[guard-of-terra]

It seems that people (in power; but especially ones commenting on such articles; those with cynical spin mostly) perceive life in a country as a computer game.

Where "dissidents" will happen to your country, and you have to implement "measures" to make them go away, and then you call it a day. Because game rules incentivize you to do exactly that.

The reality is: Life happens to your country. People happen to your country. Things happen to your country that are outside of your control. DDR's Stasi had kilogramms of dossiers on every its citizen, and it got scrapped in a few days with as little as a handshake.

[TeMPOraL]

In some areas, it would be so much better if countries were really ruled like sim games. You need more energy for growth and global warming threatens your future? You start building goddamn nuclear power plants. No political bickering, no clueless citizens protesting everything at random because of fear or propaganda.

[guard-of-terra]

In some other areas, it would be a disaster. I have a habit of ditching game parties where I don't like the outcome. Do we want people to take risk and then just drop it and leave when it doesn't work? Because we've been there with top management compensation.

Most players are lousy at games they play, because they make movies they enjoy instead of movies that are proven best.

[im3w1l]

Enlightened despotism used to be a popular idea. I don't think it works because there is no guarantee they despot will optimize for country outcome rather than personal enjoyment.

[TeMPOraL]

Even Bible notes at some point that you have no guarantee that the son of the enlightened despot will be as good as his father. Still, the effectiveness of that type of rule is very appealing, especially comparing to the impotence of democracy and the fact that we have serious global problems that need to be solved right fucking now.

[amyjess]

My main worry about enlightened despotism is "what happens when the despot kicks the bucket?". No guarantee their successor will be as enlightened as them.

If you solve the succession problem, enlightened despotism starts sounding very good.

[jqm]

Except the term "enlightened" is most often relative to a groups desired outcomes...

[TeMPOraL]

That's good enough. It's better to have a stable and reasonable ruler that tries to do the Right Thing (i.e. optimize globally in the scale of country) than everyone trying to have it their - however smart or stupid - way.

[jqm]

Well I don't fully disagree, but then there are the "enlightened" rulers of ISIS trying to do the "right thing" for humanity...