> "But didn't the mayor then have much of the same powers as the mayor now? Doesn't that suggest that the 'benevolent dictatorship' then was the source of the problems?"
His train of thought is consistent. The idea is that benevolent dictatorships can either be a great force for good, or wildly incompetent. As compared to a market or ballot-based governments that are practically guaranteed to be incompetent. Lesser of the evils, if you will.
> "(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)"
OP specifically cited North Virginia, with a market-based government, as a failure. How does that interpret as an endorsement of market-based government?
His train of thought is consistent. The idea is that benevolent dictatorships can either be a great force for good, or wildly incompetent. As compared to a market or ballot-based governments that are practically guaranteed to be incompetent. Lesser of the evils, if you will.
> "(You suggest that the alternative is to leave things up to the market. That is not the case. There are other forms of municipal government.)"
OP specifically cited North Virginia, with a market-based government, as a failure. How does that interpret as an endorsement of market-based government?