NationStates Jolt Archive


Natural Aristocracy?

Greill
14-03-2007, 18:30
The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, believed in a natural aristocracy, i.e. naturally talented and virtuous men leading the nation as opposed to having a democracy. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated (http://www.mises.org/story/2214) on said theory and connected it to the rise of the state, including that of democracy. So, the question is; what is preferable, natural aristocracy, or democracy?
Lunatic Goofballs
14-03-2007, 18:35
Whoever can beat me at pudding wrestling gets my vote. :)
Call to power
14-03-2007, 18:46
when it comes to ideologies I don’t think you can have a talented person since no matter what they think they are wrong plus it is fairly absolutist which as history will tell you never goes well

I find it fairly ironic that the founding fathers who had just fought absolute monarchy talked of natural aristocracy
The blessed Chris
14-03-2007, 18:47
Natural aristocracy, since those with the ability and perspicpacity requisite to government actually rule, as opposed to the most popular.
Damor
14-03-2007, 18:50
Virtue is just a matter of opinion, and if nothing else our politicians have the talent for gettign votes. What are we really talking about?

I'd vote for meritocracy if it was an option. It has some merit, at least.
Greill
14-03-2007, 19:02
Virtue is just a matter of opinion, and if nothing else our politicians have the talent for gettign votes. What are we really talking about?

I'd vote for meritocracy if it was an option. It has some merit, at least.

Aristocracy means 'rule by the best.'
Anthil
14-03-2007, 19:10
Aristocracy means 'rule by the best.'

Congenital idiocy notwithstanding.
Greill
14-03-2007, 19:13
Congenital idiocy notwithstanding.

You're confusing hereditary nobility (artificial aristocracy) with philosophical aristocracy (i.e. natural aristocracy). :P
Ashmoria
14-03-2007, 19:23
isnt the point of representative democracy to combine the best aspects of direct democracy and natural aristocracy?

so we vote directly for those who we think will best represent our interests in government.
Desperate Measures
14-03-2007, 19:34
Whoever can beat me at pudding wrestling gets my vote. :)

I don't think there is one of us on NSG who hasn't been fooled by this before by you. Now, put the pudding tub back under the bed and for God's sake, put on a pair of boxers at the very least.
United Beleriand
14-03-2007, 21:01
The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, believed in a natural aristocracy, i.e. naturally talented and virtuous men leading the nation as opposed to having a democracy. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated (http://www.mises.org/story/2214) on said theory and connected it to the rise of the state, including that of democracy. So, the question is; what is preferable, natural aristocracy, or democracy?Natural aristocracy. It's always preferable to have the best people decide what's best for the people. Democracy only produces decision based on popularity instead of quality.
New Burmesia
14-03-2007, 21:05
Ability and talent aren't something that can be measured objectively, so I'm sceptical of a 'natural oligarchy' at the very least.
Greill
14-03-2007, 21:07
natural aristocracy would never work, it would fast become a dictatorship or plutocracy.

What if the natural aristocrats only could do to each individual what said individual allows them to do?
Isidoor
14-03-2007, 21:09
natural aristocracy would never work, it would fast become a dictatorship or plutocracy.
representative democracy is the most workable system for larger groups of people (nations for instance), direct democracy is better for smaller groups imo.
Isidoor
14-03-2007, 21:18
What if the natural aristocrats only could do to each individual what said individual allows them to do?

:confused: how would that work?
if he decides to ban smoking for instance, he could technicaly only ban smoking for people who would want to stop?
Greyenivol Colony
14-03-2007, 21:24
SIGH!

This topic simply will not die!!!

Everyone has inherent biases, including the so-called Best. If any group has control of the state apparatus then eventually they will abuse it to fulfill their own interests. I don't care if you establish the Dictatorship of People Who Know Best, eventually they are going to just start ruling in their own interests, (tweed jacket subsidies, banning page dog-earing, etc.), while everyone elses' interests get overlooked.

Democratic governance is the only way of allowing everyone's voice to be heard.
New Burmesia
14-03-2007, 21:25
What if the natural aristocrats only could do to each individual what said individual allows them to do?
Any natural aristocrat would have a vested interest in maintaining himself and his clique (pardon the sexism), at the expense of society if needs be, so it would be virtually impossible to do that in practice, just as it is impossible to govern society on an individual basis.
Farnhamia
14-03-2007, 21:27
SIGH!

This topic simply will not die!!!

Everyone has inherent biases, including the so-called Best. If any group has control of the state apparatus then eventually they will abuse it to fulfill their own interests. I don't care if you establish the Dictatorship of People Who Know Best, eventually they are going to just start ruling in their own interests, (tweed jacket subsidies, banning page dog-earing, etc.), while everyone elses' interests get overlooked.

Democratic governance is the only way of allowing everyone's voice to be heard.

Any natural aristocrat would have a vested interest in maintaining himself and his clique (pardon the sexism), at the expense of society if needs be, so it would be virtually impossible to do that in practice, just as it is impossible to govern society on an individual basis.

Y'think?

And as soon as Natural Aristocrats introduced taxes, Greill would turn them faster than a jar of mayonnaise left out in the sun. :rolleyes:
Greill
14-03-2007, 21:41
:confused: how would that work?
if he decides to ban smoking for instance, he could technicaly only ban smoking for people who would want to stop?

Exactly. He couldn't coerce people then.

SIGH!

This topic simply will not die!!!

Everyone has inherent biases, including the so-called Best. If any group has control of the state apparatus then eventually they will abuse it to fulfill their own interests. I don't care if you establish the Dictatorship of People Who Know Best, eventually they are going to just start ruling in their own interests, (tweed jacket subsidies, banning page dog-earing, etc.), while everyone elses' interests get overlooked.

Democratic governance is the only way of allowing everyone's voice to be heard.

Of course they'll abuse the state apparatus. That's why they don't have coercive power, only the authority given to them by others.

Any natural aristocrat would have a vested interest in maintaining himself and his clique (pardon the sexism), at the expense of society if needs be, so it would be virtually impossible to do that in practice, just as it is impossible to govern society on an individual basis.

How would he do that, if his only authority is given to him voluntarily?

Y'think?

And as soon as Natural Aristocrats introduced taxes, Greill would turn them faster than a jar of mayonnaise left out in the sun. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your slang. What does "turn them" mean?
Neo Undelia
14-03-2007, 21:44
Couldn't be worse than what we've got.
Farnhamia
14-03-2007, 21:48
*snip* I'm sorry, but I don't understand your slang. What does "turn them" mean?

:eek:
Damn, I hate that! "Like a jar of mayo left out in the sun" was such a good one, too. Ahem. I meant to type ... "turn on them like ..."

I fail at poking fun at you. :(
Isidoor
14-03-2007, 21:50
Exactly. He couldn't coerce people then.

what would the purpose of a leader be then? people would appoint a leader and you expect them to voluntarily follow his commands?
The blessed Chris
14-03-2007, 22:12
SIGH!

This topic simply will not die!!!

Everyone has inherent biases, including the so-called Best. If any group has control of the state apparatus then eventually they will abuse it to fulfill their own interests. I don't care if you establish the Dictatorship of People Who Know Best, eventually they are going to just start ruling in their own interests, (tweed jacket subsidies, banning page dog-earing, etc.), while everyone elses' interests get overlooked.

Democratic governance is the only way of allowing everyone's voice to be heard.

And then summarily neglected in the interests of mutual pleasing and centrism. Next....
Greill
14-03-2007, 22:42
what would the purpose of a leader be then? people would appoint a leader and you expect them to voluntarily follow his commands?

The purpose of the natural aristocrat leader would be as follows; Since he is both wise and just, he would be a good impartial witness and/or arbiter of the relations between people, who the people would naturally choose for his services. He would also be a leader whom the people could trust to protect them and help them out when need be. All of this gives the natural aristocrat natural authority- authority not derived because the aristocrat has more firepower, but because the people trust in his judgement and virtue.

:eek:
Damn, I hate that! "Like a jar of mayo left out in the sun" was such a good one, too. Ahem. I meant to type ... "turn on them like ..."

I fail at poking fun at you. :(

There there, it's alright... maybe next time.
Kroisistan
14-03-2007, 22:43
That article was absolutely ridiculous. He tries to consider entrenched noble families along the lines of those found in Feudal Europe as equivalent with a natural aristocracy, and almost laments their ecplise. He tries without support to correlate the rise of Democracy with a moral fall - patently false by any but the most reactionary measure (consider perhaps the amount of torture and murder in the Renaissance versus today).

