Yes, hypocrisy is for neurotypicals. That's why those people will be tattooed with - ah, damn, you got me
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
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.
Absolutley. No more questions!
Only one way to find out
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.
Yes. But I'd probably be killed by someone who will
Sure. Would I last long before getting killed or overthrown? No.
It is inevitable that an opposition would form against you. You either let the movement continue to gain traction and risk unseating you or you use your power in a corrupt manner to silence them.
In this particular case, it depends what you define as corrupt. If you are truly working towards the betterment of everyone under your power (even those that you are fighting against), then what becomes justifiable to that end?
I would establish a socialist polity, then abdicate.
Cool you forgot to establish power checked democracy, now you have the soviets. Congrats :)
For a couple months, maybe. Anyone who says yes absolutely is someone who shouldn't be trusted with power.
But I know I can be the best dictator ever! 😉
What's that? You disagree? Sounds like I need to send some of my people to your house to educate you on what I'm doing until you can until you can understand that its for the greater good 🤗
(you may not refuse my mandatory education program, I'll be watch you 👀)
-Sincerely,
Your best friend and dictator
🥰
I'd last six hours before becoming Caligula
With my dictatorial powers .... my first action would be to seize and outlaw extreme wealth. No one would be allowed to own more than $1 million.
All the money collected would be used for government and providing a Universal Basic Income for everyone.
And I'd get a designer to make me a big fancy hat.
That is increadibly hard to do.
- How do you define what goes into that 1 million of allowed wealth? If I buy a house worth 950000, would I only be allowed to save 50000.
- what about if the house increase in value so that it is worth 2 million, should I just accept that I loose 1 million? What about stocks?
- Inflation or Deflation, when/how will you update that limit?
I agree with your take on this. I think 1M is way too low. But 1 Billion... It's a bit easier to imagine the "you can't or the dictatorship will seize something" idea.
The reality is that the wealthiest people usually influence the most
would I have to stay a dictator? because I'd be instilling a democracy ASAP
Dictator to reform not to rule
The benevolent, uncorrupt, good thing for dictators to do is to abdicate.
I could be benevolent and part of the population would be still against me (slumlords, libertarians, nazis).
After some attempts to kill me I doubt I couldn’t become aggressive against the population who wronged me.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I don't think I could cause I lack strategic thinking and would get easily outmaneuvered by some other faction
Well, I've managed to win every election legitimately in Tropico 5 so far while making sure there's plenty of housing, education, jobs, food, and healthcare.
So guess so.
I'd be too much of a lazy dictator to do anything truly evil.
how dare you question my benevolence. to the pits with you.
Maybe if I had a few years to reorganise myself, and that's a big maybe. I've never much cared for money, power, and I'm empathetic to a fault, but being in different environments causes people to change.
The biggest challenge would be staying in touch with the population. You would need a good team of people that represent the interests of human existence and happiness. At that point it's sounding closer to a democracy anyway.
From there, there's obvious moves. Find the biggest sources of misery and damage, reform or just straight up tear it out and start again. You'd need to move moderately slow, moving quickly destabilizes people too much and that is often not worth the cost. Raise social safety nets, try to turn the system from working to survive into one where working to get nice shit.
I feel like I might bankrupt whichever system I'm put in charge of though. Economics was never my strong suit, and I probably would start ignoring economic realities in favour of human existence.
Probably not.
I mean, I don't think there's a chance of doing some really fucked up shit, like genociding people; but I'd certainly be biased toward things that I want and not necessarily what the majority wants. I'd be a little bit corrupt, but I can't even envision a path that would lead me to be evil.
I know I can cause I'd really rather not be a dictator. I take responsibility for EVERYONE all the fuckong time trying to care for that many and feeling the pain and guilt if I fail even one will fuck me up and I'd rather just not do it. Only in extreme times like rn would I even consider it but I'll probably off my self when the reign ends cause I let some kid die because I didn't get healthcare to them fast enough. I'm a softie.
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.
This is explained in the "the rules for rulers" video from cgpgrey, which condenses the book "the dictators handbook".
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.
They often get killed faster than the evil ones.
No I would be killed by a subordinate who wouldn't be.
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.
