With my dictatorial powers .... my first action would be to seize and outlaw extreme wealth. No one would be allowed to own more than $1 million.

All the money collected would be used for government and providing a Universal Basic Income for everyone.

And I'd get a designer to make me a big fancy hat.

I could BE a benevolent dictator, I could never BECOME a benevolent dictator. The process of getting there would exclude me, because I would reject the power structure needed to form the dictatorship in the first place.

I'd be too much of a lazy dictator to do anything truly evil.

I think there are many people out there who could.

To me, the problem isn't being a benevolent dictator; it's getting a benevolent person there in a benevolent way.

how dare you question my benevolence. to the pits with you.

No.

Not because I’m evil, but because I am empathetic and someone evil would absolutely figure out a way to use that to manipulate me.

I wouldn't be fucking kids and sending goon squads after minorities and into cities to harass my political opponents if that is what you are asking.

The 'not evil' bar is currently riding on the same high speed train the Republicans put their goalposts on.

I’d like to think so. When we read 1984 in high school, a friend and I were studying together. I remember saying (in my naïveté), “I loved the book and I get the history but why would you want to be in charge of a place that sucks?” She was like, “You’re just going to have to get used to the fact that a lot of people care about power more than beaches.”

Well, I still think those people are foolish. I’d rather be in charge of my own tiny slice of paradise than rule over some wack ass dictatorship where everyone else is miserable. Not wanting to be in charge is probably the basic pre-requisite for being a benevolent dictator. I like to cook for people and stuff. I’d use my power and wealth to do that.

That being said, I’m a dirtbag. I’d have a cool house somewhere with mountain and ocean views. Probably 3 or 4 beauty queens who also have Ms. Congeniality pageant sashes who are in charge of laughing at my jokes and charming me. No more than one or two rhythmic gymnastics teams that delight us all by throwing ribbons to each other with their feet. (Other apparatuses are cool too. Hula hoop. Clubs. Ball. Variety is the spice of life.)

I would instantly be assassinated for helping out people too much and handing too much power to workers syndicates

We’re getting into paradox territory

No because narcissistic psychopathic yes-men would flood my surroundings and I'd probably quickly become paranoid (with reasons to be that).

Except if it was in a Douglas Addams way.

It is inevitable that an opposition would form against you. You either let the movement continue to gain traction and risk unseating you or you use your power in a corrupt manner to silence them.

I don't think I could become dictator at all, no.

Seriously, though, power corrupts. I'm not immune. Nor am I immune to being manipulated by those more evil than I, which is another big problem with concentrating power.

Relevant CGP Grey video

Basically it is a structural problem that ensures corrupt behavior. A dictator has to direct resources to the people most relevant to their continued power to buy their loyalty, and away from everyone else whose support is irrelevant. Not being a scumbag in that position could get you killed.

Sure. Would I last long before getting killed or overthrown? No.

Nope. Once you make me dictator, I force a bunch of experts to work out a system of government that will make sure there will be no more dictators after me, and that said government will be obligated to work for the betterment of the populace as a whole without massive disparity. At the same time, I'd hire another bunch of experts to figure out what the first bunch got wrong.

While those two groups are working, I shall decree that in one month we will start executing billionaires starting with the richest and working our way down -- but anyone who donates all their 'excess' money to the new government or charities and research that I personally approve of before the deadline gets to live. I'm counting all off-shore money, and any attempt to flee the country shall be met with lethal force.

Don't think it's possible per definition of the word.

If you take into account the wishes of the majority of the population what sets you apart from a constitutional monarchy?

It's really difficult. Not because you will turn evil of your own free will, but because you will have to do terrible things to maintain stability and to keep yourself from being usurped by spies. If you became dictator of any country, you would immediately start to get attacked from many sides by both spies and also revolutionaries who think of themselves as the good guy. In order to do anything it takes time. This is the only way to win the people over. Becoming a dictator is no doubt going to lead to massive economic decline in the near term unless you become a right wing dictator who has favor with the business and merchant classes. If you try to actually become a benevolent dictator and actually free the people, most of the people you would think were your allies would also blame you for everything that is wrong and turn against you, the business class would fund propaganda against you. The internationalists would fund your opposition to gain back their foreign claims to your industry and minerals.

People will feel as if they have every right to criticize you in every way, if you don't oppress them, but if you do, you will rightfully be called a tyrant. If you find your own propaganda you will be called a tyrant, but the people you think would be your allies, will not understand that there is propaganda on the other side.

It's very difficult indeed. Within a few years of taking power you would immediately have to deal with a torrent of spies, foreign media, coups, and whatever else. This is why only right wing governments only ever last more then a few years in history.

Vladimir Lenin is a great example of this, he genuinely saw himself as being benevolent. He was a real communist. He wanted to help the people. Yet he quickly realized once he obtained power that he did not have the support of the majority of the country. He pleaded and appealed to them, he tried to "educate" them on what was needed to achieve communism, mainly just time and their trust. Yet even his first election if he were to have one, he would lose, because already he had become associated with the status quo. The mainstream oppressors of the common people. So he became a tyrant, as all dictators do. Communism gets traded for national socialism and fascism with red paint by the time Lenin is dead. All in an effort to just keep power for a little bit so he could see his communist vision come true. Unfortunately as soon as the bosliviks started to oppress the people they lost the little bit of credibility they had. Just another tyrant, another right wing power obsessed state.

