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.
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.