Would you give up rights to have a benevolent dictator ruling your country?

[Banzai]

Of course this is just hypothetical because most countries would not allow a dictatorship to happen and even if they did the person would sure as hell not be benevolent.

But what IF, a good person, someone truely believing in equality for all and caring for all people, animals and the environment, someone who would never be corrupted by money or power, took up the position of ruling your country without having to answer to anyone.

Would you be cool with giving up your right to vote and be a part of the decision making process in politics? To be at the mercy of whatever consequences might arise in the process of working for "the greater good"?

Weird question I guess, but the more I think about politics the more I think that a benevolent dictatorship is the only form of governance that could actually form a flawlessly functioning society.
It's just fantasy, though. Or Sci-Fi, if we're talking about impartial AIs making all political decisions for us. But that sounds like a coin flip between having a working society and extermination of all humans by machines.

 

[nsilvias]

power corrupts people. so no.

 

[Deleted member 18502]

Of course not.

 

[Taka]

Works for Singapore.

 

[Scrooge]

No.

 

[Pedrito]

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[Buzzman]

This is no different from utopian communism. Neither will ever happen.

 

[Officer Big Mac]

Only if that benevolent dictator is Sandy Duncan.

 

[Geist]

It's not like benevolent dictators have never existed. The problems come when either their views start changing as they get older or they die and someone worse takes their place.

Now, an eternal benevolent AI might be worth considering.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I can't think of a situation where a benelovent dictator stays benelovent since nobody I've seen or heard of has shown they can handle the power properly.

 

[Deleted member 2226]

Of course. A benevolent dictator in theory would be the best form of governance.

But there's no simply no way to have a perfect incorruptible dictator or at least demonstrate that, and even if you somehow managed to swing that part, things would go to hell over succession anyhow. Democracy isn't the best form of government out there, but it's the least terrible, and at the end of the day I'd rather have a voice in the flawed system than none at all.

(Not to mention even if you have the perfect human and leader as your executive, their will is going to have to be enforced by agents who would likely be corruptible, and the mechanism to remove them would be extremely difficult in such a top-heavy system.)

It's not like benevolent dictators have never existed. The problems come when either their views start changing as they get older or they die and someone worse takes their place.

Now, an eternal benevolent AI might be worth considering.

Click to shrink...

Given that you'd need a human/team of humans to program said AI and how we're terrible at 'neutral' programming, I don't think that would work either. Reminds me of how machine learning programs can learn to cheat—unintended consequences are always going to crop up.

 

[Deleted member 198]

The fuck?
No.

 

[entremet]

I'm conflicted honestly. Because sometimes I feel Democracy is all an illusion anyway. Monied interest dominate politics in my country.

 

[Metallix87]

There's no such thing as a benevolent dictator.

 

[spineduke]

i've been wrangling with this question somewhat. where i live, the political process is so stagnant and complacent (politicians who've been in power for decades, and entrenched themselves) that nothing short of a revolution or a dictator is needed to shake up the process. im talking about 70-80% corruption at the very least.

revolution is unlikely, as the power distribution is broken across so many lines, but some sort of forward thinking dictator may work.


yes i know its madness, but its nice to dream sometimes about simple solutions

 

[Saganator]

power corrupts people. so no.

Click to shrink...

We need AI rulers!

I wouldn't. Might be fine and dandy for a while, even if the leader is incorruptible, what happens after they're gone?

 

[Banzai]

Seems a lot of people are skipping over the word "hypothetical" there. And over the part about the hypothetical person being of flawless character. Or over the whole OP, idk.

 

[Infinity Times Two]

We need AI rulers!

Click to shrink...

In theory, yes, but you need to make sure people won't fuck with the algorithm.

 

[AxeVince]

There is no benevolent dictator and will never be.
At some point, the pressure will be so big that they'll accept bribes to do this or that.
Hypothesis are good when they are somwhat realistic, human nature shows that what you are describing is more a dream than anything else.

