You might get lucky and get a good dictator once every millinium or so. How about this: Let each persons conscinece dictate, couple this with the NAP and bam. I happen to be a big fan of the Bill of Rights, but me just dumb fuck so not matter nun.
The problem is, who enforces the NAP? People will find other ways to forcibly steal property and all that other good stuff. A minarchy can at least stop some people from doing it if enough people agree that its a bad idea. Anarchy could theoretically do the same thing with sufficient support, I guess, but its really the same dilemma. You need a freedom culture before either will work.
There is no such thing as a "benevolent" dictator. There cannot be. Benevolent intentions mean nothing if the outward result of dictatorship is malevolent. The very concept of a dictator necessitates malevolent results for someone.
Mao's ostensibly benevolent intentions for "China" resulted in the butchering of the better part of 100 million people. I will add that the malevolent results do not have to be so dramatic. They can be far more innocuous seeming. Michael Bloomberg is an excellent example of this, where his unilateral dictatorial mandates banning the sale of soft drinks over 16 oz. and the use of salt in restaurant foods might seem like no big deal. After all, his intentions are for the good health of the people of NYC.
No big deal? VERY big deal.
It is good that you are casting about for answers, but be warned against falling for simplistic and fallacious approaches. There are no free lunches. Freedom costs.
I guess that depends on what "Benevolent" means. A benevolent dictator could only tax enough to enforce the NAP and could only pass laws against people who violate the NAP. Granted, you would have the relatively minor violations of the NAP by the dictator himself, but you get this same problem in any minarchist system. Anarchy, by contrast, will still have some violations of NAP even under the best conditions, they just might not call themselves "Government."
I'm not sure whether the benevolent dictator I described can ever really exist. I suspect not. But I don't think "Mayor Bloomberg" is the correct defintiion of "Benevolent dictator" if such a thing actually can exist at all.
People typically are crazy in college, thinking the world can ever improve and that God isn't just going to pretty much blow this mother lover up soon enough.
For national stability we need the same constitution, amendments are used to rectify problems with it. Sadly due to many laws and executive actions being borderline constitutional it's barely worth the paper it's printed on. But this means that the constitution should be enforced as designed.
This is true, and sadly this weakness gets exploited more when there are fewer in power, dictatorships or voting restrictions designed to stack the deck will make bad problems worse.
Let me think of dictatorships that didn't totally suck. I guess Franco didn't totally suck for Spain, and Bloomberg got a lot of positive qualities and despite being a complete elitist pig I think he is at least doing things out of conviction. However Bloomberg is viewed as Hitler here and Franco can also be viewed as a piece of crap. And these are the finest dictators in recent memory.
Dictatorships are the exact opposite of Libertarians.
Bloomberg's only positive quality is that he ISN'T Hitler. That's about it.
As for the current constitution, I'd prefer something with a stronger protection of all of our rights, or at least the Articles of Confederation. But I'd settle for what we have, properly (Strictly) interpreted. That's Ron Paul's starting point, and would fix more than 80% of the problems.
I don't know what to say about your ideas, but I have a more general comment. Neglecting to think for yourself, and conforming to what everyone around you thinks, and being "not crazy," is highly overrated.
True, true.
We meaning who?
I'm certain that would be the best kind of government possible. And I believe it will exist after Jesus returns. But nobody else will ever be able to handle that responsibility.
I think we already have proof of this, in 2 Samuel 11-12.
If even the man after God's own heart used his position to commit adultery and murder, who exactly is going to be a good dictator?
There wouldn't be any dictator until it took effect...
These are just technicalities. It's all theoretical. If it was to be put into practice, I'm sure someone would find a way to make it work.
Or we might end up with a not-minarchist-dictatorship.
