>>1019542
>The former includes the latter, and solves the issues you run into when the rulers disagree with your idea of truth.
And like all variants of lolbertarianism, exposes you to subversion, which was a big part of the West's demise.
>Benevolent dictatorship couldn't even slow down the CoC attack on Linux, and showed no warning or obvious weakness before giving in.
>You want a repeat of that?
1) Dictatorship without power isn't dictatorship.
2) Linus either has no power (the LF's board and members could fork the shit when they want) or is not benevolent (a lemming).
"Benevolent dictatorship" as in hacker's BDFL works as long as there is no physical pressure and that the dictator in question isn't dumb.
Really, I was talking about politics. Once you grow up of the lolberg phase, you'll understand that anything with too much freedom will inevitably fall to subversion, while stuff like monarchy/dictatorship depends on the leader's quality (which can be bad obviously). Note that I didn't say anything about aristocraty, which always gets the rot too.