In a democracy, who enforces the right of the people to vote? The question is analogous. To an extent, the answer is that the elected officials enforce the right of the people to vote, and in your question, the benevolent dictator enforces the right of the people to leave. Yes, if it is a true dictatorship the dictator has the power to ban leaving, but it is also true that the elected officials could just choose to never hold another election. Then in both cases the people are screwed, and probably will have to resort to a civil war or something to get out of the sticky situation they are in, but the point is, that applies also to a democracy.
Anyway, as we are positing a benevolent dictatorship, this really shouldn’t be an issue. Yes,the dictator could choose to disallow leaving, as he could also choose, say, to torture people. But in this hypothetical, he is a benevolent dictator, so this isn’t an issue.
In a democracy, who enforces the right of the people to vote? The question is analogou
I don’ think so. If one person or grouping in a democracy decides to suspend elections, there are plenty of others groups (opposition parties, constitutional monarchs, the media, other politicians in the same party) who can object. By contrast, it’s definitional of dictatorship that it comes down do one person’s say-so.
Anyway, as we are positing a benevolent dictatorship, this really shouldn’t be an issue
Benevolent dictators are definitionally benevolent, like magic wands are definitionally magical.
The basic problem is that benevolent dictatorship isn’t a system.
The examples that have been
given are constitutional monarchies. Monarchy is a system whereby the Heir ascends to the throne,
whether they are good bad or ugly, So sometimes, you get a good monarch. And sometimes
you don’t. There is no production line for good kings, or for benevolent dictators. There is not
even a system whereby a benevolent dictator, if you happened to install one, could ensure a succession
of future benevolent dictators. If they choose their successor by genetics, that;s monarchy, and if they
let somebody else decide their successor, that;s democracy.
Saying “let’s have plurality of states run any which way, and people can freely move between them and choose
what they like”, is a system of sorts—but who guarantees the freedom of movement?
I don’ think so. If one person or grouping in a democracy decides to suspend elections, there are plenty of others groups (opposition parties, constitutional monarchs, the media, other politicians in the same party) who can object. By contrast, it’s definitional of dictatorship that it comes down do one person’s say-so.
If one person tries to rule a dictorship without regards to the interest of any other person he soon faces a coup d’état.
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antionus Pius, Marcus Aurelius we all able and capable administrators, and their reign was largely peaceful. But then they were followed by Commodus. Benevolent dictatorship with succession by training and adoption was tried, and so long as it worked it worked. But the one failure was a pretty dramatic one, considered by some to be the start of the fall of the Roman Empire.
If one person tries to rule a dictorship without regards to the interest of any other person he soon faces a coup d’état.
Dictators do not have to, and generally do not, rule on by “taking the interests” of people into account in the sense of doing things they like. They generally avoid overthrow by quashing opposition and gathering henchmen.
The benevolent dictator can groom a successor.
Not much evidence of that working in practice. Although, admittedly, there is not much evidence of benevolent dictators ITFP.
North Korea isn’t a monarchy. Monarchy is about sovereignty claims in addition to being about succession.
North Korea doesn’t call itself a monarchy. The world is full of Democratic People’s Repulics that aren’t democratic or for the people. Sovereigny claims are often concocted once a dynasty is in place.
Dictators do not have to, and generally do not, rule on by “taking the interests” of people into account in the sense of doing things they like.
There quite a difference between “any person” and “the people”. But even in the case of “the people” trying to provide for “bread and circuses” is something that dictaors do to stay in power.
They generally avoid overthrow by quashing opposition and gathering henchmen.
Henchmen are people.
North Korea doesn’t call itself a monarchy. The world is full of Democratic People’s Repulics that aren’t democratic or for the people. Sovereigny claims are often concocted once a dynasty is in place.
Obama claims all the right that distinguished a dictator in Roman times for himself. Being able to wage war everywhere and ignore laws is the hallmark of a dictatorship. At the same time there are a lot of people with money who can pay for lobbying that have a lot of political influence in the US.
Dispite money various factions in the military and intelligence community can blackmail politicians through exposing their secrets or threatening to kill them directly could they gather enough supporters inside their own community.
There quite a difference between “any person” and “the people”. But even in the case of “the people” trying to provide for “bread and circuses” is something that dictaors do to stay in power.
Perhaps so, but a dictator at least has to take far fewer concerns from far fewer of the people into account.
Indeed this seems to be one of the ways to identify a failing democracy: Is power becoming more heavily concentrated into a smaller number of hands?
Perhaps so, but a dictator at least has to take far fewer concerns from far fewer of the people into account.
That depends on the political stability of a state. If there a high danger of rebellion he has to take the interest of more people into account.
Dictorships often have to surpress a wide array of views because they rightly fear that free speech would topple their rule.
On the other hand a state like the US is very robust to political speech. You can’t change much about the power structures in the US through political speech.
