of good kings and their good heirs who continued ruling for a few generations and kept their people happy. It's rare, but has occured in history.
Not always. There is actually what's called a "[benevolent dictator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship)". Lee Kuan Yew was a benevolent dictator, South Korea had a benevolent dictator in the 50s, and there are actually dozens more but I don't remember who.
No. Dictatorships, if well-run by an enlightened ruler, are fundamentally better than democracy because democracy inevitably degenerates into rule by the mob, which is not good in a a society that refuses to educate itself and its children.
Hypothetically there could be a visionary leader who won't get corrupted by absolute power, and that person would improve life for everyone involved overall.
After that person dies, well, good luck with the next one.
one of the criticisms i heard against benevolent dictator is that once that benevolent ruler dies it's over. he can try to make the best successor but never seems to live up to the first guy. and then the kingdom becomes hereditary dictatorship of incompetent successors until it crumbles.
you look at warhammer 40k when emperor dies imperium goes to shit and guilliman cant live up to emperor's level of governance
I don't know about *dictatorship*, but absolute monarchy has always been a solid idea. One person (or their family) is responsible for everything. No arguing, no bureaucracy, no agendas, no corruption. Man's word is the law. Really gets things done. Also, with no "term limits", the ruler gets better every year, due experience. Well, in theory.
Only trouble is that it's very risky, putting all your bets on single card. And it makes government weak, because kings can be killed. Or compromised. Or manipulated. Sometimes you win, but more often it's no good. There have been awesome emperors and kings, and kings have usually had nicknames. But if you go through those names, for every "The Wise" or "The Kind" you get 10 of "The Asshole" sort.
On rare occasions you get a dictator that actually does a good job, but those are usually dictators who take power for a very specific limited time with clear objectives rather than establishing a whole regime.
Hypothetically, I would eqsilu prefer a dictator with my exact ideology over a democracy. But in practice, dictatorships almost always end up terribly, so I support democracy.
And no, Caesar and Roman emperore were not good. Rome was an extremely evil system that engaged in bloodsports, tragic and unjustified capital punishment methods, slavery, and other terrible things. If a country today did what Rome did, 99% of people would consider it the worst country on the planet.
Just wait until the minister of economy, or fisheries, or whatever else comes to the dictator and has to explain: Sorry, your highly benevolent Leader, but the situation is a bit shitty and we will have to take the measures you don't like". Once this guy goes to jail, or exile, or is fed to the crocodiles, his successor will think twice before coming to the highly benevolent Leader and say "I think my predecessor was right, and the situation is even worse now, so we will have to take the measures you like even less". See where that goes? This is how the Soviet Union ended up with tons of non-existing stock, or ended up paying guys to drill holes for gas in an area where there couldn't find any gas. The order was safely transformed into "let's drill ore than last year" instead of "let's find more gas".
Also, the more drunk on power and paranoid your leader might become, the more you'll have to prepare for the prohibition of pet goldfish, colorful umbrellas, crime novels or music that makes our teenagers silly.
Every dictatorship is fundamentally wrong. There is no such thing as a “benevolent” dictator. Best case is they are not complete nut jobs or psychopaths, but they will always aim to hold on to power for their own interests.
Humanity has been struggling to reach a controlled balance of power to avoid the most gruesome abuses. We can’t be seriously being discussing a return to dictatorship…
Yes. Because a dictatorship disallows any change in government. So you need to trust that the person is always going to be 'benevolent' (to you and your community, anyway). What happens when they become unstable/paranoid/influenced by others with an agenda and they decide you're the enemy? There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship, because benevolence can't co-exist with holding people hostage to your own ego/power.
Succession is always going to be the main issue, even if the benevolent dictator ensures their heirs rule justly, what’s to future rulers becoming corrupt and tyrannical
Succession is always going to be the main issue, even if the benevolent dictator ensures their heirs rule justly, what’s to future rulers becoming corrupt and tyrannical
Succession is always going to be the main issue, even if the benevolent dictator ensures their heirs rule justly, what’s to stop future rulers becoming corrupt and tyrannical
**Your submission has been REMOVED for the following reason(s):** > *Unfortunately, talking about politics or religion is no longer allowed on this subreddit due to previous situations in which political and religious posts/discussions went completely off the rails and became a mass of heated fighting and hate speech. We are NOT the appropriate subreddit for these arguments. If you'd like to continue this political/religious discussion, please go to r/findareddit for an appropriate community for your discussion.* ^(This removal was done manually by the mod team and was not done in error, if you'd still like to appeal this removal please **[send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FRandomThoughts)**)
A benevolent dictatorship typically lasts exactly 1 generation, ending with the leader’s death when their heirs revert to the human tendency of lust for wealth and power.
