Do you think **you** can become a benevolent dictator without ever getting corrupted or turn evil?
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Maybe, but only if I become a dictator to remove and spread my power to smaller government organizations. Basically instead of having one source of power, I dilute the government into multiple governments that also police each other and not one of them have power to govern over all others. Additionally, police and military would be the only "governments" that have slightly less governing power than the rest because while we still need police and military I don't want them to use their weapons to muscle their way over the other governments.
Note: I am not saying it's perfect or covers all cases, but I believe that having a central point of power is the biggest issue with a dictator becoming corrupt and this applies even to non-dictators (hint-hint). Maybe I am wrong and I invite polite discourse on the subject.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I might still be young enough to pull that off for a few more years yet.
The way I would implement that is to day one set a date for elections of a congress and my own retirement. I'm imagining a Mars Attacks scenario in which the ak ak ak aliens blow up congress and the government of the United States consists of the President's teenage daughter and a mariachi band. If through some set of goofy circumstances no meaningful government exists above me and I am in full command, we're gonna do shit my way for, say, four years, and then we're calling a congress. At which time I retire to a small estate somewhere in the Carolinas with only ceremonial powers, like I reserve the right to throw out first pitches of baseball games.
-
Guido Van Rossum would disagree. And he also stepped down.
With all due respect to Guido, creating software does not have the same weight and responsibilities as leading a country.
-
With my dictatorial powers .... my first action would be to seize and outlaw extreme wealth. No one would be allowed to own more than $1 million.
All the money collected would be used for government and providing a Universal Basic Income for everyone.
And I'd get a designer to make me a big fancy hat.
I am behind this 100%
-
This post did not contain any content.
no but I could become a janitor that cleans up the workplace that nobody ever pays attention to
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's really difficult. Not because you will turn evil of your own free will, but because you will have to do terrible things to maintain stability and to keep yourself from being usurped by spies. If you became dictator of any country, you would immediately start to get attacked from many sides by both spies and also revolutionaries who think of themselves as the good guy. In order to do anything it takes time. This is the only way to win the people over. Becoming a dictator is no doubt going to lead to massive economic decline in the near term unless you become a right wing dictator who has favor with the business and merchant classes. If you try to actually become a benevolent dictator and actually free the people, most of the people you would think were your allies would also blame you for everything that is wrong and turn against you, the business class would fund propaganda against you. The internationalists would fund your opposition to gain back their foreign claims to your industry and minerals.
People will feel as if they have every right to criticize you in every way, if you don't oppress them, but if you do, you will rightfully be called a tyrant. If you find your own propaganda you will be called a tyrant, but the people you think would be your allies, will not understand that there is propaganda on the other side.
It's very difficult indeed. Within a few years of taking power you would immediately have to deal with a torrent of spies, foreign media, coups, and whatever else. This is why only right wing governments only ever last more then a few years in history.
Vladimir Lenin is a great example of this, he genuinely saw himself as being benevolent. He was a real communist. He wanted to help the people. Yet he quickly realized once he obtained power that he did not have the support of the majority of the country. He pleaded and appealed to them, he tried to "educate" them on what was needed to achieve communism, mainly just time and their trust. Yet even his first election if he were to have one, he would lose, because already he had become associated with the status quo. The mainstream oppressors of the common people. So he became a tyrant, as all dictators do. Communism gets traded for national socialism and fascism with red paint by the time Lenin is dead. All in an effort to just keep power for a little bit so he could see his communist vision come true. Unfortunately as soon as the bosliviks started to oppress the people they lost the little bit of credibility they had. Just another tyrant, another right wing power obsessed state.
-
That is increadibly hard to do.
- How do you define what goes into that 1 million of allowed wealth? If I buy a house worth 950000, would I only be allowed to save 50000.
- what about if the house increase in value so that it is worth 2 million, should I just accept that I loose 1 million? What about stocks?
- Inflation or Deflation, when/how will you update that limit?
Remove housing from the commodity market - save your one mil in cash.
Stocks are outlawed.
-
no but I could become a janitor that cleans up the workplace that nobody ever pays attention to
-
I might still be young enough to pull that off for a few more years yet.
The way I would implement that is to day one set a date for elections of a congress and my own retirement. I'm imagining a Mars Attacks scenario in which the ak ak ak aliens blow up congress and the government of the United States consists of the President's teenage daughter and a mariachi band. If through some set of goofy circumstances no meaningful government exists above me and I am in full command, we're gonna do shit my way for, say, four years, and then we're calling a congress. At which time I retire to a small estate somewhere in the Carolinas with only ceremonial powers, like I reserve the right to throw out first pitches of baseball games.
Nah, I figure I'd go for 20 years. 4 years isn't going to make meaningful change.
