Sara Hoyt talks to Instapundit about There’s No Such Thing as a Benevolent Dictatorship. Sorry – subscription only. And no – I don’t get a cut for subscriptions.
Sarah On Pajamas
by
Tags:
Sara Hoyt talks to Instapundit about There’s No Such Thing as a Benevolent Dictatorship. Sorry – subscription only. And no – I don’t get a cut for subscriptions.
by
Tags:
Comments
3 responses to “Sarah On Pajamas”
Has anyone watched the video? I haven’t and I am not about to subscribe just to do so.
I’m wondering what the argument is. Is there an argument, or is this idea that there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator merely being presented as an a priori assumption?
Let’s imagine a family. The family consists of father, mother, and children. (The ideologically vacuous may imagine there is a single parent, but this is cowardice.) The father is the final arbiter of all decisions made by the family. This doesn’t mean he makes all decisions; the rest of the family are not his slaves. He merely retains veto power. Naturally he solicits advice from other family members, but it is his job to make the final decision as to what is best for the family. He loves his wife, the mother of his children; he works to provide a home for her and the children. He loves their children as well, and his major goal in life is to provide a reasonably good future for their children.
Is this man not both (a) a dictator and (b) benevolent? Discuss.
If we agree on the definitions of “dictator” and “benevolent” to the extent that our thus-far-imagined man is both, then in order for the claim “there is no such thing as a benevolent dictator” to be true, it would be necessary to accept the claim that it is Not Possible for such a man to exist, ever, in any conceivable reality.
I’m going to offer another a priori observation: If you claim “there is no such thing as _________” you are probably incorrect, as you must have a reasonably specific idea of what _________ is, which means that, statistically, there probably are a few out there in the universe, which is very very very very very very very very very big and has been around for a while. A caveat is, “Unless your God or Gods tell you otherwise, and you believe it.” Which, ceteris paribus, is a perfectly fine way to make decisions in life, and much better than some alternatives, as long as you remember that (i) _You_ are not God, and (ii) you don’t have any business pretending to craft a rational argument based on faith in received wisdom from a higher power.
ChevalierdeJohnstone,
That was a most excellent critique of something you haven’t watched. I can’t wait for your next one.
===
We have Sarah Hoyt fans who read this blog. I like to keep them informed.
Chevalier,
It was a dictatorship as in regime, not family. Look, dictatorship is something that, as in communism or oligarchy or a ton of other human forms of “governance” works very well in SMALL voluntary (or highly unequal) groups, like families and groups of friends.
It works badly as a government because governments are FORCE. If someone is forcing you to do something you pray the “dictator” knows you REALLY well.
My view of it, government/nation wise is that if it’s benevolent it has no need to be a dictatorship. Dictatorships mean giving one person the power to make decisions for everyone. Even the best of men, thinking he does it for the good of all will goof on that one.
Sorry, going through a dry patch on blog posts, but will be willing to take that on as soon as I can. Particularly since it’s one of the (few) things I disagree with Heinlein on.