No. But your premise is also false. A dictator shouldn't work for the benefit of each and every member of humankind, they should work on behalf of the good, honest, and productive members of their national community.
It also poses another interesting idea: if groupthink is inevitable and humans are herd-based social creatures, it is the moral duty of a strong leader to instill good onto them.
Does allowing for more autonomy simply allow for different kinds of authoritarian leaders to rule?
I'm not sure that going in this direction is fruitful since my question was really a rhetorical one.
I cannot imagine how we would be able to have any sort of institution/entity/dictator in charge that optimizes for what is morally good and ensures material abundance without ever failing.
I'd also state that this line of thought is based on a hidden premise: do you think we can, as mankind, define a set of objective values and goals to be pursued? The question of how to then pursue these is necessarily secondary
Yes, I do think there are objective values which should be pursued. What do you think of Nayib Bukele? He's a decent example of the type of leadership I'm imagining.
Don't know much about him to be honest, he seems to have done quite a few things for El Salvador as far as I know.
So yes we can have good leaders, I'm just not sure they're reliable over the long term. Best case, they get replaced over the decades and nothing ensures we get good ones again
True. It's a tough balance to strike. These thoughts stem from my desire to have my community and my country share my values and interests.
