Does Humanity Crave the Dictator?

[Meestercat]

If it was a sexy Irene Adler-esque dictator, I would be all for it.

[Shahad]

And yet when you compare us to Saudi Arabia, we don't look so bad!

edit: and those awful, nasty rich people are still paying the vast plurality of the tax burden...

When compared to the Nordic countries, the U.S. does look pretty bad.

And the rich paying the majority of the federal tax makes sense, they make so much more money. But their tax burden as a percentage of income is still ridiculously low. The increasing inequality between the rich and poor/middle classes kind of give it away.

[Independent voter]

Brutis and Caesar. State of Virginia seal.

[Stormdash]

Osama bin Laden, of all people (although it explains much of his methodology), had an excellent quote on the subject --

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse”.

People don't crave a tyrant, but they do crave strength, surety, and constancy. The malevolent political incarnation of this is a tyrant, a despot. The benevolent is the statesman. Or the Monarch. Aristotle had a lot to say on how the moral legitimacy of a form of government isn't so much about the distribution of power as about the character of the society and the people wielding power, so even a monarch need not be a tyrant, but that is at the mercy of her character and the character of her people.

[Afrospinach]

Is it human nature to want a dictator?

Dictator no, leadership yes.

Dictators have an advantage of less bureaucracy, I don't think many leadership entities have achieved what this man did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein in the time frame he did(before you know, he invaded iran and ruined it all), maybe china? But china is also highly authoritarian and looks more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

In this way I think they are more free to express themselves as leaders, but dictatorship does not = good leadership. Neither does a democratically elected government.

Brutis and Caesar. State of Virginia seal

Ok what is he carrying in his left hand, because it looks like a novelty sized dildo.

[Sky High]

people/societies need some form of structure to be stable and of any use. so I would agree withe the OP's sentiments.

[Lolretadin]

What is your opinion?

It's the most effective and efficient form of governance, but is too susceptible to corruption to be a viable alternative to democracies.

[Sunseeker]

The people who glorify concepts of dictators are of the opinion that there can be such a thing as the "benevolent dictator". The concept is attractive of course, a person in charge of everything who gets stuff done when it needs to be done because it's the right thing to do and it has the best interests of the people at heart. The problem with that concept is that it assumes far too many variables, that the people always obey, that "what needs to be done" really needs to be done, that the "right thing" is a universally accepted truth and that the dictator is the best person to judge what the "best interests" of the people are.

People who promote the idea usually follow criticism of their position up with some statement along the lines of "Well none of that would matter since I(the dictator) would set all the rules." which immediately makes it a not-so-benevolent dictator and thus defeats the entire concept.

That's not to say that the corruptive influence of power affects all people equally and since there's no such thing as absolute power there can't be absolute corruption either. But generally speaking people who promote the idea of the benevolent dictator do so because they believe their ideas are superior to everyone elses and wouldn't things just be grand if everyone did what I told them?

[Kraenen]

I think so. It's probably come from the basic desire to either take or relinquish responsibility and power (people either crave to become dictator or to be dictated to), and become a child again when either you had everything at your whim or when everything was taken care of for you and the father figure was all-powerful. These are very similar situations but there's some importance in the nuance. In a way, you were either God or your father was God. We can see this come up in sexual relations as well. One partner is usually more submissive (usually females are taught to fall in love with dictatorship of the male) and the other dominant. I think this may be an important clue as to how totalitarianism could be supported in politics.

[Beery Swine]

Yes, humans wish to be dominated, to have someone to look at and hear from them "everything is fine, go on about your business", regardless of their skill or merit. They just want someone confident to make them feel secure about their lives, but they won't ever admit this to themselves and may get violent if it's actually pointed out to them. This was Loki's only mistake in The Avengers.

[Deleted]

Dictatorship isn't a bad thing imo. The problem is that there is no incorruptible human on this planet.

[Venant]

It has often been my experience, that those who insist the perfect government would be a benevolent dictatorship, hold this opinion because they also believe that a majority of people in society need to be forced into living their lives 'the proper way.' It is no surprise that such people also often feel that they are living their own lives 'the proper way' and that other people just need to learn to think the way that they do.

