# Benevolent Dictator?



## theletch1 (Jul 25, 2008)

How many times have we all thought "Man, If I ran things they'd be different" or "One of these days I'm gonna buy me an island and be king."?  I have.  Most of my life I've daydreamed of being the ultimate ruler of a country.  Recently, though, I've come to realize that I simply should not be a dictator/president for life.  The realization that, eventually, with the best of intentions I'd become a tyrant wasn't a huge surprise to me but it did come after an odd session of soul searching and sparked even deeper searching of myself.  I'm not an evil man.  Perhaps it all just falls into the "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" file of things.

Could you be a truly benevolent dictator or president for life?  Could you wield that kind of power without becoming corrupt?  Can you really set up laws and punishments that are truly fair for all without allowing your own personal biases against particular crimes or actions to turn you into a tyrant?


----------



## stickarts (Jul 25, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> How many times have we all thought "Man, If I ran things they'd be different" or "One of these days I'm gonna buy me an island and be king."? I have. Most of my life I've daydreamed of being the ultimate ruler of a country. Recently, though, I've come to realize that I simply should not be a dictator/president for life. The realization that, eventually, with the best of intentions I'd become a tyrant wasn't a huge surprise to me but it did come after an odd session of soul searching and sparked even deeper searching of myself. I'm not an evil man. Perhaps it all just falls into the "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" file of things.
> 
> Could you be a truly benevolent dictator or president for life? Could you wield that kind of power without becoming corrupt? Can you really set up laws and punishments that are truly fair for all without allowing your own personal biases against particular crimes or actions to turn you into a tyrant?


 
Just the stress alone would be too much for me!  also its been said, if you want to test someones character, give them some power. I am happy to manage myself nowadays. No desire to be a dictator.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 25, 2008)

I don't think one person can rule absolutely without letting people fall through the cracks. In a world full of humans, there's someone out there that will complain about my dictatorship, no matter how benevolent it may be.

But who cares about people?

When I'm dictator, I'm placing all of you in Matrix bins, where you'll help power my machine army with your body heat.

The machines don't want for anything, they just do as they're told. That's how they're programmed in my perfect world.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 25, 2008)

The problem with taking over the world is that then you have to run it.

And even the worst dictators start out with big dreams for the human race, twisted, well meaning or otherwise, so I wouldn't qualify because that would mean I'd have to possess the belief that the human race deserved to survive and continue, which I don't.

If I had control of the world's human civilization, I'd destroy it *shrug*. that really is more and more just how I feel about it.

 what makes me different is I'm not sufficiently detached from reality to attempt to ACT upon those feelings because then it would cross the line from sentiment into madness.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 25, 2008)

It's interesting that all of you are argueing against a Dictorial Form of Government. I say that because Plato and Aristotle (who are considered some of the founders of Western of Thought) were very critical of Democracys. Both (more or less) advocated a form of Dictorial Rule. What was wanted is rule by a "Philosopher King", who had absolute power, but controled little territory, and was educated, and lived close enough to the people to not become an insane dictator. I think it was one of those two (or Socrates) that said 'power corruptes; absolute power corrupts absolutly'.

Not saying I advocate a Dictorial Rule, just saying.


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 26, 2008)

I understand the ideal of a "Philosopher King" and I think it was in comparison to the screaming, chaotic masses that a Democracy has the possibility to promote.

But we're human (most of us) and we're fallible. Dictatorships have been seen time and time again to fail or at the very least unable to meet a certain standard for those very masses.

It would be great to have a Philosopher King attune himself to those that he ruled without being tempted to take advantage of his situation.

At a specific level: if you were a Philosopher King, would you eat better than the lowest person in your social structure?

In terms of modern-day Democracy, we see those in power use their position to their personal advantage. The entire system is structured to place campaign funding, lobbying, and ultimately ruling office bases on individual obligation and assumption of greatness.

I love Democracy, in its ideal, as well as the beauty in any ruling philosophy designed to obtain a Utopia, but that brings me back to my idea that we're all slaves to our own desires.

