- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Would you mind living in a benevolent dictatorship? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 11 2018, 06:32 PM (386 Views) | |
| Soopairik | Apr 11 2018, 06:32 PM Post #1 |
|
Administrator
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship "A benevolent dictatorship is a form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but does so for the benefit of the population as a whole. A benevolent dictator may allow for some economic liberalization or democratic decision-making to exist, such as through public referenda or elected representatives with limited power, and often makes preparations for a transition to genuine democracy during or after their term. It might be seen as a republican form of enlightened despotism." Let's say you live under a dictatorship, but this dictator does his best to increase personal freedom, advance technology, eliminate poverty, increase education, etc. Would you still mind living under a dictatorship despite all the good the dictator is trying to bring? |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 12 2018, 12:29 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
As long as he is a human, I don't think this is going to go well. At best, we will get someone like Tito who can hold the state together as long as he lives, but the next successor already destroys it. |
![]() |
|
| Bry89 | Apr 12 2018, 01:30 AM Post #3 |
|
Hmm... maybe? I didn't know there was a good side to dictatorship though. As long as we can get on with our own lives without any interruption, and like what Jin said too. |
|
Fight, in this world of aggression. Fight, in this world of deceit. Fight, in this war of oppression. Fight, let the killing proceed. | |
![]() |
|
| Kyng | Apr 12 2018, 11:40 AM Post #4 |
![]()
|
I'd probably prefer it over a highly unstable democracy - but, that's not to say I'd like it. |
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 23 2018, 02:32 AM Post #5 |
|
Of course in our society, "dictator' is a dirty word. Back in 1989, when the communist world crumbled, there was talk of a so called "end of history" with democracy perpetually triumphant. I never believed that for a second. Even then, in light of the mounting failings of democracy, the notion seemed ludicrous. In my view, the almost universal solution to problems is sacrifice--fewer kids, less consumption, less spending. But sacrifice or "belt tightening" is naturally unpopular. Try to get elected by making people limit the size of their families to one kid. Authoritarian China can have such a policy, but when Gandhi tried to implement it in democratic India she was massacred at the polls. Try to get elected by cutting spending sufficiently to end deficits. We're careening toward bankruptcy because again, sacrifice, however necessary, is too unpopular. And it's not just problems. It's also challenges. People assume there will be a great space civilization in a century or two, but I doubt it'll ever happen under democracy. In a recent year, Americans spent over four times more on tobacco alone than on space....They don't want even modest sacrifices.... Of course I don't expect people to listen to arguments like this. By far the most likely scenario is for the present system to continue messing things up, until it is wrecked in some future disaster, probably an economic meltdown Edited by starman, Apr 23 2018, 02:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | Apr 23 2018, 06:52 AM Post #6 |
|
Administrator
|
Saving more lives does not lead to overpopulation if we spend our resources well. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 23 2018, 09:14 AM Post #7 |
![]()
|
I don't think so. I think once cyborgs and AIs become more intelligent than us, they will take over. That would be an end to democracy which does not necessarily entail a catastrophe. But to answer the thread's question, does "benevolent" also entail "competent"? Because that's another huge issue with dictatorships. If yes, the thread is basically "would you like to live under a form of government without any of the flaws it usually carries?". |
![]() |
|
| Kazanshin | Apr 23 2018, 03:10 PM Post #8 |
|
^This. Is the benevolent dictatorship a competent one? And will he at some point abuse of his power? |
![]() |
|
| MegaphoneStallone | Apr 23 2018, 03:19 PM Post #9 |
|
AI is worse. At least humans aren’t forever or super intelligent. But I keep forgetting you just block all negative possible timelines out when it comes to the subject. ![]() (There’s a long winded reply coming in the other thread. I just need to wait until a relatively more open day like tomorrow to get it done.) My answer to OP is a hard ‘Hell no’ Edited by MegaphoneStallone, Apr 23 2018, 03:20 PM.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Soopairik | Apr 23 2018, 04:37 PM Post #10 |
|
Administrator
|
No, the dictator does his best to ensure society progresses and people are living good lives. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 24 2018, 01:00 AM Post #11 |
![]()
|
Not at all, you keep misrepresenting me on that despite the fact that I have already clarified in the other thread that I do acknowledge risks. "A human is incompetent at doing X" does NOT imply "Therefore, there is absolutely nothing a super-intelligence could do wrong". Let me just say that we both agree that something is wrong with current AI research. But while you think it should stop altogether, I think it should focus more on making it ethical. My position is very similar to that of philosophers like Nick Bostrom or Eliezer Yudkowsky who keeps warning us about AI risks all day. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 24 2018, 01:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 24 2018, 02:01 AM Post #12 |
|
But the problems of democracy are more likely to come to a head before AI advances to the point where it may take over completely. Deficits have been piling up for many years and Trump is now greatly accelerating the rate.... I do think AI or automaton will contribute to the end of democracy but long before they might take over completely--which may never happen, unless humans become extraordinarily negligent.