He pretends things have gotten more inefficient and worse as democratic, intellectual and bureaucratic regimes replaced noble and aristocratic ones, again I'm not sure by which measure he makes such outrageous claims (justice more expensive and less efficient? We shoulder more debt as a direct result of the change? Pardon?). And much of his 'reasoning' is based on assumptions he doesn't even bother to attempt to prove (taxes being government exploitation? Statism being a bad thing?).

Also, this must be repeated because it made me chuckle and is just a tad revealing - "To be sure, the first obligation of any decent person is to himself and his family. He should — in the free market — make as much money as he possibly can, because the more money he makes, the more beneficial he has been to his fellow man."

If that's the case for 'Natural Aristocracy,' then the concept is at best antediluvian, but more probably reactionary and illogical. Sovreignty resting with the people, I will not yield my right to participate in my own governance to some paternalistic notion of aristocracy no matter how natural they may claim to be. If these aristocrats are truly what is best for the people, let them present their case in the court of public opinion, and we will decide through our democratic apparati.
Greill
14-03-2007, 22:46
He has a longer article, but I wanted to focus more on natural elites.
Tech-gnosis
14-03-2007, 22:47
The purpose of the natural aristocrat leader would be as follows; Since he is both wise and just, he would be a good impartial witness and/or arbiter of the relations between people, who the people would naturally choose for his services. He would also be a leader whom the people could trust to protect them and help them out when need be. All of this gives the natural aristocrat natural authority- authority not derived because the aristocrat has more firepower, but because the people trust in his judgement and virtue.

This sounds unworkable for anything more than a small community where everyone knows everybody and probably not even then.
Greill
14-03-2007, 22:51
This sounds unworkable for anything more than a small community where everyone knows everybody and probably not even then.

I don't see how that is so. People wouldn't go and choose their own natural aristocrat just randomly; they'd probably look into their past and present and decide. The aristocrat would avoid even the appearance of moral corruption, because it means that people will turn their backs on them.
Tech-gnosis
14-03-2007, 22:58
I don't see how that is so. People wouldn't go and choose their own natural aristocrat just randomly; they'd probably look into their past and present and decide. The aristocrat would avoid even the appearance of moral corruption, because it means that people will turn their backs on them.

Descibe what you mean by natural aristocracy then in full.
Greill
14-03-2007, 23:14
Descibe what you mean by natural aristocracy then in full.

Basically, a natural aristocrat is someone who, because of his talent, wisdom and virtue, has an audience who voluntarily respect his opinions because of their worth. To use popular culture, Papa Smurf would be a natural aristocrat because the other Smurfs act in recognition of his wisdom. On a larger scale, an arbiter may be chosen between two people in recognition of said arbiter's impartiality and wisdom- both believe they will be given a fair hearing by him. This could logically be extended to any peacemaker, because peacemakers deal also with the law and wisdom.
Mikesburg
14-03-2007, 23:20
isnt the point of representative democracy to combine the best aspects of direct democracy and natural aristocracy?

so we vote directly for those who we think will best represent our interests in government.

Yeah, that's kinda what I thought...


While we definitely want capable people in positions of authority, the problem inherent in limiting authoritative positions to such people is that a) they will use that power to continually support their position, and b) not being in the 'non-aristocratic' class, they could not hope to really understand their position, and thus govern fairly.

People who are 'naturally aristocratic' already have the tools they need to succeed in a democratic environment. It just so happens that in a capitalistic democracy, the best will go where the most money is... which really isn't government.
Greill
15-03-2007, 00:02
Yeah, that's kinda what I thought...


While we definitely want capable people in positions of authority, the problem inherent in limiting authoritative positions to such people is that a) they will use that power to continually support their position, and b) not being in the 'non-aristocratic' class, they could not hope to really understand their position, and thus govern fairly.

People who are 'naturally aristocratic' already have the tools they need to succeed in a democratic environment. It just so happens that in a capitalistic democracy, the best will go where the most money is... which really isn't government.

But the problem with democracy is that the natural aristocrats (assuming that they are the ones elected, and not the PAC-backed swindlers that we enjoy now) compete over positions of non-voluntary authority. This basically defeats the purpose of having a natural aristocrat; you can't choose your President like you choose your arbiter. The arbiter will avoid the very appearance of corruption for fear of completely losing his power, while the President can be rotten to the core and still be able to move the country's resources about. Thus, the natural aristocrats work for the ends of the non-aristocrats in such a case because the non-aristocrats value their talents and wisdom. Thus, they lead fairly because they lead at the non-aristocrats behest.
Sel Appa
15-03-2007, 00:06
Natural Aristocracy, but it is hard to implement.
Greill
15-03-2007, 00:13
Natural Aristocracy, but it is hard to implement.

How would you implement it?
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 00:14
Couldn't be worse than what we've got.
Very little could be. :)
AnarchyeL
15-03-2007, 00:16
The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, believed in a natural aristocracy, i.e. naturally talented and virtuous men leading the nation as opposed to having a democracy.Actually, Jefferson's theory of the "natural aristocracy" was very much a part of his democratic theory. He contrasted the natural aristocracy not to democratic rule, but to hereditary forms of "aristocracy" that did not actually result in rule by the "best."

He thought that people are reasonable enough to judge among their peers who is the best, and to elect these people to positions of (temporary) power.

He actually equated democratic government with the rule of the natural aristocracy.


Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated (http://www.mises.org/story/2214) on said theory and connected it to the rise of the state, including that of democracy.Admittedly, I didn't read the whole thing. But, he's already off-base (at least as far as Jefferson and his associates are concerned) in that he regards the natural aristocracy as arising out of private relations. Quite to the contrary, Jefferson believed that only public--that is, already political--interactions could assure the rise of the natural aristocracy.

Indeed, he criticized the feudal system precisely because it elevated an "aristocracy" based on purely private relations (land, blood and money).
Mikesburg
15-03-2007, 00:18
But the problem with democracy is that the natural aristocrats (assuming that they are the ones elected, and not the PAC-backed swindlers that we enjoy now) compete over positions of non-voluntary authority. This basically defeats the purpose of having a natural aristocrat; you can't choose your President like you choose your arbiter. The arbiter will avoid the very appearance of corruption for fear of completely losing his power, while the President can be rotten to the core and still be able to move the country's resources about. Thus, the natural aristocrats work for the ends of the non-aristocrats in such a case because the non-aristocrats value their talents and wisdom. Thus, they lead fairly because they lead at the non-aristocrats behest.

The best example I can think of for a working 'Natural Aristocratic' government, would be Republican Rome. The Senate was stuffed with old-stock nobility, yes. However, it was completely possible for a Plebian to enter the Senate as well, contrary to popular belief. Plebian blood meant one could exercise their veto in the council of Plebs, so in many ways it was advantageous.

Any way, I digress. The best, and most able of the highly educated and naturally gifted worked their way up the cursus honorum to positions which they would use to further their own honour and purpose, usually to the detriment of foreign lands and Rome's own citizens. Civil Wars and slave revolts were more common than bad gas. And when they eventually removed the effectiveness of the Senate, you still had civil wars and uprisings and bad gas.

There is no demonstrable proof that natural aristocrats will always lead fairly, or that non-aristocrats would always want them to. History has shown the opposite. The gifted will use the acceptance and praise of the people to push them to higher positions of authority, sometimes to the benefit of the people, and oftentimes to the detriment of the people. Democracy limits the worst offences of those natural leaders who act to the detriment of the people.
Isselmere
15-03-2007, 00:27
"Meritocracy" or "natural aristocracy" has been tried and has failed because it is, in fact, artificial, being based upon notions of what is best and what is best suited. The closest humanity has ever come to a true natural aristocracy were early societies, and look at the end result.
Greill
15-03-2007, 00:28
The best example I can think of for a working 'Natural Aristocratic' government, would be Republican Rome. The Senate was stuffed with old-stock nobility, yes. However, it was completely possible for a Plebian to enter the Senate as well, contrary to popular belief. Plebian blood meant one could exercise their veto in the council of Plebs, so in many ways it was advantageous.

Any way, I digress. The best, and most able of the highly educated and naturally gited worked their way up the cursus honorum to positions which they would use to further their own honour and purpose, usually to the detriment of foreign lands and Rome's own citizens. Civil Wars and slave revolts were more common than bad gas. And when they eventually removed the effectiveness of the Senate, you still had civil wars and uprisings and bad gas.

There is no demonstrable proof that natural aristocrats will always lead fairly, or that non-aristocrats would always want them to. History has shown the opposite. The gifted will use the acceptance and praise of the people to push them to higher positions of authority, sometimes to the benefit of the people, and oftentimes to the detriment of the people. Democracy limits the worst offences of those natural leaders who act to the detriment of the people.