- - - Updated - - -

There is some truth to that. I believe a social study a while ago showed that 90% of men have a submissive personality. It kinda begs the question what kind of government can be expected when 90% of men are natural lapdogs waiting for an owner to put them on a leash.

I imagine a world filled with uncompromising radical individualists would result in anarchy.

[GennGreymane]

Dictatorships can work well, if the dictator is worthy of such authority. Many would argue the late Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore was able to be such a person. However that is a rarity.

[Hammerfest]

If we're going to be led by fellow lumpen, imperfect human beings, I'd prefer to be able to fire them when they don't cut the mustard.

[Kalcheus]

I imagine a world filled with uncompromising radical individualists would result in anarchy.

Evolution rarely selects for individualism.

[Revi]

I think a truly good dictator/king would be the best form of rule. Unfortunately, that seems impossible to come by, which is why almost all forms of governing are built to prevent too much power for any one person.

[Edc]

Democracry is terrible, corruption is still an issue and the more people that have a say in things the less gets done. The way our voting systems work contribute to the failing of the system since there so many people voting for people because reasons instead of being well informed and making a good call. Then again, excluding certain groups because they do not have the education or the ability to make a rational vote nullifies the entire system because democracy is all about allowing everyone to state their opinion, that being by voicing it themself or voting on a party or person to do it for him.

In that way a dictatorship is much better than democracry will ever be, because the person at the top will be able to make the calls regardless of the opinion of the masses. That being said, that is also the issue with dictatorship, alot of prominent dictators through history did alot of good (like the economic recovery of Germany prior to the 2nd world war by Hitler) but in the end could not cope with the amount of power given and abused it to cause alof of grief and harm. So the true challenge in finding a better way to lead us is not finding a better system but finding individuals who can be rational and act for the greater good. Sadly enough history has shown that finding an unicorn is more likely to happen.

[Yvaelle]

The problem isn't whether we need a dictator - it's whether America needs a "protector of the realm" until the education system is improved. Without education, Ignorance is the dictator of the republic.

Running a democratic society is supposed to be hard work - you are supposed to train every member to critically think, to keep informed, to rationally debate the issues. It also requires that representatives be chosen from the best at the above, to represent their constituents when they aren't able to engage in every issue themselves.

Despite that I think the former is lacking, at this point I feel Direct Democracy would be a more effective solution than Representative Democracy. Major issues should be decided by popular opinion through online poll on Whitehouse.gov, or texted in like American Idol votes.

The issue with the latter (representatives) is that they are a) insufficiently beholden to the best interests of their electorate (rather their donors decide), and b) often seem dumber than the average voter: which is impressive, sad, and seemingly true. Either the above, or representatives should be chosen at random from each region - like Jury Duty - you are summoned to represent your district / city / state. In 'worst case' you get what... Senator Sweet Brown? Sounds more entertaining than some of the knuckleheads we get with the current process: plus she'd certainly have a new insight into governance.

[The One Percent]

Power corrupts.
It's an endless cycle that will be repeated no matter what form of government we use.
We will never escape that fact until humanity consumes itself.

Even the highly touted anarchy that teenagers like to think they want devolves into the strong taking from the weak.

[Yvaelle]

Power corrupts.
It's an endless cycle that will be repeated no matter what form of government we use.
We will never escape that fact until humanity consumes itself.

The problem with "Power Corrupts" is that it implies that only when we are powerless are we truly free (from choice). The appeal of dictatorship - for those who suggest it - is that freedom from choice: that they are blameless for the fall of their civilization - that darned dictator.

The cure to corruption is transparency and justice. Do not fear power - fear the phrase "matter of national security" or "donor privacy".

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

Super PACs are the true threat to the west, not ISIS. The DHS/NSA/CIA/TSA is what brought the end of liberty, not the singular will of our thread's theoretical dictator. We did it to ourselves, out of fear and cowardice - we traded liberty and freedom for security and safety - and we lost them all in the process.

We must now work to rebuild Freedom and Liberty. Freedom and Liberty are inherently dangerous. I don't want a Safe society, I don't want a Secure society: that is the price of enlightenment. If only that quote, oft-quoted, were still more often remembered.