While we strive to make ourselves better, we can always look towards that Ideal, and that's where I think the concept of a Philosopher King lies: in our hopes.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 26, 2008)

I've often wanted to _try _to be the benevolent dictator...but, I'm sure I'm only human like everyone else!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 26, 2008)

Two things

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" how do we know, no one has ever really had absolute power, close but not absolute

And Benevolent Dictator, phhht,  whats the point :EG:

:uhyeah:


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm reminded of the scene in the LOTR trilogy where Gandalf explains to Frodo that he can't take the ring because he would, eventually, become just as bad as Sauron with that much power even with the best of intentions.


----------



## newGuy12 (Jul 27, 2008)

What about Kind David?  Wasn't he a righteous king, other than lying with Bathsheba?  If one person can do it (be a righteous leader), that is all that is needed to prove that it is _*possible*_ to do (though not very easy).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 27, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> It's interesting that all of you are argueing against a Dictorial Form of Government. I say that because Plato and Aristotle (who are considered some of the founders of Western of Thought) were very critical of Democracys. Both (more or less) advocated a form of Dictorial Rule. What was wanted is rule by a "Philosopher King", who had absolute power, but controled little territory, and was educated, and lived close enough to the people to not become an insane dictator. I think it was one of those two (or Socrates) that said 'power corruptes; absolute power corrupts absolutly'.
> 
> Not saying I advocate a Dictorial Rule, just saying.


 
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ---Plato


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 27, 2008)

First a more serious answer a Benevolent Dictator would be a person exercising absolute power that desirers to help others. I am not sure that "exercising absolute power" can ever truly be "Benevolent"

Also a tyrant by definition is someone who uses power oppressively or unjustly this does not necessarily have to be a dictator

And as a ruler Confucius did outline the way for it to work and for a short period of time was allowed to show that it did work but the rulers of the time got nervous and put a stop to it. But it would take a superior person to pull it off and not give into the temptations of power



newGuy12 said:


> What about Kind David? Wasn't he a righteous king, other than lying with Bathsheba? If one person can do it (be a righteous leader), that is all that is needed to prove that it is possible to do (though not very easy).


 
I am not sure King David would be considered a dictator


----------



## arnisador (Jul 27, 2008)

If you're truly benevolent, you never are considered a dictator!


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 27, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> Could you be a truly benevolent dictator or president for life? Could you wield that kind of power without becoming corrupt? Can you really set up laws and punishments that are truly fair for all without allowing your own personal biases against particular crimes or actions to turn you into a tyrant?


 
Could work.  For a while.  But even the best tyrant must pass, and then all those sweet, sweet powers go to someone else who may not be so benevolent.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 28, 2008)

arnisador said:


> If you're truly benevolent, you never are considered a dictator!


 
6 basic types of government based on amount of power and whether or not corrupted.

Rule by One, good: Monarchy
Rule by One, corrupt: Tyranny
Rule by a Few, good: Republic
Rule by a Few, corrupt: Oligopoly
Rule by All, good: Constitutional Government
Rule by All, corrupt: Democracy :rofl:

Same principle.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 28, 2008)

Forms of government

Anarchy 
Aristocracy 
Authoritarianism 
Autocracy 
Band society 
Chiefdom 
Colony 
Communist state 
Corporatocracy 
Democracy 
Direct democracy 
Representative democracy 
Despotism 
Dictatorship 
Military dictatorship 
Feudalism 
Hierarchy 
Kleptocracy 
Kritarchy 
Kritocracy 
Meritocracy 
Monarchy 
Absolute monarchy 
Constitutional monarchy 
Empire 
Night watchman state 
Ochlocracy 
Oligarchy 
Plutocracy 
Puppet state 
Republic 
Mixed government 
Constitutional republic 
Parliamentary republic 
Socialist republic 
Capitalist republic 
Robocracy 
Single-party state 
Socialism 
Technocracy 
Thalassocracy 
Theocracy 
Theodemocracy 
Timocracy 
Totalitarianism 
Tribe


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 28, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Forms of government


 
Basic Xue, Basic. All the rest of those can fit in there somewere, or will never happen. Technocracy and Timocracy for example. I'm not going to bother with Socialism and Communist State.


----------



## Ray (Jul 28, 2008)

The Tao says:
"In order to master people
One must speak as their servant;
In order to lead people
One must follow them.

