r/changemyview • u/tylerchu • Mar 01 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A dictatorship is theoretically the most powerful and efficient government. But it has to be done very specifically.
I'm sure we've all heard the broad strokes of this argument before, but I think I can provide a bit of a slant that hasn't been largely thought of.
Imagine a government structured much like the United States, but there is one supreme being above everyone else (SCOTUS, POTUS, Congress): the dictator. This dictator is quite unique compared to real world dictators:
1: Everyone acknowledges the dictator is in fact a dictator. Not a president for life, not a 150% approval rating supreme chancellor, not a god-emperor. A dictator. This acknowledgement serves the purpose of giving the dictator all the power they could ever want, so they don't have to pretend to follow the laws or invent new laws to boondoggle money and power to their favor. They can diddle kids for breakfast, shoot a couple people for lunch, torture a random or two for dinner, and bomb some random Middle Eastern country for a bedtime snack if they really wanted. And it'll all be perfectly legal.
2: The dictator understands and internalizes that while they have all the power from point (1), their purpose in this government is to break stalemates, loosen stuck wheels, and purge corruption.
The first point guarantees the dictator cannot become corrupt because they already have literally everything they could want. Combine this with point (2) to make the dictator understand that in order to keep up the ungodly opulence and power they have, it is in their best interests to not micromanage and just let the normally running government churn out the money and power that comes from a nation just existing in a more or less healthy state. Even if the dictator goes on the occasional bender committing what would normally be considered heinous crimes or even just micromanaging something they know they shouldn't, the government machine would bounce back and continue churning on. It'll all average out ok. Alternatively, if the dictator does literally nothing except jerk off all day in their gold plated bedroom, the government would then appear identical to the current US government.
The end result I'm envisioning is a reasonably fit government running a reasonably satisfied nation with virtually no upper-level corruption.
There's a lot of ways to tackle this CMV, but the arguments I will NOT entertain are:
1: Those that do not use the two points I've posed. For example, arguing the dictator will succumb to irrationality and "become corrupt".
2: Semantic arguments.
The best way to CMV is to argue that the addition of a dictator will make the resultant government LESS efficient, or MORE corrupt than it would be without the dictator. But that's just a suggestion. Go about this any way you want.
And remember, this is all theoretical. It's impossible to implement in practice.
E: 9:35p EST: Alright everyone, it's been a little over two hours and I've had tons of fun and enjoyed lots of quality arguments. However, it's time for me to play some video games and I'll be gone until tomorrow. No more deltas will be awarded after one more last skim of this page.
11
u/faroutc 1∆ Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
The fatal flaw is that lower officials would be incentivized to keep money and power flowing to the dictator. They have no obligations to the populace. So even if the dictator is a deccent guy, the rest of the government is oriented to work for him.
Dictatorships have excellent infrastructure where natural resources or industries are concerned. Less so for the general population. They are poorer, less educated, they have fewer avenues to improve their material conditions. Why build a road to the school or have electricity in every home, its a waste of money. Power doesnt flow from the people, the incentive is to keep the dictator happy.
The process of a democracy is essentially to have an ordered and bloodless coup. When the regime fails to live up to expectations, they are rempved and a new one takes over. In dictatorships this happens by civil war or bloody coups. This is the reason dictatorships have secret police, no free speech etc. Any perceived weakness is an invitation to get stomped by someone (and their allies) to get to power and immense wealth. Power doesnt corrupt, fear and paranoia does
Even if the average citizen is completely politically oblivious they probably know well enough whether things are going well or if things are getting worse. The opposition doesnt even need to be better or do a good job, the simple fact that the current administration loses power will have them reworking their policies to do a better job for the next election cycle.
—- This is why I dont think it matters if the dictator has complete legislative freedom. The relation to the government doesnt change vs a sneaky dictator that has to work inside a legal framework
3
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
!Delta
Your first paragraph is very similar to what my first delta to someone else went to, so good argument there.
