4 ms·

So what if they wouldn't stop protesting? What does it mean, allow to protest peacefully? Like a free speech zone? But isn't this "weighing" you talk about jus

So what if they wouldn't stop protesting? What does it mean, allow to protest peacefully? Like a free speech zone? But isn't this "weighing" you talk about just a form of voting? If he caves in based on public opinion, then he is being effectively democratic. That's the problem. The concept of "benevolent dictator" is just oxymoronic. I would be glad if people stop using it as an argument, because it's just so contradictory.

jiggy2011 13y ago
Isn't this roughly how it works now? You implement legal rules for when and how protests can occur and allow people to protest within those rules but a protest is no guarantee of policy change. I guess a truly benevolent dictator would have some objective principles to decide the best course of action and use those. What those principles would look like, I have no idea.
- asgard1024 13y ago
  If we really lived in democracy, it wouldn't have to be that way. We would just accept defeat if majority would disagree. That's what people in Switzerland do. You just hid the contradiction of "benevolent dictator" into "objective principles I have no idea about". That's the reason why you have no idea - such principles don't exist independently of subjective values of each person!
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    I think that the closest you could get would be to define some formula for quality of life or happiness, possibly based on neuroscience and predictive modelling that is far more advanced than we have now and govern based on that perhaps based on median happiness or some such. Of course you will still get people under such a system who would be worse off than they would under others. You also have questions about whether you let some people be happier than others if their actions are likely to cause the average level of happiness to increase. Similar to the conversations we have about wealth now. However I don't think the choice would be between implementing majority rule on every micro decision and tyranny. Perhaps it makes sense to think of such a system as a representative democracy where every election is won by the same candidate because they are so vastly superior to the others.
    - asgard1024 13y ago
      But there is also an issue of freedom and trust. Sure, you could provide "endless happiness" by making everyone stoned, but what freedom that is? The point isn't to implement majority rule on every micro decision; people are often generous enough not to be control freaks. But again - when they are not, then it probably isn't just a "micro" decision. Your last sentence was exactly my point. If such a dictator is going to win every election, why he needs to be a dictator? Why we can't just have those elections? By this, you also gain trust. I love Linus Torvalds quote: "People can trust me [about kernel development], because they don't have to trust me." I think it's true everywhere - trust is only gained if you have choice not to trust.

jiggy2011 13y ago

Isn't this roughly how it works now? You implement legal rules for when and how protests can occur and allow people to protest within those rules but a protest is no guarantee of policy change. I guess a truly benevolent dictator would have some objective principles to decide the best course of action and use those. What those principles would look like, I have no idea.

asgard1024 13y ago
If we really lived in democracy, it wouldn't have to be that way. We would just accept defeat if majority would disagree. That's what people in Switzerland do. You just hid the contradiction of "benevolent dictator" into "objective principles I have no idea about". That's the reason why you have no idea - such principles don't exist independently of subjective values of each person!
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  I think that the closest you could get would be to define some formula for quality of life or happiness, possibly based on neuroscience and predictive modelling that is far more advanced than we have now and govern based on that perhaps based on median happiness or some such. Of course you will still get people under such a system who would be worse off than they would under others. You also have questions about whether you let some people be happier than others if their actions are likely to cause the average level of happiness to increase. Similar to the conversations we have about wealth now. However I don't think the choice would be between implementing majority rule on every micro decision and tyranny. Perhaps it makes sense to think of such a system as a representative democracy where every election is won by the same candidate because they are so vastly superior to the others.
  - asgard1024 13y ago
    But there is also an issue of freedom and trust. Sure, you could provide "endless happiness" by making everyone stoned, but what freedom that is? The point isn't to implement majority rule on every micro decision; people are often generous enough not to be control freaks. But again - when they are not, then it probably isn't just a "micro" decision. Your last sentence was exactly my point. If such a dictator is going to win every election, why he needs to be a dictator? Why we can't just have those elections? By this, you also gain trust. I love Linus Torvalds quote: "People can trust me [about kernel development], because they don't have to trust me." I think it's true everywhere - trust is only gained if you have choice not to trust.