NationStates Jolt Archive

A bit of a combination of Benevolent dictatorship with democracy... Plato style.

This idea is more or less directly stolen from Plato, and I'm sure you will agree is a bit of an optimistic pipe dream, but stay with me, I'd still like to at least discuss its faults as well as its virtues.

The idea is simple: take the way Plato proposes to make soldiers (in The Republic) and apply that instead to politicians: from a young age, determine who are the most empathetic children (by empathetic, I mean having empathy, not any of that stupid Star Trek woo-woo. Plato would use the term "generous", but I think empathy is a much more important quality than generosity, when it comes to politicians) - intelligence is an important criterion as well, but not as empathy - and turn them into politicians. The reasoning: The most empathetic people will be driven by their own conscience and morals to do what is right for the country, rather than use their office for their own benefit (as sooooooo many politicians seem to be doing).

A person's amount of empathy can determined fairly accurately by the proper psychological tests. The children would of course never be forced to become politicians, they would merely be put together in their own schools where their generous and empathetic tendencies can be nurtured, and where they can be taught about politics while remaining relatively isolated from political bias (aside from that which they receive at home, which is unpreventable). They would remain in those schools through high school, with the least empathic, and too unintelligent ones being weeded out throughout. Once they graduate from high school, they can do whatever they want - they don't have to become politicians, but they would of course be encouraged to do so, as they would now be the only ones allowed to run for any political office. Who holds any given political office would still be determined democratically, except that instead of anyone being able to run, only the 1% of the population which is the most empathetic would be allowed to run.

Thoughts?

The benefits are obvious. You get a compassionate leadership that looks after the best interest of the people and the country.
(Beware when those conflict though.)

The largest problem I think woul dbe that power corrupts.
Sure, they are compassionate and dedicated to the people's welfare when they start, but how long will they remain so?

Some checks to deal with corruption would be nessecary.
How to deal with resentment from the 99% that ins't allowed to become politicians?

Needs more naked chicks. *nod*

Empathic is the Star Trek word. The word you're looking for is "empathetic"

Empathic is the Star Trek word. The word you're looking for is "empathetic"
Thank you, I've learned something new today (and fixed the post).

The benefits are obvious. You get a compassionate leadership that looks after the best interest of the people and the country.
(Beware when those conflict though.)

The largest problem I think woul dbe that power corrupts.
Sure, they are compassionate and dedicated to the people's welfare when they start, but how long will they remain so?

Some checks to deal with corruption would be nessecary.

Well, this whole system is pretty much a check to deal with corruption - no, of course you'll never eliminate it 100%, but the point is that the 1% of people with the strongest consciences will be much much less likely to become corrupt than the average politician today.

Benevolent dictatorships generally contain a degree of democracy...

Empathy and benevolence are no ways to run a country. The job of the government is not to be nice, it's to protect our rights from those who would harm them.

the idea is good, now, by which system will it protect itself from abuse (like a dictator deciding (s)he wants the power for all time, because (s)he clearly knows what is best). Dont say democracy, we all know how easy it is to rig elections

I think with a highly empathetic governement, everyone would soon be forced to be vegetarian. Becaus empathy in humans does not limit itself to species boundaries.
I'm not really sure if maximum empathy is what should be strived for. There must be balance. Empathy mostly provides the good intentions, but paving the road to hell is not my idea of worthwhile public works.

Needs more naked chicks. *nod*
I say we just add naked chicks to the democracy we have now.

if i remember i made a thread about benevolent fascism.
Only,:headbang: spamers didn't showed up...
the important word is bevevolent,and what it implies

I think with a highly empathetic governement, everyone would soon be forced to be vegetarian. Becaus empathy in humans does not limit itself to species boundaries.
I'm not really sure if maximum empathy is what should be strived for. There must be balance. Empathy mostly provides the good intentions, but paving the road to hell is not my idea of worthwhile public works.
The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

the idea is good, now, by which system will it protect itself from abuse (like a dictator deciding (s)he wants the power for all time, because (s)he clearly knows what is best). Dont say democracy, we all know how easy it is to rig elections
It's not really all that easy when you have effective oversight, much as you do in any modern, western democracy.