A corrupt politican in China is a lot more vunerable to attacks via free speech than a corrupt politican in the US.
Julian Assange made the point that free speech is allowed in the West because you can’t change anything with it.
As the US also get’s more politically unstable you have US politicians who want consider the act of a journalist asking a prospective source for information about classified documents to be a felony.
That depends on the political stability of a state. If there a high danger of rebellion he has to take the interest of more people into account.
True. I suppose what I’m trying to express is that he (or she!) has to be less interested in the common good of society. It seems like, in a dictatorship, you have to treat far fewer people well.
There quite a difference between “any person” and “the people”. But even in the case of “the people” trying to provide for “bread and circuses” is something that dictaors do to stay in power.
N. Korea seems short of bread
Backtracking, I said:
By contrast, it’s definitional of dictatorship that it comes down do one person’s say-so.
and you said
Henchmen are people.
so is the implication that a benevolent dictator won’t go off the rails because their friends will stop them, having not been corrupted by power themselves. Well, I can think of one famous example, but I suspect it’s famous because it’s exceptional.
Obama claims all the right that distinguished a dictator in Roman times for himself
But not really because the leadership of North Korea wants it to be that way.
North Korea for example did a deal with the US under Clinton that North Korea get’s food and in return doesn’t develop nuclear weapons.
Bush did cancel that deal and then North Korea claimed to have developed nukes in response. Whether or not they have nukes isn’t quite clear. As Wikipedia documents, their latest “nuclear test” failed to produce any radiation.
North Korea profits politically internally by pretending that it has nuclear weapons and is takes care to have a strong military.
US political leader profit politically by being tough on North Korea and pretending that North Korea has functional nuclear weapons.
According to their own description North Korea also had intelligence services that weren’t really controlled by their leader with just went and thought that it was a good idea to kidnap a few foreigners.
North Korea is ruled in a way where military and intelligence people are treated really well by the North Korean leader to prevent them from just making a coup d’état.
These days the North Korea leader is a thirty-year old with a liberal Swiss education.
Do you think you could do much better than him without getting killed?
so is the implication that a benevolent dictator won’t go off the rails because their friends will stop them, having not been corrupted by power themselves.
You get mindkilled by confusing moral claims with factual predictions.
People don’t need to be immune to corruption by power to overthrow a government.
(Obama claims all the right that distinguished a dictator in Roman times for himself) That’s a fact, is it?
Yes. In Roman times dictators was a title that was given in time of war.
The ruler can ignore the laws and wage war without asking any body for permission.
Obama claims that he’s at war. He claims that the whole world is the battlefield (which includes the US).
He claims that he can therefore assassination people without asking anybody else for permission.
He claims that right is necessary to effectively wage war.
For Roman’s that was what being a dictator was about. It’s a title that a ruler get’s in time of war to be able to do things that rulers otherwise aren’t allowed to do.
These days the North Korea leader is a thirty-year old with a liberal Swiss education. Do you think you could do much better than him without getting killed?
Better at what? Playing the dictator game? Being benevolent? Yes, dictators need to keep their henchmen happy. No that doesn’t make them benevolent, or make dictatorship equivalent to democracy, or whatever the wider point is supposed to be.
People don’t need to be immune to corruption by power to overthrow a government.
So a thug gets overthrown and replaced by another thug? What’s the wider point?
In a democracy, who enforces the right of the people to vote? The question is analogous. To an extent, the answer is that the elected officials enforce the right of the people to vote, and in your question, the benevolent dictator enforces the right of the people to leave. Yes, if it is a true dictatorship the dictator has the power to ban leaving, but it is also true that the elected officials could just choose to never hold another election. Then in both cases the people are screwed, and probably will have to resort to a civil war or something to get out of the sticky situation they are in, but the point is, that applies also to a democracy.
Anyway, as we are positing a benevolent dictatorship, this really shouldn’t be an issue. Yes,the dictator could choose to disallow leaving, as he could also choose, say, to torture people. But in this hypothetical, he is a benevolent dictator, so this isn’t an issue.
I don’ think so. If one person or grouping in a democracy decides to suspend elections, there are plenty of others groups (opposition parties, constitutional monarchs, the media, other politicians in the same party) who can object. By contrast, it’s definitional of dictatorship that it comes down do one person’s say-so.
Benevolent dictators are definitionally benevolent, like magic wands are definitionally magical.
The basic problem is that benevolent dictatorship isn’t a system.
The examples that have been given are constitutional monarchies. Monarchy is a system whereby the Heir ascends to the throne, whether they are good bad or ugly, So sometimes, you get a good monarch. And sometimes you don’t. There is no production line for good kings, or for benevolent dictators. There is not even a system whereby a benevolent dictator, if you happened to install one, could ensure a succession of future benevolent dictators. If they choose their successor by genetics, that;s monarchy, and if they let somebody else decide their successor, that;s democracy.
