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.)
Yes, because my first act would be to replace the benevolent dictatorship with a representative democracy.
Yes, and it’s because I’m too lazy to do any actual dictator shit.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
No. No one can.
No I would be killed by a subordinate who wouldn’t be.
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.
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.
Same here. Also I don’t think I’d make it long at the top either. I think a certain lack of empathy is required to be ok with some of the requirements of the position.
I could make the hard choices if needed, once there. Because at that point it’s about what is the greater good. Even if you really can’t say for certain, someone making a bad call is most often better than no one making a decision.
The problem is that in order to become a benevolent dictator, you have to chose to hurt people that don’t matter to the greater good, or very likely are important to the well being of the population. With the only justification being that maybe by consolidating power you can make the world a better place. And there is just no way to square that circle other than violent narcissism.
That’s the thing though. I think after acquiring the power you need to keep on stepping on some people to stay in the position. You likely don’t have infinite resources so there’s always going to be someone who missies out. Also what about people meaning to harm you or your subjects?
Once you’re in power you can rationalize/justify their loss against the greater good that your leadership has brought to the people. There are concrete examples of human progress to defend. If there are significant counter examples, then it’s you that’s the problem to be dealt with, just like any other.
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.
Yeah the problem is mostly that benevolent people don’t actually want to be dictators much less do what it takes to become one.
I know I can but none of you power-hungry would-be tyrants better try anything funny.
Pineapple is mandatory on all pizzas 😈 (I actually like it no joke)
Me too, little bit of sweet goes well with hot peppers. I like to lay it (and sometimes the peppers) out flat on a sheet in the oven to reduce some of the moisture content with a blast of broiler at the end for a quick singe.
That’s it though, no more tyranny after the pizza thing.