Dictators and elected officials are all human, and the former aren't inherently less competent. Indeed, assuming dictatorship arises in the future under the same circumstances which led to its rise in the past--crises--the whole raisin d'etre of dictatorship will be to do better than the democracy it replaces. If it can't do better, it can't expect to remain in power. Edited by starman, Apr 24 2018, 02:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 24 2018, 04:00 AM Post #13 |
![]()
|
Didn't you imply that democracy will still exist in a century or two? That's not even necessary. It could also be that the power is simply given to them because they are deemed more competent (and before Megaphone misrepresents me again, I'm NOT saying that this is the most probable scenario), hence I listed this as an end of democracy without a crash. But you are right that their presence does not necessarily mean the end of democracy. It could be that their power gets severely restricted and they act as mere advisors to politicians, like scientists today. Elected officials have a huge advantage because the government isn't as centralised in a democracy as in a dictatorship and since governments have to be quite huge nowadays, you cannot expect a single group to be able to handle it all. |
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 24 2018, 07:46 AM Post #14 |
|
I didn't mean to give that impression. Long ago, the author of THE TWILIGHT OF DEMOCRACY suggested the present system would be essentially gone by 2050. I think it's reasonable to expect a major preliminary breakdown by then with the transition to authoritarianism complete by c 2100.
That is indeed improbable.
That's more likely IMO at least for a century or more, certainly. But I do think advancing technology could hasten the fall of democracy in a number of ways. Btw Albright (whom I generally didn't like) recently wrote a book on fascism, in which she notes that (as I predicted in '89) the general feeling that democracy had won has been reversed, in part because of economic and technological factors.
Centralization actually can increase the efficiency or effectiveness of government, because those in power don't face competing authorities, or limits on what they can do. Right now our democracy is badly hamstrung by limits on power ("checks and balances") and the electorate, which resists essential sacrifices. Edited by starman, Apr 24 2018, 07:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 24 2018, 08:57 AM Post #15 |
![]()
|
Ah, so you just meant to say "if democracy still exists in several centuries, we won't colonise space"? I don't think so at all. The Internet has made the world more democratic by being relatively hard to control and hence making restrictions on free speech much harder (though the German government is admittedly trying to change that right now). While they do not face competing authorities, dictators face plenty of violent resistance from people who do not share their views. That's why getting rid of political opponents and controlling the media through propaganda has always been an important task for dictators. Without a sufficiently competent totalitarian process of Gleichschaltung, you will have people with differing views in your borders and they can either get along through discourse or through violence. The former delays the speed of political processes, the latter is a danger to interior stability. |
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 25 2018, 01:58 AM Post #16 |
|
In the past the rise of mass circulation papers and radio didn't prevent dictators, who made good use of both. The Internet today isn't toppling dictators. As academics have noted, the '89 "end of history" hubris has run its course. The Internet certainly spreads information and opinion fast but what ultimately matters is whether the news favors democracy or hurts it. News of our spiralling deficits and the nutty Trump contrasts with news of China's economic success.
