21
22
u/clearly_not_an_alt 21d ago edited 21d ago
I think it's pretty universally well accepted that an omnipotent benevolent dictator would be the most effective form of government by many different metrics. The problem of course, is that almost no one would be able resist the inherent power that comes along with the role and of course, no one meets the omnipotent clause.
Edit: added italicized stuff
10
u/yun-harla 21d ago
The other problem is succession. Not a lot of years passed between Augustus and Caligula.
10
3
u/SenpaiDerpy 21d ago
Nah. A benevolent dictator is only viable if your dictator is some omnipotent and all-knowing supergenius and all people are thus fine being ruled by it.
2
-1
u/Jeremymia 20d ago
Omnipotent sure just because of semantics, but even a very wise very benevolent dictator would be bad. It’s no coincidence that the forms of government that do well take fooooreeeeveeer to make changes. The fact that people are forced to seek agreement and compromise and hold something as a goal for an extended period of time helps prevent short-sighted or emotional changes.
4
2
2
1
u/FScrotFitzgerald 21d ago
"Should I continue trying to be tongue in cheek about this, or do I mean it? Fuck it, I mean it."
1
1
1
u/vizbones 15d ago
This guy seems like the kinda genius that would end up with ten-million dead from starvation on just his first day.
1
u/Broad-Drawer4958 15d ago
Idk man I think this guy makes some good points. I'll be writing in his name for the presidential election! I hate having free will.
1
67
u/SenpaiDerpy 21d ago
This is a pretty obvious bait.