The Benevolent Dictator Fallacy
On why structure matters more than virtue
In brief: The benevolent dictator fallacy is the belief that concentrated power is acceptable when held by good people. It ignores the structural reality that power corrupts, good people change or are replaced, and systems outlive their founders.
The Appealing Fantasy
How efficient a benevolent dictator would be! No gridlock. No compromise. No messy politics. Just wise decisions, implemented swiftly, for the good of all.
This fantasy recurs across history and across domains—political, corporate, religious, technological. If only the right person had sufficient power, they could fix everything.
It is always a fantasy. It is always wrong.
Three Problems with Concentrated Power
Even if we could find the perfect ruler, three structural problems remain:
1. Power changes people. The person who seeks power and the person who exercises it are not the same. The experience of holding power transforms priorities, perceptions, and character—usually not for the better.
2. Good people are replaced. Even if the first ruler is virtuous, they will not rule forever. Succession is the problem. The structure that empowers the benevolent also empowers whoever comes next.
3. Judgment is fallible. No one is wise about everything. Concentrated power means concentrated error. Distributed power means distributed error—smaller mistakes, corrected faster.
The Historical Pattern
History is filled with rulers who began with good intentions:
- Reformers who became tyrants
- Liberators who became oppressors
- Founders whose successors betrayed their vision
- Institutions that outlived their original purpose
The pattern is consistent enough to be predictive. Grant someone unchecked power, and corruption follows. Not because they were evil to begin with, but because power itself is corrosive.
The Modern Version
The benevolent dictator fallacy appears today in new forms:
- Tech founders who promise to do no evil
- Executives trusted with extraordinary data
- Platforms that promise to curate responsibly
- Experts who ask for expanded authority
In each case, the pitch is the same: trust us. We mean well. We will use this power wisely. In each case, the structural problem is the same: the power remains, even if the intentions change.
Questions a Free Person Should Ask
- What happens when this person is replaced?
- What checks exist on this power?
- What recourse do I have if this goes wrong?
- Am I trusting a person or trusting a structure?
- Would I accept this power in the hands of my opponents?
- What would Lord Acton say about this arrangement?
What This Means for Ordinary People
Never trust concentrated power, no matter how virtuous the holder appears. The virtue may be real. The structural problem remains.
Ask about succession. Ask about checks. Ask about accountability. The answers matter more than the personality currently in charge.
A mediocre system with good structure will outperform a perfect ruler without constraints. Because the system persists. Because rulers change. Because power corrupts.
The founders of free societies understood this. They designed friction into governance not because they distrusted the people they knew, but because they understood what power does to people over time.
The benevolent dictator may truly be benevolent.
Today.
The question is not who holds the power now,
but what the power will do to whoever holds it next.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the benevolent dictator fallacy?
The benevolent dictator fallacy is the belief that concentrated power is acceptable when held by good people. It ignores that power corrupts, good people are replaced, and systems outlive founders.
Why does concentrated power corrupt even good people?
Power changes perception and priorities. Without checks, there is no feedback. Without accountability, mistakes compound. The experience of holding power transforms people, usually for the worse.
What is the succession problem?
Even if the first ruler is virtuous, they will not rule forever. The structure that empowers a benevolent leader also empowers whoever comes next—and there is no guarantee of their virtue.
Why does structure matter more than virtue?
A mediocre system with good structure will outperform a perfect ruler without constraints, because systems persist while rulers change. Structure ensures correction; virtue does not.
Continue Exploring
- Law Was Meant to Guard Freedom, Not Replace It — The proper role of rules.
- When Permission Replaces Liberty — From rights to privileges.
- A Question for a Free People — Essential questions about expanding authority.
- Freedom & Sovereignty Hub — Explore all essays on liberty and choice.