Keptquisling’s Weblog

The definition of a benevolent dictator itself is against human nature. We are all essentially hardwired for self preservation, and the preservation of our closest kin. We will always prefer to help the ones we know, people who are close to us. People who we have a direct relationship with. Helping people who will have a direct cause and effect impact on our lives, be it emotionally or physically will always be preferable.

Would this Benevolent dictatorship mean sacrificing certain human rights such as freedom of religion, and freedom of speech for the perceived “greater good?” Some of the more recent examples of “Benevolent dictators” suppressed the publication of religious books.

Then there’s the question of “benevolence” itself, is this benevolence just altruism? Or is it benevolence rooted in some religious belief? Altruism doesn’t work because we’re not ants, and a Benevolent dictator motivated by Christianity would be great, if you’re a Christian. A better basis for a society would be a society focused on protecting individual human rights, don’t you think? Or am I over-estimating common sense?

 The benevolent dictator is a more modern version of enlightened absolutism[citation needed], being an undemocratic or authoritarian leader who exercises his or her political power for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own self-interest or benefit, or for the benefit of only a small portion of the people.”  isn’t wiki great?