Originally posted by Zort BoyDictatorship was the historical form of government. If society believes in the divine right of kings and you're the king, you can love and do good by your people but still feel that you have a mandate and a right (even a duty) to crush opposition. You're thinking of things via the 21st century thought process. Government wasn't always looked at in the same manner it is today.
How can a "Government" which supresses opposition be benevolent?
Originally posted by sh76I see your point. Ok, in the modern context is there such a thing as a benevolent dictatorship or would it be impossible for one to function?
Dictatorship was the historical form of government. If society believes in the divine right of kings and you're the king, you can love and do good by your people but still feel that you have a mandate and a right (even a duty) to crush opposition. You're thinking of things via the 21st century thought process. Government wasn't always looked at in the same manner it is today.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThere could be a benevolent dictator, if the leader uses his power to benefit not only himself but also the general public by (for example) improving healthcare and education, like castro did.
I don't think there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator. Though the dictator of Singapore or China is not as bad as Hitler or Stalin, so there are differences in the degree of malevolence.
But that would be a normal thing to do, since in order to keep his/her rule intact, the ruler would naturally make an effort to please the people, making them less hostile to their authoritarian government.
If the dictator has support from the people, his/her rule would be seen as more legitimate.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo does the move towards collectivism give you pause?
I don't think there is such a thing as a benevolent dictator. Though the dictator of Singapore or China is not as bad as Hitler or Stalin, so there are differences in the degree of malevolence.
It's all about perspective. A dictator, by definition, will have absolute control which will seem very un-benevolent to some. While most dictators will rely on their charisma, they must still do some good to appear legitimate and remain in control. I don't believe, though, that someone willing to take the necessary steps to become a dictator can be truly benevolent as the position itself is one of power and selfishness.
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOf course it is, you are supressing people from wanting to murder. I think the distinction is that everyone favors supressing opposition as long as that opposition that they are supressing is harming others.
Do you really see that as being the only reason for laws? I hope you're beign sarcastic.
I'm sure the law against murder is designed to suppress opposition.
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenLets cut to the chase, the state has absolute control regardless of whether or not a dictator is at the helm. The issue here is, is it better to have centralized control or shared control?
It's all about perspective. A dictator, by definition, will have absolute control which will seem very un-benevolent to some. While most dictators will rely on their charisma, they must still do some good to appear legitimate and remain in control. I don't believe, though, that someone willing to take the necessary steps to become a dictator can be truly benevolent as the position itself is one of power and selfishness.