It's really difficult. Not because you will turn evil of your own free will, but because you will have to do terrible things to maintain stability and to keep yourself from being usurped by spies. If you became dictator of any country, you would immediately start to get attacked from many sides by both spies and also revolutionaries who think of themselves as the good guy. In order to do anything it takes time. This is the only way to win the people over. Becoming a dictator is no doubt going to lead to massive economic decline in the near term unless you become a right wing dictator who has favor with the business and merchant classes. If you try to actually become a benevolent dictator and actually free the people, most of the people you would think were your allies would also blame you for everything that is wrong and turn against you, the business class would fund propaganda against you. The internationalists would fund your opposition to gain back their foreign claims to your industry and minerals.
People will feel as if they have every right to criticize you in every way, if you don't oppress them, but if you do, you will rightfully be called a tyrant. If you find your own propaganda you will be called a tyrant, but the people you think would be your allies, will not understand that there is propaganda on the other side.
It's very difficult indeed. Within a few years of taking power you would immediately have to deal with a torrent of spies, foreign media, coups, and whatever else. This is why only right wing governments only ever last more then a few years in history.
Vladimir Lenin is a great example of this, he genuinely saw himself as being benevolent. He was a real communist. He wanted to help the people. Yet he quickly realized once he obtained power that he did not have the support of the majority of the country. He pleaded and appealed to them, he tried to "educate" them on what was needed to achieve communism, mainly just time and their trust. Yet even his first election if he were to have one, he would lose, because already he had become associated with the status quo. The mainstream oppressors of the common people. So he became a tyrant, as all dictators do. Communism gets traded for national socialism and fascism with red paint by the time Lenin is dead. All in an effort to just keep power for a little bit so he could see his communist vision come true. Unfortunately as soon as the bosliviks started to oppress the people they lost the little bit of credibility they had. Just another tyrant, another right wing power obsessed state.
yes. I think a lot of people can. the thing is, the people who can won't be the runs running for office
I would be completely stressed out, like people would wanna kill me and stuff for being a dictator, so I'd just renounce, run away and get a new identity (not sure how one "gets" a new identity though). Also, managing a country by myself? Too hard, what orders am I even meant to give?
No. Although "turning evil" isn't what happens to those guys, exactly.
Dictators, in the sense of one man rule, don't actually exist. What an autocracy does have is a first among equals in a system where everyone is "looking over their shoulder". Even if someone who genuinely wants to make life great for the people takes power, there's severe limits to how they can do that.
Gorbachev is a great example of this. He was an idealistic person, and thought it would be good if the USSR switched to real democracy. Pretty immediately there were multiple coups until he was out of power, because anybody remotely high up the hierarchy had too many skeletons in their closet to allow that.
In the end, a dictator only gets to choose what kind of nightmarish dictatorship they want.
I don't think I could become dictator at all, no.
Seriously, though, power corrupts. I'm not immune. Nor am I immune to being manipulated by those more evil than I, which is another big problem with concentrating power.
Yes
I have a strong sense of justice, transparency, and collaboration. I would not turn corrupt or evil for my own gain, to remain in power, or for others.
Would I be removed from my position? Maybe. Depends on the surroundings. A dictator is only as stable and powerful as the enablement surrounding them. Typically, they are also very influential people.
What makes a good, benevolent dictator? Doesn't that inevitably lead to weakening their power?
Collaborating on politics, hearing voices, and then making the or confirming the compromise and agreement? Sounds like a mostly celebratory role. A dictator without significance or power.
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.)
I would instantly be assassinated for helping out people too much and handing too much power to workers syndicates
No because narcissistic psychopathic yes-men would flood my surroundings and I'd probably quickly become paranoid (with reasons to be that).
Except if it was in a Douglas Addams way.
Oh goodness no. I pray I never come into any real political power.
For fun I've already run the numbers on how many adult humans will fit into the cargo holds of a decommissioned Panamax bulker.
I would rock that shit, literally my dream job, practical problem solver with infinite power.
Nope. Once you make me dictator, I force a bunch of experts to work out a system of government that will make sure there will be no more dictators after me, and that said government will be obligated to work for the betterment of the populace as a whole without massive disparity. At the same time, I'd hire another bunch of experts to figure out what the first bunch got wrong.
While those two groups are working, I shall decree that in one month we will start executing billionaires starting with the richest and working our way down -- but anyone who donates all their 'excess' money to the new government or charities and research that I personally approve of before the deadline gets to live. I'm counting all off-shore money, and any attempt to flee the country shall be met with lethal force.