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 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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is explained in the "the rules for rulers" video from cgpgrey, which condenses the book "the dictators handbook".
-
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?
Once you're in power you can rationalize/justify their loss against the greater good that your leadership has brought to the people. There are concrete examples of human progress to defend. If there are significant counter examples, then it's you that's the problem to be dealt with, just like any other.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Benevolent dictator is an oxymoron. The most benevolent thing a dictator can do is dismantle their dictatorship.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hael No!
I'd end up making a dystopic country/nation where people are suffering while I get the brightest scientists to work on genetically modifying the human body so I could become closer to looking like my fursona.
That, and having people on the far left and far right being thrown into prison.
Just normal every day things from someone who's a little paranoid.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
seems contradictory, dictators are almost never benevolent. They wouldn't be a dictator if they were benevolent. the only thing they do is immediately cede power to a " council or a elected persons. unless you mean something like diety that is benevolent, ruling from the "shadows" through another leader.
