NationStates Jolt Archive

In Plato's Republic, he argues that Democracy is the second best form of Government. Plato asserts that the optimal form of Government would be a Dictatorship with a wise and benificent ruler, a philosopher king, the perfect leader. Discuss?

I say people don't need freedoms. I say people are idiots and will inevitably, given the choice, choose what is most agreeable for themselves, not what is best for themselves. A wise and benificent leader who grants few Political Freedoms but provides the people Excellent Civil Rights and a good quality of life could go a long way!

PS - That's why my NS nations rocks the Casba baby! It's all me! :D

I concur, however as they say 'Absolute power corrupts'... :)

Let's be honest here. A Phil. King sounds nice in theory, but we all must realize that absoulte power corrupts many. That's why we need democrasy, voting. Yes, people are idiots. However, these serve as a valid 'check and balance' style system. Even a retard knows when you're not doing a good job. With voting, we (usually) keep the assholes out of office. Of course, when a poltic uses wedge issues such as gay-marriage and abortion...

Anyway.. You want my feeling on it? I think when people get registered to vote, they should take a 'test'. While no one would be denyed the right to vote, depending on how your score on the test would insure the number of votes yours would count for. Like if your a backwoods retard that doesn't even know the name of his state govenor, then you'd only get one vote. If you're the above average smhuck and you know the name of at least one senitor, then your vote would count for two. People that really know their poltics would get three votes. That keeps the 'unintellegient' masses from buying into wedge issues.

Like if your a backwoods retard that doesn't even know the name of his state govenor, then you'd only get one vote. If you're the above average smhuck and you know the name of at least one senitor, then your vote would count for two. People that really know their poltics would get three votes. That keeps the 'unintellegient' masses from buying into wedge issues.

You get one vote for not being able to spell "Governor" or "Senator" correctly.

To quote Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried" A benevolent dictator would be nice, but it would not last as power corrupts, and the leader would lose sight of what his subjects need.

if the Pholosopher King were as enlightened and uncorruptable as Plato wished, then yeah that could be great (assuming s/he actually does what is best for the people and/or what they want). the problem of mob rule was problematic back then, but nowadays with better education representative democracy works quite well. true democracy, a la Athens, still could not work as, as Plato pointed out, the people would make a decision one day perhaps acting on impulse and then reverse the opinon the next - this would be highly unsatisfactory for effective government.

the question boils down to whether you think people are stupid and don't know whats really good for them, or whether you think that individuals are the only body with authority to make decisions concerning themselves.

you can of course have an in-between which is what we have. the people don't know what is good for them (undervaluing of merit goods in economics) and these things are provided by or are made compulsory by the state - such as education and healthcare. other, 'bad', demerit goods are banned or taxed as we, the people, are too stupid or short sighted to realise that they are not as beneficial as we thought. we still have a say in government and are able to change the political landscape in favour of the mob's interest (especially nowadays with mass media) - so we have the best of both worlds really :)

Oh no, he thought that democracy was the WORST form of government. A democracy is able to listen to everyone which includes stupid people who didn't get his thoughts about moral values and his (preposterous) analogies...

Couldn't Plato have had an ulterior motive for suggesting that philosophers should be kings?

Couldn't Plato have had an ulterior motive for suggesting that philosophers should be kings?
no :rolleyes:

pfft...

In my science fiction work, I describe the first galactic empire established by mankind. Sovereignty is considered sacred and the planets are divided into smaller continent entities and regions to prevent terrorny by majority in a purely democratic system, (After all, what right does another planet with a larger population have to enforce water policies on a desert planet with a few million people?) The government works on several levels, the lowest concerning only issues of the citizens and local policy. (city, region, continent.)

But the many cities, regions, continent entities and planets work together as a cohesive force for defense, manufacturing, research and trade. While the people vote purely democratically, they are aided by the free flow of information, voter fraud, misinformation and slander are considered the highest government crimes.

Make no mistake, while democratic, there is a extremely large government, indeed, the people are the government! The government is the people! Education, intelligence and work ethic are the pinnacles of society, along with tolerance and an almost reverence for diversity. Operating on a neo-socialist economy, health care, education (both primary and secondary) transportation, food and housing are provided free.

The military, on the other hand is purely dictatorial, no military leader is elected, but gains rank by proving they have both the capable of accepting more responsible but has shown his ability as a member of the military. Everyone starts off a humble private, there is no division between military leadership and operations, instead, an enlisted mechanic 1st class can become a supreme commander lifer by achieving the rank over the course of his life. The military is kind of like a seperate government entity, again, intelligence, soverighty, work ethic, honor, sacrafice and a hodge podge of ideals are held sacred, any violation of this code of conduct, such as abuse of power is delt with quickly, with extreme precision.

So, I kind of elements of a benevolent idealized military dictatorship hierachy and pure democracy all working in a socialist system.

Hehe. :)

Everyone is a worker, a soldier, a philosopher, an intelligent, educated and independant voter.

Most efficient in terms the gov runs for Dictatorship. Don't need people voting over issues.

However, how often do we get a great wise and benevolent leader? Not many down the centuries. More bad than actually good Imo.

