This, but unironically.
The problem with dictators is that you need to be an evil shit to climb all the way to the top. Just grabbing some asshole at random would arguably produce a better guy. (Or, at least, a guy who would get thrown out a window faster if they fucked up).
Some monarchist defend their views by saying that it allows to have a successor determined without being biased by a populiraty contest and which can be educated from birth to become the perfect monarch.
History shows that that’s a load of bullshit.
Practice rarely matches theory once you introduce people.
I have said it before- all of our elected representatives should be chosen at random from the general population the way we do with jury duty.
These people would serve one term only and be well paid.
I would prefer a mix: keep the Senate composed of actual legal experts, but stock the House by sortition (also expand it to equalize the ratio of representatives to constituents).
You also need to be an evil shit to stay at the top
There are plenty of examples of regular people who turned into dictators. Power corrupts. There is no such thing as a “benevolent dictator”.
There absolutely is such a thing as a benevolent dictator. The problem is that it’s impossible to tell ahead of time who they are.
What’s the success rate using crystal balls?
That’s only half of it. The other half is staying in power and dealing with all the people under you.
The problem is that the dictator is never the only “evil shit” in the regime. Dictators are evil shit magnets for entire bureaucracies full of ladder-climbing sycophants.
Then comes the long-term problem: information and trust. When you’re the dictator everyone wants to be your best friend. They will tell you anything to get what they want. You will soon realize that you can’t trust anyone. That’s when the paranoia sets in. You’ll reorganize your entire government around loyalty to you, not beliefs or abilities, because that’s the only way to survive.
This is why all dictatorships end up looking the same over the long run. They have only one goal: continued survival of the dictatorship. Anything else leads to collapse and death or exile of the dictator.
i’ve read more than one book where the elections were like that. the incumbent essentially just faces a vote of confidence before each term. if they lose (no majority support) or are term limited (or otherwise lose their place in office), they get replaced by a random draw from the constituency.
I think that ultimately, the problem with authoritarian regimes and dictatorships is an efficiency vs resilience problem. Dictatorships are super efficient. There is no back and forth, no debate, no bureaucracy except that allowed to be. This can create an illusion of progress early on, as all those things that were eternally in the future will start to get tackled. The problem is that it is not a resilient system. It relies exclusively upon the dictator and their understanding of the world. This is not a problem in the areas of expertise or if the dictator is smart enough to understand their limits. But at some point, there will be a mismatch between what the dictator thinks is important, necessary, or true, and what really is. Be it ego, being surrounded by yes men, being detached from the general population or a minority group, or anything else, the dictator will make bad choices, and there is nothing in the system that can prevent that.
That’s why in my day dream dictatorship it’s always temporary. My goals are basically to unify the world and establish human rights. Then concede to a system of democracy and live in the universal housing
Aaaah an ol’ Cincinnatus. There’s a dearth of people like that.
that is just a revolution, not a dictatorship, then.
the difficulty with that, is when to give the power away. obviously you would need to keep it for long enough to make sure that the system will stay in place after you are no longer in power
I vote for showerman he has many thoughts
“From my perspective it is democracy that is evil!”
I thought ME was an acronym for some popular politician here, took me time to understand.
Middle East
Funnily enough, I’ve thought about it, and I don’t want to be dictator. Sounds like an all-consuming, horrible way to live.
If I suddenly found myself in such a position, what I’d do is the following:
-
Gather together the smartest people I can find from every specialty, and make them my policy advisors, for managing the day-to-day.
-
Gather together a smaller cabal of intellectuals who have an interest in liberty, democracy, rule of law, etc.
-
Have them analyze the other Western liberal democracies, and figure out, in legalistic and institutional terms, where their shortcomings and oversights have been.
-
Draft a better constitution for our Republic, attempting to do a better job than the US and Europe have done for setting up rule of law, separation of powers, equal representation, strong regulation of capital, protection of human rights and civil liberties, strong social safety nets and redistribution of wealth (UBI, public health care), protection of the environment and natural resources, national parks, collective bargaining, promote small businesses while trust-busting, and so on. Set up the institutions to be as “left-libertarian” as possible.
-
Hold elections under the new constitution, hope that I’m not elected.
-
Bounce, and go enjoy my life.
I’d make for a shitty dictator. Control-freakery is not for me.
Sounds great, Photuris for supreme dictator!
What’s the point of steps two and three when step four seems to suggest you’ve already decided what conclusion you want them to come to?
-
The concept of a single decision maker is flawed from the get go.
How’s your badly-generated AI meme game? Dictators don’t get very far around these parts unless they or their sycophants can shit out dozens of horrifyingly plastic-looking, improbably-muscular pictures of themselves riding giant bald eagles while American flags explode in the background.
