how dare you question my benevolence. to the pits with you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Relevant CGP Grey video

Basically it is a structural problem that ensures corrupt behavior. A dictator has to direct resources to the people most relevant to their continued power to buy their loyalty, and away from everyone else whose support is irrelevant. Not being a scumbag in that position could get you killed.

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.

Sure. Would I last long before getting killed or overthrown? No.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Well I wouldn't view it as evil but extreme measures tend to be viewed as evil by someone

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.

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.

yes. I think a lot of people can. the thing is, the people who can won't be the runs running for office

Absolutley. No more questions!

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.

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.

This is explained in the "the rules for rulers" video from cgpgrey, which condenses the book "the dictators handbook".

If you're offering me the job, I'll give it a go. I think I'd do a shockingly great job, but even if I didn't, there is no universe where I'm as evil and incompetent as the people who are currently in charge.

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.

Yes and no.

I have never had a lust for power. I have never had a desire to do things that people in power abuse their position to do (like nightmare islands, sex with interns, crushing minorities). I don't even have an intense desire for money beyond basic comfort (I would love to have money for a boat right now, but I'm content saving up for it). So corruption for any of that? No.

However, I am not sure I have the capability of doing good in a proper way. I can't tell if I'd be a Sisko or if I would just fail to achieve any of my aims out of not wanting to do things the wrong way (if you go authoritarian to try to make things better, is that still corrupt or evil?). The world is a fucked up, difficult to navigate place, morally, when you are making decisions for a lot of people.

So yeah, I could avoid corruption for my own sake, but I don't think I would be able to be a benevolent dictator.

I think I would last a little longer than average. And I only say that because the more power I get handed the more anxiety I get and I think it's the people it doesn't make anxious that are the scariest. I also burnout quickly though and I don't handle everybody being mad at me very gracefully.

What's the point of being a dictator if you can't be corrupt? The only difference is that you have to remember this simple fact:

No one gives a darn what the dictator's bank account looks like if they have full bellies, secure housing, and jobs that keep them just right balance of desperate and productive. Do those things, and they'll cheer when you build a statue of yourself. They'll be overjoyed when you get yourself a sex partner. And they'll fork over money willingly. Yes, it's easier to be feared than loved; but if you just do your job, nobody actually cares about the grift!

No I would be killed by a subordinate who wouldn't be.

Yes, because my first act would be to replace the benevolent dictatorship with a representative democracy.

Of course. I'd get promptly assassinated too

No

I'm pretty sure it's not possible to become a dictator without first being corrupt and evil.

No but I’d like to think I’d do better than most.

Yes, hypocrisy is for neurotypicals. That's why those people will be tattooed with - ah, damn, you got me

The benevolent, uncorrupt, good thing for dictators to do is to abdicate.

I don't trust myself that much.

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.

What do they say about absolute power? It comes with great responsibility.

I'm less worried about getting corrupted and turning evil, and more about having the powerful people of the country/world go after me with all their might after I declare a transition into anarchism/socialism.

If you are doing injustice in small acts then you will also do injustice in big acts too, Especially if you think you can get away with it. And person's view & promise about this does not matter, Because as Schopenhauer put it,

supposing that we wanted to know, for instance, how someone will act in a position in which we intend to place him, we must not rely on his promises and assurances. For, even assuming that he spoke honestly, he speaks of a matter that he does not know. Therefore, we have to calculate his actions solely on the basis of weighing the circumstances that he will have to face and their conflict with his character.

But I think person can achieve this kind of purity, by trying to be pure everyday. The reason i believe this is because i read a ancient Indian text called Mahabharata and it talked about a asceticism, Brahman, ashramas, double celibacy(doing sex only to beget children), mahaprasthana(means great journey, when person determine to departs from home and wanders around, awaiting death). It also had stories of benevolent kings, warriors & people showing uprightness. So, l believe, some people have attainted this kind of purity already in history & it's proof that man can control their desires and take right actions with impartiality by observing Brahmacharya

So your question, if I can be benevolent dictator without being corrupt or not?, yes, I can be but this job is not best suitable for me because of my personality And currently, my time tracking statistics & recent actions are not showing good results.

If society is at the point where we're making dictators then you likely have to be an immoral POS to stay in power. At every stage below you there are opportunistic people who want to take your spot.

