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

Only one way to find out

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.

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

Absolutley. No more questions!

Yes. But I'd probably be killed by someone who will

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

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 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?

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.

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.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

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.

They often get killed faster than the evil ones.

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

Yep.

I actually want to see these cultures change.

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

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

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.

Yes because I will immediately work on making a sustainable democracy, eventually having checks and balances

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 would rock that shit, literally my dream job, practical problem solver with infinite power.

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

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

Relevant CGP Grey.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 personally can, but that's because my empathetic response is unusually overblown.

My failure as a benevolent dictator would actually be becoming too detached from ordinary problems, so I'd need to have consistent town hall meetings where ordinary people could redress grievances, petition for aid and so on.

At that point it goes back to being a normal government, since the (un)elected official is trying their best to do the people's bidding while remaining accountable.

I don't trust myself that much.

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

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.

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

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.

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’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.)

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

I would instantly be assassinated for helping out people too much and handing too much power to workers syndicates

No, I don't think I could.

The problem with dictators is that you put every action under the context of a single person's perspective. Even if you go in with the best and most altruistic intention, no single person is able to tackle every issue from every angle, and you will inevitably end up committing an injustice by a simple lack of awareness.

Not to mention that many issues are of relative morality to different groups, so to one group you can be a savior but to another you will always be a despot. Whichever interpretation ends up as the definitive one depends on how willing the offended parties are to overthrow you.

A democratic system is not perfect and (depending on perspective) may not be as effectual at bringing out positive change as an altruistic dictator, but the concept of distributed responsibility/distributed blame reduces the likelihood of a coup/revolution (emphasis on reduces, not eliminates) as long as the political apparatus is seen to incorporate or acknowledge everyone's perspectives in the decision making process.

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

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.

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.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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.

Even if purest it is heart almost impossible. Main issue is the same with any govt type, corruption. Its easy to be benevolent when everyone on your side. They are plenty of animes/games like this.

When humans are looking out for themselves any progress you want is water down significantly and now "cruelties" need to be enacted to make these types fall in line. Now it becomes do you hit surgically or with a hammer depends on number of factors. Like do you specifically know who or just the departments. Delays are problems because meanwhile these types are probably riling up the masses for their own ends or simply result of selfish actions. Massive pain in butt. Without something like a death note or really amazing internal spy network it be impossible to avoid collateral damage. Even then we are now down the 1984 rabbit hole. All because I couldn't trust the people I wanted to govern or fulfill my will. Massive Tragedy when I just wanted to give ppl the stars.

Maybe AI govt workers to handle processing with loyalty chips could work. Until some jerk hacks them cause w/e. This why we cant have nice things.

Of course. I'd get promptly assassinated too

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.

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.

No

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Yes.

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

I don't have that problem.

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.

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.

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, nobody can... nobody

No

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

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

No. No one can.

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.

How many Philosopher Kings do we have here?

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

Yes, vote for me.

Me, yes. 😊

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.

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.

No

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.

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.

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.

Being a dictator in and of itself is corrupt. Power and resources should be distributed amongst all equally. Vote for me for dictator.

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

I know far better than to think that is ever possible for anyone, and I would never put myself in such a position as to be forced to find out

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.

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 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, 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.

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