Ask Lemmy

The trick is to set a reasonable limit for political assassinations and idiotic massive construction projects ahead of time, and then keep to those limits.

Yes because I will immediately work on making a sustainable democracy, eventually having checks and balances

I'll be super chill to hang out with in my palace, while my Grand Vizier takes care of day to day business.

Sure, for the low price of a lifetime pension I'll benevolently dismantle the oligarchy; ban guns; make cars luxury items; massively expand mass transit; and bring in universal health and education!

Just ignore the claims that I've actually jailed or killed my opposition; held the families of so called "freedom fighters" so they'll turn themselves and their buddies in; made travel outside your area and healthcare impossible without government approval; and completely changed the history everyone learns.

Okay that's obviously pretty extreme. Just a reminder that if you're not careful even well intentioned dictatorships can be very oppressive. And every dictatorship is on a timer to a coup or revolution. And resetting that timer is not pretty. The only way off the treadmill is to have elections again.

No, but I'll give it the old college try. I've always imagined that the only way to be a benevolent dictator is to do the dictator thing only to install a better form of government to replace you and hope it sticks when you step away. Something more technocratic and with better checks and balances.

I would probably try to make a form of voting system to get myself out of the role as fast as i can

But not before giving trans people rights

Yea! I can't get corrupted or turn evil if I already start out corrupt and evil!

I'd be a watchdog, not a dictator. I think that's the better use of that power. And if I had an idea then I'd take it to the same process as the rest of the laws and have a vote on it.

no, nobody can... nobody

No

Maybe, but only if I become a dictator to remove and spread my power to smaller government organizations. Basically instead of having one source of power, I dilute the government into multiple governments that also police each other and not one of them have power to govern over all others. Additionally, police and military would be the only "governments" that have slightly less governing power than the rest because while we still need police and military I don't want them to use their weapons to muscle their way over the other governments.

Note: I am not saying it's perfect or covers all cases, but I believe that having a central point of power is the biggest issue with a dictator becoming corrupt and this applies even to non-dictators (hint-hint). Maybe I am wrong and I invite polite discourse on the subject.

Yes!

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.

Yes.