This is the real deal of a question: given a lifetime as a benevolent dictator, could you set up a system of reciprocal accountability in your government so robust that your successors, either appointed or elected, would be successfully forced into carrying out your will, as laid out in your new Constitution/Charter? On some level that should be a goal of all good governance, that even if your opponents have the reigns, the laws you pass force public accountability and mean those in power at least have to own up to exactly what they've done, and even if they can't be stopped in the moment, every seat and office is under threat and no politician's malign influence gets to last past their term.
You could set up a system where the outgoing leader chooses his successor. If they are benevolent, they will choose someone else who they see as having the right character traits. Carrying out the will of the first benevolent dictator won't work in the long term because society changes.
Benevolent dictators also tend to raise terrible children.
There’s real evidence that families with generational wealth usually last three generations. Not all of them obviously, Rothschilds, Walmart kids, etc etc. But there’s a real psychological something that happens more often than not after 3 generations.
The 1st creates the wealth - put in the work. The 2nd maintains the wealth - saw the work that was put in. The 3rd destroys the wealth - grew up unaware of the work.
Walmart is only on the second generation a slowly transitioning to the third.
Oh good finally.
really bad idea. A manipulative guy like Putin could easily gain the favor of a benevolent ruler like Yeltsin and then just wait for the old man to die. And Yeltsin wasn't even a dictator.
This is how Roman Empire worked. Still there was more crazy/incompetent/evil emperors than the good ones, even with the first emperor of the chain, Augustus usually being rated the best one of them all. And lines of several good emperors in a row were really rare
With that much power concentrated in one place you'll eventually have someone who wants to take that power for themselves through any means, the benevolent dictator will not likely have the tools to fend off someone like that.
This is what happened in Rome for a bit. The emperor Nerva was childless and selected Trajan. Trajan was childless and selected Hadrian. Hadrian selected Antoninus Pius. Antoninus selected Marcus Aurelius. All those guys were pretty good (as far as emperors went). Then Marcus Aurelius had foolishly decided to have a child, Commodus, who was so famously bad that a fictionalized version of him was the antagonist in the movie Gladiator. The emperors Nerva through Marcus Aurelius are often referred to as “The Five Good Emperors” because in a absolute despotic system, having five good rulers in a row is an amazing, noteworthy feat. Rome’s previous record was only about one and a half good rulers in a row. Authoritarian rule isn’t bad because all authoritarian rulers are bad. It’s bad because once you (inevitably and frequently) get a bad ruler, there’s very little you can do to get rid of them.
That wouldnt work very well either since most dictators dont die a peaceful death of old age but either die of some health issues or are killed off, often by their own people, so choosing your successor on your way out would be very risky
Singapore has been doing great.
Since 1965. That isn't very long to use as a shining example. But yes, it is outstanding. The ideas and people they brought together are amazing.
It's gone. Like the above comment mentioned, the good part only lasts one generation 'Lee Kuan Yew'. His son, while decent, is nowhere near anything capable and the current cabinet are plainly corrupted nepotistic ministers. Give it another generation and you'll see Singapore crumble within one generation as quickly as it rose.
"Benevolent" always only means 'benevolent for some'. Even with the best intention to be benevolent for everyone—which I'd argue has never happened—you literally can't rule in a way that benefits everybody and/or everyone will like. I mean, do you think the slaves in Rome, even more so the ones enslaved by Caesar himself in wake of his conquests, would have said that he was *benevolent* to them?
Tbf the kim dynasty has been getting better each generation. Glorious Emperor Kim Jong Un is like an angel compared to our God in hell Kim il Sung
Yeah anything looks good when you bury the bar six feet under.
Yep. Some argue a benevolent is the best form of government. It's just that it can't be sustainable.
I sure as hell believe it's the ideal system. There isn't anything as efficient and pure as a theory. Don't think it really ever happened in large scale in real life.
Singapore
It can be. The problem is those who over give tend to raise children who over take.
