I would want said dictator to be like me - do all the things I would consider proper if I were dictator. Duh!
I probably wouldn’t want it to actually be me. I like being a normal non-dictator citizen thankyouverymuch.
Being a conservative, I wouldn’t want a dictator at all. But if we had to have one, I’d want said dictator to come to power through the democratic process. But I’m not a fan of subverting the democratic process. I would prefer if the people all agreed on dictatorship before switching over, not “just a large enough following”, not “rule through fear”, not “violence”, not “intimidation”, but actual faith in the dictatorship as a system of government.
Ideally, we wouldn’t have people with significantly different political beliefs. A dictatorship cannot properly espouse political pluralism, so if you are asking how will the dictatorship deal with political pluralism, assuming we cannot convince the dissidents humanely, I would prefer if they are expelled from the country as humanely as possible (rather than being killed). That might mean providing them with a farewell ceremony or travel expenses or helping to find a new country for them.
I have nothing against the “strongman” image, but the oppression is not desirable.
Yeah, taxes are fine. State income should not primarily rely on fines and confiscated property.
Policing facts alone won’t prevent the emergence of political dissidence, which is by definition incompatible with dictatorship.
Say there is a social problem that needs to be solved. Everyone agrees on the facts / statistics. People can still disagree on the best solution. But the dictatorship only allows one political opinion.
Here again you’re using “factual” as if there is an agreed-upon definition of it. What is a fact? How does the state decide what facts are? I mean, the atomic weight of sulfur is a fact, but what fact describes the winner of the most recent election?
If we grant that there are things called incontrovertible facts, am I doing a good job if I only report some of them and not others? Do I get fined for only reporting facts that seem important to me, and not the ones that seem important to you?
How do we know the definition of “fact” won’t whiplash between sober and insane depending on who’s in office?
Don’t get me wrong, I think fact-base reporting is possible. In fact, I think I personally would be an excellent candidate at determining what is true and false, and you would not . Based on that statement, how would you feel if I were chosen as the official fact-checker?
I mean, this is a dictatorship we’re talking about. It’s not exactly going to be a beacon of humans rights and civil liberties. The OP didn’t ask, “conservatives, if there had to be a democracy, what would you want it to be like?”
True, some facts won’t be met with 100% agreement. But a ‘nice’ dictatorship would be one that puts in a legit effort to distinguish between opinion and fact, and doesn’t just merely rely on “Because the Dear Leader says so.” And at a certain point, yes, sometimes you just can’t get everyone to agree on something, and have to put your foot down on a particular matter.