All governments face opposition, but any dictatorship with a reasonably good grip on power can suppress it and marginalize it. Internal dissent was not a serious problem in the Third Reich or fascist Italy, until the news got very bad in WWII. Likewise, Tianamen put an end to open Chinese opposition. Essentially by suppressing opposition, an authoritarian regime can pursue its agenda without having to worry about such petty issues as getting enough votes in congress or compromising to win votes....It is not hamstrung. Look how quickly Stalin and the nazis built up the power of their nations. Likewise, China has made rapid progress while the us sinks in red ink. Basically democracy is a luxury; throughout history authoritarianism has been the norm. Edited by starman, Apr 25 2018, 02:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 25 2018, 03:46 AM Post #17 |
![]()
|
What about the Arab Spring? Doesn't it demonstrate how the Internet can be used to organise protests in an authoritarian state? If it favours a diversity viewpoints (which it does), it favours democracy, since democracy is far better equipped to deal with such a state of affairs than a dictatorship. It was not serious in the sense that it did not hinder the states in its ability to act that much. It was serious in the sense that it forced the states to kill its opposition in order to maintain internal stability which alone disqualifies them from the title "benevolent". Had they been "benevolent dictatorships" (as we are discussing), they surely would have lost their stability. And even when they can maintain stability, it typically costs them plenty of resources as they need to establish their equivalent of the thought police. Protests in China have continued long after that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Chinese_pro-democracy_protests If you look at the fragile state index, China remains far behind Western democracies in terms of internal stability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragile_States_Index While I can see your point on the Nazis, Stalin's UDSSR did not become a powerful nation until World War II and that largely thanks to the Allied economic support it got. While that's true, I think has become incredibly harder for dictators to handle governments as governments, business, politics and everything else has grown much more complex over the course of history (think of globalisation and the rise of market competition). Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 25 2018, 04:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| MegaphoneStallone | Apr 25 2018, 06:33 PM Post #18 |
|
Tbh, we have probably had a lot of misunderstandings. I think I've painted you in my mind as a blind advocate for something I'm weary of, which you're probably not. I abhor the idea of transhumanism though.
|
| |
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 26 2018, 02:05 AM Post #19 |
|
There are always diverse views but the facts may favor only one, which can quickly spread at the expense of others. Right now information is not favorable to democracy, certainly less so than c 30 years ago.
Lol, "benevolent dictatorship" is a bit oxymoronic in that the raisin d'etre of dictatorship is to be able to overcome the popular will, if necessary by violent means. Still, one could consider a dictatorship "benevolent" if it has some higher purpose besides the personal interest of the dictator and his inner circle. As for expending resources to suppress opposition, better that than to be hamstrung, or as immobilized as democracy, in the face of serious problems and challenges.
The regime has persisted for decades. Arab regimes may have neglected to control the Internet like China has.
Two points, the communists inherited a backward country from the tsars but rapidly industrialized it in the '30s, and the Soviets clobbered enemies beginning at Khalkin Gol, long before any lend lease. Basically the USSR survived and won because of Stalin's massive prewar preparations.