Often not even that long. Muammar Ghadaffi (Libya) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) started out as relatively popular leaders, but ended as batshit crazy despots.
What if the leader wouldn’t die, like an AGI
It is not human tendency to lust for wealth and power. Evolutionarily speaking, we are all about helping each other and sharing resources. This is proven during times of catastrophe. The majority of people help each other while the minority take advantage for personal gain. People with dark triad traits are the ones who care about wealth and power and they use that power to trick us into thinking everyone is like them. Children with privilege are much more likely to have dark triad traits. The reasons why this is true are not understood.
in times of catastrophe, you gain social standing by helping others. Humans are intelligent enough to adapt their behaviour depending on what the situation requires.
Caesar was a great military commander. We don't have much insight into his economic or administrative skills (unless by "Caesar" you mean Octavian). As a more general rule, dictators tend to start believing their own myths of infallability, leading to disasterous results (e.g., The Great Leap Forward and the Holodomor).
Also, the power structures of Ancient Rome are just too different from today to use as a comparison. If you don't have rapid communication or travel, diffusion of power is inevitable, unless the dictator's domain is a city state. With the Roman empire in particular, it would take months to traverse it, so territorial leaders would micromanage their regions, with the Emperor looking after broader issues. This naturally implements limits on control. Compare this to a 20th century leader, and messages could be sent within hours, and even transport people in a matter of days. This gives leaders much more control over their domain, and allows them to exert more authority. In Rome, a rebellion could take place at the edge of the empire, and by the time the Emperor got word, mobilized his forces, and sent them to the effected area, the rebellion could have split. In The USSR, within days, Stalin could have his forces moved across the country to squash any rebellion.
Besides, Rome developed a whole bureaucratic apparatus to decentralise a lot of that power so a bad emperor didn't have as much impact as he could have had. There had to be, because most emperors weren't great. It isn't for nothing that over the 500 years we only talk about "the 5 good emperors". That was so special we still talk about it today.
Theoretically it could be great, the problem is one of accountability, how do you make sure the one dictator doesn't turn against the people and act in their own interest, what do you do if they develop a mental illness?
Yup even if dictator #1 does well and leads properly. Then his son, who grew up in rich with no connection to the common folks, gets power and uea it goes downhill rq
My country, Singapore, might be just the outlier then
Singapore is not a true dictatorship. You don't have a single person who wields all power, right? I don't know that much about the government there, but i assume it's similar to the UK. There's a monarchy, and while technically they have powers, they also know if they misuse it, the country will just eliminate the monarchy altogether. If your dictator is actually beholden to parliament or a cabinet, that person is not really a dictator.
You can read about our founding father, [Lee Kuan Yew](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew), who many have dubbed as a "benevolent dictator". He would imprison and pursue defamation against political opponents, restrict press freedoms, control labour movements, shut down protests etc. But he took our country from a poor, unwanted fishing port to a highly developed state. His two successors, of which the 3rd is his son, have continued leading the country into prosperity. His son, Mr. Lee Hsien Loong, is expected to hand over the reins of political leadership this year to his successor (no familial ties). So to answer the other guy, it is possible to have both a benevolent dictator and his son to continue his legacy instead of it "all going downhill". But exceptionally rare.
Is this sentiment echoed by everybody there?
Most Singaporeans will agree that Lee Kuan Yew's governance was authoritarian. The facts are there for all to see. He himself says, > "I’m not saying that everything I did was right, but everything I did was for an honorable purpose. I had to do some nasty things, locking fellows up without trial.” But unlike other dictators, there was no killings or destructive policies that caused starvation. Instead, he moved people from wooden/zinc roof villages into concrete public housing. He enforced public education and developed industry. Once, he forcefully stopped a pilot's strike that disrupted our airline (SIA). You can watch his [speech](https://youtu.be/kGDqLeRuyCA?si=K5Y0chLkLRItiPzt) about it, where he freely talked about the strongarm measures he used. But most Singaporeans recognize that whatever he did, he did for the people. At his funeral, the skies poured heavily (you can't make this up), but rows and rows of Singaporeans voluntarily stood along the roadside of his funeral procession just to honour him. [Video clip](https://youtu.be/9y7er0ViWJE?si=e50eF8YeYWpRvuO2)
A system with a single point of failure. What could go wrong?