Depends how you define "evil". And if I was hungry or tired when I got this power.

There's good odds like every Republican official and donor would go directly into a bad time. Some would say that's evil.

"I think I am perhaps the only one honourable enough who can" thinks almost everyone.

I think the problem for me would be less about corruption and more about me not being capable of taking that kind of responsibility.

Benevolent dictator is an oxymoron. The most benevolent thing a dictator can do is dismantle their dictatorship.

They often get killed faster than the evil ones.

Only one way to find out

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

no but I could become a janitor that cleans up the workplace that nobody ever pays attention to

Bigger question is how long would you last? If you're benevolent then the people closest to you won't like you as their dictator because presumably you treat everyone equitably and don't keep a bigger piece of the pie for yourself and your confidants.

Yes because I would be beholden to my customers via my AGPL-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-NC-4.0 licenses.

If I fuck around I imagine I'd quickly lose customers and go homeless.

Hael No!

I'd end up making a dystopic country/nation where people are suffering while I get the brightest scientists to work on genetically modifying the human body so I could become closer to looking like my fursona.

That, and having people on the far left and far right being thrown into prison.

Just normal every day things from someone who's a little paranoid.

if I were magically made dictator somehow, no I don't think so. but I'm not cutthroat enough to become a dictator in the first place.

Nope. And I wouldn't even try. I'm going full evil tyrant, day one.

I could absolutely be corrupt for the sake of everyone else's benefit. I don't need nor want wealth, I want enough to not worry about money, be able to take a sick day and not worry about it. I want people to be able to have kids and not have to worry about how they're going to support them. I want people to be able to get an education and not worry about how they're going to pay for it.

It's only a list of about 10 simple changes that could be implemented incredibly easy if leadership wasn't so worried about degrading one race or gender and lining their pockets.

How would you hold power when the powers that be despise you? You think you can rule without military might, will of the people, and the approval of those who owm the resources of the land? The idea of benevolent dictator is broken because of the conditions that you would need to create to even get in power, and to stay in power, would not be benevolent.

Me, yes. 😊

Yes, vote for me.

I doubt I would be a benevolent dictator. I am a good person mostly through sheer force of will, not by nature. I abhor cruelty — yet I'd gleefully inflict misery upon those who practice it.

I suspect over time that would erode the thin façade of beneficence within which my rage lies cocooned.

I would try to turn into a wurm. Maybe my son will finish my work.

yeah, easily

the problem is staying on top of things to ensure my government doesn't do things on the side. that sounds exhausting

so, I'd be fine, but I wouldn't be able to keep government clean. I don't have those skills

but if everyone does as they're told? no issues

I don't believe there ever has been a benevolent dictator. Sure, some dictators resulted in some amount of positive change (though almost always limited to a very small portion of their society) I couldn't name a single person described as a dictator who didn't seize and maintain power without violence and oppression.

I don't think it's actually possible to wrest power away from the establishment and consolidate it in a single person's hands without violence.

No

How many Philosopher Kings do we have here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king

Nah, that's why you set up a system of checks to determine if you should be assassinated and succession in case of it. Bonus points if your advisors assassinate body doubles to retire you instead.

Overtime I must imagine I'll be petty as fuck, but starting out I'm just making sure public transport and education are taken care of. Mostly by hiring smarter people than me to make my dream of not having to own a car a reality.

Yes, and it's because I'm too lazy to do any actual dictator shit.

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.

Yes, but I would try to avoid it as much as possible because that's what we call in Spain "un marrón que te cagas" that only demented people want for themselves.

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?

One week after I take power the megaprojects start getting built. Benevolence will be factored into budgetary concerns.

only if you are somehow affiliated with the military (so they don't off you) and if you are independently wealthy. It's the trap of falling into supporting oppression (military state) or oligarchy (bruce wayne doesn't need to take bribes lol) that wrecks most dictatorships...

oh and lust for complete and unity power against the will of the masses, that's a problem too.

Yes.

I'd be a watchdog, not a dictator. I think that's the better use of that power. And if I had an idea then I'd take it to the same process as the rest of the laws and have a vote on it.

