The points you make are basically rehashing what I said (or missing the mark) and making it look like we have a debate. We aren't and you didn't bring any new i

The points you make are basically rehashing what I said (or missing the mark) and making it look like we have a debate. We aren't and you didn't bring any new ideas. The fact that some dictators had passable results doesn't mean dictatorship is a good system. It just had more "attempts" at success because dictatorship (absolute monarchs) are more in line with human nature. Democracy has achieved better which would suggest it's overall a better system. > Can you point to any real-life communist governments that actually worked out great? If only I would have written that: >> communism looked good on paper assuming perfect people and conditions. Nothing you'd find in any real scenario. > You can't guarantee anything Yes, which is why I said you can't guarantee anything. > A dictatorship also has to keep a consistent slice of the population happy. For a carefully chosen definition of "consistent". At a minimum a dictator has to keep a small slice happy, themselves and their apparatus. This is very far from being "consistent" relative to the population and a far cry from what a democratically elected leader is expected to keep happy. On the other hand a democracy may see a candidate lose even when having the support of the majority of the population (see the electoral college system in the US). Both dictatorship and democracy have advantages and disadvantages, some theoretical, some practical. But in real life the chances of a dictatorship going wrong are so high it makes the system a no-go. It's fishing with nitroglycerin.