But if you take away the coercive positions of power and allow for people to voluntarily cease dealing with natural aristocrats gone bad, then this would solve many of the problems above. But if you have positions like Rome's, as you demonstrated above, in which you can't drop the person in power (much as one cannot just drop one's president), then you are practically guaranteed the natural aristocrat's abuses.
Mikesburg
15-03-2007, 00:33
But if you take away the coercive positions of power and allow for people to voluntarily cease dealing with natural aristocrats gone bad, then this would solve many of the problems above. But if you have positions like Rome's, as you demonstrated above, in which you can't drop the person in power (much as one cannot just drop one's president), then you are practically guaranteed the natural aristocrat's abuses.

Maybe I'm missing something here...

Where in the 'natural aristocracy' position, can someone just start ignoring them? Who chooses who the aristocracy is? The aristocracy? Doesn't this all just boil down to Republicanism in the end?

Or are you arguing for some sort of anarchism? Where no one has to follow the rules, but they'll voluntarily follow the natural aristocrats because they're obviously suited for it?
F1 Insanity
15-03-2007, 00:39
You're confusing hereditary nobility (artificial aristocracy) with philosophical aristocracy (i.e. natural aristocracy). :P


hereditary nobility should be completely abolished asap...
Greill
15-03-2007, 00:42
Maybe I'm missing something here...

Where in the 'natural aristocracy' position, can someone just start ignoring them? Who chooses who the aristocracy is? The aristocracy? Doesn't this all just boil down to Republicanism in the end?

Or are you arguing for some sort of anarchism? Where no one has to follow the rules, but they'll voluntarily follow the natural aristocrats because they're obviously suited for it?

I'd lean more towards the latter. Basically, my system leans more towards natural positions of authority attained without force but voluntary relationships, such as those of the family, or church, or community. I wouldn't say "No one has to follow the rules", but more "people follow their conscience." The natural aristocrats are a regulator, of a sort, that help to determine the legitimacy of actions and maintain the peace.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 01:13
what would the purpose of a leader be then? people would appoint a leader and you expect them to voluntarily follow his commands?
Why do you assume that the only way to lead is to force others to follow?

I'd lean more towards the latter. Basically, my system leans more towards natural positions of authority attained without force but voluntary relationships, such as those of the family, or church, or community. I wouldn't say "No one has to follow the rules", but more "people follow their conscience." The natural aristocrats are a regulator, of a sort, that help to determine the legitimacy of actions and maintain the peace.
The natural aristocrat is a rolemodel of sorts, rather than any form of political ruler.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 01:17
If that's the case for 'Natural Aristocracy,' then the concept is at best antediluvian, but more probably reactionary and illogical. Sovreignty resting with the people, I will not yield my right to participate in my own governance to some paternalistic notion of aristocracy no matter how natural they may claim to be. If these aristocrats are truly what is best for the people, let them present their case in the court of public opinion, and we will decide through our democratic apparati.
That is what he is suggesting. Of course, these individuals will have no political power whatsoever. As I mentioned, they are nothing but rolemodels.

If you feel he hasn't made a strong enough case in one small article intended as easy reading, then look up some of his heavier works.
Greill
15-03-2007, 01:31
The natural aristocrat is a rolemodel of sorts, rather than any form of political ruler.

Where did I imply that he was a political ruler? A rolemodel establishes the legitimacy of action, too. I never said he did it coercively.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 01:39
Where did I imply that he was a political ruler? A rolemodel establishes the legitimacy of action, too. I never said he did it coercively.
I was elaborating on your point, because it seems a lot of people here think you're referring to a political ruler.
Congressional Dimwits
15-03-2007, 01:39
Natural aristocracy. It's always preferable to have the best people decide what's best for the people. Democracy only produces decision based on popularity instead of quality.

You need both. Popularity isn't the answer; you need intillectuals at the top, but the politicians must represent the will of the people. Thus, you need both.
Kroisistan
15-03-2007, 01:50
That is what he is suggesting. Of course, these individuals will have no political power whatsoever. As I mentioned, they are nothing but rolemodels.

If you feel he hasn't made a strong enough case in one small article intended as easy reading, then look up some of his heavier works.

If democratic election of good, decent role models is his plan, then we're looking at a false dichotomy and his whining is unwarranted, because his goals are not a rejection of democracy nor a harkening back to a supposed golden era... it's simply a demand for good leadership, which is neither revolutionary nor disagreeable.
Greill
15-03-2007, 01:55
I was elaborating on your point, because it seems a lot of people here think you're referring to a political ruler.

Oh, OK.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 02:03
If democratic election of good, decent role models is his plan
No, because he is not referring to political leadership - rather, rolemodels fo a sort. The only way in which they "rule" is by example.
Jello Biafra
15-03-2007, 02:45
This basically defeats the purpose of having a natural aristocrat; you can't choose your President like you choose your arbiter. Simply because I might choose one person to be my arbiter doesn't mean I'd choose that same person to be my doctor, or my mechanic.

In other words, simply because one person is elite in one field (I reject the idea that their elitehood would be natural) does not mean that I would follow their lead in other fields.
Mikesburg
15-03-2007, 03:38
I'd lean more towards the latter. Basically, my system leans more towards natural positions of authority attained without force but voluntary relationships, such as those of the family, or church, or community. I wouldn't say "No one has to follow the rules", but more "people follow their conscience." The natural aristocrats are a regulator, of a sort, that help to determine the legitimacy of actions and maintain the peace.

Well, I find difficulty accepting the utility of any anarchist position, but I'll abandon that point for a minute.

Now, under this system, I can choose a natural aristocrat to serve as my arbiter. Okay, sounds good. What about a disagreement with my neighbour? What if we can't agree on an arbiter? Who arbitrates in the case of disagreeing aristocrats?

And we still haven't discoverd exactly who determines the aristocratic class. Is it simply a popularity contest? Could a successful demagogue count? Or would a natural aristocrat be a classic aristocrat; from an aristocratic family, with all the priveleges that entails?

In addition to these quandaries, it seems to abandon the egalitarianism that should be inherent in any progressive system. It precludes that there will be a whole class of people that are better than the average person in the community. Now, this is only natural. However, are we not reinforcing the idea of inequality?

Our current democratic systems seem to have many of the functions you are already arguing for. You wish to abandon the 'coercive' elements of statism, but in the end, choosing an arbiter will still force you to accept the decision of the arbiter, or else, what's the point? Isn't democracy essentially the same thing, only determined en masse?
Mikesburg
15-03-2007, 04:18
I'll plead guilty to only glancing at the article before my previous statements. Having now read the article more closely, I can now reinforce my statements. The author's intentions are abhorent.

Firstly, I was under the assumption that by 'natural aristocrats', the author was implying that the best of us will simply be 'the best of us'. Those that rise to the top through sheer willpower and such. No 'noblesse oblige' or any of that nonsense. Instead, his article claims the opposite.

In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect.

Okay so far...

Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good."

Gah!! Not okay at all. This is all about supporting the rich for the sake that 'the rich must be right, or else why would they be rich'? And if you think that he's not saying such things, he goes on to attack intellectuals for most of the article.

It is hardly surprising, then, that intellectuals, suffering from a greatly inflated self-image, resented this fact. How unjust that those — the natural elites — who were taught by them were actually their superiors and led a comfortable life while they — the intellectuals — were comparatively poor and dependent. It is also no wonder that intellectuals could be won over easily by a king in his attempt to establish himself as the monopolist of justice. In exchange for their ideological justification of monarchical rule, the king could not only offer them better and higher-status employment, but as royal court intellectuals they finally could pay the natural elites back for their lack of respect.

Consider further indicators of the statist deformation brought about by the intellectuals. If one takes a look at election statistics, one will by and large find the following picture: the longer a person spends in educational institutions, someone with a PhD, for instance, as compared to someone with only a BA, the more likely it is that this person will be ideologically statist and vote Democrat. Moreover, the higher the amount of taxes used to fund education, the lower SAT scores and similar measurements of intellectual performance will fall, and I suspect even further will the traditional standards of moral behavior and civil conduct decline.

Gah!! and Double-Gah!! Abhorent. It's an essay on the sad state of affairs of those who had it good, and had it taken from them by those awful intellectuals. 'Oh woe! We must bequeath our wealth unto the state! Yet we are the Natural leaders! Our fundamental property is being stolen for the masses! Unfair!'

There's nothing in this article that contends a new form of social order at all. Natural Aristocrat doesn't even include 'intellectuals' in their definition. He quite litterally means 'your betters', who we should naturally defer to, so we can all save on these horrid taxes we're paying.

Egads, and Gadzooks. No thanks Jughead.
Arthais101
15-03-2007, 04:19
ideally a brilliant and benevolent dictator is the best system we have.