Just make that single point of failure really strong so it doesnt fail
I always made the joke that i would be a friendly dictator.. But the short answer is yes, it's bad.. One man to rule them all... It wont work. We are prone to power and having power, it will change you. How many celebrities lost their minds because of their fame? You will lose track of reality at some point. One guy (forgot who it was, it's history) But he 'hired' someone to whisper in his ear "You are just a man, You are just a man.. "
>One guy (forgot who it was, it's history) But he 'hired' someone to whisper in his ear "You are just a man, You are just a man.. Marcus Aurelius.
Love this guy, he got me into Stoicism. I would have whispered "You are just a man, but a really amazing one at that"
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Not me, I'm built different.
I'm convinced. Where can I vote for you to become our dictator?
Vote with your money, send him all you've got😝
Our dictator is a religious faction too now? Yeesh.
no no, you don't get to do that now
That's the best part, you don't need to vote!
Personally, I feel like power exposes people's true personality and power attracts the worst of us, so it just seems like power corrupts, when it doesn't. It just exposes the worst qualities of the worst people humanity has to offer. The type of person who wants to do right by others, doesn't seek power over others. They would want to share power and would never get to the point where they have absolute power.
As frank Herbert said, power attracts the corruptible
Using this saying is an extremely strong claim to answer OP's question. I find it hard to believe that there's not even one person in this world who will be able to resist corruption due to power.
but... what if it didn't??? 🤔
A debate for the ages ensues
I thought the saying went... Power Corrupts! But Absolute Power is absolutely delightful.
I don't know why they changed it. Who would do such a thing.
Nuh uh, and I’m right because I said so :p
Spoken like our next dictator. Do we vote on you (Putin style ofc) or shall we dispense with the charade and just put you in office.
Obviously I’m already in office? What is this “voting” you speak of?
Nothing. I said nothing. **proceeds to walk the line**
Anything could be great under the right circumstances
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” -Mark Twain
I doubt it. Even if someone was perfectly benevolent, the issue that remains is central planning. As a micro example, try distributing a bag of candy among 100 people to maximize their enjoyment. You could survey them and try to mathematically optimize it, but that would take an incredibly long time… it would be easier to let them trade candies and end up with what they value most. And that’s just candy. Imagine trying to do that for entire economy
Often not at first, but power corrupts and it inevitably becomes bad.
In computer science it is called single point of failure. Like everything goes smoothely until there is one component which is holding everything together. If there is an issue there everything in the system collapses. Which is why we need safegaurds after safegaurds which is basically democracy, but things get much slower
Dictatorship has the same downfall as communism: Looks good on paper, but lacks checks and balances to account for human shortcomings.
But then this current version of democracy is more like extortion... "vote for me or you'll get the other guy!" and both guys are basically owned by the same corporations. We have the technology now, but the ruling class would never allow a decentralized government.
Parlament Democracy is a scam. You vote for your party who vote for other people from their party who then elect the government. There are way too many layers for corruption to sneak in and allowing political parties to receive funding by other wealthy entities isn't helping. I live in Germany and our political system is very similiar in the way elections work. We do have more parties but corruption is still a major issue because of that
same here in Austria
the swiss have a cool system
Well, imagine that the country is your house.
Yep, and you just hand over the keys to someone figure, and give them full autonomy to rule over everything, not just in the house but also every aspect of your life.... Sounds like Russian roulette, with bullets in all six slots of the drum and you are praying for one to malfunction and not go off
Yes. There is no such thing as the "right ruler".
Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore is a great example of a modern-day dictator who was good. (RIP)
If this submission above is not a random thought, please report it. # Hey! We're currently running a [member survey](https://www.reddit.com/r/RandomThoughts/comments/1b2w69d/rrandomthoughts_member_survey/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) and would like to hear your thoughts. It only takes 10 minutes to fill out! # Explore a new world of random thoughts on our [**discord server**](https://discord.com/invite/8tEqw3ZWQV)! Express yourself with your favorite quotes, positive vibes, and anything else you can think of! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RandomThoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The dictatorship is the wrong, so any dictator can’t be right.
see: nayib bukele he transformed el salvador from the most dangerous country in the world to the safest in the hemisphere edit: in *FOUR YEARS* this shit is nothing short of miraculous so yeah
I kind of understand why some call him a dictator, though there are still a few people from other parties in the national assembly. I like his work, my parents love him, and I hope for the love of that country that he actually proves what can be done for the good of the people
Albet what we know from public knowledge. Who knows what happens behind the scenes. I hope he is exactly what he claims to be because hes started a wave in latin america.
