NationStates Jolt Archive

here's something that i don't think i've heard debated too often;
political stability vs. change.
what do you think better, and why. poll's coming.
the extremes of these in governments would be a dictatorship where the dictator rules by their whim, or a logocracy, with a set of laws that noone has the power to change.
i'm going to make a poll.

EDIT: anarchy included with dictatorship, because they both change as quickly.

It depends on what the country needs, I think the US needs change, but then again, I'm a liberal.

ok, poll's up

No government that exists independently of the electorate. Classless. Democratic. This has the best of both worlds, read my sig for a larger explanation. But basically, change is necessary to address injustices and problems with society. But change also creates reactionism and instability that can destroy a government. Essential changes should always be democratic and based on necessity rather than politics, hence the classless post-socialistic collectivist society I now speak of (communism for my bretheren). This gives the advantage of both systems, because while a dictatorship can accomplish things very successfully, it is not a fair system. But a capitialistic republic has opposing interests that compete for their own advantage, and in the end, also de-rail stability. The best of both worlds is a society that runs without the atomistic liberalist conception that the group doesn't matter, but is also democratic.

So yeah, a classless, democratic society that tends to be collectivist but doesn't necessarily have to be. Government is tiny and upholds laws, agreements, and the police force.

huh? i fail to see how change or stability can only be linked to either dictatorships or logocracy. change or stabiltiy are parts of political culture and climate, not to mention political ideology - not just political process or structure. eg: conservatives, by their nature and name, long for the status quo.
a democracy is not incapable of having extreme tendancies towards stability/conservatism or radical & consistent change.
i voted other.

as for the question: change is what it always needed. if things stay as they are for too long the world changes around you, you become complacent, stubborn and yesterday's news. change simply for the sake of change isn't good, however - progressive & constructive progress is whats needed.
one of my favourite quotes: "yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions"

huh? i fail to see how change or stability can only be linked to either dictatorships or logocracy. change or stabiltiy are parts of political culture and climate, not to mention political ideology - not just political process or structure. eg: conservatives, by their nature and name, long for the status quo.
a democracy is not incapable of having extreme tendancies towards stability/conservatism or radical & consistent change.
i voted other.

as for the question: change is what it always needed. if things stay as they are for too long the world changes around you, you become complacent, stubborn and yesterday's news. change simply for the sake of change isn't good, however - progressive & constructive progress is whats needed.
one of my favourite quotes: "yesterday's answers have nothing to do with today's questions"

not exactly what i ment. i meant the laws of the country specifically. they change quickest in a dictatorship, and slowest in a logocracy. actually, they don't change at all in a logocracy.

In that case I'd rather live in an anarchist society. Arugably the rules can change just as fast as in a dictatorship, and I'm sure it would be more plesant :)

not exactly what i ment. i meant the laws of the country specifically. they change quickest in a dictatorship, and slowest in a logocracy. actually, they don't change at all in a logocracy.
well in that case, out of the two it has to be dictatorship. sorry i'm tired & just got back from london. i need sleep :headbang:

In that case I'd rather live in an anarchist society. Arugably the rules can change just as fast as in a dictatorship, and I'm sure it would be more plesant :)

i wish i could edit the poll. i'll just edit the first post to say anarchy included with dictatorship.

In that case I'd rather live in an anarchist society. Arugably the rules can change just as fast as in a dictatorship, and I'm sure it would be more plesant :)


Well said. As long as class and conflicting interests are minimized. An anarchist society with class would scare the crap out of me

Honestly, both of the options suck. If we had to go with extremes, I'd go with a Hobbesian or Platonic enlightened dictatorship.

Honestly, both of the options suck. If we had to go with extremes, I'd go with a Hobbesian or Platonic enlightened dictatorship.

there supposed to be, to get people to think.

Logocracy???? What the heck is that?

Logocracy???? What the heck is that?

i read somewhere that it meant rule by the words, meaning written words, like a constitution, and i'd specified one that couldn't be changed. that way there'd be no change of laws. what would you favour, no change in laws or constant changes in laws, such as what would happen in a dictatorship or anarchy?

Places like the Vatican come close to being legocrazy.
They mainly govern themselves with a set of ancient scriptures they hardly ever pilfer with. But they aren't an actual legocracy, just close to it. Like a platonic enlightned dictatorship, it's not something anyone have managed to pull off yet. Perhaps someday a society will, but so far it's a hypothetical thing :)

Modern states are based on the fact that...
- borders never change (=international borders)
- culture is static (=founding philosophy)
- the population's ethnical/cultural composition is constant (=nation state)
- large-scale environmental changes are irrelevant
- governments don't have to relocate/rescue large groups of humans
- resources won't deplete / we'll keep the same lifestyle

Which shows how much our civilization lives in a state of denial.
As soon as even the slightest environmental change modifies our environment, we'll collapse.

Example. In the province of Quebec, the government has relocated people from a remote village. Population: 15 persons. Total cost: 15 millions.

Now suppose that we can relocate people at 1/10th of the cost.
And suppose we have to relocate 100,000 persons from a "sinking" county in, say, Florida or Louisiana, because of rising water levels. How much would it cost? OK. Let's get a "volume discount" of 10%.
That's 150,000$ x 100,1000 persons - 10% = 13,500,000,000$
Thirteen friggin billion dollars.
But usually, large scale environmental changes don't affect such a small number of persons. Most likely, the government would either go bankrupt trying to help the population, or will abandon people. Either way, you get large scale unrest, protests, and a bloody problem in hands.


So NO, I don't believe at any kind of stability, legal or other, even on the medium term. I think the ideas of modern "nation states" and "fixed international borders" aren't that reassuring; don't forget that this concept is less than 200 years old. People don't seem to understand that the concept of international border is from the beginning of the 20th century, and that the nation state is only slightly older. It's far from being a proven model for long-term stability for our civilization.

My 2 cents.