Unfortunatly reality kicks you in the balls on that one.
Free Soviets
15-03-2007, 04:33
ideally a brilliant and benevolent dictator is the best system we have.

it doesn't sound very ideal to me, even if there were such a beast as a selfless, benevolent, and infallable dictator. having control over your life and a full say in collective decision-making are goods in themselves.
Greill
15-03-2007, 05:41
Simply because I might choose one person to be my arbiter doesn't mean I'd choose that same person to be my doctor, or my mechanic.

In other words, simply because one person is elite in one field (I reject the idea that their elitehood would be natural) does not mean that I would follow their lead in other fields.

I think I made it fairly clear that the natural elite's area of expertise is in dispute-resolution, which is what gives them their status as a leader of men. The doctor may be good for surgical advice, but he is not a leader of any kind.

Now, under this system, I can choose a natural aristocrat to serve as my arbiter. Okay, sounds good. What about a disagreement with my neighbour? What if we can't agree on an arbiter? Who arbitrates in the case of disagreeing aristocrats?

Your neighbor would likely have some kind of arbiter, unless he'd like to not have a place to store all his legal documents. So your arbiter and his arbiter would likely have some pre-existing arrangement to have a third-party arbitrate. If this person, mysteriously, doesn't have an arbiter, you'd probably go before the person who is most respected in his role as an arbiter (to gain acceptance) and ask this person to attend the trial. Ostracism, which is also very powerful, would figure in here as well.

And we still haven't discoverd exactly who determines the aristocratic class. Is it simply a popularity contest? Could a successful demagogue count? Or would a natural aristocrat be a classic aristocrat; from an aristocratic family, with all the priveleges that entails?

It's not so much a popularity contest as a respect contest. It's not so much that you like the person; it's that you see their advice as being worthwhile and legitimate.

In addition to these quandaries, it seems to abandon the egalitarianism that should be inherent in any progressive system. It precludes that there will be a whole class of people that are better than the average person in the community. Now, this is only natural. However, are we not reinforcing the idea of inequality?

Why should we deny the truth that these people, being respected by the community for their good attributes, are better in one field than others? It doesn't make people inequal in essence (they're all still equal in their humanity); it just makes them inequal formally (they have better skills in a certain field.) Not recognizing the latter inhibits the order just as much as not recognizing the former.

Our current democratic systems seem to have many of the functions you are already arguing for. You wish to abandon the 'coercive' elements of statism, but in the end, choosing an arbiter will still force you to accept the decision of the arbiter, or else, what's the point? Isn't democracy essentially the same thing, only determined en masse?

But you don't choose your arbiter like you choose your Supreme Court justice (which can only very loosely be defined as a choice.) So you have to follow the arbiter's decision. You agreed to do so already, and should follow this contract like any other contract.
Mikesburg
15-03-2007, 05:53
I think I made it fairly clear that the natural elite's area of expertise is in dispute-resolution, which is what gives them their status as a leader of men. The doctor may be good for surgical advice, but he is not a leader of any kind.



Your neighbor would likely have some kind of arbiter, unless he'd like to not have a place to store all his legal documents. So your arbiter and his arbiter would likely have some pre-existing arrangement to have a third-party arbitrate. If this person, mysteriously, doesn't have an arbiter, you'd probably go before the person who is most respected in his role as an arbiter (to gain acceptance) and ask this person to attend the trial. Ostracism, which is also very powerful, would figure in here as well.



It's not so much a popularity contest as a respect contest. It's not so much that you like the person; it's that you see their advice as being worthwhile and legitimate.



Why should we deny the truth that these people, being respected by the community for their good attributes, are better in one field than others? It doesn't make people inequal in essence (they're all still equal in their humanity); it just makes them inequal formally (they have better skills in a certain field.) Not recognizing the latter inhibits the order just as much as not recognizing the former.



But you don't choose your arbiter like you choose your Supreme Court justice (which can only very loosely be defined as a choice.) So you have to follow the arbiter's decision. You agreed to do so already, and should follow this contract like any other contract.

Firstly, I'm going to assume that what you are proposing is far different from what the article you linked to seems to be proposing. You seem to be arguing for free association. The article seems to be more anti-state and anti-tax.

Now, so far we only seem to be talking about choosing someone to be arbiter of disagreements. I can see the utility in what you are saying. It's not that different from choosing a lawyer. And it eliminates a large level of bureacracy. But what about other levels of decision making? Road building, sewage, etc.? Who determines who the city planners are? Even the most ardent anarchist would have to agree that modern cities will have to rely on more than just free association. The needs of such require planning, and the more convincing anarchists I've discussed with point to democracy as the solution to those issues. How do you cope with that, without resorting to democracy?
Xenophobialand
15-03-2007, 06:00
The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, believed in a natural aristocracy, i.e. naturally talented and virtuous men leading the nation as opposed to having a democracy. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated (http://www.mises.org/story/2214) on said theory and connected it to the rise of the state, including that of democracy. So, the question is; what is preferable, natural aristocracy, or democracy?

I would say, first of all, that Professor Hoppe has a flabbergastingly bad understanding of the United States and the Constitution if he thinks that the Founding Fathers preferred a natural aristocracy over all others. Even a cursory examination of the Federalist Papers, for instance, especially Madison's, shows a great deal of concern not about setting up the best for success, but preventing the worst from wreaking havoc. A cursory examination of the Anti-Federalist Papers shows by and large a concern that the Federalists hadn't gone far enough to prevent the worst from wreaking havoc, rather than the other way around. Put simply, you're very hard pressed to reconcile a preference for the best ruling with divisions along state and federal lines; legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government; and between the power of the government and the rights of the people found in the Bill of Rights.

Second, I would simply say that the notion of aristocracy is ultimately an argument for monarchy: by any measure you choose to measure "the best", there will be one person who fits that definition better than anyone else. There will be one Audy Murphy among the brave, one Bill Gates among the rich, and one Yoda among the wise. So if you're going to set a standard for excellence at being wise, rich, or brave, how is setting the bar pretty but not super high anything but an arbitrary distinction? Any argument you can use for setting the bar up in the first place as the standard is really an argument for the one best man to take over. I would simply say further that historically, monarchies have never been known as dens of virtue in the face of iniquity, nor have they produced consistently excellent leadership. There have been some very good individual rulers, but very few true aristocrats, and even fewer who managed to maintain that aristocracy past a few years, much less to the next generation. So in practice, I would say that democracy may not be the best possible, but it's the best that we can make.
Anti-Social Darwinism
15-03-2007, 06:23
Is Dubya a natural aristocrat?

The election of unqualified people would, on the surface, make one think that a natural elite should govern. But, a natural aristocracy gives way to an inborn and, ultimately, inbred aristocracy (the British Royal family comes to mind) as the intellectual elite enact laws making their rule hereditary and so paving the way for their idiot progeny to govern.

On the other hand, democracy elects the idiots immediately, saving many intervening steps, and it has the saving grace of limiting the duration of time these idiots may rule and preventing them from putting their idiot progeny in charge - unless of course the people are foolish enough to elect them.

Someone (I forget who) said we get the government we deserve. This happens regardless of whether it's a democracy, a republic, an oligarchy, a monarchy, a dictatorship or one of a myriad of others.:rolleyes:
Greill
15-03-2007, 06:25
Firstly, I'm going to assume that what you are proposing is far different from what the article you linked to seems to be proposing. You seem to be arguing for free association. The article seems to be more anti-state and anti-tax.

Well, I'm not known for being pro-state and pro-tax. But that's awfully tangential to what I'm trying to convey. I am more saying that free association will create the best order for dispute-resolution.

Now, so far we only seem to be talking about choosing someone to be arbiter of disagreements. I can see the utility in what you are saying. It's not that different from choosing a lawyer. And it eliminates a large level of bureacracy. But what about other levels of decision making? Road building, sewage, etc.? Who determines who the city planners are? Even the most ardent anarchist would have to agree that modern cities will have to rely on more than just free association. The needs of such require planning, and the more convincing anarchists I've discussed with point to democracy as the solution to those issues. How do you cope with that, without resorting to democracy?

Well, I think this is best answered by the fact that for a long period of time cities were privately owned entities. In fact, there are a number of PUDs (Private Urban Developments) in the United States today. I think it would be haphazard to have a series of private competitors operating independent of one another to build the infrastructure of a city. Rather, you'd likely have some sort of founder plan out the city so as to develop it and gain money off of rising property values (One of my friends suggested a rent based on land value.)