Yes. I don't require people's adulation because I'm already proud enough (veering more into arrogance and never into the insecurity that's at the core of every billionaire villain we know), I don't love money because I simply don't like things like that (and would find it shameful if I did, I'm very Diogenes-coded), and I wouldn't overstep my moral limits because 1) I'm a deeply religious man who believes in the Day of Judgment (and I'm not stupid/weak enough to lie to myself to excuse my actions) and 2) I have a lot of experience suffering fools to the point I just pity them and wish them the best even when they insult/dislike/hate me so I wouldn't just emotionally lash out or whatever (that would just make me the more foolish one then and my clarity and pride will not allow that, you can see my comment history if you need confirmation, lol).

It's extremely rare to be in my position, and while there are a myriad of things I could not be because I'm just too incompetent for it, being a benevolent dictator is probably one thing I could be a natural at. I already naturally default to a very paternalistic, therapeutic role in both my friend groups and my family (regardless of age, with even my divorced aunties in their 60s calling me for advice and reassurance!). 👍

The trick is to set a reasonable limit for political assassinations and idiotic massive construction projects ahead of time, and then keep to those limits.

Yes!

I'll be super chill to hang out with in my palace, while my Grand Vizier takes care of day to day business.

I would probably try to make a form of voting system to get myself out of the role as fast as i can

But not before giving trans people rights

No

no, nobody can... nobody

Yes.

Fascism is the alternative people turn to when they can't cope with their own inadequacies.

I don't have that problem.

Sure, for the low price of a lifetime pension I'll benevolently dismantle the oligarchy; ban guns; make cars luxury items; massively expand mass transit; and bring in universal health and education!

Just ignore the claims that I've actually jailed or killed my opposition; held the families of so called "freedom fighters" so they'll turn themselves and their buddies in; made travel outside your area and healthcare impossible without government approval; and completely changed the history everyone learns.

Okay that's obviously pretty extreme. Just a reminder that if you're not careful even well intentioned dictatorships can be very oppressive. And every dictatorship is on a timer to a coup or revolution. And resetting that timer is not pretty. The only way off the treadmill is to have elections again.

No, but I'll give it the old college try. I've always imagined that the only way to be a benevolent dictator is to do the dictator thing only to install a better form of government to replace you and hope it sticks when you step away. Something more technocratic and with better checks and balances.

I guess. I mean the end game of benevolent dictator is no longer being the dictator. Sort of like Atatürk

Yea! I can't get corrupted or turn evil if I already start out corrupt and evil!

Its possible but unlikely and gets even more problematic with after dictator times. Best chance would be setting up a system and then using the dictator powers to tweak or fix things till you die.

Yeah pretty sure all evil deeds start with good intentions. So, no. I would very likely mess up my own head by thinking I’m doing the right thing, and if I’m secure in my position as the leader, I’d have a big load of yes men hovering around enforcing and enabling my every thought and idea, be it good or not. Most likely it’ll tend towards the “not good” side over time, and at some point everything just gets distorted and convoluted and by that point, there’ll be no return. And if I’m not secure in my position, then I’ll be dead and replaced before I can spell out my first decree as the ruler. If I’m to be good, I’ll not be ready for the bad coming my way. If I’m ready for the bad shit, I have to be ready to dispense my own bad shit. And that, then, wraps into my first point.

There’s no way that would work if I was truly benevolent. I don’t believe it’s sustainable or even possible to lead as a dictator that is good or benevolent.

Edit: that’s in practical terms. Let’s not even begin with the ideals — can one really ever be both benevolent or just generally good, and a dictator? I believe not. Sharing the burden and the authority would almost always be the more moral choice, not to mention more plausible in terms of lasting.

Nobody can.

One can not be a dictator and benevolent

Maybe, but only if I become a dictator to remove and spread my power to smaller government organizations. Basically instead of having one source of power, I dilute the government into multiple governments that also police each other and not one of them have power to govern over all others. Additionally, police and military would be the only "governments" that have slightly less governing power than the rest because while we still need police and military I don't want them to use their weapons to muscle their way over the other governments.

Note: I am not saying it's perfect or covers all cases, but I believe that having a central point of power is the biggest issue with a dictator becoming corrupt and this applies even to non-dictators (hint-hint). Maybe I am wrong and I invite polite discourse on the subject.