So when the sage rises above the people,
They do not feel oppressed;
And when the sage stands before the people,
They do not feel hindered."

My manufacturing experience(s) have been like a small chunk of the world and the people in it.  

There is always someone who has a "problem" with the way the company is running. Whether the company is acheiving its goals or not; whether the company is "accomodating" to the employees or "strictly follows the rules" someone still will not be happy.

Some say "if I were a supervisor, things would be different."  Some get their chance and soon see that it is not possible to just thrust your will on others (even if by some small improbable chance you had all the answers, which no one by themselves ever seem to).  Some who do get their chance will adapt to their new positions and do the best they can; others have gone back into the subordinate position (sometimes with a better understanding).

A benevolent dictator would have to have wise counsellors, a kind heart and a heavy hand.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 28, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Basic Xue, Basic. All the rest of those can fit in there somewere, or will never happen. Technocracy and Timocracy for example. I'm not going to bother with Socialism and Communist State.


 
Basic can be broken down in several ways that is my point so I am saying that stating 6 is arbitrary.

One school of thought says there are 2 basic types

Government by consent of the governed and government by force 

Or 2 types defined as 

Democracies and Authoritarian Systems.

Or 3 basic types



> http://www.social-exclusion-housing.com/revolution-reform.html
> 
> Three basic types of government are generally possible (though these can take many forms) ;
> 
> ...


 
So you say 6 types I say 26 another guy says 3 and a few say 2 that is my point.

Personally it looks more like 3 to me


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 28, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> So you say 6 types I say 26 another guy says 3 and a few say 2 that is my point.
> 
> Personally it looks more like 3 to me


 
I perfer Aristotle's system. I accounts for population envolvement and _corruption. _But then again, it was Aristotle's, not mine.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 28, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I perfer Aristotle's system. I accounts for population envolvement and _corruption. _But then again, it was Aristotle's, not mine.


 
Works for me

But this is going way off post so first I apologize to theletch1 and in an attempt to refocus it here is what the post is all about. 



theletch1 said:


> How many times have we all thought "Man, If I ran things they'd be different" or "One of these days I'm gonna buy me an island and be king."? I have. Most of my life I've daydreamed of being the ultimate ruler of a country. Recently, though, I've come to realize that I simply should not be a dictator/president for life. The realization that, eventually, with the best of intentions I'd become a tyrant wasn't a huge surprise to me but it did come after an odd session of soul searching and sparked even deeper searching of myself. I'm not an evil man. Perhaps it all just falls into the "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" file of things.
> 
> Could you be a truly benevolent dictator or president for life? Could you wield that kind of power without becoming corrupt? Can you really set up laws and punishments that are truly fair for all without allowing your own personal biases against particular crimes or actions to turn you into a tyrant?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 28, 2008)

Agreed. 

I think that if a country were in some pretty serious straights, a temporary dictatorship might not be a bad thing. I'll use Nigeria as an example.

Lets say, I was put in charge of Nigeria. I would have the ability to do what ever is needed to help fix the country economicly, politicly, and socialily. I could (in theory) fix a good deal of what is wrong with the country. Then, after I was satisfied (or died), I would turn over the government to an elected official. 

The odds of something like that happening is slim (at best), but would make a Dictatorship a reasonable idea


----------



## Nolerama (Jul 28, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I think that if a country were in some pretty serious straights, a temporary dictatorship might not be a bad thing. I'll use Nigeria as an example.


 
Please explain.



CuongNhuka said:


> Lets say, I was put in charge of Nigeria. I would have the ability to do what ever is needed to help fix the country economicly, politicly, and socialily. I could (in theory) fix a good deal of what is wrong with the country. _*Then, after I was satisfied (or died), I would turn over the government to an elected official. *_



That's how Senator Palpatine got around to killing almost all of the Jedi...