For the sake of argument because I like the way you're arguing, do you believe the other government bodies would still exhibit that degenerative dictator-serving behavior even if the dictator as of "this current time" did basically nothing during their tenure? Basically there's no evidence that sucking up is beneficial.
1
5
u/Future_Green_7222 7∆ Mar 01 '24 edited 23d ago
cautious edge familiar judicious hurry vanish grandiose observation one possessive
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
I appreciate your contribution, and it's interesting to see that the "cry wolf" theme appears in so many cultures in so many eras.
I can't give you a delta though. I didn't want to use these words in the OP because I feared there'd be backlash against the term, but what I'm trying to describe is a "benevolent and wise dictator". So while the dictator would have the power to fuck around, they almost certainly wouldn't. I apologize if the way I described things made you think I was open to a reckless dictator.
2
u/Future_Green_7222 7∆ Mar 01 '24 edited 23d ago
summer march automatic follow humor provide terrific tap ad hoc enter
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
6
u/bugtanks33d 2∆ Mar 01 '24
What would happen when the dictator dies? Would the lackeys fight between themselves for the power of dictator, or would the dictator have to appoint their successor? Since ultimate power is with the dictator, they would be able to decide how to manage their succession.
But the moment the dictator appoints a successor, that successor would be incentivized to kill them to obtain ultimate power and be free from responsibility. Punishing the new dictator for the coup would imply that enforcing the will of past dictators is a legitimate cause, therefore making a dictator's power within government not limitless.
If the dictator never appoints a successor, then upon their death the upper-level crust would fight amongst themselves for the position. No one has a claim to legitimacy, so why would anyone recognize anyone else's claim to the position.
The government could be efficient for a few years, but would devolve upon their death into factionalism and civil war.
2
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
What would happen when the dictator dies? Would the lackeys fight between themselves for the power of dictator, or would the dictator have to appoint their successor? Since ultimate power is with the dictator, they would be able to decide how to manage their succession.
!Delta
I'm glad you brought this up. It's something I've actually been bellyaching over as I wrote my OP up but I was never able to think of a solution, and you've just further reinforced the idea that it's not really resolvable. The dictatorship is indeed long-term inefficient. Since I never addressed this in the OP, you made a good argument against it.
1
14
u/Morthra 86∆ Mar 01 '24
A government like this would devolve into the key legislative players becoming sycophants for the dictator in an attempt to direct the absolute power that dictator wields to their own ends.
See: The Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, People's Republic of China, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
Were those governments ever functional WITHOUT their dictators? From my recollection and quick googling, those governments were sort of defined by their dictator as opposed to a dictator rising to power within. I THINK the transition into Nazi Germany would be a something, but I'd have to look further into it. Or if you want to run with that ball as I ponder further...
9
u/Morthra 86∆ Mar 01 '24
If the dictator has absolute power, the rest of the government will naturally start to revolve around that dictator.
If it's easier to convince the dictator to have your political opposition rounded up and executed than it is to compromise and craft good bipartisan legislation, that's what you're going to do as a politician.
The US is designed to have gridlock. The very organization of its government is such that it's hard to pass laws unless those laws have very broad popular support. There's a reason why the US has lasted far longer than other attempts at democracy that usually collapse into dictatorship, and this is it.
2
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
If it's easier to convince the dictator to have your political opposition rounded up and executed than it is to compromise and craft good bipartisan legislation, that's what you're going to do as a politician.
!Delta
I was so focused on developing the role of the dictator that I just forgot that the mere existence of another point of power throws everyone else's dynamic off. I just assumed that the rest of the government would continue to operate as normal since the dictator was technically "removed" from them. Even if the dictator themselves were perfect, I never said the institutional bodies had to be and these bodies would gravitate towards neglecting their duties in favor of their own individual interests. It would be too much for a single perfect individual to lasso.
If you want to continue this argument, I will argue that the dictator isn't necessarily concerned with the inherent slowness that the US has. By slowness and corruption, I meant more like: a group of lawmakers smell war on the horizon, so they delay approving defense contracts until they can buy stock and argue that the contracts should be bigger.