Let's say that I found a town as a private enterprise. We'll call it Greillville. I want to attract other people from their towns to my town. Thus, I have to build infrastructure and keep the prices of utilities etc. at a reasonable rate so as to encourage people to come. When people start coming, I can get more money for myself by petitioning insurance companies for funds to make more developments. (Natural disaster insurance has to raise rates because Greillville is on a flood plain. They are thus losing $5 that they could otherwise be getting. I need money for levies so as to make the property values go up, so I ask the insurance companies for money to help out. They give me $1, I use this along with my other resources to build levees, and the insurance company gets to make a bigger profit and I get my raised property values.) You can apply this basic formula for basically anything that would make the city more valuable and thus get me more money.

This basically solves the obvious necessity for some sort of planning, but without a democracy. And all through voluntary action, to boot.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 06:27
Is Dubya a natural aristocrat?
Only if one holds idiots as the highest form of human existence.

The election of unqualified people would, on the surface, make one think that a natural elite should govern. But, a natural aristocracy gives way to an inborn and, ultimately, inbred aristocracy (the British Royal family comes to mind) as the intellectual elite enact laws making their rule hereditary and so paving the way for their idiot progeny to govern.
Remember this aristocracy's power rests in its ability to lead by example - idiots rarely possess that capacity. Hoppe is not arguing for a hereditary elite (unless certain families, by dint of good genes, did turn out to be remarkable - but this would not be enforced).

Firstly, I'm going to assume that what you are proposing is far different from what the article you linked to seems to be proposing. You seem to be arguing for free association. The article seems to be more anti-state and anti-tax.
Same with Hoppe. He isn't calling for an elite with political power. When he compares monarchy to democracy he is only stating a preference for the former - he is a market anarchist though. The elite he refers to, like I said, is nothing more than rolemodels.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 06:37
*snip*
If I understand correctly, is this in a similar vein to a thread you once made on a government by individuals who finance it out of their own wealth? It reminds me a little of Ayn Rand's thoughts on how a government should pay for itself.
Anti-Social Darwinism
15-03-2007, 06:40
Only if one holds idiots as the highest form of human existence.


Remember this aristocracy's power rests in its ability to lead by example - idiots rarely possess that capacity. Hoppe is not arguing for a hereditary elite (unless certain families, by dint of good genes, did turn out to be remarkable - but this would not be enforced).

It's been my observation, in studying history, that a natural aristocrat who becomes a leader because of sheer competence and ability, is as little able to resist the seduction of power as the idiot who is elected to or inherits his/her position. The seductive force of political power scrambles the ability to see beyond one's own good and the good of one's family, so the aristocrat who rose to the top because of intelligence and ability, will be constrained to keep him/herself and his/her family in power - this would be done by enacting laws. And if this person ruled in a nation without checks and balances, he/she would do this unopposed. Absent the restraining force of democracy, this is inevitable. In other words "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

An intellectual elite is an ideal that is not attainable, simply due to human nature.
Antikythera
15-03-2007, 06:41
for thousands of years chinas government was run by the natural aristocracy. the head of state was the emperor.
each year every boy sat for an exam those that passed continued there schooling as they advance through ranks, which only the smartest did ,they continued their studies so that in the end the smartest ran the country. china has the worlds longest continuous society/nation, they must have been doing some thing right
Anti-Social Darwinism
15-03-2007, 06:43
for thousands of years chinas government was run by the natural aristocracy. the head of state was the emperor.
each year every boy sat for an exam those that passed continued there schooling as they advance through ranks, which only the smartest did ,they continued their studies so that in the end the smartest ran the country. china has the worlds longest continuous society/nation, they must have been doing some thing right

Dynastic cycles notwithstanding, the Chinese Civil Service was incredibly corrupt. Bribery was a way of life.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 06:46
It's been my observation, in studying history, that a natural aristocrat who becomes a leader because of sheer competence and ability, is as little able to resist the seduction of power as the idiot who is elected to or inherits his/her position. The seductive force of political power scrambles the ability to see beyond one's own good and the good of one's family, so the aristocrat who rose to the top because of intelligence and ability, will be constrained to keep him/herself and his/her family in power - this would be done by enacting laws. And if this person ruled in a nation without checks and balances, he/she would do this unopposed. Absent the restraining force of democracy, this is inevitable. In other words "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This is in fact how Monarchy originated - tribal chieftains who were followed voluntarily eventually established themselves as dynastic monarchs. Monarchies initially featured many internal (and external) constraints; over time, these vanished as absolute monarchy came to be (the term absolute is misleading though - even under such regimes, there remained pressures that limited the Monarch's power). In Hoppe's formulation an elite is little more than rolemodels, not so much military leaders of that sort. Moreover, what is an elite is highly subjective - for a person who is fascinated by business-minded individuals, a successful businessperson will be the obvious candidate; for an atheist, someone such as Dawkins.

An intellectual elite is an ideal that is not attainable, simply due to human nature.
How so? Are you referring to something like Plato's Philosopher-Kings?
Antikythera
15-03-2007, 06:48
Dynastic cycles notwithstanding, the Chinese Civil Service was incredibly corrupt. Bribery was a way of life.

that is true, but despite that the government still functioned incredibly well, and having the mandate of heaven, did not hurt either. but think about it in what government is there not some sort of bribery?
Greill
15-03-2007, 07:00
If I understand correctly, is this in a similar vein to a thread you once made on a government by individuals who finance it out of their own wealth? It reminds me a little of Ayn Rand's thoughts on how a government should pay for itself.

Yeah, it is, isn't it? I tend to think that in my type of order, civic pride would be of massive importance. Likely, the city I describe wouldn't be just a place to keeo your stuff, but like a sort of family.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 07:12
Yeah, it is, isn't it? I tend to think that in my type of order, civic pride would be of massive importance. Likely, the city I describe wouldn't be just a place to keeo your stuff, but like a sort of family.
I have some experience with such developments from when I lived in South Africa. Granted, they were small, but they operated smoothly. I'd be interested to see more ambitious projects of this nature springing up.

As for Rand, I'm looking into her theories on law provision and government to see if she has an alternative that can perhaps be integrated into market anarchist theory with some tweaking (she'd roll over in her grave at that thought). Somewhat along the lines of what you suggested.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 07:50
Agreed. On paper, the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship with unlimited social and economic freedom, but no elections.

Which is why instead I'd opt for minarchism.
Isn't that minarchism then? :p A minarchist dictatorship, if you will.
Congo--Kinshasa
15-03-2007, 07:50
ideally a brilliant and benevolent dictator is the best system we have.

Agreed. On paper, the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship with unlimited social and economic freedom, but no elections.

But, as you said:

Unfortunatly reality kicks you in the balls on that one.

Which is why instead I'd opt for minarchism.
Congo--Kinshasa
15-03-2007, 07:55
Isn't that minarchism then? :p A minarchist dictatorship, if you will.

Pretty much. :p
Callisdrun
15-03-2007, 09:31
Aristocracy means 'rule by the best.'

And who, might I ask, gets to decide who is included in that category?
Entropic Creation
15-03-2007, 09:42
The founding fathers spoke of a natural hierarchy of men, not of an aristocracy.
This is not a very subtle difference.

The words ‘all men are created equal’ only refers to men in the eyes of the law – not that all men are born with the same abilities and potential. The natural hierarchy they talk about is the recognition that some men are more intelligent and more capable than others.

I would hope that everyone could see that this is fairly obvious, but unfortunately there are elements so rabidly egalitarian that they think the only difference between highly capable members of society and those unproductive members is only due to inherited wealth or racial bias.

They had no intention of forming an aristocracy in the US and structured the government precisely so that there was a democratic process. They also recognized that some people are wiser than others and would thus make better decisions – this is why we have a republic and not a true democracy.

It should be obvious to everyone that not every voter has the educational background to understand subtle nuances of public policy and its economic or social implications. Not every voter has the time or inclination to study the political positions of candidates in depth (and evaluate how closely their platform actually matches their actions). This is the flaw in democracy which leads to ineffective populist programs – a stated policy may sound good in a sound-bite to people who lack the educational background to realize the implications or invest the time to understand the real basis of the full proposal rather than just the oft disingenuous summary.

This is where the natural hierarchy comes into play. Those who are well educated (not necessarily just scholastic endurance in an institution) and highly rational make better choices than those who are poorly educated and base decisions on irrational ideas. That is the idea behind the natural hierarchy of men. Unfortunately we have wandered away from some of the original structures of the government to our detriment.

Congress was supposed to be insulated by short-term public fickleness. The house of representatives was elected by the people and with fairly short terms. This is how the people exercised their opinions. The senate on the other hand, was elected by the state legislatures for longer terms. This was for 2 basic reasons – first it was to allow men who could devote more time to contemplation and study of the candidates to select the best senators, and secondly it kept the senate from being heavily influenced by short-term public opinion.

