Ask Lemmy

Oh goodness no. I pray I never come into any real political power.

For fun I've already run the numbers on how many adult humans will fit into the cargo holds of a decommissioned Panamax bulker.

It is inevitable that an opposition would form against you. You either let the movement continue to gain traction and risk unseating you or you use your power in a corrupt manner to silence them.

I could be benevolent and part of the population would be still against me (slumlords, libertarians, nazis).

After some attempts to kill me I doubt I couldn’t become aggressive against the population who wronged me.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Well, I've managed to win every election legitimately in Tropico 5 so far while making sure there's plenty of housing, education, jobs, food, and healthcare.

So guess so.

if I were magically made dictator somehow, no I don't think so. but I'm not cutthroat enough to become a dictator in the first place.

seems contradictory, dictators are almost never benevolent. They wouldn't be a dictator if they were benevolent. the only thing they do is immediately cede power to a " council or a elected persons. unless you mean something like diety that is benevolent, ruling from the "shadows" through another leader.

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.

No.

Not because I’m evil, but because I am empathetic and someone evil would absolutely figure out a way to use that to manipulate me.

This is explained in the "the rules for rulers" video from cgpgrey, which condenses the book "the dictators handbook".

I would rock that shit, literally my dream job, practical problem solver with infinite power.

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

No I would be killed by a subordinate who wouldn't be.

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

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 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.

No. Although "turning evil" isn't what happens to those guys, exactly.

Dictators, in the sense of one man rule, don't actually exist. What an autocracy does have is a first among equals in a system where everyone is "looking over their shoulder". Even if someone who genuinely wants to make life great for the people takes power, there's severe limits to how they can do that.

Gorbachev is a great example of this. He was an idealistic person, and thought it would be good if the USSR switched to real democracy. Pretty immediately there were multiple coups until he was out of power, because anybody remotely high up the hierarchy had too many skeletons in their closet to allow that.

In the end, a dictator only gets to choose what kind of nightmarish dictatorship they want.

yes. I think a lot of people can. the thing is, the people who can won't be the runs running for office

Relevant CGP Grey.

From the point of view of "can you hold power and not let your heart of hearts be corrupted?" - Yeah, sure, why not? The problem is that as soon as you have a significant amount of power, someone else is going to want it. Probably someone with fewer scrupals. So you will quickly be forced into utilitarian thinking - you must do whatever is necessary to maintain your position of power, lest you be usurped by someone worse. And what is necessary to maintain power, to a common person, is often corruption, violence, and austerity for the people.

I don't trust myself that much.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yes.

Fascism is the alternative people turn to when they can't cope with their own inadequacies.

I don't have that problem.

how dare you question my benevolence. to the pits with you.

no, nobody can... nobody

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.

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

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

I'd be too much of a lazy dictator to do anything truly evil.