Complexity is an issue for ALL governments now, but history shows that dictators can arise no matter what technical level there is. Look at the vast progress between Napoleon and Hitler. Increased complexity didn't prevent fascism. Indeed the fascists made excellent use of the radio and internal combustion engine. Btw international trade and market competition are hardly new. Basically the present/future situation is not favorable to democracy because sacrifice is the key solution in many areas, yet often too unpopular to be possible in a democracy. Edited by starman, Apr 26 2018, 02:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 26 2018, 05:52 AM Post #20 |
![]()
|
But don't you think the diversity of sources of information typically also correlates with the diversity of opinions? Sure, there will be some diversity of views in a state where the only source of information is government propaganda, but it is certainly lower than when you can choose between entering a variety of echo-chambers in which you are presented with facts supporting a particular viewpoint and shielded from all contradicting it as is the case in the era of the Internet. That's quite a broad definition. By this logic, Hitler and Stalin could be considered benevolent dictators. But since this topic has shifted from "Would you mind living in a benevolent dictatorship?" to "Is a dictatorship favourable to democracy?", we don't have to discuss idealised dictatorships anymore, but rather realistic ones. Basically, in order to have a "good" dictatorship, the dictator should be competent and have a noble goal. But the main problem is that the whole system behind authoritarianism does not favour the rise of such people. The one most likely to become a leader is not necessarily the best one to run a country, just the best one to organise a military coup (not to mention that if the dictator inherited his position, there is even less of a guarantee that he is competent). And even if we ignore that, the absolute power they have motivates authorities to forego the "noble goal" and enriched themselves (as the Catholic Church has). A major argument you have for authoritarianism is that the majority is stupid. However, dictators have a tendency to believe their own propaganda and separate themselves from reality, as has been the case with Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Un, etc. Interior stability is still inferior to that of democracies, if the index I posted can be believed. But even if we only go by the time of persistence, how many dictatorships have survived as long as the United States? Hm, a lot of the Soviet backwardness can be attributed to Stalin's incompetence. The Soviet famine is a good example of the danger of giving ideologically deluded people full control over the government. Yeah, dictators have always existed, but the point is, they are getting less and less common, so something must make them inferior. ![]() The trend has been very consistent over the last ~50 years. The proportions are. The only area I can think of where this applies is everything related to the environment. And to save it, a drastic reduction in consumption is not even necessary. If you for example want to convince people to stop eating meat (an example of consumption that harms the environment), you don't need to establish a dictatorship. Just tax meat heavier and invest the money into synthetic meat so that it becomes cheaper and people buy it. The same principle can be applied to fossil fuels and green energies. Are you supporting a planned economy? Controlling the whole economy is something that has historically had a tendency to collapse under the government's wishful thinking. |
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 27 2018, 02:09 AM Post #21 |
|
The government could control the internet just like it did with radio and newspapers. What ultimately matters is whether a certain point of view can convince enough people of action to enforce it at the expense of others. This has happened many times before.
But in many cases there wouldn't be enough support for a coup to succeed unless the leaders appeared to have the answers to problems the existing system can't deal with. The leaders had better have the answers and get results or they could go in their turn.
Nobody is perfect but Hitler and Stalin were extremely capable. Adolf may have erred at times but so did his enemies; basically he failed because he was just too badly outnumbered and outgunned. It should also be noted that the Roman Empire had many good emperors--men who weren't corrupted by power. The real nuts were few and didn't tend to last long.
The Roman Empire, even in the West, the Han in China....
I'm not a communist but while Stalin was prepared to be ruthless he made tremendous progress in modernizing the USSR. In a mere 30 years, he transformed a backward land into a superpower.
I don't think they're getting less and less common. As i wrote before, the hubris of '89 has given way to a revival of authoritarianism.
No, look at the deficit. It requires sacrifice like cuts in popular spending programs. But don't plan on winning an election by doing that.....
Lol, unfortunately, heavily taxing something people like is no way to win elections! All of the meat producers would have their lobbyists torpedo any meaningful change, even if a public outcry didn't...
No.[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Dionysus | Apr 27 2018, 05:57 AM Post #22 |
|
Never work. Greed power religion would destroy the society and tribal warfare would creep in. |
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 28 2018, 01:59 AM Post #23 |
|
Lol any real dictatorship could handle religion and "tribal warfare." And as the Antonines show, power needn't corrupt.