Yes, being insulated from public opinion can be a good thing. Were we to still have the old system, senators could spend their time actually working on the issues the nation needs to address, where as currently they must spend most of their time raising campaign funds and pandering to a very fickle public. This has the effect of special interests, lobbyists, and fundraisers having undue influence over politicians as they are essentially reliant upon them for the funds to be reelected. This also has the effect of keeping them from doing the right thing – which is sometimes very unpopular at that particular moment. If you doubt that just look at the Iraq war – just after September 11th any politician who even questioned the wisdom of our great leader and the invasion of Iraq was publicly branded a traitor. Being beholden to a fickle public, senators kept their mouths shut. This is why we have two houses – one to directly represent the fickle public and the other which was supposed to take a more considered approach – and the requirement that they must both be in agreement on a proposed piece of legislation.




While I understood and agreed with the article’s initial sentiments, it quickly degenerated into irrational arguments. What really jumped out at me was portraying Milton Freidman as a socialist! If Friedman were comparatively a socialist, we would truly be living in anarchy.
Cameroi
15-03-2007, 11:27
informal hierarches exist in nature. formalized ones, such as virtualy all nations existing on planet earth today, do not.

the two words 'natural aristocracy' can be accurately described with two more words: "utter nonsense".

the concept presuposes a natural existence to formalized hierarches. such a presupposition is simply not supported by natural reality, who'se only intrinsic nature is an all but (and quite possibly) limitless diversity.

=^^=
.../\...
Jello Biafra
15-03-2007, 11:48
it doesn't sound very ideal to me, even if there were such a beast as a selfless, benevolent, and infallable dictator. having control over your life and a full say in collective decision-making are goods in themselves.I agree. Being able to make your own decisions is inherently better than not being able to.

I think I made it fairly clear that the natural elite's area of expertise is in dispute-resolution, which is what gives them their status as a leader of men. The doctor may be good for surgical advice, but he is not a leader of any kind.Why is the arbiter a leader but not a doctor? If being a good advisor made a leader then wouldn't a therapist also be a leader?

I would hope that everyone could see that this is fairly obvious, but unfortunately there are elements so rabidly egalitarian that they think the only difference between highly capable members of society and those unproductive members is only due to inherited wealth or racial bias.Only due to inherited wealth or racial bias? No. Primarily due to these things? Yes.
Lunatic Goofballs
15-03-2007, 11:51
I don't think there is one of us on NSG who hasn't been fooled by this before by you. Now, put the pudding tub back under the bed and for God's sake, put on a pair of boxers at the very least.

Awwww... :(
Greill
15-03-2007, 19:24
Why is the arbiter a leader but not a doctor? If being a good advisor made a leader then wouldn't a therapist also be a leader?

It's more the interpersonal dispute-resolution that matters in natural aristocracy than being just a good advisor. The natural aristocrat is more a natural leader of men than a therapist, who, worthy though he may be, does not (directly) uphold a peaceful and just order.

I have some experience with such developments from when I lived in South Africa. Granted, they were small, but they operated smoothly. I'd be interested to see more ambitious projects of this nature springing up.

Well, my brother lives in one of these PUDs, and he doesn't seem to mind at all. And we've had much larger private cities in history- Milan, Amsterdam, Bruges, and Antwerp all come to mind. Even the republics (Venice, and Genoa for a while) were not the democracies we had today, but rather depended upon an oligarchy.
The blessed Chris
15-03-2007, 20:14
Dynastic cycles notwithstanding, the Chinese Civil Service was incredibly corrupt. Bribery was a way of life.

However, omitting colonial era decline, China remained a power every inch as stable as its european contemporaries, hence suggesting that, taking as axiom the notion that bribery weakens the state, the "natural aristocracy" of sorts in China was even stronger.
Europa Maxima
15-03-2007, 20:30
The natural hierarchy they talk about is the recognition that some men are more intelligent and more capable than others.
Hence, they are "aristoi" in the sense that they are better, or even the best. The term "natural aristocracy" is not inappropriate at all. The author is not referring to a hereditary, stagnant aristocracy.

While I understood and agreed with the article’s initial sentiments, it quickly degenerated into irrational arguments. What really jumped out at me was portraying Milton Freidman as a socialist! If Friedman were comparatively a socialist, we would truly be living in anarchy.
When Friedman is referred to as a socialist, it is in the sense that he prefers the existence of a government (ie socialized, monopolized providence of law and order). The author does not literally mean he is a leftwing socialist - if I were him, I'd have used the word statist in its stead. Friedman is confusing though - he shifted his opinions so many times that it is hard to tell at any point where exactly he stood; the only commonality is that he was always in favour of free markets.

This article is brief, and the author here does not give it his full consideration - as I said earlier, it is watered down reading.
Isselmere
15-03-2007, 23:26
However, omitting colonial era decline, China remained a power every inch as stable as its european contemporaries, hence suggesting that, taking as axiom the notion that bribery weakens the state, the "natural aristocracy" of sorts in China was even stronger.

Stability doesn't exactly equate with flourishing; indeed, it may mean stagnation that can be exploited by an invading force (Qing dynasty, for instance). China's natural aristocracy was essentially one of wealth and privilege, with slight correction for ability to do well on examinations. Modern-day France has its own "meritocracy"/natural aristocracy, with its grandes écoles, that occasionally caused leads in scientific advances (as in aeronautics) to diminish markedly.

In any case, as I had written earlier, this "natural aristocracy" is scarcely natural as it is simply evaluation based on culturally formulated criteria that may not, in the end, prove correct. The concept of a natural aristocracy is fine as an idea, but is, in truth, not practical and unscientific.
Mikesburg
15-03-2007, 23:31
Well, I think this is best answered by the fact that for a long period of time cities were privately owned entities.

i.e. official aristocracy's? Monarchies? Principalities? Generally a completely anti-egalitarian concept.

In fact, there are a number of PUDs (Private Urban Developments) in the United States today. I think it would be haphazard to have a series of private competitors operating independent of one another to build the infrastructure of a city. Rather, you'd likely have some sort of founder plan out the city so as to develop it and gain money off of rising property values (One of my friends suggested a rent based on land value.)

To use PUD's in a modern context won't really illustrate how it would work in a proposed natural aristocratic government. Contemporary PUD's are still bound by the laws of the state, and the economy that builds them is governed by the state. Take that however you will, good or bad, but with the state as part of the equation, I don't think you can argue PUD's as an effective demonstration of natural aristocracy.

In theory, it would be good to have a founder make the decisions of who builds what, and how. It's all 'his private property'. But what enforces the founder's pricing? What will stop the people dwelling on 'his' property from just seizing it? Without an intervention by the State? He would require a private security force. And I find it incredibly hard to believe in the concept that the person who owns the city, and polices it with his private security force, and provides perhaps the largest amount of employment through infrastructure, could possibly be held accountable to anything resembling a common standard with the rest of society. There's nothing stopping him from using this power to further his own ends. You've effectively eliminated a scenario free from coercion.

Let's say that I found a town as a private enterprise. We'll call it Greillville. I want to attract other people from their towns to my town. Thus, I have to build infrastructure and keep the prices of utilities etc. at a reasonable rate so as to encourage people to come. When people start coming, I can get more money for myself by petitioning insurance companies for funds to make more developments. (Natural disaster insurance has to raise rates because Greillville is on a flood plain. They are thus losing $5 that they could otherwise be getting. I need money for levies so as to make the property values go up, so I ask the insurance companies for money to help out. They give me $1, I use this along with my other resources to build levees, and the insurance company gets to make a bigger profit and I get my raised property values.) You can apply this basic formula for basically anything that would make the city more valuable and thus get me more money.

We also have to assume that any nation is not going to built overnight. It will be pre-existing in another form. So how do you determine infrastructure costs, and upkeep and so on in that context? Land that was once public would have to become privately owned. Would the highway be divided into sectors, where each person can decide what is built there? What about corporatism? Would shareholding be considered a form of democracy?

This basically solves the obvious necessity for some sort of planning, but without a democracy. And all through voluntary action, to boot.

It may solve the principle of who does the planning based on private ownership... if you want a society where each city is owned by one person.
Linus and Lucy
15-03-2007, 23:35
Virtue is just a matter of opinion,

No, it's not.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, virtue, like everything else, is a matter of objective fact.
Damor
15-03-2007, 23:49
No, it's not.Yes it is.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, virtue, like everything else, is a matter of objective fact.She proved no such thing. Virtue is as much objective fact as an invisible pink unicorn.
United Beleriand
15-03-2007, 23:50
What is virtue?
Free Soviets
16-03-2007, 00:32
eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand

hahahahaha
Andaluciae
16-03-2007, 00:37
Democracy with a tinge of a natural aristocracy tends to be a system that is fairly effective.
Greill
16-03-2007, 01:47
What is virtue?

i.e. official aristocracy's? Monarchies? Principalities? Generally a completely anti-egalitarian concept.

