• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

  • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    30 days ago

    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.

  • lennybird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • dgmib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    29 days ago

    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.

  • Inucune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.)

  • blarghly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    30 days ago

    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.

  • Mr Fish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    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?

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    29 days ago

    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.

    • Lumisal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      Not if you preemptively make what would be an opposition ideology illegal when making the country’s constitution

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      In this particular case, it depends what you define as corrupt. If you are truly working towards the betterment of everyone under your power (even those that you are fighting against), then what becomes justifiable to that end?

  • DarkAri@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    30 days ago

    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.