... like italy? totaly no controvercies during voting, ever, realy, sure

or like the USA? I hope I dont have to elaborate.

... like italy? totaly no controvercies during voting, ever, realy, sure
Italy is unique because of special circumstances, espescially those involving La Cosa Nostra.

or like the USA? I hope I dont have to elaborate.
Actually, you have to elaborate there.

Actually, you have to elaborate there.Enough controversy to have it's own wiki page..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy

Empathy and benevolence are no ways to run a country. The job of the government is not to be nice, it's to protect our rights from those who would harm them.
Which is something that an empathetic person would be naturally exceptional at doing, and would strive to do daily. They will want to protect your rights every bit as much as they would want to protect their own.
I think with a highly empathetic governement, everyone would soon be forced to be vegetarian. Becaus empathy in humans does not limit itself to species boundaries.
Hence the need for the intelligence criterion as well. No matter how empathetic a person is, if they are intelligent enough, they will realize that not only is meat too rich in nutrients and proteins which are essential to healthy living, but that the affect on the morale and happiness of a nation would be drastically decreased by the banning of all animal food products. Thus, they would realize that the harm done to the citizens of their country by banning those products would, considering the relative importance of humans over animals, far outweigh the harm done to those animals.

I think with a highly empathetic governement, everyone would soon be forced to be vegetarian. Becaus empathy in humans does not limit itself to species boundaries.
I'm not really sure if maximum empathy is what should be strived for. There must be balance. Empathy mostly provides the good intentions, but paving the road to hell is not my idea of worthwhile public works.

But truly empathetic rulers wouldn't force their beliefs on others.

if this is going to work, i can only see it working in a current dictatorship because they can just issue such orders with no complications or annoying protest groups

I think with a highly empathetic governement, everyone would soon be forced to be vegetarian. Becaus empathy in humans does not limit itself to species boundaries.
The native americans managed to be empathetic towards living things while still making use of the resources they provided. Empathy does not necessarily mean a refusal to make use of; it merely means an ability to see the problem from the other person or animal's side of things. It is entirely possible to eat meat and still bear a respect for the animals we hunt.

The native americans managed to be empathetic towards living things while still making use of the resources they provided. Empathy does not necessarily mean a refusal to make use of; it merely means an ability to see the problem from the other person or animal's side of things. It is entirely possible to eat meat and still bear a respect for the animals we hunt.

Native americans already did that.

Native americans already did that.
They did, yes. =)

But truly empathetic rulers wouldn't force their beliefs on others.They wouldn't?
What is 'truely empathic'?

They wouldn't?
What is 'truely empathic'?

No. They'd understand everyone's positions, and wouldn't impose upon them to conform to some compassionate (or even empathetic) ideal.

No. They'd understand everyone's positions, and wouldn't impose upon them to conform to some compassionate (or even empathetic) ideal.
If they think it’s for their own good, they would be compelled to. Empathy is good to have in a friend, but reason is far more important in a leader.

What concerns me the most is how these children are chosen, and who teaches them. If you had a single group teaching children who have to be the next politicians then they would own the political ring.

What if empathy included doing things for "Peoples own good" or possession with the idea that since they were chosen what they believe is best would be superior to what the common people wanted. Lots of leaders have this complex.

A bit of a combination of Benevolent dictatorship with democracy... Plato style.

This idea is more or less directly stolen from Plato, and I'm sure you will agree is a bit of an optimistic pipe dream, but stay with me, I'd still like to at least discuss its faults as well as its virtues.

The idea is simple: take the way Plato proposes to make soldiers (in The Republic) and apply that instead to politicians: from a young age, determine who are the most empathetic children (by empathetic, I mean having empathy, not any of that stupid Star Trek woo-woo. Plato would use the term "generous", but I think empathy is a much more important quality than generosity, when it comes to politicians) - intelligence is an important criterion as well, but not as empathy - and turn them into politicians. The reasoning: The most empathetic people will be driven by their own conscience and morals to do what is right for the country, rather than use their office for their own benefit (as sooooooo many politicians seem to be doing).

