[mikeash]

Democracy is awful in all sorts of ways. Its one major advantage is non-violent succession, something other systems really struggle with.

Dictatorships can be great for a whole, but eventually you get a mad dictator or two people who both think they should be the dictator and it all falls apart.

[mempko]

Dictatorships are never great. Using economic arguments to support dictatorship is just being lazy, stupid, or both.

[chillacy]

Even though I think you’re right, you haven’t actually made an argument at all except repeating the mantra that “dictatorships aren’t great”.

[jenscow]

So, perhaps people should be able to vote for their dictator? :)

[michaelscott]

This is how the Romans thought of dictators, yes. The dictator was elected by nomination and then given supreme authority over state affairs, although usually only in a specific area of governance and with severe term limits.

The last guy who said "screw term limits" was ol' Julius Caesar, but he was iced not long after on the Ides of March and the office of dictator was abolished.

The title of dictator has taken on a negative connotation in the recent past for obvious reasons, but the idea of a competent or even brilliant man being given total control in order to accomplish a specific task for the good of a country is certainly something to consider regarding governance.

[mikeash]

That can work, until the dictator decides he doesn’t want to give up power and changes the rules. You need a system that makes it really hard to change the fundamental shape of the system itself, which isn’t compatible with dictators.

[torstenvl]

I mean, that's almost how the longest-running (partial) democracy in the world is run - the Roman Catholic Church.