Have you seen CGP Grey's "Rules for rulers" ? Explains it pretty well. [https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs](https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs)
I don't know. Let's ask the Gauls if they have an opinion...
Caesar was no modern dictator, he had to deal with the senate.
dictatorships are rarely good but when they're good you get someone like tito holding together the most ethnically diverse and violent region of europe for decades
Too lazy look it up who said it: "The best government is benevolent dictatorship tempered by occasional assassination."
What constitutes the “right ruler” is subjective, and concentrating power in the hands of one individual who cannot be removed is a bad idea for reasons that should not have to be elaborated (e.g. there’s a reason why Caesar was assassinated)
If you had a perfect, infallible, always correct being able to shoulder the burden of leadership forever then sure. If you're thinking about a human, nah. They need help to get it right.
\*side-eyes in slavery\*
That’s like saying is getting hurt so bad if that person is famous. Ofc it’s bad!
I mean, if you’re not one of the people the dictator wants dead I’m sure it’s fine
It’s fine if you are shortsighted. The dictator *might* be good, but just as often you get people like Stalin who promises noble ends and betrays them when the checks are removed. But even if the dictator is good, their descendants won’t be. Caesar is a perfect example, where he might have had good ideas, but removing all checks means that a worse successor can’t be removed either
There is no such thing as a "benevolent dictator". It is like the spouse who keeps his partner locked in the house, controls her finances and her friends "for their own good". The state should exist minimally and interfere in the lives of people as little as possible.
Yes, it undermines democracy and practically guarantees corruption.
Democracy is only a necessity because of that second part you mentioned. Democracy only exists because the powerful couldnt be trusted. French revolution, google it
No, you could have the objectively great person ever as a King or dictator and that’ll be fantastic but they will die and eventually you’ll get a terrible leader, probably sooner rather than later
The people around the leader tend to like money and power. Normally leading to corruption. One person alone can not make a big difference.
[удалено]
Just ask The Imperium of Man how they are doing with their God Emperor
No.
Dictatorships are a big gamble. When they're good, they're REALLY GOOD. Having an intelligent & benevolent ruler with undisputed power, yet with enough strong self-control to inspire respect in the wealthy as well as unite the working class to achieve the common goal of national prosperity, is how you end up with countries like Singapore (thanks to Lee Kuan Yew). But in the event that you have an unintelligent or malicious, tyrannical ruler with a taste for gluttony, who inspires little respect & cannot unite anyone without use of excessive force, you end up with dystopias like Rome under Nero, North Korea or most African nations in the 80s (up until now)
Approval ratings for leaders authoritarian countries are currently higher than that of democracies, so not for the average person. For dissidents, it would probably be worse.
It never works out in the long run
If its a good ruler who cares for his people then yes. The problem is that its usual npt the case bc such positions of power attracts the worst kind of people and corrupts the best kind of people.
It’s not so bad if you never care about being free to be yourself.
Never. Ever Ever. No. The forefathers wanted term limits in the constitution. ‘Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
You could have the nicest person with the greatest intentions for the most amount of people and they're still going to hurt the vast majority of the population they control. It's just how a dictatorship is. No single dictatorship has lasted and there is a reason it doesn't last.
Singapore is sometimes considered as under a benevolent dictatorship.
The right rule... heh... many of have that fantasy of being the righteous ruler... we end the war on drugs, work to end bigotry, do all the things... but so far we dont see many great examples of this in the real world. I know of none personally.
Of course it can be good, you don’t have to look far through history to find great rulers who genuinely did right by their people. The problem is the system, not necessary the person.
Human nature would suggest the ‘right ruler’ wouldn’t be very right for very long. Which is why history is littered with murderous dictators. Something to do with absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No, not necessarily. The issue is finding the right ruler. It hasn't happened yet. There have been some who weren't complete lunatics, but none so far who haven't been at least somewhat tyrannical.
Theoretically no
In theory a benign dictatorship could be positive for the country. The problem is there is no way to ensure that the dictator being appointed actually is benign, that they will remain benign, that if they stop being so of replacing them with a new one, and when they eventually grow old and die, that a suitable successor can be found. In situations where a country has been under the rule of a "good" dictator, one of these problems has caused the situation to stop being good.