 

[AlsoZ]

Even the best, most benevolent, most perfect autocratic leader will die/resign at some point and leave the country to others who could be the opposite, except with the absolute leadership system already in place.

 

[ConanEd]

Silly question to ask, even authoritarian countries would never use the term "give up", let along the word "dictator".

This is Kindergarten political science.

 

[shnurgleton]

THE GREATER GOOD

 

[Azzanadra]

I would say, Democracy is not just about the outcome but the principle. It affirms human dignity and value, it just so happens Democracy has been the most prosperous firm of governance as well.

 

[MrChom]

Every government requires humanity to surrender rights they or their ancestors may have had before. The big question is....what rights?

 

[siddx]

Worked fairly well in Singapore and Oman. So its possible.

 

[Dark Knight]

ONLY if it were a benevolent/altruistic AI.

Humans can suck a fat cock, they corrupt way too easily and you don't know how bad the next in line is gonna be.

 

[Stowaway Silfer]

In theory, yes. If guaranteed that a "benevolent" leader would be in charge then there's no reason for me to say no. Any drawbacks I can think of would just end up changing the actual terms of the question.

 

[Deleted member 19066]

Even if a ruler is truly just and benevolent s/he will still set the stage for a bunch of assholes to rule later. It'll just legitimize future dictators.

Same goes for AI. Y'all ever stop to think who programs/feeds data into AIs in the first place?

 

[sir_crocodile]

what happens when they die though?

could be replaced by the benevolent general krull and his glorious new regime

 

[NekoFever]

A hypothetical benevolent dictator who will do what's right for the people at all times without consideration for their own wellbeing, status and enrichment would arguably be the best, most efficient form of government.

But it doesn't exist, so no.

And even if it did, how do you handle succession when the benevolent dictator retires or dies and those powers must pass to someone who is most likely not as scrupulous?

It's another one of these things that sounds great in theory but doesn't survive contact with the real world.

 

[BossAttack]

We need AI rulers!

Click to shrink...

Exactly. Yes to an AI Overlord. No to any human. Because, even if they are incorruptible, what happens when they're gone? In fact, the more time they were in power the worse the situation would be when they left, assuming they didn't groom a perfect successor, as people would have gotten complacent under their "perfect" and wise rule. No one would know how to properly govern themselves after they left.

 

[Officer Big Mac]

We need AI rulers!

?

Click to shrink...

 

[Hollywood Duo]

Sounds like the start to a JRPG

 

[Culex]

Dictators are only benevolent when they get everything they want.

 

[Deleted member 198]

Seems a lot of people are skipping over the word "hypothetical" there. And over the part about the hypothetical person being of flawless character. Or over the whole OP, idk.

Click to shrink...

Because hypotheticals are pointless when our observation of the world and past to influence the response.
Like, what's the point in asking if I'd be okay with a hypothetical perfect world? Why would anyone say no to something that can't go wrong?
There's nothing to discuss if it extends to the same Utopia that extreme capitalists and commies dream of.

 

[Xenocthul]

No, one day that person will die and I have no guarantee the next will be a good person.

 

[Deleted member 19066]

Worked fairly well in Singapore and Oman. So its possible.

Click to shrink...

Did it, though?

 

[Dommo]

No.

Weird question I guess, but the more I think about politics the more I think that a benevolent dictatorship is the only form of governance that could actually form a flawlessly functioning society.

Click to shrink...

There is no flawlessly functioning society. Even the kindest, most empathetic leader is prone to their own biases and stubbornness. When they're not serving the will of the people, they're going to very quickly get lost in their own perception of what is and what isn't important for the country, even with the best of intentions.

And then if you've somehow struck fucking gold and landed on Jesus Christ himself to run the country until death, who's going to replace him? His child? The one who's grown up completely removed from any kind of average life? Or does this wise old man manage to pick another flawless candidate based on merit to take over? How idealised can we go with this hypothetical and at what point is it all redundant? Eventually, you're going to get a disastrous dictator, and there'll be no checks and balances to pull them back from the brink.