I think that once you're a dictator, your work is never done. Even though the country might be going well, I don't think it's in our nature to relinquish power so easily.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jul 28, 2008)

how can anyone rule the whole world?  being only mortal, one is himself, to a high degree, ruled by the circumstances of reality.
 i can believe in big organizations or institutions-nations as well as individuals.

although the idea of ruling the world sounds nice to me, it's probably a sortof impossible and a somewhat shady thought in the first place.  

if anyone should be able to become king or faithful vassal of his own personal kingdom then he has achieved more than  the conquering of the  whole  world.  

sure it would be cool to be a universal ruler like ghangis khan- let everyone  practice their own kind of religion etc.  but i agree the ruling of the world seems like a really scary thing to me. 

here's my question; is there anything or anyone actually actively ruling the world right now??  would you include a host of nations or military digits, economic factors- or even come up with weird conspiracies of secret societies and aliens etc....?  

i personally believe in the universe(god?) and id like to believe that somehow things are controlled and make sense. 

j


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 28, 2008)

kaizasosei said:


> how can anyone rule the whole world? being only mortal, one is himself, to a high degree, ruled by the circumstances of reality.
> i can believe in big organizations or institutions-nations as well as individuals.
> 
> although the idea of ruling the world sounds nice to me, it's probably a sortof impossible and a somewhat shady thought in the first place.
> ...


 
Actually its Chuck Norris


----------



## Ray (Jul 28, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Lets say, I was put in charge of Nigeria. I would have the ability to do what ever is needed to help fix the country economicly, politicly, and socialily. I could (in theory) fix a good deal of what is wrong with the country.


If you could bend the weather and crop success.  If you could create enough drinkable water.  If you could change the hearts of any enemy without to prevent possible invasion.  If you could invite the proper investment into manufacturing and somehow create profitable exports.  If you could vanquish those within your country who oppose you and will fight to the death to install (pick any one kind of other gov't).

The benevolent dictator is a no win situation.


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 28, 2008)

This is more of an introspective, soul searching conversation than a political one.  Deep down, no matter how well meaning we, as individuals, may think we are... no matter how much good we think we'd do eventually we would feel that the rights of certain people or certain actions should be done away with at all costs for the good of the country.  At that point we go from Benevolent "father figure" to Vlad Dracul.  It was, for me, something of a surprise to come to that realization that I would eventually become the Vlad Dracul figure.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jul 28, 2008)

Ray said:


> The benevolent dictator is a no win situation.


 
Agreed. I'm speaking in theory only.

No, I couldn't do all that myself. My point was, a dictator has less tape to work through, which would allow various things to get done faster. It would be easier to create legislation that highers people to clean water (unemployment being a big problem in Nigeria). It would be easier to simply create various forms of industry. The only thing Stalin did right was industrialise Russia. And they became industrialise much faster then the West. If that (and only that) were to happen in Nigeria, they would be much better off. And, if that dictator were to surrender there authority when the situation improves, they could easily go from third to first world in a generation or two. 

Again, seriously unlikely to ever happen, but it is a plausible theory.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 28, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> This is more of an introspective, soul searching conversation than a political one. Deep down, no matter how well meaning we, as individuals, may think we are... no matter how much good we think we'd do eventually we would feel that the rights of certain people or certain actions should be done away with at all costs for the good of the country. At that point we go from Benevolent "father figure" to Vlad Dracul. It was, for me, something of a surprise to come to that realization that I would eventually become the Vlad Dracul figure.


 
That is quite a realization actually.

To be honest I am more likely to see myself walking away from the whole thing. I have no desire for power or to rule or dictate to be honest and if it were thrust upon me I would likely walk away if at all possible. If I couldn't I would likely try the Confucian route as to whether or not I was successful or gave into the temptations of power I do not know. I am betting I would not be Vlad Dracul but, if I can look back on my security days I would likely be to the letter of the law and eventually hating it completely.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jul 29, 2008)

this reminds me of this crazy idea a friend of mine had once which was to hire out a private military organization to take over ecuador(i think it was)- or some similar state-i ferget- 
whatever the case, he maintained that once the country had been captured, he would create a new 'green' state and proceed to influence the world in a big way.

sounds much easier to me that it probably is.  

but i can believe that some dictators have good sides and that many bad ones did not start out that way but became corrupted through power or the irony of the world.

interesting ideas.   

j


----------



## MarkBarlow (Jul 29, 2008)

Benevolent or not, a Dictator is only as good as the minions under him. It's impossible for one person to deal with all aspects of running a country and it will fall to his underlings to manage many of the day to day functions. If you had a Benevolent Dictator, loyal and trustworthy henchmen and a hardworking and trusting population things might work. But it only takes a few weak links for things to get screwed up.