Edited by starman, Apr 28 2018, 02:00 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 28 2018, 02:12 PM Post #24 |
![]()
|
Well, the Internet is far larger than these. What? I was not talking about military coups to get rid of dictators, but to get them into power. What I said was that the way a dictator gets into power does not ensure that he is actually competent to runt he country. OK, maybe I should reformulate my challenge again, since I did not formulate any criteria to measure the duration of a dictatorship. Basically, if there is a violent change in power, it is not the same dictatorship anymore, as the new dictator can hardly be seen as the old one's successor. The problem with the Roman Empire is that it underwent through a crisis between 235 and 284 where it had to be kept together by military force (hence, the emperors from that time are sometimes dubbed "soldier soldier"). Also, it is notable that the Roman Republic lasted longer than the empire or the kingdom. You beat me with the Han dynasty though. Which is contradicted by the graph I've shown. Maybe not in the US, but European politicians can get away with this. Then why do left-wing politicians win elections at all? Lobbyism is hardly a phenomenon existing only in democracies. The most corrupt countries are all authoritarian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index |
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 29 2018, 02:20 AM Post #25 |
|
But again (in western societies) a dictator can usually only arise if there is a big crisis democracy can't handle. The raisin d'etre of dictatorship is o be able to deliver where democracy can't. If a dictatorship doesn't deliver it can't expect to retain enough support to last. Basically the issue isn't "competence" but lack of power. Any fool can see the solution to problems is to cut spending, or limit family size or stop overconsumption. But all too often a democratically elected leader just can't do these things. A dictator needn't be a rocket scientist, just have the power to deliver, and that's the point of dictatorship.
He should be if the basic system is the same, which was true in the Roman Empire and USSR, etc.
The Roman Empire survived many crises, because being authoritarian and having sufficient backing, it could do so. The third century crisis wasn't the fault of the system, which couldn't prevent plague or barbarian attacks, but the way it survived and bounced back by 300 CE was one of history's greatest success stories.
But it was doomed by its own success as only caesarism could run an empire properly. As time went on the Roman world had to become incresasingly authoritarian to survive hence the transition from republic to empire and empire to dominate.
Which fails to take into consideration the grim prospects for democracy, even where it's long established. I just noticed two new books, FASCISM A WARNING and HOW DEMOCRACY ENDS. The authors may not advocate dictatorship but they'd certainly concur democracy is in trouble.
Failure of US democracy will mean failure of democracy period; both the right and left don't impose enough sacrifice--the right resists taxation, the left spending cuts. In fact Trump now cuts taxes but can't cut spending much so the red ink will pile up even faster.....
Yeah but one should make a distinction between authoritarian and modern secular ideology based systems--the only kind I support. I'm not saying an authoritarian system is inevitably better, just that more power is essential to solve problems; it has the potential to do much better and ultimately there's nothing to lose. No use "freedom" is the economy is destroyed or the planetary environment. [/quote] Edited by starman, Apr 29 2018, 02:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 29 2018, 02:43 AM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Well, there are plenty of areas which are extremely complicated, like geopolitics where the causes and solutions to a conflict confuse even experts. Imagine you had a dictator with the temper and character of Trump who has to deal with the provocation of other powers. By that criterion, the crisis in Roman history was a valid counterexample, since it forced to change from a principate to a dominate with a different system, such as multiple emperors. It was initiated by the assassination of Severus Alexander by his own troops, clearly an internal problem. Yeah, it was doomed, but so was the Empire (and as I've mentioned earlier, not solely due to exterior problems). Sounds like goalpost shifting. You initially talked about a trend of democracy declining and now you talk about forecasts. Whether such forecasts are accurate is basically the point of most our discussion. Do you realise that increasing taxes without also increasing spending would be disastrous because money has to be kept in circulation in order for an economy to work? I should maybe add that the German government got away with cutting spending and we have had a budget surplus in the last years. Germany incidentally also has a lower fertility rate than China without any authoritarian coercion. American problems ≠ problems of democracy in general. So, are we talking about a hypothetical ideal dictatorship or a realistic one? I earlier made the point that giving people too much power can easily lead them to abuse it for personal gain and the corruption index I have linked seems to support that view. Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Apr 29 2018, 03:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| starman | Apr 30 2018, 02:36 AM Post #27 |
|
The solutions to key problems today are pretty clear; the problem is lack of enough power for implementing them. Even with regard to geopolitics, democracy has done awfully. The invasion of Iraq largely stemmed from pressure from the pro-israel neocons.