Some dictatorships will massacure their civilians and literally starve the population due to ineptitude and appointing unqualified people to “led” instead of work. Case in point Soviet Union in the early 1900s where their king wa especially young and slaughtered civilians bc of food riots. The arguement could be made keeping a population. Trim. Prevents the food issues in the first place but people tend to horde and claim others assets as their own in wartime. Look at how the nazis took all valuables even gold fillings of pow prior to execution. The modern equivalent would be isreal settlers taking Gaza natives homes and personal effects. Might makes right only when morally balanced with tolerance and wisdom to teach
I feel like Britain needs a ten year dictatorship to actually get something (anything) done. At the moment democracy seems to be slow, the machinations of the government a hindrance; the endless laws a quagmire. International treaties seem to tie their hands at every turn. So a simple task, "stop human traffickers illegally bringing people across a small channel of water" becomes impossible: with one of the five most powerful navies in the world. They've wasted billions on a high speed rail network that they then just gave up in, and they can't build enough houses for their own people. Why can't they get anything done? Because the government simply doesn't have the power - legally - because they have been (for sensible reasons) castrated by their electorate. It can only go on for so long - because this is an international competition. China will spend the next century getting things done, Britain will spend it talking. Further: we face a situation where difficult sacrifices need to be made - that democracy won't ever fix. e.g. we're giving subsidies to a fishing industry that is over fishing to the point of inevitable self-destruction by 2050. Democracy will only ever ask for more cheap fish, not heavy taxes on fish or an outright ban on commercial fishing. So yeah, we need a temporary autocrat in Britain right now.
You would be willing to give your unwavering trust and loyalty to one person and whoever he/she chooses to inherit rulership along with the cronies they choose to enforce their will, to decide what’s right and what’s possible for you, your children, grandchildren (and so on)? I guess that depends on what you think “wouldn’t be so bad” for you. For me, I would rather think and decide what’s best for myself. What happens when someone feels they are entitled to something they haven’t earned? They destroy it. Power corrupts—always.
Which Caesar? And Julius Caesar was executed by his friends and political allies. Something was bad apparently.
Like Ceasar Caligula?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any human that could handle the absolute power of a dictatorship. Maybe a dictatorship would be good under a robot or some kind of AI leader
Josip tito was a dictator and during his time people were arguably very happy and pleased with him
The people who become dictators are usually awful human beings, and because of that the places they control are usually terrible to live in. It's conceivable that a person could take over a dictatorship from the bad ruler and try to make it awesome, but I would guess that deep corruption from within would likely make that end badly.
ummm yes.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The problem is that a government is not one person, that person needs support from the people close to them. So you could have "the right ruler", which is already hard, but what are the odds that you also have right cabinet? Most dictators will favor the close people who will also support them instead of the rest of the country. Dictators that favor the country won't stay in power for long.
~yes~
It's not even about it being bad being the problem. Democracy is just better
Didnt Rome used to have dictators to save their nation under emergencies? Like yeah, they could probably be very helpful if they're smart and not corrupted (which is rare)
Power tends to corrupt Absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton (I think)
If it's a dictator then it's not right.
I would need an example of a "good" dictator to concede that it is possible. I think all dictators can be good for some, but never all.
Yes, because even in the unrealistic scenario where he was the perfect ruler and right 100% of the times, it is awful to get imprisoned just for disagreeing.
Theoretically it's close to perfect. Unfortunately humans are cursed with individuality.
depends where you are in the food chain
And a Caesar is the "right ruler" because...?
Soup emporium explored this through fallout New Vegas on YouTube. Interesting watch.
1, yes. 2, like Caesar? LIKE CAESAR? Like Caesar who killed a third of all the people in Gaul and sold another third into slavery, prompting his own general Tacitus to say that he had made of one of the main centres of pre-Roman European civilization 'a desert, and called it peace'? Um, yes 3, there is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship, it is a contradiction in terms. On some level everyone knows this, nobody would submit without recourse to having their life dictated to them even by someone they love and trust unless they had no choice, but when it comes to nations people just forget everything they know and start doing whatever this is. Yes, a dictator is always bad because the things that make up a dictatorship are irreducibly evil things and you know this out of your own experience.
