Ok, this is a bit of a word fest and smells like communism; and is just here because I got bored and coffee deprived.
At the top level of government, we have 3 supreme rulers. Their word is law. However, they each represent the collective view of their "Wing" of government (explained in a tick) They deal with issues that span across all of the wings or of national importance.
Next level there are the three wings of government. There is the Military, Production and Civil wings. The Military wing deals with all the military stuff (no brainer); the Production wing deals with production, trade and infrastructure; and the Civil wing deals with the public.
Each of these wings has three branches that deal with different issues. Each branch's leader is representative of the collective view of the branch and along with the representative of the wing forms the 4 people in command of the wing. These 4 in charge discuss issues spanning the whole wing.
The Military wing's branches are the combat branch (in charge of actual usage of military force), the subversion branch (basically the secret police/sabotage/spies of the county and shutting up those who disagree, propaganda) and intelligence (dealing with all the information gathered, going pretty hand in hand with the subversion).
The Production wing has the Primary branch (in charge of primary resources), secondary (manufacturing and infrastructure) and tertiary (services and R&D)
The Civil branch has the Prosperity branch (deals with welfare money and making sure there is poverty and disease running rampant), the Service branch ( education, civilian police, hospitals) and the Communications branch (dealing with non military communication and the like.)
And no it isn't a dictatorship. If one brach or wing is too powerful, the other two will pull it back into line.
I don't really see why you seem to list secret police overriding freedom of speech as a good thing.
Did you mean to say "making sure there is poverty and disease running rampant", or making sure there isn't?
That may not be a dictatorship since there are branches, but thats about the only admirable thing I see about it.
Power must always come from the people, or they have no voice or power in their own government.
The government is there to serve society in my opinion, not the other way around.
I've kinda come to the point where I personally think a dictatorship would (at least until a sustainable society is made) be beneficial. As a global society, unless we fix things rather quickly, we are going to destroy ourselves in the next hundred years or so (with runnig out of non-renewable resources; eg. Fossil fuels, large forests ect; increasing energy demand per person, overpopulation,) and the Romans did actually do something quite like this, appointing a dictator to lead them through crisis (which served them quite well until Caeser refused to step down from his dictatorship) Your freedom of speech options are stay in my country and think along our lines, we let you leave peacefully or we shoot you if you try to sabotage us.
The Governtment is serving society. Once the gritty fixing up the country bit is over, you can have democracy back if you want, but for now, it's better if you just shut up and do what we say.
I think that the free market has a natural way of sorting things out.
The fewer fossil fuels left as time goes on, the more expensive they get, the more market competitive alternatives are.
Trees are taken down and replanted- losing Rainforest is an all-round bad thing, but I don't think we are really anywhere remotely near a crisis with tree depopulation.
I am in favor of energy demand per person going up- I am in favor of people having the wealth and standard of living to afford it. I am also in favor of those with poor living conditions in third world countries being able to live like that some day.
Overpopulation, from what I have heard of it, seems like an overrated problem. Perhaps someday it could be a serious issue, but despite the growth I don't see it as one today.
Citizens must always have a say in the running of their government, and their right to protest it must be respected: or the Citizen is truly the servant of the Government, instead of the other way around.
I think you are quite over-idealistic about dictatorships, and as a history major I would advise you to look into the countless amount of times governments that hold that kind of absolute power have abused it.
Another thing: what one sees as a crisis others may not- and it very well may not be one, and very well may make things worse. I am not trying to refer to this discussion, but human nature in saying this.
Some would even invent a crisis to accomplish a personal agenda or just gain power. I think it wise to be wary of a would-be leader who claims to know everything better than everyone and have the perfect solution to solve it all.
I once read something that goes like "Listen to the man who is trying to learn everyone, doubt the one that says he already knows it."
Society and government are two very separate, very different things that have different origins. Society was made when people came together to live together due to mutual benefit. Government was made when, inevitably, the need for laws arose out of abuses.
Government is a necessary evil, and its purpose is to protect the rights of its people. It should impede on society as little as possible, and when it does it should be to do things that can only be efficiently done by the Government- such as National Defense.
I also hold that among Government's powers, as little roles as possible should be assigned to the highest overarching level, and as much as reasonably possible should be assigned to local governments, which can make their own sets of laws.
This way if one dislikes a policy in one local government (State), they can move to another they agree with. This model also allows policies and their outcomes to be previewed on the state level, so that other states can see how things turned out and implement them or not accordingly.