Benevolent Dictator?

[theletch1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Xue Sheng]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[CoryKS]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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) ;

1. Minority Governing. Most common now, this can vary to include one individual Dictatorships, one family Kingdoms and one minority class Oligarchy - and maybe Party-Representative Democracy and Majority-Party government.

2. Majority Governing. Less common now, this can vary to include Direct Democracy and Elected-Representative Democracy - and maybe Party-Representative Democracy and Majority-Party government.

3. All Governing or No Governing. Probably existing significantly only in stone-age societies that were small and isolated, this might vary to include perhaps Family Autonomy and Communal Tribalism. There have been some modern attempts to create communes of this type.
Of course any particular government may actually be of a form different to the form it appears to be, so a particular Kingdom may really be a form of Majority Governing or a particular Majority Governing may really be a minority Oligarchy.

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]

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.