Can you think of successful organizations that fit this description (description 3 from the wiki article)?
In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
The trouble is, almost any organization within the jurisdiction of a state is going to be governed by some laws. But we should probably accept any candidate that is subject to no laws specific to its form of organization, which would probably include LW and moderated online communities generally. I can’t think of any large organizations where very much is at stake in membership or organizational activities.
is everyone getting the point that you can’t really say “Well, X works”, when it only works because it embedded in some larger system that kind of makes it work (eg labour law constraining egotistical CEO’s).
The problems of politics—actual politics—are that it is inherently large scale,, and that it is where the buck
stops.
Rational means something like “figures out what the truth is, and figures out the best way to get stuff done, and does that thing”. It doesn’t require any particular goal.
So a rational dictator whose goals include their subjects having lots of fun, would be fun to live under.
Yep, agreed. We have a lot more historical examples of dictators (of various levels of effectiveness) who were in it for themselves, and either don’t care if their citizens suffer or even actively prefer it. Such dictators would be worse for the world if they get more rational, because their goals make the world a shittier place.
Any small business.
Those are really constitutional monarchies: there’s plenty of labor law between the owners and the employees governing their interactions.
Fair point, there are always constraints on what a dictator can do, some explicit, some implicit. I was using the broader description:
Can you think of successful organizations that fit this description (description 3 from the wiki article)?
The trouble is, almost any organization within the jurisdiction of a state is going to be governed by some laws. But we should probably accept any candidate that is subject to no laws specific to its form of organization, which would probably include LW and moderated online communities generally. I can’t think of any large organizations where very much is at stake in membership or organizational activities.
is everyone getting the point that you can’t really say “Well, X works”, when it only works because it embedded in some larger system that kind of makes it work (eg labour law constraining egotistical CEO’s).
The problems of politics—actual politics—are that it is inherently large scale,, and that it is where the buck stops.
Such as?
Ask too much of your subjects, and they start wondering if maybe it would be less trouble to just replace you by force.
And rational dictators stay just short of that point, and rational dictatorship is not fun to live under.
You keep using that word, etc. etc.
Rational means something like “figures out what the truth is, and figures out the best way to get stuff done, and does that thing”. It doesn’t require any particular goal.
So a rational dictator whose goals include their subjects having lots of fun, would be fun to live under.
And of course they would give way to anyone who could run the place in a more fun way. Historical examples seem to be scarce.
Yep, agreed. We have a lot more historical examples of dictators (of various levels of effectiveness) who were in it for themselves, and either don’t care if their citizens suffer or even actively prefer it. Such dictators would be worse for the world if they get more rational, because their goals make the world a shittier place.
ETA: It’s not a mysterious empirical fact that benevolent dictators don’t exist. Where is there a ready supply of people who don’t get corrupted by absolute power? How do you test that in advance? Why would someone who has enjoyed untrammelled power for a certain period meekly hand back the keys?
Benevolent dictators are the magic wands of political science. They have every advantage except actually existing.
They’re all benevolent?
That scales up to the nation level? (Hint: “small”)