NationStates Jolt Archive

Assuming you live in your country, and it is democratic (so you get to vote for parties and individuals), but there is one condition:
The Politicians can only come from one certain kind of people. Which type should it be?
Keep in mind that these politicans cannot get help from others in making their decisions, and I assume that they don't change after they take office.

Lawyers:
Lawyers (and Judges and other legal professionals) are good at writing up new laws. They think very much about including every possible event in their laws, and they try to close as many loop holes as possible.

Economists:
Economists are a very diverse bunch of people, with diverse opinions but all bound by certain almost dogmatic preconceptions. They think of people very much as "rational decisionmakers", and will frame rules that way.
They are good at managing economic growth on one hand, but on the other they are always after proving themselves against other economists. You are likely to see all kinds of experimental laws being made to gather empirical evidence for some sort of theory.

Philosophers:
Philosophers know a lot about how the world could be, how it should be and how it may be. Perhaps they know less about what the world actually is like, and perhaps they lack a certain kind of respect for the trivial micro-management that may be required.

Scientists:
Like Economists, Scientists will very much look at issues as problems to be solved. They may take to a very mechanistic view of society, always expecting the same result from the same policy.
That being said, they are capable of thinking logically and are unlikely to be greatly sidetracked while framing their solutions.
EDIT: This means Physical Scientists, like Chemists, Physicists, Geologists etc. Criminologists, Psychologists etc don't count.

Labourers:
Labourers are rather diverse too, and they know a lot about how life is for the "average" person. It is likely that they will strive to make life easier for people, but also that their lack of knowledge about some issues will make it very difficult for them to implement policies that are useful in the long term. Economic Management is also likely to suffer somewhat.

Church Officials:
No matter what religion, church officials and theologians always act the same. They have rather strict moral rules and will usually try to make others live by the same rules. However, some theologians are actually very academic and scientific people, they are only in a different field.

Actors:
Actors are very good at being popular, and making themselves popular. Some may suggest that that would take up too mch of their time, but I guess I'll let you decide that for yourselves...

Ladies and Gentlemen, choose your weapons!

Can I choose more than one? Or a combinaiton of some of them?

Can I choose more than one? Or a combinaiton of some of them?
Nope. Only one type of person.

I'm stuck between laywers and economists.

I was going to say economists, because I honestly believe they make the best policy, but you do need lawyers to get the details right to prevent loopholes and just make sure things make sense.

To be dogmatic, economist (go with my training).

Fine, being scientifically and philisophically minded, I'd choose the religious priests. They are by far the best contorlers of the masses, and have proven themselves capable of makign the masses do anything in the name of God. They, unlike the rest of the logically minded and rational thinkers at least have a bit of passion and charisma about them. Can you imagine a scientist or philosopher droning on during a public speech, or trying to re-assure the nation in a time of crisis?
I'd be careful of what type of religion was to be in charge, I would not want them restricting the other fields. They may get angry and try to convert, but in the end most of the other fields are needed for a balanced society.

I think I would choose scientists, because that would give the widest scope for the applicant pool. Everything from mathmaticians to people in the social sciences. Plus you would get all the applied scientists like Doctors and Engineers.

Or maybe priests, just for the hell of it.

Definitely some free market economists... definitely keep theology out of government..

Your only allowed to choose the field the leaders come from; not their opinions. The reverse of normal basically.

You should have put "ubermensch" on the poll, that would be my first choice.

You should have put "ubermensch" on the poll, that would be my first choice.

Well is there such a discipline as "Übermensch"?

I think I would choose scientists, because that would give the widest scope for the applicant pool. Everything from mathmaticians to people in the social sciences. Plus you would get all the applied scientists like Doctors and Engineers.
Perhaps I should have specified a little better.
Social Sciences aren't real sciences! They are based on opinion.
You can measure whether a stone drops to the ground and how. You can exclude other influences than gravity.
Social Sciences are not empirically verifiable, and thus forever remain fields of discussion and dissent.

None. I don't believe in elitist cabals in charge of the ignorant masses. "For their own good." "Because we know better." Yech

Well is there such a discipline as "Übermensch"?


Damnit there should be! I'm workin on it...

Definitely some free market economists... definitely keep theology out of government..
Your only allowed to choose the field the leaders come from; not their opinions. The reverse of normal basically.

