Do you think **you** can become a benevolent dictator without ever getting corrupted or turn evil?
-
This post did not contain any content.
How many Philosopher Kings do we have here?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I doubt I would be a benevolent dictator. I am a good person mostly through sheer force of will, not by nature. I abhor cruelty — yet I'd gleefully inflict misery upon those who practice it.
I suspect over time that would erode the thin façade of beneficence within which my rage lies cocooned.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes, and it's because I'm too lazy to do any actual dictator shit.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
No, but I'll give it the old college try. I've always imagined that the only way to be a benevolent dictator is to do the dictator thing only to install a better form of government to replace you and hope it sticks when you step away. Something more technocratic and with better checks and balances.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No. No one can.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Bigger question is how long would you last? If you're benevolent then the people closest to you won't like you as their dictator because presumably you treat everyone equitably and don't keep a bigger piece of the pie for yourself and your confidants.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Even if purest it is heart almost impossible. Main issue is the same with any govt type, corruption. Its easy to be benevolent when everyone on your side. They are plenty of animes/games like this.
When humans are looking out for themselves any progress you want is water down significantly and now "cruelties" need to be enacted to make these types fall in line.
Now it becomes do you hit surgically or with a hammer depends on number of factors. Like do you specifically know who or just the departments. Delays are problems because meanwhile these types are probably riling up the masses for their own ends or simply result of selfish actions. Massive pain in butt. Without something like a death note or really amazing internal spy network it be impossible to avoid collateral damage. Even then we are now down the 1984 rabbit hole. All because I couldn't trust the people I wanted to govern or fulfill my will. Massive Tragedy when I just wanted to give ppl the stars.Maybe AI govt workers to handle processing with loyalty chips could work. Until some jerk hacks them cause w/e.
This why we cant have nice things. -
One way would be to instead of putting a hard limit to put a tax to everything above that million or whatever number is decided. A tax on hoarding wealth.
The second point is the biggest issue because it could potentially make the place you live unaffordable by just being where it is.
That limit can be updated yearly following the inflation.
This.
Tax the crap out of wealth over value X, let the ghouls fight to earn slightly more, while the government gets plenty of tax incomme.
This is what I like about the social democratic ideology, it has high taxes to fund a safety net, yet retains a market economy to bring in higher earnings and thus taxes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If society is at the point where we're making dictators then you likely have to be an immoral POS to stay in power. At every stage below you there are opportunistic people who want to take your spot.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Well I wouldn't view it as evil but extreme measures tend to be viewed as evil by someone
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don't think I could become dictator at all, no.
Seriously, though, power corrupts. I'm not immune. Nor am I immune to being manipulated by those more evil than I, which is another big problem with concentrating power.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
How would you hold power when the powers that be despise you? You think you can rule without military might, will of the people, and the approval of those who owm the resources of the land? The idea of benevolent dictator is broken because of the conditions that you would need to create to even get in power, and to stay in power, would not be benevolent.
-
This post did not contain any content.
how dare you question my benevolence. to the pits with you.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I would try to turn into a wurm. Maybe my son will finish my work.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Depends how you define "evil". And if I was hungry or tired when I got this power.
There's good odds like every Republican official and donor would go directly into a bad time. Some would say that's evil.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"I think I am perhaps the only one honourable enough who can" thinks almost everyone.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I wouldn't be fucking kids and sending goon squads after minorities and into cities to harass my political opponents if that is what you are asking.
The 'not evil' bar is currently riding on the same high speed train the Republicans put their goalposts on.
-
This post did not contain any content.
yeah, easily
the problem is staying on top of things to ensure my government doesn't do things on the side. that sounds exhausting
so, I'd be fine, but I wouldn't be able to keep government clean. I don't have those skills
but if everyone does as they're told? no issues
-
This post did not contain any content.
No, I don't think I could.
The problem with dictators is that you put every action under the context of a single person's perspective. Even if you go in with the best and most altruistic intention, no single person is able to tackle every issue from every angle, and you will inevitably end up committing an injustice by a simple lack of awareness.
Not to mention that many issues are of relative morality to different groups, so to one group you can be a savior but to another you will always be a despot. Whichever interpretation ends up as the definitive one depends on how willing the offended parties are to overthrow you.
A democratic system is not perfect and (depending on perspective) may not be as effectual at bringing out positive change as an altruistic dictator, but the concept of distributed responsibility/distributed blame reduces the likelihood of a coup/revolution (emphasis on reduces, not eliminates) as long as the political apparatus is seen to incorporate or acknowledge everyone's perspectives in the decision making process.
-
No, because "benevolent dictatorship" can't exist (the only benevolent action of such a dictatorship would be self-abolishment).
Guido Van Rossum would disagree. And he also stepped down.