A person's amount of empathy can determined fairly accurately by the proper psychological tests. The children would of course never be forced to become politicians, they would merely be put together in their own schools where their generous and empathetic tendencies can be nurtured, and where they can be taught about politics while remaining relatively isolated from political bias (aside from that which they receive at home, which is unpreventable). They would remain in those schools through high school, with the least empathic, and too unintelligent ones being weeded out throughout. Once they graduate from high school, they can do whatever they want - they don't have to become politicians, but they would of course be encouraged to do so, as they would now be the only ones allowed to run for any political office. Who holds any given political office would still be determined democratically, except that instead of anyone being able to run, only the 1% of the population which is the most empathetic would be allowed to run.

Thoughts?Schizophrenia, bipolar, and many other mental disorders don't tend to manifest themselves until the late teens/early 20s. Testing children only might not be a good idea.

What concerns me the most is how these children are chosen, and who teaches them. If you had a single group teaching children who have to be the next politicians then they would own the political ring.
Like I had said, they would be chosen based on an array of psychological tests. Who teaches them could easily be normal teachers who themselves have graduated from such schools (remember, not all of them will be going into politics, and as people with high empathy, I would suspect a disproportionately large number of them would go on to become teachers, so there shouldn't be supply issues.) They would be kept as far away from politics as possible, learning about it more or less from behind a glass wall, so that they would not be biased in one direction or another by the process.

What if empathy included doing things for "Peoples own good" or possession with the idea that since they were chosen what they believe is best would be superior to what the common people wanted. Lots of leaders have this complex.
This is why it remains, to a large degree, a democracy. It is simply that the country's leaders are elected from a smaller pool of people: one which is much more likely to want to do good for the country, and is much less likely to be corrupt than the present pool.

Schizophrenia, bipolar, and many other mental disorders don't tend to manifest themselves until the late teens/early 20s. Testing children only might not be a good idea.
This is the reason for continuing to weed them out until they graduate high school. At that point, if one of those people developed such a condition and wanted to run for office, I imagine it would be pretty hard to hide the condition from the public anyway, and they wouldn't be elected, for the same reasons that schizophrenics and people with bipolar disorder aren't elected today.

If they think it’s for their own good, they would be compelled to. Empathy is good to have in a friend, but reason is far more important in a leader.
The point is, banning meat isn't for the peoples' own good, so it wouldn't get done. Furthermore, since the system remains a democracy at its core, it would be very difficult for these people to get elected with "banning meat" as part of their platform.

The point of this change is that it is radical enough to nearly eliminate corruption in the government, but retains the checks and balances of democracy so that other types of radical change are still nearly as difficult to effect as they are now.

And by corruption, I'm not just referring to the typical Sponsorship Scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship_scandal) stuff you see happening so often, but also the more insidious passing of or (more often) amending bills in order directly benefit the politian and/or his friends and family, while overall doing harm to the nation. Although this sort of thing doesn't happen all that often in Canada, you do see this sort of thing happening all the time in the US congress, and in other western democracies like Italy.

This is the reason for continuing to weed them out until they graduate high school. At that point, if one of those people developed such a condition and wanted to run for office, I imagine it would be pretty hard to hide the condition from the public anyway, and they wouldn't be elected, for the same reasons that schizophrenics and people with bipolar disorder aren't elected today.How do you know that schizophrenics and people with bipolar disorder aren't elected today? Both disorders are easily treatable - but if someone gets elected and has a ton of power and forgets to take their medicine...

How do you know that schizophrenics and people with bipolar disorder aren't elected today? Both disorders are easily treatable - but if someone gets elected and has a ton of power and forgets to take their medicine...
My point is that in this very small and inconsequential regard, Benevenentocracy is no worse than Democracy

My point is that in this very small and inconsequential regard, Benevenentocracy is no worse than DemocracyIt isn't small and inconsequential when you've got a dictator with schizophrenia as opposed to a president with schizophrenia.

