posted
My question. Is it possible? and if so, is there any way of keeping it going.
Small countries would probably be best environement. An example is Lee Kwan Yew and Singapore. Even then, some people don't like his strong-arm tactics (including a couple of americans with a sore bottom). But Singapore is VERY small, so it seems unlikely that a benevolent dictatorship could evolve in a larger country. Even Cuba, which isn't very large either, is a failed attempt. Could it work anywhere else? or does it all depend on the man OR woman in charge? OR is there no such thing as a benevolent dictator?
Just curious i guess.
-------------------- "Tragedy is when I cut my finger, Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."-Mel Brooks
posted
My honest guess would be that it depends on the person dictating. However, a good dictator wouldn't last forever and eventually you'll need to replace him/her and eventually you'll get some ass hole like Castro.
posted
Sure you can have a benevolent dictator. God, for example.
Or do you mean a human?
Sure, you can have a benevolent dictator. Those Saud dudes aren't too bad, IIRC. But for most cases, a dictatorship is still undesirable, good intentions or no, because it's run by humans, and humans are fallible. Say all people mess up 30% of the time. If you have one dictator, then that dictator is going to mess up 30% of the time and screw up your country. But if you have 100 senators running your country, for example, the odds of half of them being wrong at the same time are significantly diminished.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
Damn. uhhhhhh. hmmmmmm. Yet, somehow, our 100 senators continue to beat the odds time after time with each passing administration. It's incredible.
IP: Logged
posted
Omega: If you're referring to Saudi Arabia, I, um, have news for you.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I havent clicked that link yet, but i wanted to type real quick that Saudi Arabia is a most decidedly uncool government. But we are friends with them, you say? Thats exactly why so many Arabs hate us: We support bad, non-democratic governments because we needed airfields in that country to defend a small country's non-democratic monarchy oil-ocracy from the abusive dictatorship of a slightly larger neighboring country. Because we needed oil to put in our SUVs because sensible cars just arent trendy enough.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If you think about it, no dictator can prevent these things from happening, Mr. Snay. No dictator can stop people from doing bad things. Setting rules down does not stop people from breaking them. The choice is ultimately up to the people. However, punishment is meted out quite harshly.
posted
If Yahweh did exist, he certainly wouldn't fit my definition of "benevolent". More like "hypocritical, insecure, arrogant, sadistic asshole"...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Benevolent" and "nice" are not necessarily one and the same. A benevolent dictator might have to be quite draconian in some respects, because he's being benevolent upon society, his nation, rather than individuals.
For instance, if I, as Dictator, were to boot all Flat-Earther's out of the country, it would be a draconian act, but for a benevolent purpose... to rid the country of a detrimental segment of the population.
To effect any great change, quickly, you will be forced to annoy, anger, or otherwise 'oppress' SOMEONE.
If I, as Dictator, said 'we're not going to buy Oil from the Middle East anymore, Period, and we're going to divert our priorities to the development of solar/wind/geothermal power, I'd be accused of taking draconian steps and damaging the oil industry. The economy mighyt take a nosedive.
BUT, it could also be a benevolent act, aimed at reducing pollution, ending dependence on unstable political environments, promoting scientific advancement, and lessening the risk of terrorism.
One could keep a benevolent dictator going, by limiting the candidates to individuals who have passed a number of aptitude and psychological tests, and having the dictator hand-pick and train his successor from that group several years before stepping down.
At least, that's how the characters in the species I'm making for my Trek RPG do it. 'Course, they're a race of polymaths...
[ October 07, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"For instance, if I, as Dictator, were to boot all Flat-Earther's out of the country, it would be a draconian act, but for a benevolent purpose... to rid the country of a detrimental segment of the population."
Just to play devil's advocate here, doesn't that logic make Hitler a benevolent dictator?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
