I don’t think a benevolent dictator would do the world good.
No one should have that much power. If nothing else, because it tends to drive said person mad. Just look at how paranoid Stalin was.
Also, the entire idea of a dictator involves rule by force. That’s exactly the kind of thing we would prefer to get away from. All laws involve force, yes, but the more we can move away from violence and towards peaceful cooperation the better off humanity will be.
Even if a benevolent dictator was able to somehow be both effective and ethical (doubtful if that’s even possible for the reasons you describe, but let’s pretend it is possible for the moment), things inevitably fall to shit after that dictator dies.
We need only look to the Roman Empire to see how that plays out. Augustus Caesar was far from what I’d call ethical, but he was pretty effective. However, the empire suffered a heckton of instability whenever the emperor was an asshole and/or a nutter. This is most apparent in how Emperor Nero being overthrown in 68AD led to the Year of the Four Emperors
TL;DR: even if a benevolent dictator were possible, it’s still not a sustainable model for running society due to it being a tremendously brittle system that has a single point of failure (the dictator).
Even some of the most celebrated “enlightened” monarchs and dictators are kinda corrupt. Napoleon was a liberal, republican but set up his own dynasty. He was good to the French and those oppressed by the old blood monarchs, and allowed religious tolerance, but he was pretty harsh towards the Germans and made examples on those who questioned the embargo on the British, which hurts continental Europe more than the British.
Oh, definitely. I don’t thing a good dictator can exist - even if you put the most moral, ethical, upstanding person you can imagine in charge - but I was accepting that premise for the sake of argument to show the other problems with that model (i.e. that a single point of failure is bad).
Having one person make all the decisions unilaterally just amplifies their flaws and tends to place them in an echo chamber where they are insulated from reality, common sense, and the consequences of their actions by a group of mewling, scheming sycophants.
There hasnt been, that doesnt make it impossible. Improbable for sure, but if someone did take over(aliens) who dont let the power go to their head, then there could definitely be a benevolent dictator.
But short of aliens, no one could take over, as you say, without violent repression of their opponents so that by definition, they’re no longer benevolent.
You can’t consolidate enough power into your own hands to enact meaningful change in a country (positive or negative) without violent oppression, therefore making the idea of a benevolent dictator an oxymoron.
A benevolent dictator is just what the world needs but power corrupts so it would only last for so long.
I don’t think a benevolent dictator would do the world good.
No one should have that much power. If nothing else, because it tends to drive said person mad. Just look at how paranoid Stalin was.
Also, the entire idea of a dictator involves rule by force. That’s exactly the kind of thing we would prefer to get away from. All laws involve force, yes, but the more we can move away from violence and towards peaceful cooperation the better off humanity will be.
Even if a benevolent dictator was able to somehow be both effective and ethical (doubtful if that’s even possible for the reasons you describe, but let’s pretend it is possible for the moment), things inevitably fall to shit after that dictator dies.
We need only look to the Roman Empire to see how that plays out. Augustus Caesar was far from what I’d call ethical, but he was pretty effective. However, the empire suffered a heckton of instability whenever the emperor was an asshole and/or a nutter. This is most apparent in how Emperor Nero being overthrown in 68AD led to the Year of the Four Emperors
TL;DR: even if a benevolent dictator were possible, it’s still not a sustainable model for running society due to it being a tremendously brittle system that has a single point of failure (the dictator).
Definitely! It’s a bad system all around.
Even some of the most celebrated “enlightened” monarchs and dictators are kinda corrupt. Napoleon was a liberal, republican but set up his own dynasty. He was good to the French and those oppressed by the old blood monarchs, and allowed religious tolerance, but he was pretty harsh towards the Germans and made examples on those who questioned the embargo on the British, which hurts continental Europe more than the British.
Oh, definitely. I don’t thing a good dictator can exist - even if you put the most moral, ethical, upstanding person you can imagine in charge - but I was accepting that premise for the sake of argument to show the other problems with that model (i.e. that a single point of failure is bad).
Having one person make all the decisions unilaterally just amplifies their flaws and tends to place them in an echo chamber where they are insulated from reality, common sense, and the consequences of their actions by a group of mewling, scheming sycophants.
There’s no such thing as a benevolent dictator.
There hasnt been, that doesnt make it impossible. Improbable for sure, but if someone did take over(aliens) who dont let the power go to their head, then there could definitely be a benevolent dictator.
But short of aliens, no one could take over, as you say, without violent repression of their opponents so that by definition, they’re no longer benevolent.
You speak of absolutely when even without aliens there is a chance. People should have more hope in humanity, which i have little of(but not none!).
Also i never said no violence, its clear there will probably be plenty. But there can be justified violence to aim for the greater good.
How can you consider the violent oppression of people, whether you happen to agree with them or not, to be in any way benevolent?
No shit?
You can’t consolidate enough power into your own hands to enact meaningful change in a country (positive or negative) without violent oppression, therefore making the idea of a benevolent dictator an oxymoron.
You don’t have to convince me. I think you replied to the wrong comment
Quite possibly ( ͡° ʖ̯ ͡°)
Im sad you seemed more elegant with his reply than my own which you were aiming for ;[