It isn't small and inconsequential when you've got a dictator with schizophrenia as opposed to a president with schizophrenia.
Who said anything about dictatorship? Maybe you should reread the post.

I say we just add naked chicks to the democracy we have now.
Damnable FCC...

If they think it’s for their own good, they would be compelled to. Empathy is good to have in a friend, but reason is far more important in a leader.

But that's stupid. They can't know other people's own good.

Who said anything about dictatorship? Maybe you should reread the post.Well, how many political offices are we talking about?

4 major problems with this:
1. The quality that these people are tested for is very hard to agree on. As said before, they'll ban meat if it's empathy, they'll take bribes all the time if it's reason, they'll run the country into the ground if it's leadership, etc.
2. What happens if the school goes corrupt?
3. It removes a right from the rest of the people, which isn't usually a good thing. This specific right encourages the politicians to look down on everyone else(even if they're tested for empathy, it would still happen), which is always a bad thing.
4. It seriously changes the lives of the children in the school.

But that's stupid. They can't know other people's own good.
They can't, but they can think they can.
Another point against this.

I think it would cause the empathetic children to gain much more education, while the common people's education would start to suffer, and so the not special people would not have good careers and end up creating a huge gap between the poor and these empathetic, 'better' people.

Or, the empathetic would also realize that not allowing those who failed some test as a small child to run for office wouldn't be fair, and destroy the system. If they didn't, they would be corrupted in believing that they are better than others.

It's an interesting government idea in theory, but I don't think it would ever properly work.

It's not really all that easy when you have effective oversight, much as you do in any modern, western democracy.

Many people, especially the African slaves just wanted to be respected, regardless of gender and skin color. Was that really not to much to ask?

They can't, but they can think they can.
Another point against this.

But wouldn't empathetic people realise that others hold differing opinions? That's sort of the basis of empathy.

A bit of a combination of Benevolent dictatorship with democracy... Plato style.

This idea is more or less directly stolen from Plato, and I'm sure you will agree is a bit of an optimistic pipe dream, but stay with me, I'd still like to at least discuss its faults as well as its virtues.

The idea is simple: take the way Plato proposes to make soldiers (in The Republic) and apply that instead to politicians: from a young age, determine who are the most empathetic children (by empathetic, I mean having empathy, not any of that stupid Star Trek woo-woo. Plato would use the term "generous", but I think empathy is a much more important quality than generosity, when it comes to politicians) - intelligence is an important criterion as well, but not as empathy - and turn them into politicians. The reasoning: The most empathetic people will be driven by their own conscience and morals to do what is right for the country, rather than use their office for their own benefit (as sooooooo many politicians seem to be doing).

A person's amount of empathy can determined fairly accurately by the proper psychological tests. The children would of course never be forced to become politicians, they would merely be put together in their own schools where their generous and empathetic tendencies can be nurtured, and where they can be taught about politics while remaining relatively isolated from political bias (aside from that which they receive at home, which is unpreventable). They would remain in those schools through high school, with the least empathic, and too unintelligent ones being weeded out throughout. Once they graduate from high school, they can do whatever they want - they don't have to become politicians, but they would of course be encouraged to do so, as they would now be the only ones allowed to run for any political office. Who holds any given political office would still be determined democratically, except that instead of anyone being able to run, only the 1% of the population which is the most empathetic would be allowed to run.

Thoughts?

Yeah, this works right up until they have a war, or have to make cuts to healthcare spending, or veto a bill expanding Welfare - then the country is fucked. Extremely compassionate, empathetic people aren't politicians for a reason - they're not suited to it. They're generally mentally weak and incapable of making hard decisions. They wouldn't make decisions in the best interests of the country - they'd make the most compassionate decisions. There is a very important difference.

The trait we should be selecting leaders for is intelligence, not an excess of compassion.

As I said before, intelligence would lead them to take bribes.
Because who doesn't want some extra money for a decision you don't even care about?
Also, there is the class divide between politicians and non-politicians that I mentioned before.
Llewdor, that may be true, but they don't have to see all other opinions as right. If they did, they wouldn't get much done anyway.