OK. So?

To use PUD's in a modern context won't really illustrate how it would work in a proposed natural aristocratic government. Contemporary PUD's are still bound by the laws of the state, and the economy that builds them is governed by the state. Take that however you will, good or bad, but with the state as part of the equation, I don't think you can argue PUD's as an effective demonstration of natural aristocracy.

But it still proves that cities can be privately owned. You don't need democracy, i.e. public ownership, to have a functioning system. This goes in line with the essentially anarchic works of natural aristocracy.

In theory, it would be good to have a founder make the decisions of who builds what, and how. It's all 'his private property'. But what enforces the founder's pricing? What will stop the people dwelling on 'his' property from just seizing it? Without an intervention by the State? He would require a private security force. And I find it incredibly hard to believe in the concept that the person who owns the city, and polices it with his private security force, and provides perhaps the largest amount of employment through infrastructure, could possibly be held accountable to anything resembling a common standard with the rest of society. There's nothing stopping him from using this power to further his own ends. You've effectively eliminated a scenario free from coercion.

No, this is not what would happen, mainly because if the owner wants to increase the demand for his land and profit from it, he will avoid even the appearance of moral corruption. Not to mention that a demand for reparations from those whom the founder has wronged essentially gives carte-blanche to another natural aristocrat to move in, take over the evil founder's operation and dole out reparations while keeping the rest of the evil founder's property for himself. This would not have so much as a squeak against the one who defeats the evil founder.

We also have to assume that any nation is not going to built overnight. It will be pre-existing in another form. So how do you determine infrastructure costs, and upkeep and so on in that context? Land that was once public would have to become privately owned. Would the highway be divided into sectors, where each person can decide what is built there? What about corporatism? Would shareholding be considered a form of democracy?

I think the best way to determine how to privatize the public infrastructure would be by way of selling each piece of infrastructure to maximize its value. In your road example, there would be a marginal increase in the value of the road in one big unit than in separate little pieces. Corporations would not have this bizarre status of individual that is granted to them by the state, but rather be a form of agreement, i.e. if our company defaults on its loans you cannot take away our shareholders assets away. It would not be able to hide behind its individual status for whatever crimes it may commit. I think shareholding will still exist, but it's not a democracy because it's not egalitarian.

It may solve the principle of who does the planning based on private ownership... if you want a society where each city is owned by one person.

I wouldn't mind. I'd rather have someone who fixed the roads long-term to get the stores etc. to get more revenue for his self-interest than have these annoying construction crews popping up on every road, juryrigging it for the benefit of a private contractor with taxpayer money all for the corrupt mayor's benefit.
Aggretia
16-03-2007, 03:44
Democracy certainly isn't an optimal form of government. If this "Natural Aristocracy" thing actually worked and didn't result in a large amount of corruption it would be better.
Domici
16-03-2007, 03:54
The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, believed in a natural aristocracy, i.e. naturally talented and virtuous men leading the nation as opposed to having a democracy. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated (http://www.mises.org/story/2214) on said theory and connected it to the rise of the state, including that of democracy. So, the question is; what is preferable, natural aristocracy, or democracy?

Of course, Thomas Jefferson also advocated the idea of a revolution every 50 years. If you're going to have one, you have to have the other.

Otherwise all Aristocracy is natural. Every King in history got to be a king by being the descendant of a guy who was better at killing his enemies than some other king who didn't get to have any descendants on account of coming in second in a game of Kill the Bastard. Except for the few kings who became kings by being the really good killer without having descended from one.

Whether the talent that puts one in his position of authority is business acumen, martial prowess, or a really shrewd intelligence gathering network that makes all your enemies blackmailable, once you have a kid who inherits your power you no longer have an aristocracy that gets any sort of equivocating adjective. It's just a plain old aristocracy.
Domici
16-03-2007, 03:56
Democracy certainly isn't an optimal form of government. If this "Natural Aristocracy" thing actually worked and didn't result in a large amount of corruption it would be better.

The problem is that it's going to have that corruption. So it isn't better. Neither is monarchy, or fascism, or communism, or any other system of government you care to mention.

For all it's shortcomings Democracy has fewer flaws than any other system of government. It is then, by definition, optimal.
CrazyHorseLand
16-03-2007, 04:05
A "well meaning" natural aristocracy paves the ground for dictatorship, as those well-educated pampered rich boys of the Castro family have shown in Cuba. They rationalized their takeover of the temporary democratic revolutionary government established with ideals of social justice after Batista and they have ruled with a monarchical iron grip for over forty years; killing. jailing, and exiling any political opposition. Power is addictive and corrupts the nation's leaders. You need to have check and balances on the executive from a freely elected legislature and a supreme court.
CrazyHorseLand :cool:
Aggretia
16-03-2007, 04:18
I'm just saying that deciding the course of society based upon a giant popularity contest that plays on people's fears, greed, and ignorance(and maybe on occasion a reasonable analysis of issues) isn't an ideal form of government.
Jello Biafra
16-03-2007, 11:33
It's more the interpersonal dispute-resolution that matters in natural aristocracy than being just a good advisor. The natural aristocrat is more a natural leader of men than a therapist, who, worthy though he may be, does not (directly) uphold a peaceful and just order.I see no reason to believe that a mediator would be a leader.
Furthermore, the police would do more to uphold a peaceful and just order than a mediator would.

Democracy certainly isn't an optimal form of government. If this "Natural Aristocracy" thing actually worked and didn't result in a large amount of corruption it would be better.Actually, democracy is the optimal form of government.

I'm just saying that deciding the course of society based upon a giant popularity contest that plays on people's fears, greed, and ignorance(and maybe on occasion a reasonable analysis of issues) isn't an ideal form of government.So then you oppose natural aristocracy. Good to know.
Greill
16-03-2007, 15:57
I see no reason to believe that a mediator would be a leader.
Furthermore, the police would do more to uphold a peaceful and just order than a mediator would.


A mediator would be a leader because he resolves disputes between people and upholds a peaceful and just order. King Solomon was particularly renowned for this. The police can't uphold a peaceful and just order if they don't know what a peaceful and just order is in the first place; hence, why were have dispute-resolving natural aristocrats. Likely, however, natural aristocrats would incorporate the other aspect of dispute resolution by actually using some sort of power to completely resolve the dispute (whether that be ostracism or police power.)
Eve Online
16-03-2007, 15:58
The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson in particular, believed in a natural aristocracy, i.e. naturally talented and virtuous men leading the nation as opposed to having a democracy. Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe has elaborated (http://www.mises.org/story/2214) on said theory and connected it to the rise of the state, including that of democracy. So, the question is; what is preferable, natural aristocracy, or democracy?

This is why the US is a Republic, not a democracy.
Pyotr
16-03-2007, 16:09
I'm just saying that deciding the course of society based upon a giant popularity contest that plays on people's fears, greed, and ignorance(and maybe on occasion a reasonable analysis of issues) isn't an ideal form of government.

There is nothing ideal about government, but democracy is the lesser of most evils.
Peepelonia
16-03-2007, 16:11
I'm just saying that deciding the course of society based upon a giant popularity contest that plays on people's fears, greed, and ignorance(and maybe on occasion a reasonable analysis of issues) isn't an ideal form of government.

I agree, and as I said elsewhere make sure that anybody who wants to work in goeverment recives less than minium pay, make it on a part time basies so that perhaps 3-4 people do the same job, make sure that there are absolutly no perks of the job.
The blessed Chris
16-03-2007, 16:13
No, it's not.

As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, virtue, like everything else, is a matter of objective fact.

Excuse me?

Since when has objectivity been attainable in anything.
The blessed Chris
16-03-2007, 16:15
There is nothing ideal about government, but democracy is the lesser of most evils.

No. Democracy ensures that policies are characterised by mediocrity, compromise, and the need to placate an electorate the majority of whom have the political education of a doormat.
Mikesburg
16-03-2007, 17:52
OK. So?

Any governmental/societal structure should benefit the largest number of people. Eliminate egalitarianism, and you put the power in the hands to the people at the top of the social ladder and effectively limit the ability of the people at the bottom of it the opportunity to climb to the top. You will create a system where people who may be natural aristocrats, don't develop as such due to the systems tendency to support the aristocrats that are already established. Plus, the ownership of a city will likely pass on to someone within the family, who may not be a natural aristocrat. You're simply perpetuating classic aristocracy.

But it still proves that cities can be privately owned. You don't need democracy, i.e. public ownership, to have a functioning system. This goes in line with the essentially anarchic works of natural aristocracy.

No, you don't need democracy to run a city. That's true. But history has shown that private ownership of a city lends towards corruption. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had so many revolutions in favour of democracy.