Indeed. If you want Becker and Hayek, you'll have to take Galbraith and Stiglitz too.

Well is there such a discipline as "Übermensch"?


Perhaps I should have specified a little better.
Social Sciences aren't real sciences! They are based on opinion.
You can measure whether a stone drops to the ground and how. You can exclude other influences than gravity.
Social Sciences are not empirically verifiable, and thus forever remain fields of discussion and dissent.

So, no sociologists, or psychologists? Do I get behaviourists though, they would still be usefull.

Who would you want to lead you?
In a word?

Me.

So, no sociologists, or psychologists? Do I get behaviourists though, they would still be usefull.
Well perhaps Psychologists need to go under "Other".

Although I would think that Beavioural Sciences are in practice here simply fancy ways of making people like you. Like Actors.

Perhaps I should have specified a little better.
Social Sciences aren't real sciences! They are based on opinion.
You can measure whether a stone drops to the ground and how. You can exclude other influences than gravity.
Social Sciences are not empirically verifiable, and thus forever remain fields of discussion and dissent.

Umm, social science isn't all opinion like non-social sciences ain't all fact and agreement.

Social sciences depend strongly on logical arguement and empirical findings. I would suggest that empirical findings are MORE important in social sciences than non-social sciences; although logic isn't. I do note however many social scientist hate empirics and do them badly, making them near attachments to the end of the paper.

American Political Science journals verge on being books on pure mathematics and statistics.

hmmm supreme leadership is one of heavy responsibility, and I think it includes the grasp of not just law or economics but also other aspects such as social and science and defense and many others. I'd go for philosophers, coz in ancient times there were great leaders who were great philosophers as well.. besides i think understanding of philososhy enables some grasp of other aspects of leadership as well.

In a word?

Me.
Well that comes as a surprise.

Are you a discipline...?

American Political Science journals verge on being books on pure mathematics and statistics.
Obviously. But like in Economics, these stats can be used to prove whatever you want.
It's the assumptions that count, and that's were social sciences differ from physical sciences.

Although I would think that Beavioural Sciences are in practice here simply fancy ways of making people like you. Like Actors.

They are sciences though. They do experiments and all that good stuff.

I'll still go with scientists. It's still far and away the broadest pool, even with the restirictions.

I am curious, why did you omit artists?

Well that comes as a surprise.
I figured it might.

Are you a discipline...?
Not sure what you mean by this, but I mean my answer in every conceivable use of the word. Not only do I think that people should be in control of their own lives [not economists, lawyers, laborers, or what-have-you], but I'm a firm believer in the "If you want things done right, do them yourself" adage, which means I'm not shy about admitting that my ideal form of government is one with me at the helm.

That said, I'd shun public service for all the reasons it should be shunned; therefore most discussions about government are doomed to appeal to ultimately second-rate ideals, as far as I'm concerned. I don't trust other people [as a general rule] with my freedoms any more than I'd trust them with my time or money.

plz forgive my ignorance but what is Übermensch?

I am curious, why did you omit artists?
a) Because I don't feel they are one particular type of people. There are rather stupid artists and rather smart ones. Their discipline doesn't shape their way of thinking about stuff in the slightest. I guess you could still fit them into "labourers", as a whole artists may do pretty much the same things.

b) Because I forgot. :D

plz forgive my ignorance but what is Übermensch?
Literally translated it means "Overman" or "Superman." It was the term the Nazis used to designate the Aryan race among the remainder of civilization, and the term has gained ground in more modern years as usage for any demographic of people thought to be 'above' the massses. This thread is more or less a discussion of what the real "Übermenschen" should be.

Obviously. But like in Economics, these stats can be used to prove whatever you want.
It's the assumptions that count, and that's were social sciences differ from physical sciences.

Physical sciences also depend upon assumption. As far as I'm aware the most fundemental physics from which all else is dependent still claims that the bowling pin is in error.

However behavioural or social sciences should be seperate because they deal with far more complex machines than gravity and inaccurate bowling pins.

-snip-
Perhaps you might like to check out my Austrian Libertarians-Thread.

================================

My motivation for this thread was, I guess, primarily seeing what people thought of various types of people, and their usefulness to society. Although the "Übermensch" way of looking at it looks good too.

