Can there be such a thing as a "benevolent dictatorship"

My vanity | Today | me

[achilles2000]

“Dictatorships develop dependent personalities in people.”

Unlike our government ;-)

[Damifino]

Suppose for the sake of debate that there can be a benevolent dictator. A single person can only “rule” for a single generation. What are the chances a government is graced with a string of consecutive “good guys”? Not terribly likely. Any dictatorship, no matter the well intended its beginnings will eventually succumb to our weaknesses of pride and excess.

[OB1kNOb]

I would be interested in knowing if your debate partner has any examples in history of successful benevolent dictatorships.

[The Comedian]

Only if I am the dictator.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[isom35]

yes, but only if I’m the dictator.

[ctdonath2]

Yes, Singapore is the only modern example. Notice that it is little more than a single city, and stems from an ancient culture subjugating individualism to the collective and to submission to superiors. This is far different from the USA’s three hundred million residents covering six million square miles occupying the complete spectrum of social, geographic, economic, political, environmental and religious variations stemming from an intense (if short) history of rabid individualism, liberty and independence.

Chewing gum is a controlled substance in Singapore - is that the kind of control you would cede to a “benevolent dictator”?

And, as noted, benevolent dictatorships (few there have been) tend to rise from brutal contention for power, and return to brutal contention when the dear leader expires.

Great idea - but in reality are few, far between, and short lived.

[ctdonath2]

Aye, there's the rub: adjacent posts #44 & #45, posted just 6 seconds apart, are individually workable but collectively impossible. I'm sure each of you could be a fine leader, but the carnage leading to one of you being that leader would not be worth the brief peace that would follow.

[The_Victor]

Considering how many people he had to kill (including his own brother) to be king even he wasn't that good

Honestly, it pretty hard to find any dictator/king without some blood on his hands. I just chose Solomon (get the spelling right this time) as a ruler who is generally accepted as wise and fair.

[C19fan]

I suppose Douglas McCarthur was for a time the de-facto dictator of Japan although there was a well defined path to full sovereignity going the Japanese and McCarthur has to answer to US government.

If one stretches the term benevolent Chile’s Pinochet who implemented and institutionalized a strong market economy and he left power voluntarily.

The whole point is you can have a benevolent dictator but as a Founding Fathers grapsed you have to worry about someone abusing power for evil than a benevolent person using power for good.

[C19fan]

Pardon the horrible spelling.

[The Comedian]

I'm sure each of you could be a fine leader, but the carnage leading to one of you being that leader would not be worth the brief peace that would follow.

No, it would be OK.

I would win.

I always win.

And I would rule with a winning fist.

And you would all, by extention, be winners.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[mrmeyer]

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” - H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” - C.S. Lewis

Just like baskin robbins has different flavors of ice cream, Fascism, Communism, Marxism, Corporatism, Collectivism, Totalitarianism, are different flavors of Tyranny.

What we face now is no different that what men have faced in the past. It's the age old question of Liberty or Equality? Those that seek Liberty accept that they alone are responsible for the maximization of their own potential, and that their own hard work and individual efforts will determine the extent to which they achieve the happiness they are pursuing in life. Those that seek Equality, seek to do so at the expense of others, tearing others down to lift themselves up. This requires the power of state intervention, and the egalitarians are quite willing to put their full faith in and pledge their allegiance to the authority that gives them something for nothing.

Unfortunately for Liberty loving individuals, the Egalitarians stand at America's helm. It is not in their nature to relinquish power once it is obtained, not by peaceful means anyway. It is my opinion that the hard times we face now are only going to get harder for the time being.

[ml/nj]

Singapore..his only model

Well, Hilter, Stalin, Mao, and Castro, could be yours for starters. The odds aren't good.

ML/NJ

[antisocial]

benevolent dictatorship will be wonderful when Christ returns.

[Defiant]

Yes. The problems with benevolent dictatorships are that they always carry within them the threat of malevolent dictatorship, and the succession issues. The founders recognized this, and it is why they created the institution of a President with limited powers subject to periodic elections. You might get a bad President, but he would be gone soon enough.

[Ramius]

It’s Camelot.

While theoretically possible, history shows that it is rare, and only lasts for the life of the good King.

I don’t know that history shows that democracies remain “good” forever, either. We’ll just have to see about that.

[John Valentine]

Well said, and unfortunately for us all, very true.