As an example, I understand that God is (on the whole) a benevolent ruler of the universe. It should follow that the church (in its many incarnations) should follow suit.  From Crusades, Jihads, pogroms, etc...we know how well that's worked out.  A leader's control and positive effect is only as good as the followers.

Before anyone flames me, I'm not making an anti-God, anti-anything statement, just using that to demonstrate that the trickle down theory of benevolence can be screwed-up by a few bad folks.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jul 29, 2008)

MarkBarlow said:


> Benevolent or not, a Dictator is only as good as the minions under him. It's impossible for one person to deal with all aspects of running a country and it will fall to his underlings to manage many of the day to day functions. If you had a Benevolent Dictator, loyal and trustworthy henchmen and a hardworking and trusting population things might work. But it only takes a few weak links for things to get screwed up.
> 
> As an example, I understand that God is (on the whole) a benevolent ruler of the universe. It should follow that the church (in its many incarnations) should follow suit. From Crusades, Jihads, pogroms, etc...we know how well that's worked out. A leader's control and positive effect is only as good as the followers.
> 
> Before anyone flames me, I'm not making an anti-God, anti-anything statement, just using that to demonstrate that the trickle down theory of benevolence can be screwed-up by a few bad folks.


 
But as the OP asked Could you be a truly benevolent dictator or president for life?


----------



## MarkBarlow (Jul 29, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> But as the OP asked Could you be a truly benevolent dictator or president for life?



Me personally? Sure, not a problem.:angel:


----------



## theletch1 (Jul 30, 2008)

MarkBarlow said:


> Me personally? Sure, not a problem.:angel:


If you're joking... :lfao:
If you're serious... how would you keep your desire to control actions that you truly see as detrimental to society in check?


----------



## Jenna (Jul 30, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> How many times have we all thought "Man, If I ran things they'd be different" or "One of these days I'm gonna buy me an island and be king."?  I have.  Most of my life I've daydreamed of being the ultimate ruler of a country.  Recently, though, I've come to realize that I simply should not be a dictator/president for life.  The realization that, eventually, with the best of intentions I'd become a tyrant wasn't a huge surprise to me but it did come after an odd session of soul searching and sparked even deeper searching of myself.  I'm not an evil man.  Perhaps it all just falls into the "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" file of things.
> 
> Could you be a truly benevolent dictator or president for life?  Could you wield that kind of power without becoming corrupt?  Can you really set up laws and punishments that are truly fair for all without allowing your own personal biases against particular crimes or actions to turn you into a tyrant?


To my mind humanity seeks dominion.  To me that is my observation though it is validated by empirical evidence not only in media at governmental level and but just around my workplace at personal level.  My point is only that there is no corruption in dictatorial intentions.  The desire for dominion is a predilection.  Anyways, as dictator, once the laws are entirely repealed, who is to say what is right and what is not?  There is no good and bad in human predilection.  Follow your instincts and eschew benevolence.  We can all fight for our own dictatorships and this will be the new Darwinism maybe.. 

Though something tells me I do not think I would get too many votes  for that.. but hey, what does autocrat need with your votes anyways.. here I sit on my zirconia throne (cuts, eh?) with serfs and minions aplenty.. and but I will show you all clemency as long as I am endlessly well dined on Ben & Jerry's  
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## MarkBarlow (Jul 31, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> If you're joking... :lfao:
> If you're serious... how would you keep your desire to control actions that you truly see as detrimental to society in check?



The thought of me as a dictator, benevolent or not, reminds me of a great Groucho Marx line, "I would never belong to a club who would have someone like me as a member." God help the society who would except me as their all-powerful ruler.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jul 31, 2008)

newGuy12 said:


> What about Kind David? Wasn't he a righteous king, other than lying with Bathsheba?


 
_*EXCUSE ME?*_

Kind David did not merely "lie with Batsheba."  He lied with Batsheba, and then he sent her husband into battle so he could die!


----------