Physical sciences also depend upon assumption. As far as I'm aware the most fundemental physics from which all else is dependent still claims that the bowling pin is in error.
Really? Wow, I never heard about that. In what way?

When bowling pins rock, they rock in a way that violates the most basic laws of physics. They tend to return to standing position is situations where they should fall over. I doubt the bowling pin is suffering confusion, so physicists must have made an incorrect assumption. Possibly Newtonian gravity assumptions are wrong which vary from those of spigetti theory.

When bowling pins rock, they rock in a way that violates the most basic laws of physics. They tend to return to standing position is situations where they should fall over. I doubt the bowling pin is suffering confusion, so physicists must have made an incorrect assumption. Possibly Newtonian gravity assumptions are wrong which vary from those of spigetti theory.

How much are they out? I mean it could be one of the assumptions that physics makes to study the problem, rather than the physics itself which is causing the error.

Ubermensch...go back beyond the Nazis, and look to Nietzsche. He used the term Ubermensch to describe a person who would overcome the limitations of dogma and ideology, and go on to forge new ideals. Nietzsche was neither a racial supremacist nor an anti-semite. His sister is widely "credited" with distorting his works, and aligning his views with those of the Nazis.

As for who I would like to see lead society? Certainly not the masses...the "tyrrany of the majority" is no more bearable than any other sort, and is typically less informed and capable of subtlety.

I'll go with the society of these U.S.

Federal level: Economists. Hopefully they won't base our economy on military-related industries...

State Level: Philosophers. Because I like them, and they need to have power somewhere, whether they want it or not (preferably if they do not...less likely to abuse it). Also, they'll act as a nice buffer between the economists and the...

Local Level: Religious leaders. I can always relocate to someplace largely agnostic, and maybe this will keep the zealots quiet. They can band together in their little enclaves, smite the forces of evil in their own backyards, and let less fiery personalities make the decisions that matter.

Not that any of this would matter. I do believe that in a democracy, the people get the gov't they deserve. Not ALL of the people, just a majority of the voting people, obviously. Usually a majority of them, anyway. If you set such prerequisites as "must have degree in economics to run for U.S. Senate," then you'd just wind up with a bunch of zealots (right and left) getting degrees in economics. Or the philosophers would suddenly become hot targets for large corporate donors.

Personally, I'd prefer a system which governed from the bottom up...so locals could supercede state, which could supercede federal. I see no reason why my state's people can introduce legislation which regulates people in another state. If your town wants no abortions (and a lot of teen moms), no taxes (and no police, fire fighters, roads, schools, etc.), and no gay marriages (but lots of hetero divorces...unless those are outlawed, too)...then so be it. I'll just find a town where people with ideas similar to mine make the rules, and be content.

Sorry, got kind of off track. My actual topical answer is in there, somewhere. honest.

I don't know when the bowling pin is "supposed" to fall over and doesn't; nor am I aware how often this scenario occur, frequently is my understanding.

I recognise that assumptions need to be made otherwise we couldn't reach many conclusions, but the science must be wrong. It is foolish to claim the bowling pin is wrong and it should go and resit Physics 101.

I wouldn't want someone that was exclusively good in any of these. A good mix of most of those would make the best candidate.

farmers would be best

I said Church people because the others are too flowery.

Every single category, with the exception of "Church People" would be a special kind of hell, by themselves.
To have "Church People" rule, would be the worst thing ever to happen.
Especially if it were christians.....sweet hopping Jesus that would be wrong.


This question has no "right answer".
Everyone of the solutions would probably suck, for various reasons.

Literally translated it means "Overman" or "Superman." It was the term the Nazis used to designate the Aryan race among the remainder of civilization, and the term has gained ground in more modern years as usage for any demographic of people thought to be 'above' the massses. This thread is more or less a discussion of what the real "Übermenschen" should be.

Oh come one Melkor, can't you present it outside of the Nazi's influence? The ubermensch was a hypothetical "overman" who was proposed by F.Nietzsche.

The overman would be one who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life’s terrors, he affirms life without resentment.

In a nutshell.

This was to be a single individual, not a stupid narcisistic, self glorifying nation of idiots.

And I am not a Nazi.

none


i don't believe in heirarchy

I voted other, because my vote would be for Historians.