I could be benevolent and part of the population would be still against me (slumlords, libertarians, nazis).

After some attempts to kill me I doubt I couldn’t become aggressive against the population who wronged me.

Well I wouldn't view it as evil but extreme measures tend to be viewed as evil by someone

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes

I have a strong sense of justice, transparency, and collaboration. I would not turn corrupt or evil for my own gain, to remain in power, or for others.

Would I be removed from my position? Maybe. Depends on the surroundings. A dictator is only as stable and powerful as the enablement surrounding them. Typically, they are also very influential people.

What makes a good, benevolent dictator? Doesn't that inevitably lead to weakening their power?

Collaborating on politics, hearing voices, and then making the or confirming the compromise and agreement? Sounds like a mostly celebratory role. A dictator without significance or power.

Absolutley. No more questions!

If you're offering me the job, I'll give it a go. I think I'd do a shockingly great job, but even if I didn't, there is no universe where I'm as evil and incompetent as the people who are currently in charge.

For a couple months, maybe. Anyone who says yes absolutely is someone who shouldn't be trusted with power.

No. Although "turning evil" isn't what happens to those guys, exactly.

Dictators, in the sense of one man rule, don't actually exist. What an autocracy does have is a first among equals in a system where everyone is "looking over their shoulder". Even if someone who genuinely wants to make life great for the people takes power, there's severe limits to how they can do that.

Gorbachev is a great example of this. He was an idealistic person, and thought it would be good if the USSR switched to real democracy. Pretty immediately there were multiple coups until he was out of power, because anybody remotely high up the hierarchy had too many skeletons in their closet to allow that.

In the end, a dictator only gets to choose what kind of nightmarish dictatorship they want.

Well, I've managed to win every election legitimately in Tropico 5 so far while making sure there's plenty of housing, education, jobs, food, and healthcare.

So guess so.

This is explained in the "the rules for rulers" video from cgpgrey, which condenses the book "the dictators handbook".

yes. I think a lot of people can. the thing is, the people who can won't be the runs running for office

I'd like to think I wouldn't, but my chances probably aren't any better than the average person. I don't think I'd ever get anywhere near the worst leaders in history, but I wouldn't count on me being perfectly incorruptible.

But even if I was, that wouldn't be enough. Either I'd have to run the entire government myself, which is impossible, or I'd have to reliably find other incorruptible people to work for me and replace me when I die, which will never be reliable enough. If I didn't find incorruptible people, what's to stop them getting bribed into not letting me do anything until I let the corrupt people have their way?

What's the point of being a dictator if you can't be corrupt? The only difference is that you have to remember this simple fact:

No one gives a darn what the dictator's bank account looks like if they have full bellies, secure housing, and jobs that keep them just right balance of desperate and productive. Do those things, and they'll cheer when you build a statue of yourself. They'll be overjoyed when you get yourself a sex partner. And they'll fork over money willingly. Yes, it's easier to be feared than loved; but if you just do your job, nobody actually cares about the grift!

Yes, because my first act would be to replace the benevolent dictatorship with a representative democracy.

There's a famous phrase: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's guaranteed to happen. The theme is played upon in LOTR when both Gandalf and Galadriel refuse the ring, knowing what it will do to them. It's the most important metaphor Tolkien put into the stories for a good reason. Peter Jackson made those moments stand out, as he also understood the assignment. Nobody is capable of resisting the call of corruption when given absolute power. You are not an exception.

No I would be killed by a subordinate who wouldn't be.

I think I would last a little longer than average. And I only say that because the more power I get handed the more anxiety I get and I think it's the people it doesn't make anxious that are the scariest. I also burnout quickly though and I don't handle everybody being mad at me very gracefully.

Of course. I'd get promptly assassinated too

Yes and no.

I have never had a lust for power. I have never had a desire to do things that people in power abuse their position to do (like nightmare islands, sex with interns, crushing minorities). I don't even have an intense desire for money beyond basic comfort (I would love to have money for a boat right now, but I'm content saving up for it). So corruption for any of that? No.

However, I am not sure I have the capability of doing good in a proper way. I can't tell if I'd be a Sisko or if I would just fail to achieve any of my aims out of not wanting to do things the wrong way (if you go authoritarian to try to make things better, is that still corrupt or evil?). The world is a fucked up, difficult to navigate place, morally, when you are making decisions for a lot of people.

So yeah, I could avoid corruption for my own sake, but I don't think I would be able to be a benevolent dictator.

No

I'm pretty sure it's not possible to become a dictator without first being corrupt and evil.

The benevolent, uncorrupt, good thing for dictators to do is to abdicate.

No but I’d like to think I’d do better than most.

I don't trust myself that much.

I would establish a socialist polity, then abdicate.