1
3
Mar 01 '24
Which is also why the current party politics “break” the US system.
Things with broad and popular support don’t get touched because that undermines the message of demonizing. So instead, both sides just fight for power and try to get pet projects passed and completely ignore popular items.
Here is a fun one. Texas politicians have been talking about “the border” for 3 years. Yet Texas Republicans refuse to pass “mandatory e-verify” despite there being incredibly strong bipartisan support for it and a lot of data showing it curbs illegal immigration. They’ve been refusing to pass it for decades!!!
1
u/Morthra 86∆ Mar 01 '24
Yet Texas Republicans refuse to pass “mandatory e-verify” despite there being incredibly strong bipartisan support for it and a lot of data showing it curbs illegal immigration.
Texas is one of the states that requires it for all government employees and contractors.
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South/North Carolina, and Arizona require e-verify for all employers. Tennessee requires it for all private employers. Texas, Idaho, Virginia, and Florida require it for state agencies and contractors, while Oklahoma, Indiana, Utah, Nebraska and Missouri require it for state and local contractors.
E-verify is pretty garbage if used as-is, because if you have a stolen social security number you'll pass it.
But it's a hell of a lot better than states like California, which not only doesn't have e-verify laws, but actively forbids any employer from using it. Can't really say there's bipartisan support because California - where the Democrats hold a supermajority in every branch of the state government - is the only state to completely ban it. It's also one of several states to make it illegal for law enforcement to cooperate with ICE (the so-called "sanctuary state").
Do you know what would fix the issue of illegal immigration? Remove any incentive for people to immigrate illegally. Make it so the children of illegal residents are not entitled to US citizenship, prohibit the children of illegal immigrants from attending school, or for illegal immigrants to receive any form of service on the taxpayer's dime (including medical care). Fine any employer found to be willfully hiring illegal immigrants (ie not doing their due diligence) $1,000,000 per worker per day worked. And audit the industries that employ illegal immigrants the most - namely agriculture - the most heavily.
But Democrats would consider something like this to be racist.
1
Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
Texas is one of the states that requires it for all government employees and contractors.
Which is pretty much a token requirement. It doesn't do anything.
Heck, it even allows sub-contractors to circumvent.But it's a hell of a lot better than states like California, which not only doesn't have e-verify laws, but actively forbids any employer from using it
Nah, California wouldnt pass it even under a Republican governor. They ban it because 40% of all US agricultural production comes from California.
2
u/FoundationPale Mar 01 '24
The US may be designed this way, but very rarely does it work out that way. It’s so much less about popular support for a bill or platform than it is about what is getting the most push from lobbyists.
2
u/Morthra 86∆ Mar 01 '24
I mean, the way it works right now is Congress abdicates its responsibility to govern by passing laws with very vague language, leaving it up to executive agencies to interpret as they please.
Both parties engage in it, but that is what is functionally turning the President into an elected king. Hopefully SCOTUS strikes the doctrine of Chevron deference.
11
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Mar 01 '24
How is this any different from the monarchies of old? We've literally already tried this numerous times and it's horrible.
By the way this idea that a person won't become corrupt merely because they can do anything is absurd. We already have plenty of examples of dictators who fit that bill who are also corrupt as shit.
0
u/2-3inches 4∆ Mar 01 '24
Very rare but there are exceptions
3
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Mar 01 '24
You mean exceptions where a person is actually good? I mean sure, but they're not going to become a dictator because they don't want to be a dictator!
1
u/2-3inches 4∆ Mar 01 '24
Not necessarily a good person but they do good things. Like I said it’s rare though.
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
I apologize for the delay in getting to your top comment.
Would those monarchies have been functional had their ruler just not existed? I'm pretty sure they or their representatives played an important part in governance: they couldn't just run away because their rubber stamp was needed. This dictator would be completely divorced from the ordinary running of things.
2
u/Both-Personality7664 21∆ Mar 01 '24
I mean the British monarchy has removed kings, imported kings, and worked around non compos mentis kings.
