Talk:Benevolent dictatorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics / Oligarchy (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Oligarchy task force.


Because open source software may be forked, such "dictatorships" are fully voluntary and incorporate the democratic ideal of "consent of the governed". This statement is highly POV. And it doesn't make sense. A dictatorship is by definition not voluntary for anybody but the dictator. A dictator may (needs to) enjoy some support, but even consent to be ruled over is not democracy. According to Popper, democracy requires that the leader can be overthrown, not that some subjects can sail off to an island and found a new state. There's a huge cost involved with forking. Unpopular forks and fragmented projects will just die and all effort will be in vain. "Benevolent dictators" are always self-appointed, they are alpha types who want to keep ownership and control, but offload the work to the crowd and get free publicity.-- (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bad analogy that someone just made up. I've removed it. Recury (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Economic Modeling[edit]

I don't have any sources, but oftentimes economic modelers use the construct of a benevolent dictator to describe an altruistic planner who optimizes the entire economic system's operation for the common good. This probably could use some mention here if anyone has the relevant sources or experience. (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

benevolent dictator versus corrupted elected government[edit]

It would seem that a benevolent dictator does more good for his or her country than the waste that ensues when an elected government is corrupted by external money just to get elected. Dictators such as Castro, Khadafi and to some extent Chavez have put their lives on the line so that their homeland could be run more efficiently to the benefit of its citizens who receive free medical care, education and transport. In some cases, the dictator allows a government to be elected for the day-to-day decision-making and as in the case of Chavez allowed his dictatorship to be confirmed through general election. Compared to the prime example of "democratic" government, the United States of America, where more than half of the congress is indebted to the Jews of the U.S.A. and Israel and where more money is spent on overseas adventurism for the benefit only of major corporations to the detriment of its own people, the regimes of Castro, Khadafi and Chavez must be commended. In the case of the U.S.A. where the "elected" President caves in to the corrupted demands of his congress that has been bought by lobbyists, government is definitely NOT of the people, by the people for the people but for the Corporations instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I agree as well, but wtf does that have to do with the article? Good paragraph, though. Xzpx (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Tone seems to be adequately encyclopedic[edit]

I came to this on the basis of the community pages, as an article needing style editing. I saw one sentence that was clumsy and adjusted it, but don't see problems with the tone or style. It seems adequately encyclopedic to me. So, I am removing the category that flags it for problems with tone. Of course, if someone disagrees, they can put it back, but if they do it would help to point out specifically what the problem is. AlbertBickford (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Kārlis Ulmanis[edit]

I know nothing about Kārlis Ulmanis (haven't even read the article), but I noticed that searching for 'Kārlis Ulmanis benevolent' via Google gives me several hits (some of them - several books - may be reliable). Maybe Google Books has more hits. -- (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


Article has been semiprotected two months per an edit warring complaint (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)