No, this is not what would happen, mainly because if the owner wants to increase the demand for his land and profit from it, he will avoid even the appearance of moral corruption. Not to mention that a demand for reparations from those whom the founder has wronged essentially gives carte-blanche to another natural aristocrat to move in, take over the evil founder's operation and dole out reparations while keeping the rest of the evil founder's property for himself. This would not have so much as a squeak against the one who defeats the evil founder.

There will always be a demand for land. It's not like people are going to not go there if there's nowhere else to go. So they will have to agree to the pricing that the founder has dictated. Even still, what you are implying is that the only way to resolve the issue with a 'natural aristocrat gone bad' is revolution. Democracy exists to avoid these issues. Democracy is a means of non-violent conflict resolution.

I think the best way to determine how to privatize the public infrastructure would be by way of selling each piece of infrastructure to maximize its value. In your road example, there would be a marginal increase in the value of the road in one big unit than in separate little pieces. Corporations would not have this bizarre status of individual that is granted to them by the state, but rather be a form of agreement, i.e. if our company defaults on its loans you cannot take away our shareholders assets away. It would not be able to hide behind its individual status for whatever crimes it may commit. I think shareholding will still exist, but it's not a democracy because it's not egalitarian.

Well, then it depends on your defenition of democracy. If you mean 'one man - one vote', then I guess it's not. However Roman Repulicanism was anything but egalitarian, and was a functional form of 'democracy'.

I wouldn't mind. I'd rather have someone who fixed the roads long-term to get the stores etc. to get more revenue for his self-interest than have these annoying construction crews popping up on every road, juryrigging it for the benefit of a private contractor with taxpayer money all for the corrupt mayor's benefit.

I would mind. The only thing that is getting the founder to build infrastructure is his self-interest. Sometimes it's in his best interest to accept bribes from those more affluent to build the appropriate infrastructure, leaving the less affluent without much needed infrastructure. In general, the whole concept of natural aristocracy leaves the less affluent in the dark. Not good.
Jello Biafra
17-03-2007, 02:43
A mediator would be a leader because he resolves disputes between people and upholds a peaceful and just order. King Solomon was particularly renowned for this. The police can't uphold a peaceful and just order if they don't know what a peaceful and just order is in the first place; hence, why were have dispute-resolving natural aristocrats.Or, the dispute could be resolved by private armies where the armies fight until one party is vanquished. No more disputes = peaceful and just order.

Likely, however, natural aristocrats would incorporate the other aspect of dispute resolution by actually using some sort of power to completely resolve the dispute (whether that be ostracism or police power.)Why couldn't the police incorporate some other aspect of dispute resolution by hiring mediators?
Greill
17-03-2007, 03:26
Any governmental/societal structure should benefit the largest number of people. Eliminate egalitarianism, and you put the power in the hands to the people at the top of the social ladder and effectively limit the ability of the people at the bottom of it the opportunity to climb to the top. You will create a system where people who may be natural aristocrats, don't develop as such due to the systems tendency to support the aristocrats that are already established. Plus, the ownership of a city will likely pass on to someone within the family, who may not be a natural aristocrat. You're simply perpetuating classic aristocracy.

There's no way to determine what "benefits" most people. Utilitarianism ultimately derive from an extrinsic pleasure/pain system of ethics, only applied on the level of society (what pleases and pains the society instead of the individual), and, as the senses are irrational, so is the utilitarian method. The elimination of egalitarianism in this case doesn't limit people, but rather is a recognition of the superior talents of some people that others do not have. People are free to choose the best natural aristocrat instead of being forced to downgrade their choice.

Also, without annoying inheritance laws like primogeniture, restrictions on who can marry whom, and the coercive power of the state that ensures profit and prevents competition, it would behoove the wise natural aristocrat to give his property titles to a relative who is a natural aristocrat and can maintain the family, as opposed to an idiot who will drag down the family. Even if the person chosen is not a natural aristocrat, his family or advisors will take over his functions, much as they have for many kings in the past. If all these safeguards fail, the people are free to leave the city to a more prosperous one. There is no classic aristocracy.

No, you don't need democracy to run a city. That's true. But history has shown that private ownership of a city lends towards corruption. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had so many revolutions in favour of democracy.

It wasn't private ownership that caused revolution. It was the excesses of the state. Often, those who rose up against the state were themselves middle-class- private ownership is their bread and butter.

There will always be a demand for land. It's not like people are going to not go there if there's nowhere else to go. So they will have to agree to the pricing that the founder has dictated. Even still, what you are implying is that the only way to resolve the issue with a 'natural aristocrat gone bad' is revolution. Democracy exists to avoid these issues. Democracy is a means of non-violent conflict resolution.

They may go there. But they have a variety of options, and this will keep the various private city owners in check. It's ultimately a mutually-beneficial exchange. Also, I never implied that the only way to resolve the issue is revolution. If the natural aristocrat is a bad businessman, the people on his land can patronize other cities. If he's a criminal, you deal with him like a criminal. The problem today with democracy is that so many cities are not driven on profit but on democracy, which leads towards mismanagement, and the cities also benefit from the various legal institutions, such as sovereign immunity, that the state grants.

Well, then it depends on your defenition of democracy. If you mean 'one man - one vote', then I guess it's not. However Roman Repulicanism was anything but egalitarian, and was a functional form of 'democracy'.

My classification of democracy is as follows- any system of government that receives its authority not from patrimony but from an abstract will of the people. Since corporations do not work on a "voice of the people" but rather property ownership, this disqualifies it from being a democracy.

I would mind. The only thing that is getting the founder to build infrastructure is his self-interest. Sometimes it's in his best interest to accept bribes from those more affluent to build the appropriate infrastructure, leaving the less affluent without much needed infrastructure. In general, the whole concept of natural aristocracy leaves the less affluent in the dark. Not good.

Why would the more affluent be "bribing" the natural aristocrat? Everything he spends is out of his own pocket. In a city, you could have rich people pay an elected official $1000 to have him provide $5000 in resources. But the private owner would do no such thing- he would need full compensation because anything he spends is entirely out of his own pocket. Thus, he would allocate resources rationally and economically, allocating resources to their best use. With a system of legalized bribery like politics, where costs are shifted onto the public, we can expect a greater likelihood of leaving people in the dark.
Steel Butterfly
17-03-2007, 04:23
Democracy is rule by the masses, i.e. the idiots, most of whom don't vote or care to begin with. The average person is a moron. Any amount of time in any service industry will tell you that.

Rule by Apathy and Stupidity is much worse than Rule by an Aristocracy.
Europa Maxima
17-03-2007, 04:31
Since corporations do not work on a "voice of the people" but rather property ownership, this disqualifies it from being a democracy.
They do, in a way. Firstly, they are beholden to serving their shareholders' interests. Secondly, in order to do the first via profit-maximization, they must serve their clientele well, or be driven out of the market. In this sense, they are democratic. The basis of it is private ownership, of course - I won't dispute that.
Free Soviets
17-03-2007, 04:38
No. Democracy ensures that policies are characterised by mediocrity, compromise, and the need to placate an electorate the majority of whom have the political education of a doormat.

as opposed to all other systems which are characterized by being utterly shitty for those whose interests are left out (aka "everyone not among the ruling elite"), and generally being a complete clusterfuck.
Free Soviets
17-03-2007, 04:40
They do, in a way. Firstly, they are beholden to serving their shareholders' interests. Secondly, in order to do the first via profit-maximization, they must serve their clientele well, or be driven out of the market. In this sense, they are democratic.

those aren't the only relevant interests
Domici
17-03-2007, 06:05
No. Democracy ensures that policies are characterised by mediocrity, compromise, and the need to placate an electorate the majority of whom have the political education of a doormat.

But you see, some very well educated people have also made catastrophic blunders.

One of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency has been a highly centralized decision making apparatus. Another has been colossal fuck-ups. The two go hand in hand.

In a sufficiently democratic system of government decisions get spread out and implemented erratically. It makes for a sort of competition of ideas in which the best ones prevail. Like how Massachusetts implemented the 21 To Drink law and saw their car crash rates drop by something like 80%. Now all the states have a 21 to drink law.

Usually when the US makes a decision it happens in stages over time and if it turns out to be bad we see the problems before any irreparable harm has been done. Usually.

When China makes a decision, like its infamous 5-year plans, it will be a monumental disaster if there is even one problem, because everyone is having the same problem and there's no one to turn to for help.
Letila
17-03-2007, 15:35
Neither, actually. Natural aristocracy sounds like wishful thinking to me; a naturally aristocratic person would probably closer to Nietzsche's concept of the übermensch who seeks power at all costs. Assuming they were benevolent anyway, I tend to prefer freedom with risk to a happy lack of freedom.