Saying “let’s have plurality of states run any which way, and people can freely move between them and choose what they like”, is a system of sorts—but who guarantees the freedom of movement?
If one person tries to rule a dictorship without regards to the interest of any other person he soon faces a coup d’état.
Also see Fareed Zakaria’s The rise of illiberal democracy
Of course there is. The benevolent dictator can groom a successor.
North Korea isn’t a monarchy. Monarchy is about sovereignty claims in addition to being about succession.
Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antionus Pius, Marcus Aurelius we all able and capable administrators, and their reign was largely peaceful. But then they were followed by Commodus. Benevolent dictatorship with succession by training and adoption was tried, and so long as it worked it worked. But the one failure was a pretty dramatic one, considered by some to be the start of the fall of the Roman Empire.
Dictators do not have to, and generally do not, rule on by “taking the interests” of people into account in the sense of doing things they like. They generally avoid overthrow by quashing opposition and gathering henchmen.
Not much evidence of that working in practice. Although, admittedly, there is not much evidence of benevolent dictators ITFP.
North Korea doesn’t call itself a monarchy. The world is full of Democratic People’s Repulics that aren’t democratic or for the people. Sovereigny claims are often concocted once a dynasty is in place.
There quite a difference between “any person” and “the people”. But even in the case of “the people” trying to provide for “bread and circuses” is something that dictaors do to stay in power.
Henchmen are people.
Obama claims all the right that distinguished a dictator in Roman times for himself. Being able to wage war everywhere and ignore laws is the hallmark of a dictatorship. At the same time there are a lot of people with money who can pay for lobbying that have a lot of political influence in the US. Dispite money various factions in the military and intelligence community can blackmail politicians through exposing their secrets or threatening to kill them directly could they gather enough supporters inside their own community.
Perhaps so, but a dictator at least has to take far fewer concerns from far fewer of the people into account.
Indeed this seems to be one of the ways to identify a failing democracy: Is power becoming more heavily concentrated into a smaller number of hands?
That depends on the political stability of a state. If there a high danger of rebellion he has to take the interest of more people into account.
Dictorships often have to surpress a wide array of views because they rightly fear that free speech would topple their rule. On the other hand a state like the US is very robust to political speech. You can’t change much about the power structures in the US through political speech.
A corrupt politican in China is a lot more vunerable to attacks via free speech than a corrupt politican in the US.
Julian Assange made the point that free speech is allowed in the West because you can’t change anything with it. As the US also get’s more politically unstable you have US politicians who want consider the act of a journalist asking a prospective source for information about classified documents to be a felony.
True. I suppose what I’m trying to express is that he (or she!) has to be less interested in the common good of society. It seems like, in a dictatorship, you have to treat far fewer people well.
N. Korea seems short of bread
Backtracking, I said:
and you said
so is the implication that a benevolent dictator won’t go off the rails because their friends will stop them, having not been corrupted by power themselves. Well, I can think of one famous example, but I suspect it’s famous because it’s exceptional.
That’s a fact, is it?
But not really because the leadership of North Korea wants it to be that way. North Korea for example did a deal with the US under Clinton that North Korea get’s food and in return doesn’t develop nuclear weapons.
Bush did cancel that deal and then North Korea claimed to have developed nukes in response. Whether or not they have nukes isn’t quite clear. As Wikipedia documents, their latest “nuclear test” failed to produce any radiation.
North Korea profits politically internally by pretending that it has nuclear weapons and is takes care to have a strong military. US political leader profit politically by being tough on North Korea and pretending that North Korea has functional nuclear weapons.
According to their own description North Korea also had intelligence services that weren’t really controlled by their leader with just went and thought that it was a good idea to kidnap a few foreigners.
North Korea is ruled in a way where military and intelligence people are treated really well by the North Korean leader to prevent them from just making a coup d’état.
These days the North Korea leader is a thirty-year old with a liberal Swiss education. Do you think you could do much better than him without getting killed?
You get mindkilled by confusing moral claims with factual predictions.
People don’t need to be immune to corruption by power to overthrow a government.
Yes. In Roman times dictators was a title that was given in time of war. The ruler can ignore the laws and wage war without asking any body for permission.
Obama claims that he’s at war. He claims that the whole world is the battlefield (which includes the US). He claims that he can therefore assassination people without asking anybody else for permission. He claims that right is necessary to effectively wage war.
For Roman’s that was what being a dictator was about. It’s a title that a ruler get’s in time of war to be able to do things that rulers otherwise aren’t allowed to do.
Better at what? Playing the dictator game? Being benevolent? Yes, dictators need to keep their henchmen happy. No that doesn’t make them benevolent, or make dictatorship equivalent to democracy, or whatever the wider point is supposed to be.
So a thug gets overthrown and replaced by another thug? What’s the wider point?
Even being better at being benevolent.
You are mindkilled by trying to analyse morality when I make causal claims. Having a causal understanding about how a state works is very useful.