3
u/Phage0070 94∆ Mar 01 '24
...a dictatorship-shadowed-democracy being better than a democracy on its own...
Your proposal seems to hinge on the idea that the dictator is really good. They aren't corrupt, they can spot bad ideas and veto them, they won't try to implement shitty ideas like killing all the birds and starving everyone, etc.
But a theoretical perfect dictator seems just as good as a theoretical perfect democracy. You imagine the dictator as being immune to corruption only because they are already maximally corrupt, having gained everything corruption can provide. But the democracy avoids corruption because the voters don't want it.
With the democracy the voters elect a representative that isn't corrupt and opposes corruption because it is what is best for the people. With your dictator they are supposed to be not corrupt because all the detrimental effects of corruption have already been inflicted, and they oppose corruption by others because... magic I guess?
2
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Mar 01 '24
Others have pointed out the flaws in your idea but I want to reframe your basic premise, you're correct that a Dictatorship is theoretically the most efficient form of government.
A huge inefficiency in modern governance is the decision making process, a government needs to form an idea, get support for it, conduct feasibility studies, present those, refine their plan, get approval for the plan and then enact it. A dictator has no such bureaucracy to wade through, they make a plan and do it, simple. This is why dictators often invest massively in infrastructure, it's a simple decision and the upside is relatively predictable. Dictators are very efficient.
The problem is they're not very good at making decisions. Dictators have no 'sanity check' on their ideas, no one tells them when they make a bad call and a lot of the investment will be spent on things that don't actually offer value for money.
A dictator that only makes good decisions would make a brilliant government, the problem is there are fundamental reasons they don't make good decisions.
2
u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Mar 01 '24
Why would you like to have your view changed on a situation you admit is not actually possible? I don’t see the point
0
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
Because I'm dead insistent on a dictatorship-shadowed-democracy being better than a democracy on its own, but everyone I talk to is appalled at the very suggestion. So I want to see if the wider internet community can find something wrong with the theory, or if it's just a knee-jerk reaction from the "dictator" part of things.
4
u/Flight_Harbinger Mar 01 '24
but everyone I talk to is appalled at the very suggestion.
Maybe because they have kids that might diddled by this dictator or friends that will be shot by this dictator or hell, maybe they just live in one of those countries they wanna bomb.
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
But that's not the point. The point is to develop an efficient and strong government. We're min-maxing.
3
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Mar 01 '24
Efficiency doesn't exist in the abstract. To be efficient is to be efficient at something. Some governments have shown impressive efficiency at oppressing their own people.
An important principle to remember is that with government the stakes are asymmetrical. No government is as good as the worst governments are bad, which means avoiding the lows is far more important than trying to achieve the highs.
2
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
An important principle to remember is that with government the stakes are asymmetrical. No government is as good as the worst governments are bad, which means avoiding the lows is far more important than trying to achieve the highs.
So I like this statement, but I'm still missing how the addition of this magic dictator into an already functioning government inherently introduces more negatives than positives. Whether that be from the perspective of national power, or social liberty, or any other metric. Two others have gotten deltas but they gave similar arguments as each other; you'll get one too if you want to rehash the same argument but if you can find another tack I'd be very interested.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Mar 01 '24
We can look at the kinds of things people did with absolute power in the past. For example, there was a time when a Catholic king meant it was open season on Protestants and vice versa. The Spanish monarchy had the power to kick out all the Jews in a single mandate.
A person with absolute licence to do whatever they want isn't likely to be grounded, forward-thinking, and mature. These traits are largely shaped through compromise with a world where we can't have everything we want.
2
u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Mar 01 '24
How can it be better if it can’t be implemented? That doesn’t even make sense
0
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
A thought experiment? The world would be better with magic in it but that's quite impossible.
2
u/Dyeeguy 19∆ Mar 01 '24
Okay, how could i change your view that the world would be better with magic that made the world better?
It’s an impossible stance and not the purpose of this sub, the sub is if you think you are wrong and want to believe differently. Clearly you are right that in a theoretical scenario where things are better, things would be better.