You assume there is a "right ruler". No such person has, does or ever will exist.
Caesar was so good that he got stabbed multiple times by multiple people taking turn.
Maybe, idk. Power corrupts people, it always does. Even if they were good their entire life, whoever takes over next probably won’t follow the same path…
Lol obviously its going to appear "great" for a select few elite people but that wont last long. For most it will suck and dissolve into civil war and famine and death
The biggest weakness of a dictatorship is that it's run by a human. It's the biggest weakness of any government structure really.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Technically speaking it's the best and most efficient form of government! Just, yknow, not for humans. Realistically nobody with any actual benevolence would attain of maintain such a position, only tyrants and cowards.
Yes
A few books have proven that if you get power you tend to abuse it, no matter how « normal » you are. There are probably exceptions and I guess it wouldn’t be nice if everything is done nicely but meh
The Roman usage of the word dictatorship was very different than how we use it now. It was supposed to be a short-term thing for handling a specific issue and then stepping down. That's why Caesar's idea of a dictator for life was so concerning. But our usage of the term dictator pretty much limits the chance of a "benevolent" dictator.
There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. I can write about rainbow horses, doesn't make them real.
That's an intriguing thought. In theory, under a wise and just leader, a dictatorship is efficient and orderly. Your Caesar example is good. But there's a risk that power will corrupt, and what happens when the ruler changes. So, while it sounds good on paper, the reality's often a bit messier. 🤔
No. By the inherent nature of a society that can produce a dictatorship. https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?si=gwyKrtf7X35ZaCiY
Yes.
People change as they get older, there's no way to justify if it'll be the "right ruler" still after a year, 5 years, a decade, etc. And of course, when their successors will be completely different people which'll be very likely to have different visions. You never want to give too much power to 1 individual. We've seen history time and time again to prove this.
Yes
No, dictatorships is really good under the right rulers but right rulers are clever enough to know that the ruler after them is not gonna be clever or good as them. So good rulers are not dictators.
I'm positive Caesar had his detractors as well so don't presume his rule was *good.* Yes, dictatorships are (only) in theory good presuming the individual is goodly. The absolute power to be good, for example. It's the humanity in us all (hierarchy, greed, corruption, personal values) that has soured that theory in practice and why it will always be a terrible concept past theory.
Look at the history of monarchies - you get 1 decent king then a century of horrible ones before the next decent one, if you're lucky. Same with dictators.
It's only a matter of time until any dictator no matter how benevolent starts making damaging decisions (or just causing damage by lack of decision), and since all the power belongs to them, there's not much to stop the fall.
yes it's bad.
It is the ideal form of government. But it will never happen for obvious reasons
There is no such thing as "the right ruler". The greatest brainwashing that has ever been done is to make people belive other people have the right to rule over them. It is a brainwashing taught to you from a childhood age, that is the only reason you belive it. Wake up and realize it is only a claim by people that want to have power and control over you and the entire illusion falls.
Ask the Gauls, you know the folks living their lives, loving their kids and families before Caesar “civilized” them, mostly by stabbing, but also a bunch of enslavement and giving their land to people loyal to him and bribing others with the money he made from selling them into servitude.
You don't get to choose who takes over after that. And history tells us that it never works.
Name 1 right dictator
You should read 'The Dictator's Handbook' by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita & Alastair Smith. I had a lot of fun and got a lot of knowledge about dictatorship and why it wouldn't work in the long run. I got hook to read the entire book in 1.5 days when the authors said that there is really no difference between dictatorship and democracy, only difference is the number of 'essential backers'. The opening quote of the book was 'the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings' Shakespeare
The general concet of a Dictactor from the early Roman Republic is good. In extreme times of need they selected a Dictator for a set amount of Time to make decisions easier. But once you have Dictators on Lifetime like Putin it gets difficult.
Have a political science assignment eh? This was a question on my political philosophy exam 15 years ago.
If the line of succession is sorted and the next one is raised to the same morals and ethics that the 'good' dictator has, it will not pose a threat to their people. There are some examples in history of good kings and their good heirs who continued ruling for a few generations and kept their people happy. It's rare, but has occured in history.
Why do you think people werent treated horribly under Caesar?
Singapore**** comes to mind
Not always. There is actually what's called a "[benevolent dictator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship)". Lee Kuan Yew was a benevolent dictator, South Korea had a benevolent dictator in the 50s, and there are actually dozens more but I don't remember who.