I stand by the voting system suggested in 3rd rock from the sun where smart peaple get more votes

Whilst it will always generate debate about how to select, in my opinion the best from of gevernment is a meritocracy. Place the decisions that matter in the hands of those who are best equipped to make those decisions. Democracy can be seen as a proposal for how to select the meritorious, but if it is, it has failed very badly.

An electoral college could be instituted, made up of the most highly educated of a country's citizens, and this college could nominate individuals to governmental posts. This would result in having people who know about science in charge of government science, doctors in charge of health, economists defining budgets etc.
The posts would have to hold a status slightly above that of the equivalent professional position, and pay equivalently.

Put politics, the science of managing the polis, back into politics, and remove the sophistry.

I must say I feel that an intelegent, benevolent authoritarian would be best, preferably one man but maybe, split the power up between a few people, just so that they will make sure the other doesn't get out of line. But then again, that may make them compete.....Anyhow, it would be better and more efficent. With such a system, the leader/s could do what is best for the people as a whole, without having to worry about doing what is popular, or doing what will keep his friends in happy.

But that's just little old me.

A benevolent and wise dictator would obviously be the best form of government. The problem is how to find such a person.

A benevolent and wise dictator would obviously be the best form of government. The problem is how to find such a person.

Google? (http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22Benevolent+and+wise+dictator%22&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=)

If the nations elite didn't step in(ie Supreme Court) many things would have taken decades more. Some examples:

A majority of people were against multi-racial schools and it took a "liberal activst" Supreme Court to rule against separate but equal school in Brown v. Board of Education.

An overwhelming amount of people are in favor of freedom of speech. Yet these same people don't even realize what it is. Yet 57% of people think that an organization that speaks against the government should not be allowed to hold a public meeting. 53% think athiests should not be allowed to make fun of God and religion. 58% think that a community should not allow a gay liberation movement to hold a meeting on homosexual rights.

My point is, people do not comprehend basic democratic principles. How can you be expected to make an informed vote when you don't even know what freedom of speech, one of the foundations of our democracy, is??

My solution? I have absolutely no idea. The best idea I can come up with is A)The executive branch be divided into many people, around 5-10 and have a democratic system within it.
B)Divide Congress into Spokesmen and a Council. The Council can only vote on issues brought up by Spokesmen. Spokesmen are elected regionally to put forth issues that affect their constitutents. Then the Council will try and solve the problem. Essentially, although creating a slight bueracracy, the elected spokesmen are forced to represent their people instead of their own agenda. The Council will not be allowed to forward their own agenda because they can only vote on issues presented by Spokesmen. Also, the government could put out a simple report on how the spokesman did on forwarding their regions issues. This would alllow very easy voting for the uneducated populace to see how well their spokesman faired.
C)A very well-defined constitution. I'm talking the term "freedom of speech" will have a 50 page description(exaggerated, but it needs to define EVERYTHING that can possibly be thought of). We don't need people debating on whether the health and welfare clause gives the government the right to establish a universal health care system. We need it to say exactly down to every little nook and cranny what the government has the right to do.


I also have a complete redo of the criminal trial system thought up, but that's for another day...

You get one vote for not being able to spell "Governor" or "Senator" correctly.

To quote Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried" A benevolent dictator would be nice, but it would not last as power corrupts, and the leader would lose sight of what his subjects need.

...not to mention not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're"

it's alarming how many people here do not seem to...

Well...i know that america doesn;t have a democracy. we have a republic. I am glad that some smuks in backwoods tennesse don't decide what we hve to do. I think that the voting age should be raised to 21 becasuei am sory to say that young epople can be swayed by isues that are not improtant to the world as a whole (RIAA for example). I also propse that their be a voter literacy test. so eople who don;t know a lick about politics don;t get to cast a vote, or so their vote doesn;t matter as much.

An overwhelming amount of people are in favor of freedom of speech. Yet these same people don't even realize what it is. Yet 57% of people think that an organization that speaks against the government should not be allowed to hold a public meeting. 53% think athiests should not be allowed to make fun of God and religion. 58% think that a community should not allow a gay liberation movement to hold a meeting on homosexual rights.
...

SPAM ALERT!!!!

source?

Well...i know that america doesn;t have a democracy. we have a republic. I am glad that some smuks in backwoods tennesse don't decide what we hve to do. I think that the voting age should be raised to 21 becasuei am sory to say that young epople can be swayed by isues that are not improtant to the world as a whole (RIAA for example). I also propse that their be a voter literacy test. so eople who don;t know a lick about politics don;t get to cast a vote, or so their vote doesn;t matter as much.

GAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

I'm sorry to say I know 12 year olds who could score better on a literacy test then you. Why should we allow old people to vote? Because retirement bills are not "improtant to the world as a whole." The point I'm making is, intelligence DOES NOT come with age, remember the 14 year old boys who would serve on the British man-of-wars during the Napoleonic wars? They were men. Most of our 21-45 year old population are just big kids who do nothing but fight over petty things and try to carry out their own agenda.

Your idealizations of age are laughable at best.

Signed, a seventeen year old with more political experince then you, mmk?

I say we lower the voting age to sixteen.