Multiple emperors didn't last long, but the regime became more authoritarian.
Technically yes but the real crises didn't begin until about 250 CE due to invasions and plague.
Well if you include the eastern Roman Empire...Also the salient fact is that the republic gave way to the Empire because the latter could better govern.
The eastern empire lasted until overwhelmed by Turks.
The forecasts are based on current failings of the system which argue that any current success of democracy is illusory and temporary. By declining I mean loss of confidence in the system (among academics and probably many others) even if it remains intact for now.
I was thinking more in terms of cutting social spending, like for people in the last year of their lives--by far the biggest government expense--and using the savings (after deficit elimination) for infrastructure improvements.
I think that owes much to Germany being a more coherent society than the US. What may work there doesn't seem to happen here....
There have been a number of dictators who were effective and honest. The emperors from 96 to 180 CE are an example. I think what's needed is not just dictatorship but a new ideology which can motivate an elite, just like communism in its heyday. Edited by starman, Apr 30 2018, 02:39 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Apr 30 2018, 03:49 AM Post #28 |
![]()
|
And what makes you think they are less likely to come to power in a dictatorship? Considering that the Empire underwent several changes in dynasty, it does not meet my criteria of a continuous dictatorship. Hm, as a rule of thumb, the more miserable you make the life of your citizens (and people don't like to work hard only to get a miserable pension), the more difficulty you will have keeping your power. That's why good dictators relied on the principle of bread and circuses. And you don't think there have been any democracies that have worked? I mean, you are quite frank about the drawbacks of a dictatorship, so in order to justify it, you'd have to demonstrate that only an authoritarian regime can save the world, but your whole case against democracy seems to rely on listing things of American politics you don't like which I could easily do as well with a dictatorship of my choice. |
![]() |
|
| starman | May 1 2018, 02:15 AM Post #29 |
|
A dictatorship needn't make the lives of citizens "miserable." Increased sacrifice doesn't mean human needs can't be met. The Romans and the nazis saw to it the basic needs of people were met. They just didn't have luxuries, or much of them. By the way, in the future a more automated workforce may need far fewer material incentives...
Democracy is basically a luxury. It has worked in the US, particularly, which can afford luxuries--until fairly recently that is.
Given the economic and military power of the US, the failings of democracy here impact the whole world, and democratic failings not limited to the US, not by any means. Look what happened to Gandhi in '77 after she tried to implement a real population control program. Authoritarian China can have an official 1 child policy--try that in any democracy, no matter how much it may be needed. Btw I don't think any pro-Israel people would become dictators. For ages they've claimed Israel should be supported because it's a democracy...[/quote] |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | May 1 2018, 03:07 AM Post #30 |
![]()
|
Well, your proposal was basically to cut pensions so that people (hyperbolically speaking) drop dead once they cannot work anymore. Hm, the US has been a democracy since it was founded when it was surely not able to afford luxuries. South Korea also started as a democracy when it had African living standards and after decades, it still does fine. Same could be said for West Germany (although you can replace "African living standards" with "destroyed by war"). Birth control is not necessary. There are plenty of reliable ways to reduce birth rates. Widely available contraception, high wealth, good education and high gender equality have proven to be effective. For this reason, most of the developed world has a fairly stagnant population. Why do you think they would need arguments to convince people to become dictators? Plus, I can think of other reasons why people would want to support Israel. A shared Judeo-Christian culture is often cited by Israel supporters. And even if we use the logic that countries with similar regimes tend to support each other, why do you think an authoritarian America would be more neutral in foreign policy? As I've noted in the other thread, the Near East conflict would be far worse if the power balance was reversed and that could happen if an authoritarian America got the idea to support the other side. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Political Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2












4:48 PM Jul 10