Sorry, but again, you're just rejecting the premise of the thought experiment, which is "what if it were possible to always have a benevolent dictator, would that be the best government?".
This is a silly way to engage with a thought experiment. It's like if you responded to the popular "what if the allies lost WW2?" thought experiment with, "well, they didn't". Yes ... but you've missed the point.
I agree that this particular thought experiment about the best form of government is very silly because of how ridiculous the premise is.
But one thing that's slightly interesting about it is that it actually illuminates this difference of opinion I have with these people. Even if I accept the premise that it's possible to always have a benevolent dictator, I still don't agree that it's good!
The problem is that there’s no single definition of what makes a government “best.” Even putting aside the massive problems of what sort of outcomes we’re looking for (I have a feeling that Yarvin and I don’t agree on what criteria we’d use to judge this), the timeframe is not specified. It’s perfectly reasonable to interpret that as “over five years,” “while the benevolent dictator is alive,” or “forever, and also the dictator is immortal.” I’m not rejecting the premise, I’m merely interpreting it as the second one. The third one isn’t a counterfactual like “what if the Nazis won,” it’s more like “what if Hitler was 50ft tall and had super strength?” It’s ignoring basic, universally accepted truth about human biology. It might be fun to imagine, but when talking about the real world it makes no sense. I choose to assume that the people who accept this premise want to make sense, so I assume they mean a real, human dictator who will eventually die.
Incidentally, I not only accept that premise, I believe it. A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, while it lasts. The only advantage of democracy over benevolent dictatorship is long term stability beyond the lifespan of the rulers. But this is such a big advantage that it puts democracy solidly on top.
> It might be fun to imagine, but when talking about the real world it makes no sense. I choose to assume that the people who accept this premise want to make sense, so I assume they mean a real, human dictator who will eventually die.
I think this is where you're wrong. I think it only makes sense as a nonsensical thought experiment. A single benevolent dictator for five years is also implausible to the point of silliness.
But again, the thought experiment is very mildly interesting because it actually does highlight this disagreement that you and I have. I just don't agree with you at all that "A benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, while it lasts". It's not only because it can't last (and I would say, can't exist to begin with) that it is bad. It is also bad because even if it could exist, it would still deprive the governed of any representation.
I’m very utilitarian. To me, representation is a means to an end. The most important aspect of it is giving people an outlet for grievances that doesn’t involve violence. Secondarily, it incentivizes the people who run things to do things that regular people want.
But if a benevolent dictator can keep people sufficiently satisfied not to turn to violence, and does a better job of running things than elected representatives would? Sounds great to me, while it works.
Right, I just disagree with this utilitarian frame. I understand that lots of people buy this, but I think it's poorly reasoned. But it's your prerogative to see it this way! I just don't.
But my point here has been that to the small extent this is an interesting thought experiment, it's because it draws out this disagreement.
This is a silly way to engage with a thought experiment. It's like if you responded to the popular "what if the allies lost WW2?" thought experiment with, "well, they didn't". Yes ... but you've missed the point.
I agree that this particular thought experiment about the best form of government is very silly because of how ridiculous the premise is.
But one thing that's slightly interesting about it is that it actually illuminates this difference of opinion I have with these people. Even if I accept the premise that it's possible to always have a benevolent dictator, I still don't agree that it's good!