A strong democracy is the best system we currently have. You'll notice that America isn't actually running like a fully fledged democracy because the leaders aren't fully subservient to the wider population due to their need to pander to corporations to stay financially relevant. That is the biggest problem with your system - that you're not democratic enough. The opposite direction is.... ill-advised.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Seems a lot of people are skipping over the word "hypothetical" there. And over the part about the hypothetical person being of flawless character. Or over the whole OP, idk.

Click to shrink...

benevolence and dictatorships are incompatible. To be a dictator is to force your will on someone who doesn't agree. Just as no two people hold exactly 100% the same opinions, so such would a dictator. On at least some subjects, he would appear benevolent.

 

[Banzai]

I can definitely see the issue with succession. To find another such a unicorn of a person that is flawless is so far into fantasy that we might as well think about how we can implant the brain of the first dear leader into a computer.

AIs in general are scary though. As someone said, some flawed human(s) will have to create that AI.

 

[Coyote Starrk]

No Trump you can't have my rights. Stop asking.

 

[Aurongel]

We need AI rulers!

I wouldn't. Might be fine and dandy for a while, even if the leader is incorruptible, what happens after they're gone?

Click to shrink...

AI is just a reflection of whatever data you feed it. If the data is collected poorly or in a biased way and say for example shows a higher rate of drug crime among black people then you could reasonably expect the AI to come to the conclusion that they're more likely to commit crime across the board.

It's why I think we're really going to see AI racial profiling take off in the coming decade, especially as countries like China implement their facial ID systems.

 

[viskod]

If they were actually benevolent I wouldn't have to give up any rights.

 

[BossAttack]

There is no benevolent dictator and will never be.
At some point, the pressure will be so big that they'll accept bribes to do this or that.
Hypothesis are good when they are somwhat realistic, human nature shows that what you are describing is more a dream than anything else.

Click to shrink...

I don't think that is the problem, the problem is that "benevolent" changes from person to person. An AI ruler would be incorruptible and could be programmed to do what is best for humanity, but what is "best" for humanity is not something we all agree on. So, to me an AI that gives everyone free healthcare, education, equal rights, and allows women autonomy over their own bodies would benevolent. But, to a conservative they would be an oppressive dictator.

 

[R0b1n]

Even Singapore at least puts on the pretense of a democracy, and technically the citizens can vote the ruling party out

 

[iapetus]

Your dictator needs to be not only benevolent, but also immortal, good at adapting to change, and very good at their job, particularly when it comes to influencing things outside their sphere of control. If we can get one of those, then probably. At that point, though, aren't you pretty damn close to a theocracy?

 

[SArcher]

 

[Infinity Times Two]

AI is just a reflection of whatever data you feed it. If the data is collected poorly or in a biased way and say for example shows a higher rate of drug crime among black people then you could reasonably expect the AI to come to the conclusion that they're more likely to commit crime across the board.

It's why I think we're really going to see AI racial profiling take off in the coming decade, especially as countries like China implement their facial ID systems.

Click to shrink...

Even if the AI is built "fairly", it could end up in a "The only way to win is to not play" situation and nuke us from orbit.

 

[marrec]

The problem is that a benevolent dictator erodes the political power of the people and so in the future when the benevolent dictator would inevitably have to pass on their dictatorship the remaining state would be in a worse position to check that dictator if they weren't preferred.

Also dictatorships, no matter how beneficial, breed resentment because they remove agency from individual people in the political process. So even if you had an immortal dictator who was eternally benevolent eventually there would be a backlash from a populace that feels they've had political will removed.

 

[BossAttack]

AI is just a reflection of whatever data you feed it. If the data is collected poorly or in a biased way and say for example shows a higher rate of drug crime among black people then you could reasonably expect the AI to come to the conclusion that they're more likely to commit crime across the board.

It's why I think we're really going to see AI racial profiling take off in the coming decade, especially as countries like China implement their facial ID systems.

Click to shrink...

Well, the ideal AI is one that can collect data itself not just rely on what you feed it. It would monitor all human activity across the entire planet as well as scour all historical records to determine the "correct" solutions.