Could there ever be a benevolent dictator?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander III

...Napoleon realized the dangers of a tyrany of the mases, and created a new aristocratic meritocracy to rule. ...

Because he had so much to rule; most of Continental Europe, in fact.

But I'd suppose there is some benevolence in the fact that Napoleon promoted industrialization @a time when there was little outside England & France. What we quaintly consumer products were made in Germany under the auspices of corporate guilds (artisans, crofters, weavers). Napoleon was eager to subsidize new factories (or manufactories, as they were called). As an old warrior, maybe he saw the efficacy of mass-produced war materiel.

Alex is right. Democracy is just as bad for the common people as a dictatorship.

If anyone's interested there is a very long (something like one hundred and fourteen episodes) Japanese OVA that deals almost exclusively with the idea of an autocracy run by a benevolent but clearly military dictator and a failing democracy that ends up harming it's people. It's more complex than that, as the series is a space opera that pretty much consists entirely of poorly drawn heads speaking to each other, with some battle scenes that aren't much more than poor drawn space ships exploding to a classical score.

Check it out. Legend of the Galactic heroes. Democracy and autocracy are given a fair and unbiased look and the end, and series in general is very morally ambiguous.

The autocratic imperials -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rxN2iYYCPU

The democratic free planets alliance -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMKVGzofqYM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FranzS

There are entrenched power structures at the top of every society, and always have been. This is as true of democracies as of dictatorships. Anyone who wants to attain power has to either remove these power structures (usually very difficult) or compromise with them. Typically, both are required, because while you can cut the head off the monster, you can't establish your own power without winning over the people (civil servants, military etc.) who actually know about the day-to-day business of running a country. These people will typically have blood on their hands when you take over.

Then, once you're in power, from the very outset there will be people who want to take it away from you, because however decent your own intentions, there will always be others who seek power for its own sake. The only language these people will understand is force.

Hence, power compromises everybody who attains it.

One can theorise about the possibility of benevolent dictatorships all one likes, but one can't duck the issue of human nature.

Fair enough on the taking power point, it is unlikely anyone is going to be capable of taking autocratic power while remaining 'benevolent'. But that certainly doesn't cover all the possibilities: as a dictator could be delegated power, it does not have to be assumed. Your second point is a trifle ridiculous though: you could solve those problems with a non-tyrannical justice system, an iron fist is not the only means of controlling a population.

The largest problem with this isn't that power corrupts: its that the type of individual that could be a benevolent dictator, would not want to become a dictator.

Its not that power corrupts, its that power entices the corrupt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heteronym

The world economy is in the hands of economy experts with PhDs from Harvard and Chicago, and we're all staring in the abyss right now. Austerity measures sweeping Europe are only widening the problem, and yet these experts continue to put their complete faith on measures and doctrines that have failed every time they were put to practice, in South America, Asia and former Eastern Bloc countries. And although the economically-ignorant masses understand this is not the way to go, and they protest daily against the measures, the experts remain adamant, and the world continues to sink deeper into another crisis.

I'll take the dumb masses who, on miserable wages, manage to make incredible mathematical gymnastics to stretch their meager budget for the whole of the month, and so prove that they actually understand money and economics, than so-called experts who think that firing people, over-taxing them even more, and privatising resources for the price of peanuts, is going to save the economy. More insane is to think that these men, who work in the world of the stock markets, are actually impartial and that their actions serve no hidden interests for the companies they work for.

There is a false consensus in economics at the moment, and it has to do with how it is taught. It is no longer taught as a set of competing ideas, but rather with a 'this is how it is, and you must learn it like this' attitude, and that is extremely limited. Economists have lost complete touch with reality in their adherence to abstract models that make false assumptions and are therefore never going to be accurate. This is probably why we're not seeing any new ideas like we usually do in times of significant crises

This kind of consensus building has been a staple of the modern democratic society, and with the state arrogating more and more power to itself, while the average citizen sits content, playing with his nano-technology or whatever, it is easy to see how it could fall apart. Your understanding of economics appears to be fairly warped and limited also: the modern economy is so complex that it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint what causes what because of the growing impact of externalities. There are so many artificial factors influencing the market in various ways that your simplistic analysis and comparison to S. America, Asia, and the Eastern Bloc just looks silly.

The West has overconsumed. Government and its citizens have been equally guilty of this; and there are consequences for it.

There is no money left to spend in Europe, you can not avoid this fact. If governments want to spend money, they will have to print money - which is just an indirect tax anyway, and doesn't help anything. Austerity is the only option if you do not wish to be downgraded and take-on all the problems that brings.