Ask Lemmy

Yes.

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

I don't have that problem.

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.

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

no, nobody can... nobody

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

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 don't trust myself that much.

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.

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.

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

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.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 might still be young enough to pull that off for a few more years yet.

The way I would implement that is to day one set a date for elections of a congress and my own retirement. I'm imagining a Mars Attacks scenario in which the ak ak ak aliens blow up congress and the government of the United States consists of the President's teenage daughter and a mariachi band. If through some set of goofy circumstances no meaningful government exists above me and I am in full command, we're gonna do shit my way for, say, four years, and then we're calling a congress. At which time I retire to a small estate somewhere in the Carolinas with only ceremonial powers, like I reserve the right to throw out first pitches of baseball games.

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.

No

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

No

Its possible but unlikely and gets even more problematic with after dictator times. Best chance would be setting up a system and then using the dictator powers to tweak or fix things till you die.

I think there are many people out there who could.

To me, the problem isn't being a benevolent dictator; it's getting a benevolent person there in a benevolent way.

Depends how you define "evil". And if I was hungry or tired when I got this power.

There's good odds like every Republican official and donor would go directly into a bad time. Some would say that's evil.

Bigger question is how long would you last? If you're benevolent then the people closest to you won't like you as their dictator because presumably you treat everyone equitably and don't keep a bigger piece of the pie for yourself and your confidants.

Probably not.

I mean, I don't think there's a chance of doing some really fucked up shit, like genociding people; but I'd certainly be biased toward things that I want and not necessarily what the majority wants. I'd be a little bit corrupt, but I can't even envision a path that would lead me to be evil.

I would try to turn into a wurm. Maybe my son will finish my work.

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.

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

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.

My Tropico track record says that I absolutely can.