P.S. I encourage anyone who is taking Autocraticama seriously to view his nationstate. Why would you take advice from a U.N. Category: Corporate Police State?

C)A very well-defined constitution. I'm talking the term "freedom of speech" will have a 50 page description(exaggerated, but it needs to define EVERYTHING that can possibly be thought of). We don't need people debating on whether the health and welfare clause gives the government the right to establish a universal health care system. We need it to say exactly down to every little nook and cranny what the government has the right to do.


Why should you even need a written constitution? Just have some very broad general guidelines and the judicial attitude that the intent, not the letter, of the law is important.
Freedom of speech can be left as people can say what they think if in so doing they do not falsely harm another.. There are times when free speech constitutes slander, but that is covered here. What more do you need?
The same applies for nearly all constitutional issues. Concern for the intent rather than the letter will make life much clearer for all concerned.

GAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

I'm sorry to say I know 12 year olds who could score better on a literacy test then you. Why should we allow old people to vote? Because retirement bills are not "improtant to the world as a whole." The point I'm making is, intelligence DOES NOT come with age, remember the 14 year old boys who would serve on the British man-of-wars during the Napoleonic wars? They were men. Most of our 21-45 year old population are just big kids who do nothing but fight over petty things and try to carry out their own agenda.

Your idealizations of age are laughable at best.

Signed, a seventeen year old with more political experince then you, mmk?

I say we lower the voting age to sixteen.

Does anyone else find it amusing that this person cries out against age based stereotypes yet includes the statement "Most of our 21-45 year old population..."? Yep, he sure has shown his maturity here.

Try watching a congressional session once or twice and you'll be as jaded as I am.

Try watching a congressional session once or twice and you'll be as jaded as I am.

try watching the interactions between high school kids and you'll be just as jaded regarding them. The point is that you fell for the same mistake you were criticizing.

But if I didn't make mistakes such as that and learn from them, then I'd never learn how to make valid points without incriminating myself.

Lesson: Do not reply with hostility when trying the "father knows best" approach. :)

Originally Posted by Drunken FratBoy Island
I say people don't need freedoms. I say people are idiots and will inevitably, given the choice, choose what is most agreeable for themselves, not what is best for themselves.

Interesting, then how would you define "best" as opposed to "most agreeable." Is best defined as the choice that gives people the most beenie babies, whether they want this or not? I think you misunderstand the meaning of good and bad. Good and bad are human constructions (unless you believe in God). Therefore, we get to decide what is good and bad.

Because of this, good is (usually) defined as what is most agreeable to the person defining it. This definition is perfectly applicable to life. I treat other people agreeably, and they do the same for me. I produce goods for others, and I can trade these for the things I want. For the most part, one person can achieve his definition of good by cooperating with others to help them achieve theirs.

Of course, the prisoners' dilemma (if you don't know look it up) poses a problem to this idea of self-interest leading to good for both yourself and others. However, I think that no better response to this problem exists than the one of the rational self-interested individual. Iterated prisoners dilemma (again, look it up) proves that in systems where retaliation is possible, the best response to the prisoners' dilemma is neither to always cooperate nor to always try to cheat the other guy. Instead the best programs at this "game" tend to be those that give an "eye for an eye" response to cheaters. This shows that the best way to respond to real life prisoners' dilemmas is to create systems that encourage cooperation by punishing those who hurt others for personal gain. Instead of needing government to create these systems, it is once again in people's best interest to act in ways that best serve the self-interest of others. (In this case, creating a system of response to cheaters is in the self-interest of all parties involved).

Although I agree that submitting to the will of another may be the best self-interested choice in some cases, I do not agree that this choice should be made for any reason other than self-interest. So agreeing to follow the directions of your company's boss is a good idea because you can get higher pay than if you worked at a company that used the relatively inefficient system of requiring that all decisions be made by a vote of the workers.

In Plato's Republic, he argues that Democracy is the second best form of Government. Plato asserts that the optimal form of Government would be a Dictatorship with a wise and benificent ruler, a philosopher king, the perfect leader. Discuss?

I say people don't need freedoms. I say people are idiots and will inevitably, given the choice, choose what is most agreeable for themselves, not what is best for themselves. A wise and benificent leader who grants few Political Freedoms but provides the people Excellent Civil Rights and a good quality of life could go a long way!

PS - That's why my NS nations rocks the Casba baby! It's all me! :D

Welfare is the opiate of the people. If they just keep getting money from the government, they won't know how bad they have it. I say it's better to be poor and free than rich and opressed.

Well...i know that america doesn;t have a democracy. we have a republic. I am glad that some smuks in backwoods tennesse don't decide what we hve to do. I think that the voting age should be raised to 21 becasuei am sory to say that young epople can be swayed by isues that are not improtant to the world as a whole (RIAA for example). I also propse that their be a voter literacy test. so eople who don;t know a lick about politics don;t get to cast a vote, or so their vote doesn;t matter as much.

:rolleyes:
Democracy n. a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives.

Republic n. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Tell me how a republic is not also a democracy?



Bah, I don't care much for Plato's perfect state, because he would outlaw creativity. His state would surely be a boring place to live.