NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking of the way that human action works, and I've come to the conclusion that, in Platonic terms, human action tends towards oligarchy. It doesn't tend towards democracy (rule by everyone), because there are people who are better at doing things than others, and it doesn't tend towards monarchy (rule by one), because no one person is omniscient. If the world tends towards oligarchy, then there must be some consequences in not allowing a move towards oligarchy from democracy and monarchy.

If there is democracy, then those who are more qualified will have their contributions pushed down by the less skilled masses, or the masses will be duped by those who are not really skilled but can dissimulate enough to make them believe they really are skilled. If there is monarchy, then this means that those who would do otherwise than the monarch, who, being human is therefore not omniscient, are unable to act fully with the constrictions that a rule by one person would have.

So, if oligarchy is more or less inevitable, what is the best way for oligarchy to manifest itself? I say it is an oligarchy based on mutually beneficial exchange. Those who are best, or at least useful, in their fields can work and cooperate with one another to help themselves in achieving their own personal goals. This would not be an exploitative oligarchy, but rather one that is best for everyone.

Now, if we must have a government, and we have an oligarchy based on usefulness to others, what people should comprise the government? My answer is that those who are civic spirited should comprise the government. Their speciality, or usefulness, is in providing a nation that is the best environment for people to live their lives. If this is their quality, then they should be given the opportunity to exercise their skill to the best of their ability, just as in all other fields people will exchange with those who best put their abilities to use. This would create the best environment for the nation, as everyone will be able to use their abilities to their best use to attain their happiness.

What do you all think of this?

It seems as though you've defined representative democracy.

i think oligarchy will manifest itself in some form of voting restriction's we have some now, age for instance. but something more restricting again like only allowing people over a certine IQ level to vote

like only allowing people over a certine IQ level to vote

The amount of controversy on defining the appropriate voting IQ and the validity of the IQ test to determine intelligence would make that idea completely unfeasable even if it got past the glaring moral dillemas associated with it.

It seems as though you've defined representative democracy.

Which is essentially what most of Europe, the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and various Central and South American states are. Along with some other places, like Australia, New Zealand, Japan...um...Mon..o..co?

Now, if we must have a government, and we have an oligarchy based on usefulness to others, what people should comprise the government? My answer is that those who are civic spirited should comprise the government. Their speciality, or usefulness, is in providing a nation that is the best environment for people to live their lives. If this is their quality, then they should be given the opportunity to exercise their skill to the best of their ability, just as in all other fields people will exchange with those who best put their abilities to use. This would create the best environment for the nation, as everyone will be able to use their abilities to their best use to attain their happiness.How do we determine who would be more or less useful before we place them into power?

How do we determine who would be more or less useful before we place them into power?
Obviously whoever makes the most money. Come on, that should be straightforward.

Am I kidding? Am I kidding?

Obviously whoever makes the most money. Come on, that should be straightforward.

Am I kidding? Am I kidding?
Aha! A mystery!

William I. Robinson defines a more apt term than oligarchy. "Polyarchy refers to a system in which a small group actually rules, and participation in decision making by the majority is confined to choosing among competing elites in tightly controlled electoral processes." Before he wrote the book that exposed me to that idea ("A Theory of Global Capitalism: Production, Class, and State in a Transnational World"), he had used the term in other writings.

Just looking at the title it's obivous that he uses that term in order to develop a critical theory of capitalism. So if you're asking whether or not this tendency towards oligarchy is inevitable? Marx would say so, probably. But what Marx said eventually lead to the Soviet Union, a political failure and a nightmare for millions that reached its reprehensible height in 1938-9.

One could make the argument that the deleterious effects of a the centrally-planned government (although well-intentioned) are still working their course on what remains of the Soviet Union. One example would be the contempt for authority that was engendered in a society that was forced to follow party line in public and be human in secrecy. No longer confining their lives to the two spheres, the Russian state suffers from rampant corruption, a direct result of the engendered contempt.

Solzhenitsyn said something along the lines of: "In order for men to commit evil, they must be convinced in their hearts that what they're doing is good." That pretty much sums up the idealistic intentions of the Bolsheviks and the counter-productive planned economy, inefficient bureaucracy, and the cults of personality that became a complete mind-fuck to be endured by the Russian people.

The idea should be to not only come up with the perfect theory and necessary ideologies, but one that takes into consideration the unfathomable complexities of the human mind. Indeed, ulterior motives whether rational or irrational are not calculable. A planned system to govern humans must address human anomalies.

I say that human action naturally leads to a communal structure, with the general size and scope of said communities (as well as the relationships between said communities) determined by the communication and transportation technologies shared by the communities.

In other words, people will work with and help out those that they know.

isnt congress an elected oligarchy? once in, they seldom get replaced involuntarily. they rule until they try to move up or until they retire.

What do you all think of this?
... WEASELS!! :p :rolleyes: :D ;) :)

If you include telling other people what to do, and making up governments, then people do whatever they want. Isn't that anarchy?