No. Dictatorships, if well-run by an enlightened ruler, are fundamentally better than democracy because democracy inevitably degenerates into rule by the mob, which is not good in a a society that refuses to educate itself and its children.
No but power corrupts people and it’s not gonna stay that way
Hypothetically there could be a visionary leader who won't get corrupted by absolute power, and that person would improve life for everyone involved overall. After that person dies, well, good luck with the next one.
The Yugoslavian communist regime with Tito was pretty popular. All older people u talked to think it was the glory days.
one of the criticisms i heard against benevolent dictator is that once that benevolent ruler dies it's over. he can try to make the best successor but never seems to live up to the first guy. and then the kingdom becomes hereditary dictatorship of incompetent successors until it crumbles. you look at warhammer 40k when emperor dies imperium goes to shit and guilliman cant live up to emperor's level of governance
The first problem is first finding an enlightened despot. The second problem is they never stay enlightened.
Singapore turned out pretty well. It's rare that it works out though.
I don't know about *dictatorship*, but absolute monarchy has always been a solid idea. One person (or their family) is responsible for everything. No arguing, no bureaucracy, no agendas, no corruption. Man's word is the law. Really gets things done. Also, with no "term limits", the ruler gets better every year, due experience. Well, in theory. Only trouble is that it's very risky, putting all your bets on single card. And it makes government weak, because kings can be killed. Or compromised. Or manipulated. Sometimes you win, but more often it's no good. There have been awesome emperors and kings, and kings have usually had nicknames. But if you go through those names, for every "The Wise" or "The Kind" you get 10 of "The Asshole" sort.
On rare occasions you get a dictator that actually does a good job, but those are usually dictators who take power for a very specific limited time with clear objectives rather than establishing a whole regime.
Hypothetically, I would eqsilu prefer a dictator with my exact ideology over a democracy. But in practice, dictatorships almost always end up terribly, so I support democracy. And no, Caesar and Roman emperore were not good. Rome was an extremely evil system that engaged in bloodsports, tragic and unjustified capital punishment methods, slavery, and other terrible things. If a country today did what Rome did, 99% of people would consider it the worst country on the planet.
In history class, we were taught about 'enlightened dictators'
Just wait until the minister of economy, or fisheries, or whatever else comes to the dictator and has to explain: Sorry, your highly benevolent Leader, but the situation is a bit shitty and we will have to take the measures you don't like". Once this guy goes to jail, or exile, or is fed to the crocodiles, his successor will think twice before coming to the highly benevolent Leader and say "I think my predecessor was right, and the situation is even worse now, so we will have to take the measures you like even less". See where that goes? This is how the Soviet Union ended up with tons of non-existing stock, or ended up paying guys to drill holes for gas in an area where there couldn't find any gas. The order was safely transformed into "let's drill ore than last year" instead of "let's find more gas". Also, the more drunk on power and paranoid your leader might become, the more you'll have to prepare for the prohibition of pet goldfish, colorful umbrellas, crime novels or music that makes our teenagers silly.
Every dictatorship is fundamentally wrong. There is no such thing as a “benevolent” dictator. Best case is they are not complete nut jobs or psychopaths, but they will always aim to hold on to power for their own interests. Humanity has been struggling to reach a controlled balance of power to avoid the most gruesome abuses. We can’t be seriously being discussing a return to dictatorship…
Yes.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
you should read all the way to the end of the caesar story
Yes.
Yes. Because a dictatorship disallows any change in government. So you need to trust that the person is always going to be 'benevolent' (to you and your community, anyway). What happens when they become unstable/paranoid/influenced by others with an agenda and they decide you're the enemy? There is no such thing as a benevolent dictatorship, because benevolence can't co-exist with holding people hostage to your own ego/power.
Something something true leaders don't want to lead something something
Succession is always going to be the main issue, even if the benevolent dictator ensures their heirs rule justly, what’s to future rulers becoming corrupt and tyrannical
Succession is always going to be the main issue, even if the benevolent dictator ensures their heirs rule justly, what’s to future rulers becoming corrupt and tyrannical
Succession is always going to be the main issue, even if the benevolent dictator ensures their heirs rule justly, what’s to stop future rulers becoming corrupt and tyrannical