I’m very utilitarian. To me, representation is a means to an end. The most important aspect of it is giving people an outlet for grievances that doesn’t involve violence. Secondarily, it incentivizes the people who run things to do things that regular people want.
But if a benevolent dictator can keep people sufficiently satisfied not to turn to violence, and does a better job of running things than elected representatives would? Sounds great to me, while it works.
Right, I just disagree with this utilitarian frame. I understand that lots of people buy this, but I think it's poorly reasoned. But it's your prerogative to see it this way! I just don't.
But my point here has been that to the small extent this is an interesting thought experiment, it's because it draws out this disagreement.
But if a benevolent dictator can keep people sufficiently satisfied not to turn to violence, and does a better job of running things than elected representatives would? Sounds great to me, while it works.