It's mostly a lack of properly descriptive words in the language. I think "totalitarian liberalism" or the "managerial state" is probably closer to what we're talking about here. Power is not concentrated in one individual; responsibility and accountability are diffused so far that it is impossible to find someone who actually can do or change anything. "Rational systems" of business process and rigour serve to remove individual wisdom and intuition from the equation entirely. Adding AI on top of this will probably only further entrench it - walls of words protecting people from really improving anything meaningfully.

In some ways, the concentration of power in a dictatorship might be better, if the dictator was well morally aligned with the people. Trouble is, the people are seldom even morally aligned with each other in a unified way, so a dictator cannot easily represent their conflicting interests. Representative democracy does at least take a step towards solving that issue.

> In some ways, the concentration of power in a dictatorship might be better, if the dictator was well morally aligned with the people.

This is pretty much the exact argument that Hayek makes - socialism leads to fascism through political gridlock.

It's not, not everything need to be a single word, because the world is full of nuances.

Calling everything fascist, nazis, communists, etc. is making actual fascism, nazism and dictatorship more likely.

Because you can't raise the attention of people to the absolute priority those needs when the time come if you just wasted it on stuff that were not it again and again.

We are crying wolf, and we'll pay the price.