4 ms·

The best system of government is a benevolent dictatorship. If you can’t make it less dictatorial, at least make it more benevolent.

chrisco255 6y ago
Power corrupts. The only way to make a government more benevolent is to make it weaker.
- edgyquant 6y ago
  The governments of the feudal era, let alone the night watch states of the 1800, were certainly more corrupt than the more centralized nations of China and the US. Disproving this hypothesis that I hear too much.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Were they? Did the feudal era monarchies exert control over foreign governments in far away continents? The feudal era was marked by constant churn and shifting allegiances and there was always somewhere to escape to. Many escaped to the Americas, coincidentally, where they did eventually launch revolutions against the English and Spanish monarchy, which grew quite powerful and corrupt during the Imperial era. At any rate, the entire design of the U.S. is to prevent corruption through decentralization of power. That includes division of power among the Federal and State governments as well as the several branches of government. To the extent that experiment has worked, it has done so through the successful application of those principles. To the extent that it hasn't, it has been when too much power has rested in too few hands for too long.
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      Yes they objectively were and yes late feudal lords did exert control over far away lands (early ones as well like Charlemagne and even Charles Martel to a lesser extent.) Also the design of the US is to find a balance between a strong federal government and state governments. That is why the issue has dominated our politics, in one form the other, and we’ve had a two party system based around it, ever since.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "objective". By what objective measure were they more corrupt than the CCP or the U.S.? Charlemagne exhibited control and influence over a smaller chunk of Europe than the current E.U. The U.S. can almost bankrupt any country at will by freezing it out of the banking system and imposing sanctions.
        edgyquant 6y ago
        I do. The local feudal lords were able to treat anyone below them however they wanted and could take bribes without any threat from above so long as they provided the number of soldiers and gold asked. At the risk of being pedantic, I think it is you who doesn’t understand the word corrupt. The US bankrupting nations it doesn’t disagree with is within the system of rules at play and isn’t corrupt even if it is morally wrong.
ghostcluster 6y ago
The problem is a benevolent dictator only lasts part of one lifetime. Then you have to deal with the problem of succession, which in a dictatorship likely means unpredictable chaos
- yeetman21 6y ago
  In plato's republic the benevolent dictators choose their successors to also be benevolent dictators, do not know if that could work in real life but the CCP do chose their successors, and not based on blood lines
  - ghostcluster 6y ago
    And Xi has consolidated power and purged all competent up-and-coming potential successors that threaten this power. He shepherded through a modification in Chinese law to allow him to serve for life. Previously, the vaunted governing expertise inside the CCP had an age cap for its leaders. Not inspiring much confidence in their system. https://in.news.yahoo.com/xi-jinping-undertakes-fresh-round-043448434.html https://in.news.yahoo.com/xi-jinping-undertakes-fresh-round-... Another thing that doesn't inspire much confidence is looking at Hong Kong. The people there have unambiguously and collectively spoken about their desire to live under this system, often at grave personal risk.
    - yeetman21 6y ago
      Xi has only served for around 7 years, not even as long as some presidents. Merkel has served for somewhere around 15 years and many senators and congressmen have served for multiple decades.
  - natmaka 6y ago
    AFAIK during Plato's life no more than about 40 thousands citizen lived in Athens (along with up to ~3 times more non-citizens). Plato's Republic was about politics in such a city-state, never about a bigger human group (for example one of our current huge nations).
adamsea 6y ago
Considering how corrupting power is even in more democratic / power-sharing systems, IMHO I'd amend your statement to read something like "in an ideal world ..." Of course in an ideal world we wouldn't need a benevolent dictator at all, so, maybe a benevolent dictatorship is never the "best", but, at best, sometimes better than the worst.
harpiaharpyja 6y ago
A benevolent dictatorship is great for a creative project. As a government it is a dead end and never remains "benevolent" for long.

chrisco255 6y ago

Power corrupts. The only way to make a government more benevolent is to make it weaker.

edgyquant 6y ago
The governments of the feudal era, let alone the night watch states of the 1800, were certainly more corrupt than the more centralized nations of China and the US. Disproving this hypothesis that I hear too much.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Were they? Did the feudal era monarchies exert control over foreign governments in far away continents? The feudal era was marked by constant churn and shifting allegiances and there was always somewhere to escape to. Many escaped to the Americas, coincidentally, where they did eventually launch revolutions against the English and Spanish monarchy, which grew quite powerful and corrupt during the Imperial era. At any rate, the entire design of the U.S. is to prevent corruption through decentralization of power. That includes division of power among the Federal and State governments as well as the several branches of government. To the extent that experiment has worked, it has done so through the successful application of those principles. To the extent that it hasn't, it has been when too much power has rested in too few hands for too long.
  - edgyquant 6y ago
    Yes they objectively were and yes late feudal lords did exert control over far away lands (early ones as well like Charlemagne and even Charles Martel to a lesser extent.) Also the design of the US is to find a balance between a strong federal government and state governments. That is why the issue has dominated our politics, in one form the other, and we’ve had a two party system based around it, ever since.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "objective". By what objective measure were they more corrupt than the CCP or the U.S.? Charlemagne exhibited control and influence over a smaller chunk of Europe than the current E.U. The U.S. can almost bankrupt any country at will by freezing it out of the banking system and imposing sanctions.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        I do. The local feudal lords were able to treat anyone below them however they wanted and could take bribes without any threat from above so long as they provided the number of soldiers and gold asked. At the risk of being pedantic, I think it is you who doesn’t understand the word corrupt. The US bankrupting nations it doesn’t disagree with is within the system of rules at play and isn’t corrupt even if it is morally wrong.

ghostcluster 6y ago

The problem is a benevolent dictator only lasts part of one lifetime. Then you have to deal with the problem of succession, which in a dictatorship likely means unpredictable chaos

yeetman21 6y ago
In plato's republic the benevolent dictators choose their successors to also be benevolent dictators, do not know if that could work in real life but the CCP do chose their successors, and not based on blood lines
- ghostcluster 6y ago
  And Xi has consolidated power and purged all competent up-and-coming potential successors that threaten this power. He shepherded through a modification in Chinese law to allow him to serve for life. Previously, the vaunted governing expertise inside the CCP had an age cap for its leaders. Not inspiring much confidence in their system. https://in.news.yahoo.com/xi-jinping-undertakes-fresh-round-043448434.html https://in.news.yahoo.com/xi-jinping-undertakes-fresh-round-... Another thing that doesn't inspire much confidence is looking at Hong Kong. The people there have unambiguously and collectively spoken about their desire to live under this system, often at grave personal risk.
  - yeetman21 6y ago
    Xi has only served for around 7 years, not even as long as some presidents. Merkel has served for somewhere around 15 years and many senators and congressmen have served for multiple decades.
- natmaka 6y ago
  AFAIK during Plato's life no more than about 40 thousands citizen lived in Athens (along with up to ~3 times more non-citizens). Plato's Republic was about politics in such a city-state, never about a bigger human group (for example one of our current huge nations).

adamsea 6y ago

Considering how corrupting power is even in more democratic / power-sharing systems, IMHO I'd amend your statement to read something like "in an ideal world ..." Of course in an ideal world we wouldn't need a benevolent dictator at all, so, maybe a benevolent dictatorship is never the "best", but, at best, sometimes better than the worst.

harpiaharpyja 6y ago

A benevolent dictatorship is great for a creative project. As a government it is a dead end and never remains "benevolent" for long.