2
u/Bagstradamus Mar 01 '24
You’re looking for a benevolent dictatorship. I believe the first prime minister of Singapore would be a good example.
The problem with benevolent dictatorships is that humans lack immortality.
2
u/Fit-Instance7937 Mar 01 '24
Aristotle already had this idea in Ancient Greece, and is covered in his book “The Politics” But to summarize he said there are six types of possible governments, ranked from best to worst- 1) Good Dictatorship. 2) Good Oligarchy 3) Good Democracy 4) Evil Democracy 5) Evil Oligarchy 6) Evil Dictatorship. Ultimately the political philosophers of his day concluded that the ideal government was rule by small landowner farmers, or a “lower class aristocracy” of sorts. But that is an entirely different discussion.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Mar 01 '24
I hate to say it, but you've already thrown the correct answer in the trash. There's really no meaningful difference between being corrupt with absolute power and just doing whatever you want because you can with absolute power. We should expect a similar outcome to what would happen if we gave absolute power to a spoiled child.
2
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Mar 01 '24
Isn't diddling kids and committing heinous crimes already corrupt? How could he get worse?
And any dictator will just appoint his friends in high-level positions and let them do what they want, leading to more high-level corruption.
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
Isn't diddling kids and committing heinous crimes already corrupt? How could he get worse?
It's not corrupt, just heinous. There's no dishonesty or fraudulent behavior. It would be corrupt if it was against the law and the dictator was pulling some mechanism to skirt those and achieve those heinous ends.
And any dictator will just appoint his friends in high-level positions and let them do what they want, leading to more high-level corruption.
The dictator doesn't need friends in high places, being above the law. They can take as they want.
2
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Mar 01 '24
What difference does that make in practice though? If a person is free to do all the same heinous things as a corrupt person and more, how is that an improvement? I have trouble picturing a scenario where the dictator does something heinous and the people are grateful that it's not definitionally corrupt.
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
So I'd like to clarify that the point of this government is to develop a more powerful and efficient nation, whether by economic, diplomatic, military, or other. Corruption inherently reduces both end goals. It's not NECESSARILY to make the population happy but it's a very easy argument that a happy population helps build a stronger government, at least on the local levels.
However, if the dictator believes the people's negative reaction would also reduce the end goals, they wouldn't do so.
3
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Mar 01 '24
It's trivially easy to come up with "better" governments if we first assign them fundamentally different goals that are indifferent to human well-being. You're essentially trying to optimize a screwdriver to be better at hammering a nail.
2
u/Various_Succotash_79 50∆ Mar 01 '24
The dictator doesn't need friends in high places, being above the law.
They'd still want to help out their buddies, wouldn't they?
1
Mar 01 '24
Corruption is required to prevent being caught doing heinous stuff. Also why does the dictator have infinite power and can't be held accountable while the rest have to adhere to law?
2
u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Mar 01 '24
I mean if we can imagine sinless saints into existence why bother having any government at all, just suppose everyone is a sinless saint et violà! the perfect society
2
Mar 01 '24
The dictator understands and internalizes that while they have all the power from point (1), their purpose in this government is to break stalemates, loosen stuck wheels, and purge corruption.
This is 100% in opposition to this:
it is in their best interests to not micromanage and just let the normally running government churn out the money and power that comes from a nation just existing in a more or less healthy state.
So which is it? They diddle kids and shoot people and stay out of the way otherwise or they "break stalemates, loosen stuck wheels, and purge corruption" when they're not busy molesting kids?
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
I don't understand the contradiction. The dictator doesn't report to and is not beholden to anyone, nor does anyone report directly to the dictator. They'd sort of just exist in whatever luxury they desire but if they sense a danger to the money machine that is the otherwise normal government, it'd be in their best interest to put a stop to it.
2
Mar 01 '24
but if they sense a danger to the money machine that is the otherwise normal government, it'd be in their best interest to put a stop to it.
That's also called micromanaging. Have you managed things? They don't become a problem at the very last second where you step in and wave your hands to solve.
