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.
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.