I mean it's a contradiction in terms. No doubt there have been dictators who thought they were benevolent because they didn't know any better, were victims of circumstance, and so forth, but surely the first task of a benevolent dictator would be to resign the dictator part.
When King Wangchuck of Druk Yul[Bhutan] abdicated the throne and started a democracy the people protested. One said, "they [the legislators] will only look out for themselves."
Heroic myths such as Smith's capitalism often employ the fallacy of the false alternative to produce (and reproduce) themselves. There is no philosophical warrant to respect that process nor any part of it.
Objectively, what you're saying makes no sense. "We must have this dictator, or that" is apparently a choice made collectively by the people; yet nobody wants to be a slave, which is what dictatorship is, and in reason no one should want to be. Why would they? Maybe these communities are under foreign duress, like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, who, as nations and communities, have been under attack for generations, mostly from European and American powers. Being invited to enslave yourself by armed thugs is not really a choice.
So you're saying people want, but don't want what they want? I'm not talking about people deciding they would rather eat than starve. I was trying to rule out force, fraud, bamboozlement, confusion, social pressure, and so on, which can certainly confuse or destroy people's will. What you seem to be specifying is a will to be without will, to be ruled. Well, maybe.
But I was wondering how those Cubans managed to imagine their revolution. Who authorized them?
Somewhere over the rainbow....
When Judy Garland's voice leaps up an octave into the Empyrean and says, "My pure will, my pure desire,l is more beautiful than anything on Earth," who sent for the cops of physics?
I am seeing the situation through the eyes of a person who, due to a series of historical accidents, has had a choice. The Cubans were not so fortunate, so, in order to proceed with their lives free from abject slavery, have had to organize themselves in a military, that is to say, authoritarian way. People who are defending themselves from violence are not expressing a preference for authoritarianism. They might organize themselves very differently if their enemies were removed. Deprecating freedom as dumb is self-contradictory. People, like cats and dogs, want what they want, and not something else.
I mean it's a contradiction in terms. No doubt there have been dictators who thought they were benevolent because they didn't know any better, were victims of circumstance, and so forth, but surely the first task of a benevolent dictator would be to resign the dictator part.
When King Wangchuck of Druk Yul[Bhutan] abdicated the throne and started a democracy the people protested. One said, "they [the legislators] will only look out for themselves."
I could go on...
Heroic myths such as Smith's capitalism often employ the fallacy of the false alternative to produce (and reproduce) themselves. There is no philosophical warrant to respect that process nor any part of it.
Objectively, what you're saying makes no sense. "We must have this dictator, or that" is apparently a choice made collectively by the people; yet nobody wants to be a slave, which is what dictatorship is, and in reason no one should want to be. Why would they? Maybe these communities are under foreign duress, like Syria, Iraq, and Iran, who, as nations and communities, have been under attack for generations, mostly from European and American powers. Being invited to enslave yourself by armed thugs is not really a choice.
So you're saying people want, but don't want what they want? I'm not talking about people deciding they would rather eat than starve. I was trying to rule out force, fraud, bamboozlement, confusion, social pressure, and so on, which can certainly confuse or destroy people's will. What you seem to be specifying is a will to be without will, to be ruled. Well, maybe.
But I was wondering how those Cubans managed to imagine their revolution. Who authorized them?
Somewhere over the rainbow....
When Judy Garland's voice leaps up an octave into the Empyrean and says, "My pure will, my pure desire,l is more beautiful than anything on Earth," who sent for the cops of physics?
I am seeing the situation through the eyes of a person who, due to a series of historical accidents, has had a choice. The Cubans were not so fortunate, so, in order to proceed with their lives free from abject slavery, have had to organize themselves in a military, that is to say, authoritarian way. People who are defending themselves from violence are not expressing a preference for authoritarianism. They might organize themselves very differently if their enemies were removed. Deprecating freedom as dumb is self-contradictory. People, like cats and dogs, want what they want, and not something else.
I don't think you know much about Syria.