Historians tend to be a dull bunch, but under no other category will you get full understanding of the actions taken. They would base thier decisions off of historical experiances, so we wouldn't repeat the mistakes other nations have. And everything falls under history- civil rights and liberties, economics, the best way to administer and form a government. They'd know what worked, and what didn't work, and would be able to plan accordingly.

Though I am pretty fond of the ruler of the universe from the hitchhikers trilogy, that was an awesome idea.

Brian Blessed for PM anyone?

They would base thier decisions off of historical experiances, so we wouldn't repeat the mistakes other nations have. And everything falls under history- civil rights and liberties, economics, the best way to administer and form a government. They'd know what worked, and what didn't work, and would be able to plan accordingly.
So does history repeat itself?

I want to be ruled by lesbians.

In a word?

Me.
Hmmm. A dictatorship doesn't sound very libertarian.

I want to be ruled by lesbians.
Why would you ever want that?

As few people as possible :sniper:

Hmmm. A dictatorship doesn't sound very libertarian.
Well, I clarify this statement a bit later on. A dictatorship isn't necessarily compatible with my political beliefs, but me being in charge is. Still, I tend to attach more weight to this statement from a "self rule" standpoint rather than an authoritarian one. The fact that I shun public service like the plague sort of prevents me from taking up a post within it.

if i had to choose a certain vocation, i'd choose business people

if businesses are successful, generally there will be plenty of jobs, good products for people to buy, good investment opportunities for people

so i'd want people in power who'd know what it takes for businesses to be successful

(again, if i could only choose one skill set)

Mr. T

I chose actors, it works reasonably decently now, doesn't it? :D

My two country United States of America and Poland should stay the same but if both countries were smaller my answer that I put down is "Church People" a Pope,and Priests

I voted other, because my vote would be for Historians.

Historians tend to be a dull bunch, but under no other category will you get full understanding of the actions taken. They would base thier decisions off of historical experiances, so we wouldn't repeat the mistakes other nations have. And everything falls under history- civil rights and liberties, economics, the best way to administer and form a government. They'd know what worked, and what didn't work, and would be able to plan accordingly.

Though I am pretty fond of the ruler of the universe from the hitchhikers trilogy, that was an awesome idea.
I second this vote.

if i had to choose a certain vocation, i'd choose business people
Goddammit, I knew I had forgotten something important!

Out of the list available i had to go with scientists. We need rational intelligent people incharge. Economists or lawyers would be okay too i suppose. Labourers would probably lack the depth of knowledge required, while philosiphers can often be abstract and preoccupied with impractical things. The only ones I would be totally against are the religious leaders, who always try to force their own morals and opinions on people, even with regard to personal matters like sex and videogames, which have nothing to do with the government.

Actors could work though. President Denzel. That would be cool.

Why would you ever want that?
Sadomasochism?

I went with economists. Philosophy if practiced and applied to its fullest is an all-encompassing discipline. I think many philosophers neglect application, however. I chose economists because their policies would be based on reason and evidence more so than most of the other groups. Scientists would be similar, but ecomomics covers the most sensitive and impotant areas of policy, in my opinion.

Logic. End of story.

Which one of your choices had people with the most logic? Scientists.

Then scientists it is.

Me. I don't like being led.

Well, one of the prime functions of government is regulating the economy, so I'll go with economists.

Incidentally, you left the military off the list. That's not who I'd pick, but I have no doubt that some people would.

:p

So does history repeat itself?

Yes.

As a quick example, how many nations have been taken over by a dictator/tyrant, waged war on thier neighbors, over-extended themselves, then fell? Greece (Under Alexander, so Macedon officially, but thats not the point), Rome, Arabia, Mongolia, Germany, France, Germany take two, Germany take three. That's just for starters.

Also, there's the historical experiances of the best way to govern. As seen, theres got to be checks and balances (like most countries have now, and like Rome had until they fell to Julius Caesar), communism is no good because it fails over and over... I'm just a freshman in college, I don't have a doctorate in history or anything, and I know that history repeats. Now, if you had historians ruling, specifically very knowledgable ones, they'd know all sorts of crap, and base thier decisions off that.

The right sort of economist.

None. I don't believe in elitist cabals in charge of the ignorant masses. "For their own good." "Because we know better." Yech

Right on!