Comment by deltaonefour | Hacker News Reader

Comment by deltaonefour | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>a benevolent dictatorship doesn't exist, because no benevolent person would survive the process of getting dictatorship.

Singapore is the first one that comes to mind.

See: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Benevolent_dictatorship

Additionally monarchies are essentially old forms of dictatorship with slightly different customs and titles. It's one and the same and plenty of good kingdoms exist. I have PLENTY of examples:

   The Pharaohs of ancient Egypt;
   The Byzantine Emperors;
   The Habsburg Monarchy in its various incarnations;
   The Capetian Kings of France;
   The Tsars;
   The Tang, Ming and Qing - my three favorite Chinese dynasties;
   The Incas.

If you’re looking for something more present-day, I’d look into Bhutan, Lichtenstein and Monaco.

Tibet it also an example. A little iffy this one, it's actually not benevolent but the West has definitely painted them as such to use as propaganda against China. Chinas actions against Tibet were quite horrific and wrong but even still... Tibet was not an example of a benevolent dictatorship... more of an example how a dictatorship can be PERCIEVED as benevolent and how your perceptions can be easily influenced. Tibet and China is an example of evil acting on evil to simplify the situation, but again I want to emphasize that the actual reality is not so black and white.

You may also want to look into the term enlightened absolutism.

Also China is an example of a benevolent dictatorship despite all the bad things they've done (TBH China is more of a mixed bag, and by mixed bag I mean both benevolent and self interested at the same time... but then again so is the US).

You cannot deny that the rise of China has been unprecedented. The amount of people lifted out of poverty at such a velocity has never been seen before in the history of human civilization. That is benevolence. While of course what is happening in Xinjiang is not benevolence; blinding yourself to the good because of the bad is irrational. You must acknowledge both.

Singapore, maybe. China, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps can't be bothered to look for atrocities they've committed before 2010...

US has its share of bad stuff, too, but I never said they're benevolent. They're a democracy, which means the winner of a beauty contest is in power instead of somebody who took forcefully or has been gifted it. No good options here, but at least in the contest somebody actually wins.

If you read the last paragraph of my post you'd see I addressed Xinjiang. You should try reading that fully before replying because your response is redundant.

Lifting an entire population out of poverty and into a 1st world status is benevolence at an unprecedented scale. It cannot be ignored.

> Tibet it also an example. A little iffy this one, it's actually not benevolent but the West has definitely painted them as such to use as propaganda against China

Or perhaps you've bought on to the Chinese propaganda to justify Tibet's invasion, subsequent occupation and genocide of Tibetans by China.

And, China benevolent, oh please...

>You cannot deny that the rise of China has been unprecedented. The amount of people lifted out of poverty at such a velocity has never been seen before in the history of human civilization. That is benevolence. While of course what is happening in Xinjiang is not benevolence; blinding yourself to the good because of the bad is irrational. You must acknowledge both.

Just copying what I wrote earlier. This is benevolence on a scale huge scale.

Ask how the benevolence of CCP is turning out for Tibet, Xinjiang and perhaps other sections of Chinese minorities and even China's neighbors.

You cannot pick and choose to define bullies and human rights' abusers as benevolent just because they benefited their preferred section of society.

>You cannot pick and choose to define bullies and human rights' abusers as benevolent just because they benefited their preferred section of society.

Right just like how the US enslaved black people and put the Japanese in internment camps, slaughtered millions of civilians with nuclear bombs in world war 2, displaced entire societies of pacific islanders because of the same testing of nuclear bombs, killed thousands of Chinese Americans building railroad tracks...

The US has it's fair share of atrocities. Many of them on par with China if not Worse. Do these atrocities define a nation? No. No they do not. However they remain a part of the nations identity permanently.

It is the same with China. The atrocities do not define a nation that is far more complex then the black and white characterization you seem so adamant about maintaining. The benevolence of lifting an entire civilization out of poverty into first world status isn't just a "preferred section" of society. China is the most populous country in the world with 18.47% of all humans living in that country. It is a major achievement and more people would be suffering in the world right now if China didn't exist.

What's the preferred section of society in the US? White people? Come on man. You may not want to call China Benevolent but looking at the US and other countries, China is no more and no less benevolent then the other places.

The main point here is that "dictatorship" doesn't necessarily automatically mean a horrible regime of hitler level evil. Just like how it's hard to call the US purely good or purely evil it is the same with China.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com