Do you think **you** can become a benevolent dictator without ever getting corrupted or turn evil?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes
I have a strong sense of justice, transparency, and collaboration. I would not turn corrupt or evil for my own gain, to remain in power, or for others.
Would I be removed from my position? Maybe. Depends on the surroundings. A dictator is only as stable and powerful as the enablement surrounding them. Typically, they are also very influential people.
What makes a good, benevolent dictator? Doesn't that inevitably lead to weakening their power?
Collaborating on politics, hearing voices, and then making the or confirming the compromise and agreement? Sounds like a mostly celebratory role. A dictator without significance or power.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes and no.
I have never had a lust for power. I have never had a desire to do things that people in power abuse their position to do (like nightmare islands, sex with interns, crushing minorities). I don't even have an intense desire for money beyond basic comfort (I would love to have money for a boat right now, but I'm content saving up for it). So corruption for any of that? No.
However, I am not sure I have the capability of doing good in a proper way. I can't tell if I'd be a Sisko or if I would just fail to achieve any of my aims out of not wanting to do things the wrong way (if you go authoritarian to try to make things better, is that still corrupt or evil?). The world is a fucked up, difficult to navigate place, morally, when you are making decisions for a lot of people.
So yeah, I could avoid corruption for my own sake, but I don't think I would be able to be a benevolent dictator.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm pretty sure it's not possible to become a dictator without first being corrupt and evil.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don't trust myself that much.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I could absolutely be corrupt for the sake of everyone else's benefit. I don't need nor want wealth, I want enough to not worry about money, be able to take a sick day and not worry about it. I want people to be able to have kids and not have to worry about how they're going to support them. I want people to be able to get an education and not worry about how they're going to pay for it.
It's only a list of about 10 simple changes that could be implemented incredibly easy if leadership wasn't so worried about degrading one race or gender and lining their pockets.
-
This post did not contain any content.
yes. I think a lot of people can. the thing is, the people who can won't be the runs running for office
-
This post did not contain any content.
I think the problem for me would be less about corruption and more about me not being capable of taking that kind of responsibility.
-
This post did not contain any content.
no, nobody can... nobody
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
No. Although "turning evil" isn't what happens to those guys, exactly.
Dictators, in the sense of one man rule, don't actually exist. What an autocracy does have is a first among equals in a system where everyone is "looking over their shoulder". Even if someone who genuinely wants to make life great for the people takes power, there's severe limits to how they can do that.
Gorbachev is a great example of this. He was an idealistic person, and thought it would be good if the USSR switched to real democracy. Pretty immediately there were multiple coups until he was out of power, because anybody remotely high up the hierarchy had too many skeletons in their closet to allow that.
In the end, a dictator only gets to choose what kind of nightmarish dictatorship they want.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Yes.
Fascism is the alternative people turn to when they can't cope with their own inadequacies.
I don't have that problem.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I personally can, but that's because my empathetic response is unusually overblown.
My failure as a benevolent dictator would actually be becoming too detached from ordinary problems, so I'd need to have consistent town hall meetings where ordinary people could redress grievances, petition for aid and so on.
At that point it goes back to being a normal government, since the (un)elected official is trying their best to do the people's bidding while remaining accountable.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No I would be killed by a subordinate who wouldn't be.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Nope. And I wouldn't even try. I'm going full evil tyrant, day one.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I would rock that shit, literally my dream job, practical problem solver with infinite power.
-
I could BE a benevolent dictator, I could never BECOME a benevolent dictator. The process of getting there would exclude me, because I would reject the power structure needed to form the dictatorship in the first place.
Same here. Also I don’t think I’d make it long at the top either. I think a certain lack of empathy is required to be ok with some of the requirements of the position.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No.
Not because I’m evil, but because I am empathetic and someone evil would absolutely figure out a way to use that to manipulate me.
-
Same here. Also I don’t think I’d make it long at the top either. I think a certain lack of empathy is required to be ok with some of the requirements of the position.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I could make the hard choices if needed, once there. Because at that point it's about what is the greater good. Even if you really can't say for certain, someone making a bad call is most often better than no one making a decision.
The problem is that in order to become a benevolent dictator, you have to chose to hurt people that don't matter to the greater good, or very likely are important to the well being of the population. With the only justification being that maybe by consolidating power you can make the world a better place. And there is just no way to square that circle other than violent narcissism.
-
I could make the hard choices if needed, once there. Because at that point it's about what is the greater good. Even if you really can't say for certain, someone making a bad call is most often better than no one making a decision.
The problem is that in order to become a benevolent dictator, you have to chose to hurt people that don't matter to the greater good, or very likely are important to the well being of the population. With the only justification being that maybe by consolidating power you can make the world a better place. And there is just no way to square that circle other than violent narcissism.
That’s the thing though. I think after acquiring the power you need to keep on stepping on some people to stay in the position. You likely don’t have infinite resources so there’s always going to be someone who missies out. Also what about people meaning to harm you or your subjects?
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Yeah pretty sure all evil deeds start with good intentions. So, no. I would very likely mess up my own head by thinking I’m doing the right thing, and if I’m secure in my position as the leader, I’d have a big load of yes men hovering around enforcing and enabling my every thought and idea, be it good or not. Most likely it’ll tend towards the “not good” side over time, and at some point everything just gets distorted and convoluted and by that point, there’ll be no return. And if I’m not secure in my position, then I’ll be dead and replaced before I can spell out my first decree as the ruler. If I’m to be good, I’ll not be ready for the bad coming my way. If I’m ready for the bad shit, I have to be ready to dispense my own bad shit. And that, then, wraps into my first point.
There’s no way that would work if I was truly benevolent. I don’t believe it’s sustainable or even possible to lead as a dictator that is good or benevolent.
Edit: that’s in practical terms. Let’s not even begin with the ideals — can one really ever be both benevolent or just generally good, and a dictator? I believe not. Sharing the burden and the authority would almost always be the more moral choice, not to mention more plausible in terms of lasting.
