Benevolent Dictator?

[Xue Sheng]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Actually its Chuck Norris

 

[Ray]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[theletch1]

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]

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]

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]

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!