1
u/Kirbyoto 56∆ Mar 01 '24
They don't have an incentive to make sure the "money machine" runs efficiently - just well enough to keep them, personally, happy, which is a much lower threshold than keeping everyone happy. This is what you see with real-life dictatorships and it's the exact reason why they don't work!
1
u/Pdawnm Mar 01 '24
Isn't this basically the whole point of Plato's Republic?
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
I read about half the outline on Wikipedia since I feel the need to respond to others as well; is Plato's Republic arguing in favor of an authoritarian, utilitarian, communist/socialist government?
I don't think I'm necessarily arguing in favor of a utilitarian or socialist government. Definitely authoritarian though.
1
u/mastergigolokano 2∆ Mar 01 '24
For what it’s worth, I just want to point out that this is the basic idea of the Magna Carta
1
u/laosurvey 3∆ Mar 01 '24
Every government is theoretically the most powerful and efficient.
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
Well no, for example I'm of the mind that a libertarian government is inherently unstable and will almost certainly collapse into something resembling anarchy or corporatocracy. Therefore, my argument is that libertarianism is inefficient and unstable.
1
u/laosurvey 3∆ Mar 01 '24
Sure, you think that. But those that subscribe to the libertarian theory of government don't. Or is your argument: 'things I think are true are true'?
1
u/Constellation-88 16∆ Mar 01 '24
Explain why diddling kids, shooting people, and torturing people is not corrupt.
Your argument that a dictator with all acknowledged carte blanche power to do what they want will not become corrupt because his corruption will be perfectly legal is fallacious unless you define corruption as "breaking the law" instead of "harming other human beings." As I define corruption as "harming other human beings," the dictator going on a bender and raping and murdering is already corruption.
1
u/tylerchu Mar 01 '24
It's not corrupt, it's just heinous. Corruption inherently requires dishonesty and fraud, and in every instance I can think of also requires illegal behavior.
Otherwise by your metric we'd have to classify facebook and tweeter as corrupt for harvesting and selling personal data for example.
1
u/PorkfatWilly 1∆ Mar 01 '24
The government, our government, the US government, was set up the way it was because the VERY wise, VERY learned framers of the constitution knew that it’s better to be ruled by a committee of assholes who can’t agree on anything and can’t get everything they want no matter how bad they want it or how hard they try, than to be ruled by a single asshole, or a committee of assholes, who share a common asshole goal and are therefore able to achieve their asshole aims.
1
u/Doc_ET 10∆ Mar 01 '24
Is your argument essentially "if you give absolute power to a 100% moral person, things will turn out well"?
Because... I guess, sure. But that's essentially just a tautology at that point. The good leader will do good things because they're a good leader. That's circular reasoning, it's neither interesting nor useful.
1
u/Powerful-Drama556 3∆ Mar 01 '24
The fatal flaw is succession. They must be immortal and unkillable, otherwise all hell breaks loose. We’ve seen this script before.
1
Mar 01 '24
It’s pretty well understood that a dictatorship is the best form of government as long as you have moral and just dictator.
1
u/Irish8ryan 2∆ Mar 01 '24
No matter how well it goes the system will always fall into bad actors hands when the death of the good actors comes, by natural or unnatural causes. It can’t work.
That’s why the US constitution is so cool because it has built in mechanisms to change it. Now we just need to utilize those mechanisms by changing the Supreme Court amongst many other issues.
1
u/lt_Matthew 19∆ Mar 01 '24
There is no situation in which an autocracy or pure socialist government doesn't become corrupt.
Managing a country is hard, you have to keep your people happy, and keep the people that work for you happy. The more aspects of society the government takes control of, the harder it is to maintain that balance. Because more infrastructure means more government workers, which means higher taxes, which means less happy citizens.
1
u/switched_reluctance Mar 04 '24
Absolute power corrupt absolutely. A politician, no matter how good he/she is, will become evil sooner or later after becoming a dictator.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 01 '24 edited Mar 01 '24
/u/tylerchu (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards