Ask Lemmy

Yes

I have a strong sense of justice, transparency, and collaboration. I would not turn corrupt or evil for my own gain, to remain in power, or for others.

Would I be removed from my position? Maybe. Depends on the surroundings. A dictator is only as stable and powerful as the enablement surrounding them. Typically, they are also very influential people.

What makes a good, benevolent dictator? Doesn't that inevitably lead to weakening their power?

Collaborating on politics, hearing voices, and then making the or confirming the compromise and agreement? Sounds like a mostly celebratory role. A dictator without significance or power.

My Tropico track record says that I absolutely can.

Yes and no.

I have never had a lust for power. I have never had a desire to do things that people in power abuse their position to do (like nightmare islands, sex with interns, crushing minorities). I don't even have an intense desire for money beyond basic comfort (I would love to have money for a boat right now, but I'm content saving up for it). So corruption for any of that? No.

However, I am not sure I have the capability of doing good in a proper way. I can't tell if I'd be a Sisko or if I would just fail to achieve any of my aims out of not wanting to do things the wrong way (if you go authoritarian to try to make things better, is that still corrupt or evil?). The world is a fucked up, difficult to navigate place, morally, when you are making decisions for a lot of people.

So yeah, I could avoid corruption for my own sake, but I don't think I would be able to be a benevolent dictator.

Nope. And I wouldn't even try. I'm going full evil tyrant, day one.

I don't trust myself that much.

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.

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.

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.

I'm pretty sure it's not possible to become a dictator without first being corrupt and evil.

Benevolent dictator is an oxymoron. The most benevolent thing a dictator can do is dismantle their dictatorship.

Nope. Once you make me dictator, I force a bunch of experts to work out a system of government that will make sure there will be no more dictators after me, and that said government will be obligated to work for the betterment of the populace as a whole without massive disparity. At the same time, I'd hire another bunch of experts to figure out what the first bunch got wrong.

While those two groups are working, I shall decree that in one month we will start executing billionaires starting with the richest and working our way down -- but anyone who donates all their 'excess' money to the new government or charities and research that I personally approve of before the deadline gets to live. I'm counting all off-shore money, and any attempt to flee the country shall be met with lethal force.

No because narcissistic psychopathic yes-men would flood my surroundings and I'd probably quickly become paranoid (with reasons to be that).

Except if it was in a Douglas Addams way.

I’d like to think so. When we read 1984 in high school, a friend and I were studying together. I remember saying (in my naïveté), “I loved the book and I get the history but why would you want to be in charge of a place that sucks?” She was like, “You’re just going to have to get used to the fact that a lot of people care about power more than beaches.”

Well, I still think those people are foolish. I’d rather be in charge of my own tiny slice of paradise than rule over some wack ass dictatorship where everyone else is miserable. Not wanting to be in charge is probably the basic pre-requisite for being a benevolent dictator. I like to cook for people and stuff. I’d use my power and wealth to do that.

That being said, I’m a dirtbag. I’d have a cool house somewhere with mountain and ocean views. Probably 3 or 4 beauty queens who also have Ms. Congeniality pageant sashes who are in charge of laughing at my jokes and charming me. No more than one or two rhythmic gymnastics teams that delight us all by throwing ribbons to each other with their feet. (Other apparatuses are cool too. Hula hoop. Clubs. Ball. Variety is the spice of life.)

I would instantly be assassinated for helping out people too much and handing too much power to workers syndicates

Well I wouldn't view it as evil but extreme measures tend to be viewed as evil by someone

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.

Relevant CGP Grey video

Basically it is a structural problem that ensures corrupt behavior. A dictator has to direct resources to the people most relevant to their continued power to buy their loyalty, and away from everyone else whose support is irrelevant. Not being a scumbag in that position could get you killed.

We’re getting into paradox territory

no but I could become a janitor that cleans up the workplace that nobody ever pays attention to

I think the problem for me would be less about corruption and more about me not being capable of taking that kind of responsibility.

I could absolutely be corrupt for the sake of everyone else's benefit. I don't need nor want wealth, I want enough to not worry about money, be able to take a sick day and not worry about it. I want people to be able to have kids and not have to worry about how they're going to support them. I want people to be able to get an education and not worry about how they're going to pay for it.

It's only a list of about 10 simple changes that could be implemented incredibly easy if leadership wasn't so worried about degrading one race or gender and lining their pockets.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Don't think it's possible per definition of the word.

If you take into account the wishes of the majority of the population what sets you apart from a constitutional monarchy?

Even if purest it is heart almost impossible. Main issue is the same with any govt type, corruption. Its easy to be benevolent when everyone on your side. They are plenty of animes/games like this.

When humans are looking out for themselves any progress you want is water down significantly and now "cruelties" need to be enacted to make these types fall in line. Now it becomes do you hit surgically or with a hammer depends on number of factors. Like do you specifically know who or just the departments. Delays are problems because meanwhile these types are probably riling up the masses for their own ends or simply result of selfish actions. Massive pain in butt. Without something like a death note or really amazing internal spy network it be impossible to avoid collateral damage. Even then we are now down the 1984 rabbit hole. All because I couldn't trust the people I wanted to govern or fulfill my will. Massive Tragedy when I just wanted to give ppl the stars.

Maybe AI govt workers to handle processing with loyalty chips could work. Until some jerk hacks them cause w/e. This why we cant have nice things.

Of course. I'd get promptly assassinated too

If you're offering me the job, I'll give it a go. I think I'd do a shockingly great job, but even if I didn't, there is no universe where I'm as evil and incompetent as the people who are currently in charge.

I think I would last a little longer than average. And I only say that because the more power I get handed the more anxiety I get and I think it's the people it doesn't make anxious that are the scariest. I also burnout quickly though and I don't handle everybody being mad at me very gracefully.

No

I'd like to think I wouldn't, but my chances probably aren't any better than the average person. I don't think I'd ever get anywhere near the worst leaders in history, but I wouldn't count on me being perfectly incorruptible.

But even if I was, that wouldn't be enough. Either I'd have to run the entire government myself, which is impossible, or I'd have to reliably find other incorruptible people to work for me and replace me when I die, which will never be reliable enough. If I didn't find incorruptible people, what's to stop them getting bribed into not letting me do anything until I let the corrupt people have their way?

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.

"I think I am perhaps the only one honourable enough who can" thinks almost everyone.

If society is at the point where we're making dictators then you likely have to be an immoral POS to stay in power. At every stage below you there are opportunistic people who want to take your spot.

There's a famous phrase: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's guaranteed to happen. The theme is played upon in LOTR when both Gandalf and Galadriel refuse the ring, knowing what it will do to them. It's the most important metaphor Tolkien put into the stories for a good reason. Peter Jackson made those moments stand out, as he also understood the assignment. Nobody is capable of resisting the call of corruption when given absolute power. You are not an exception.

If you are doing injustice in small acts then you will also do injustice in big acts too, Especially if you think you can get away with it. And person's view & promise about this does not matter, Because as Schopenhauer put it,

supposing that we wanted to know, for instance, how someone will act in a position in which we intend to place him, we must not rely on his promises and assurances. For, even assuming that he spoke honestly, he speaks of a matter that he does not know. Therefore, we have to calculate his actions solely on the basis of weighing the circumstances that he will have to face and their conflict with his character.

But I think person can achieve this kind of purity, by trying to be pure everyday. The reason i believe this is because i read a ancient Indian text called Mahabharata and it talked about a asceticism, Brahman, ashramas, double celibacy(doing sex only to beget children), mahaprasthana(means great journey, when person determine to departs from home and wanders around, awaiting death). It also had stories of benevolent kings, warriors & people showing uprightness. So, l believe, some people have attainted this kind of purity already in history & it's proof that man can control their desires and take right actions with impartiality by observing Brahmacharya

So your question, if I can be benevolent dictator without being corrupt or not?, yes, I can be but this job is not best suitable for me because of my personality And currently, my time tracking statistics & recent actions are not showing good results.

No but I’d like to think I’d do better than most.

Yes, because my first act would be to replace the benevolent dictatorship with a representative democracy.

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.