The Roman people did not want a dictator or a king. Do you think Augustus and the emperors that followed him were any different?

It is true that the Roman people did not want a dictator or king. They had formed a republic and were unwilling to change that, but Caesar changed that. He appointed himself dictator and fortunately the people accepted. Alas, the Senate did not and that cost him his life. His adopted son Augusts's (which he got his name later for being called the "respected one") and the emperors who followed in fact broke the republic. Most of them improved the way the people lived and ruled alongside the Senate so they wouldn't end up like Caesar. They improved the people's lives, lowered taxes and most importantly started the Pax Romana. Pax Romana was the peak of Roman history. People could pass on land and citizenship both plebeians and patricians, people could run businesses, own land and people in a province could gain citizenship. The leaders started to make boarder forces, police forces, fire brigades and provinces. Provinces were divided up into 40 territories and people could  gain citizenship. The only down fall was that some emperors caused rebellions. In the end the last emperor died and a civil war arose. The Romans struggled for power but somehow kept in tact. Augusts and many others were different because they had a lot of power, more power than the Senate or anyone else. They were inferior, but they had to play by the rules of the Senate. If there had not been kings or dictators, there wouldn't be the Pax Romana and everything would have probably collapsed. Augusts and many others made the peak in Roman history because they stood up and made a change, appointed themselves and also created a dictators or kings.