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.

I'd be too much of a lazy dictator to do anything truly evil.

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 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.

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

My Tropico track record says that I absolutely can.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Don't think it's possible per definition of the word.

If you take into account the wishes of the majority of the population what sets you apart from a constitutional monarchy?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

For a couple months, maybe. Anyone who says yes absolutely is someone who shouldn't be trusted with power.

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 like to think I wouldn't, but my chances probably aren't any better than the average person. I don't think I'd ever get anywhere near the worst leaders in history, but I wouldn't count on me being perfectly incorruptible.

But even if I was, that wouldn't be enough. Either I'd have to run the entire government myself, which is impossible, or I'd have to reliably find other incorruptible people to work for me and replace me when I die, which will never be reliable enough. If I didn't find incorruptible people, what's to stop them getting bribed into not letting me do anything until I let the corrupt people have their way?

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.

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.

Of course. I'd get promptly assassinated too

Absolutley. No more questions!

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

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

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.

would I have to stay a dictator? because I'd be instilling a democracy ASAP

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

I don't trust myself that much.

No

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

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.

Yes but I would be incompetent to the point where there's not much difference.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I don't think I could cause I lack strategic thinking and would get easily outmaneuvered by some other faction

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.