military governments

[Bronzeage]

I'll stand by "contradiction in terms." To hope for anything better is is to expect some alteration of human nature. Of course, everyone always has the option of being nice, but the things that make a man think being a dictator is a good idea are the things that take away the nice options.

I'll reiterate, are all parents who don't let their kids run the household bad? Most reasonable and responsible parenting entails being what would qualify as a dictator at the societal level. The reason is that kids are not generally capable of protecting their own interests, so letting them do so (by being "democratic") is irresponsible bad parenting. There are situations where the same is true of the adult public, so it doesn't require that a person not be "nice" in order to be willing to dictate the rules. Wanting to go from a democracy to a dictatorship system is bad in the long run for the reasons I explicated, so that would require not being "nice", but that is different than a person who found themselves with dictator powers being willing and able to use them for good.

The comparison of a parent to a dictator is silly. The relationship between an immature child who must be protected and taught, is nothing at all like the relationship between a dictator and a citizen. It's a cute analogy, but it doesn't work.

No man is evil in his own eyes. If this is true, even the most despotic dictator believes his actions are for the good.

 

[Sarpedon]

dictators frequently pose as parent figures.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'll reiterate, are all parents who don't let their kids run the household bad? Most reasonable and responsible parenting entails being what would qualify as a dictator at the societal level. The reason is that kids are not generally capable of protecting their own interests, so letting them do so (by being "democratic") is irresponsible bad parenting. There are situations where the same is true of the adult public, so it doesn't require that a person not be "nice" in order to be willing to dictate the rules. Wanting to go from a democracy to a dictatorship system is bad in the long run for the reasons I explicated, so that would require not being "nice", but that is different than a person who found themselves with dictator powers being willing and able to use them for good.

The comparison of a parent to a dictator is silly. The relationship between an immature child who must be protected and taught, is nothing at all like the relationship between a dictator and a citizen. It's a cute analogy, but it doesn't work.

The US just proved that the majority of its citizens are not capable of making more emotionally mature or intellectually rational voting choices than the average 6 year old, and that is not hyperbole. Quite seriously, the odds of a less dangerous president would have been far greater if only children had voted without input from adults.

So the analogy works very well. The fact that in the modern US adults have legal rights of self determination that adults do not is beside the point. The objective fact is that difference is sometimes an arbitrary matterof years on the planet with no correspondence to actual greater likelihood than a child would of using that right to one's own benefit. Imagine a person had the power to instill a non-elected "dictator" in the short term until enough of the populace was mature and rational enough to make democracy the better alternative, without chance of the long-term entrenchment of a dictator system. A wise and benevolent person not only might do so now and in other situations, but would arguably be required to do so or show themselves either unwise, non-benevolent, or both.

No man is evil in his own eyes. If this is true, even the most despotic dictator believes his actions are for the good.

Sure, and even the most evil and harmful acts of a democratically elected leader are believed to be good by themselves and the deluded morons that voted for them.
Their are evil leaders under all systems, and they are always wrongly thought to be good by some. In fact, the widely held fallacy that there is any inherent good to a democracy no matter how ignorant or evil the populace, makes an evil leader more likely to be believed as good by the populace in a democracy than a dictatorship.
The point is that just because evil leaders in all systems are always presumed good by themselves and often those they are evil towards, doesn't mean that their are not some actual good leaders under all systems, even if the probability is greater in a democracy (something I pointed out from the beginning, and you denied that a good dictator was ever possible).

 

[ronburgundy]

dictators frequently pose as parent figures.

And that is because everyone knows that virtually all good parenting entails being a dictator moreso than a servant of the will of the governed as with a democracy. So posing as a parental figure makes it seem more acceptable. That only supports my point that a dictator is sometimes better for the welfare of the governed than a democracy. Its fallacious to pretend that what is true of children as a rule is not sometimes true even of adults, especially when it need only be true of a minority of adults to wind up making the outcome of a democracy extremely destructive.

Democratic leaders variably pose as parents, friends, servants. and even dictators. Sometimes they do so sincerely and in response to what is actually needed by and good for the populace in that situation, and often they so so insincerely based upon whatever manipulates the public's emotions in the way most beneficial to themselves.

 

[Bronzeage]

The comparison of a parent to a dictator is silly. The relationship between an immature child who must be protected and taught, is nothing at all like the relationship between a dictator and a citizen. It's a cute analogy, but it doesn't work.

The US just proved that the majority of its citizens are not capable of making more emotionally mature or intellectually rational voting choices than the average 6 year old, and that is not hyperbole. Quite seriously, the odds of a less dangerous president would have been far greater if only children had voted without input from adults.

So the analogy works very well. The fact that in the modern US adults have legal rights of self determination that adults do not is beside the point. The objective fact is that difference is sometimes an arbitrary matterof years on the planet with no correspondence to actual greater likelihood than a child would of using that right to one's own benefit. Imagine a person had the power to instill a non-elected "dictator" in the short term until enough of the populace was mature and rational enough to make democracy the better alternative, without chance of the long-term entrenchment of a dictator system. A wise and benevolent person not only might do so now and in other situations, but would arguably be required to do so or show themselves either unwise, non-benevolent, or both.

No man is evil in his own eyes. If this is true, even the most despotic dictator believes his actions are for the good.

Sure, and even the most evil and harmful acts of a democratically elected leader are believed to be good by themselves and the deluded morons that voted for them.
Their are evil leaders under all systems, and they are always wrongly thought to be good by some. In fact, the widely held fallacy that there is any inherent good to a democracy no matter how ignorant or evil the populace, makes an evil leader more likely to be believed as good by the populace in a democracy than a dictatorship.
The point is that just because evil leaders in all systems are always presumed good by themselves and often those they are evil towards, doesn't mean that their are not some actual good leaders under all systems, even if the probability is greater in a democracy (something I pointed out from the beginning, and you denied that a good dictator was ever possible).

Okay, there might be a good dictators. The race is not always to the swift, but that's the way to bet.

 

[bilby]

dictators frequently pose as parent figures.

And children rarely remain beholden to their father's dictates, once they grow up.

The benevolent father-figure is acceptable as a leader only to that fraction of society who remain infantile. While that fraction can be quite large, it is rarely a majority of adults. And it only takes a sizable minority of free-thinking people to start a civil war, and overthrow a dictator.

Absolute rulers with the divine right to the obedience of their subjects are very common in history - until a sizable fraction of their subjects become literate. Then it all goes to shit for the kings and emperors, very fast. It's no coincidence that the collapse of absolute monarchies in Europe followed the spread of enlightenment thinking and access to education for the middle classes. It happened as early as the seventeenth century in England; and as late as the early 20th in the Russian empire. But it always happens, once the country has a critical mass of smart folks who are not part of the aristocracy.

The Stalinist style of dictatorship can be made to last for a few decades - perhaps even a century, with enough ruthlessness - but it's a constant fight to keep down the intellectuals, who are always causing trouble. You can make it last longer by simply getting rid of the intellectuals, but then you find that you haven't got anyone who can keep the place running, and it all goes to shit anyway.