The purpose of government is to provide for the basic human rights of its citizens and to protect them from being taken away in an unjust way more efficiently than the people themselves. A dictatorship will always, no matter how benevolent its leader may be, take away some rights from the people. No dictatorship can truly be for the people while remaining a dictatorship. It may pretend to ally itself with the people and spew endless propaganda to attempt to prove its point, but it will always be heavily biased in favor of the state. There is certainly a difference between a government with mild socialist tendencies being ruled by one party and an oppressive hell on Earth being ruled by one party, but the former will inevitably begin to exert more and more tendencies resembling the latter due to heavy bias and government corruption. In a country like the United States of America, you can make your decision with your vote. If you dislike what a party is doing, then you can tell them in a way that they will easily understand. In a one-party state, there is no real option to do so, as there is only one permitted political party, one permitted political view that can be held.

To address the issue of equality and inequality: Do you know why the Soviet Union failed? Surprisingly to some, it was not because of inequality, but because of excessive, forced equality. There was no real desire to work harder to get ahead, because "getting ahead" in the workplace would cause inequality, which the Soviets did not tolerate. In reality, though there may be problems with free-enterprise systems, they are far, far outweighed by the problems brought on by forced equality and limited freedom.

If you hold any belief in the idea that dictatorship can hold the key to happiness in well being you ought to look at the example of Rome, as it transversed from a democracy to essentially, a kingdom.
Or for a more modern example, we can look to some modern benefactors to my point, such as north Korea, Cuba, china, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc etc.
I think the country that potentially did best under a dictatorship (in terms of benefits to the people) was perhaps turkey, but even then there were a great many injustices committed.

Umm I have to go with freedom. I am not 100% sure what you are asking, though. I think that the government should let people be free to do what they want, unless that includes doing something illegal of course. Again, I am sorry if I didn't answer your question, but I am not entirely sure what you mean.

The comparison is a little off. A better question might have compared Anarchy to Dictatorship. Freedom means different things to different people and every government has freedom to an extent. 

Too much freedom actually restricts freedom. Okay, that might sound illogical, but it isn't. It's just a paradox.

Let me explain. When you have absolute freedom, like in anarchy, there are a lack of rules (maybe a vague "common will"). This means that there will be no police and everyone can do what they please. So, if you want to travel to work, you might face a few hundred people crashing and breaking lights. You can no longer travel to work by car since it's too dangerous. Therefore, your freedom to drive to work has been restricted. 

There needs to be a middle ground, which I think democracy fits. There's a government that can watch over its people but gives them freedoms that don't infringe on the freedoms of others. 

A dictatorship is merely the other end of that spectrum. The people have so few freedoms that it's just like anarchy. People are limited in their day to day activities by a government versus other human beings. Even if the government brutalizes the population, the situation is not incredibly different from anarchy. 

I think that the question is inherently rightist because of the ambiguity in freedom. I just thought I'd like to clear that up.

But, like everyone else has said. Clearly this idealized "freedom" is better than a Dictatorship. Wait, dictatorship? That word doesn't imply communism but totalitarianism. That's a whole different thing. A dictator has no obligation and no reason to help the citizens at all. 

So both terms feel wrong, uggh.

Let me answer what you might have been asking. To what extent should freedom be curbed to ensure the welfare of all?

The answer lies between capitalism and communism (which is broad, I admit). Citizens should have as many rights as possible without breaking the rights of others. The government should be allowed to help the unprivileged through taxes. Secure financial footing allows socialized health care and education to be an excellent option.

The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, economically. Only to an extent.