92 ms·

How would a single person be able to choose what is best for everyone, even if benevolent? Benevolent does not mean omniscient and infinitely wise. The best ki

How would a single person be able to choose what is best for everyone, even if benevolent? Benevolent does not mean omniscient and infinitely wise. The best kind of system is one which ensures no single entity can amass a great deal of power, ending with a state of many smaller entities in continual opposition.

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>How would a single person be able to choose what is best for everyone, even if benevolent? Benevolent does not mean omniscient and infinitely wise. A benevolent dictator can still make mistakes, but so can the smaller entities you describe. The benevolent dictator would be focused on the good of everyone though, while the smaller entities in opposition would be focused on the good of their own group. The process of setting up a longstanding benevolent dictatorship is what makes the idea ridiculous.
- feanaro 7y ago
  My point is that it is completely unreasonable to expect a single entity to even approach the optimum for the majority of people, unless this entity is god-like. The numerous smaller entities simply have a lot more manageable task ahead of them. By distributing power into a large number of entities, there is no power consolidation and hence no single point of failure. With such a power structure, it is much harder for a sociopath to replace the benevolent dictator and take control of the whole. Furthermore, if any of the smaller entities go awry, an individual can much more easily migrate to another one.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    >My point is that it is completely unreasonable to expect a single entity to even approach the optimum for the majority of people, unless this entity is god-like. The numerous smaller entities simply have a lot more manageable task ahead of them. With multiple groups, approaching the "optimum" will eventually involve hurting other groups for the benefit of your own. To me, everybody living adequately is preferred to some living optimally at the expense of others. The rest of your post is about the nigh impossibility of setting up a benevolent dictatorship. It absolutely should not be attempted, even if it would be the ideal form of government.

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>How would a single person be able to choose what is best for everyone, even if benevolent? Benevolent does not mean omniscient and infinitely wise. A benevolent dictator can still make mistakes, but so can the smaller entities you describe. The benevolent dictator would be focused on the good of everyone though, while the smaller entities in opposition would be focused on the good of their own group. The process of setting up a longstanding benevolent dictatorship is what makes the idea ridiculous.

feanaro 7y ago
My point is that it is completely unreasonable to expect a single entity to even approach the optimum for the majority of people, unless this entity is god-like. The numerous smaller entities simply have a lot more manageable task ahead of them. By distributing power into a large number of entities, there is no power consolidation and hence no single point of failure. With such a power structure, it is much harder for a sociopath to replace the benevolent dictator and take control of the whole. Furthermore, if any of the smaller entities go awry, an individual can much more easily migrate to another one.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  >My point is that it is completely unreasonable to expect a single entity to even approach the optimum for the majority of people, unless this entity is god-like. The numerous smaller entities simply have a lot more manageable task ahead of them. With multiple groups, approaching the "optimum" will eventually involve hurting other groups for the benefit of your own. To me, everybody living adequately is preferred to some living optimally at the expense of others. The rest of your post is about the nigh impossibility of setting up a benevolent dictatorship. It absolutely should not be attempted, even if it would be the ideal form of government.