5 ms·

This is a problem as old as thought itself. One of the worlds first philosophers, Plato, wrote a book about it. He agreed, the best form of government is one

This is a problem as old as thought itself. One of the worlds first philosophers, Plato, wrote a book about it. He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer. He showed us what a democracy gets you - it's government by the least common denominator. It devolves to sensualism, that is, the highest aim of the people is to satisfy their desires, and they capture the government for that purpose. - My unsolicited opinion: a government reflects its people. If the people are corrupt, so too the government. I think the framers of the US Constitution understood it, and knowing their peers corruptible, set up precedent and procedure to ensure stable government. We've had some rocky patches, and we're encountering another bumpy stretch of trail, but with history as our guide, we'll pull together when the moment's need arises.

loceng 4y ago
Isn't it more that if corrupt people aren't held accountable, so too the government is corrupt - or something like that? Regulatory capture/policy capture by for-profit industrial complexes seems never ending, each major industry taking its turn at extracting wealth - which wouldn't be so much of a problem if individuals weren't left behind or extracted enough to suffocate them towards death.
dangerface 4y ago
> My unsolicited opinion: a government reflects its people. A democracy tends to reflect its people a dictatorship tends to reflect the dictator.
Aperocky 4y ago
> we'll pull together when the moment's need arises. Unless the need are manifesting slow enough (e.g. climate change).
- mftb 4y ago
  Yours is a great point, because it brings to light the follow-on question; what system, or improvements to an existing one, would help people work towards longer-term goals? I think it's a difficult ask, because even a responsible, civic-minded person, will honestly, almost always, choose to satisfy an immediate, personal, need over a concrete, community, ~500 year goal. (I'm not just speaking to climate, change here. I'm honestly interested in how groups might genuinely work toward such goals).
  - engineer_22 4y ago
    I can only believe that organized Religion has that much staying power. Nothing else could last through 20 generations. I think religions are valuable because they give their adherents a common foundation on which to base their decisions. So if they live in a community with a fellow believer, they can be reasonably sure how they will behave over time - which has advantages to them. It's noteworthy that the thinking around climate change has some similarities with religion.
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      I think the only thing missing from the climate change/religion similarity is that climate change has no savior or ultimate authority
    - mftb 4y ago
      This is an interesting answer. There are some actual real-world examples to support it. I think someplace like Cologne Cathedral was planned and the plan executed to completion in ~600 years. I think it would also be fair to say, that there were other organizing factors in addition to religion, certainly civic, and economic.
    - solveit 4y ago
      The academy has also done exceptionally well. Individual institutions like the University of Oxford have unbroken chains of governance going back centuries, and so do scholarly societies. And of course, the institution of (say) science as a whole could also be regarded as a common endeavour lasting centuries where the highest-status individuals routinely make decisions with the far future in mind (although you would usually say that they're doing it for their legacy).
      - biomcgary 4y ago
        Despite the history, it is clear that the academy is also failing in the current error. I was in academia (science) for a very long time and watched the collapse of the cultural norms that made it successful. I had mentors and friends that are a generation older than me who confirmed my observations of accelerating decline. The reproducibility crises in multiple fields are just the tip of the iceberg.
whatshisface 4y ago
>It devolves to sensualism, that is, the highest aim of the people is to satisfy their desires, and they capture the government for that purpose. If Plato's hypothesis is that all democracies will elect 100 mega-Bernies to their senates, I think we can safely say it has been falsified.
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  Oh, because the US has long terms implemented currently?
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Plato's hypothesis was that shorter terms would lead to more democratic (and therefore baser) democracies. Our terms are not that long, although incumbent advantage makes them longer in practice.
    - netizen-936824 4y ago
      Really? Because the top comment to which you replied stated: >This is a problem as old as thought itself. One of the worlds first philosophers, Plato, wrote a book about it. He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer.
      - whatshisface 4y ago
        Ancient philosophers did not necessarily think democracy was good. Some were even so direct as to say that noble blood deserved to rule. Plato believed longer terms were less influenced by democracy than shorter terms, and therefore they were a better form of government.
        netizen-936824 4y ago
        I think someone is going to have to come up with some actual scholarly citations, because you and the top commenter to which I am referring are explicitly disagreeing and up until this point all anyone has done is make baseless assertions
Supermancho 4y ago
> He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer. That wasn't the only restriction. He also recognized that the longer someone is power, the more likely they are to be corrupted. Plato does not believe that democracy is the best form of government. According to him, equality brings power-seeking individuals who are motivated by personal gain. In the US, there is a mix but there is a telling wrinkle. The Supreme Court is a lifelong post, but the decisions are carefully documented and deconstructed. The President (and most legislators) have a much lower level of scrutiny because of intentional obfuscation (like National Security reasoning) and closed sessions without formal reasoning for their actions. Transparency is not valued highly at the most immediate levels, which is why corruption is inevitable under the current practices.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position. The lifetime appt likely means your side will defend you at most or all costs. Even if I am able to verify one side or the other of the Court is being hypocritical with their argument for lifting Roe v Wade (abortion legality) soon via the careful examining of the results, will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    > What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position I think you mean political appointment. The discussion is centered around the philosophy of political positions and their utility over time. Regardless, the SCOTUS is also a political position that has a specific process and set of requirements (explicit and implicit). > will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing? I think you're missing the point. The fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered so important (despite being equally impactful to an individual as any local political decision) is a cognitive dissonance that is baked into modern US politics. One term is the longest that can be assessed and all others are relatively short term. That's worth trying to explain, rather than arguing over the merits of short-vs-long cycle political postings, as if there exists one-true-way.
  - 4y ago
faangiq 4y ago
You’re right, except that the founder’s experiment clearly failed very early and was foolish to begin with.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  If lasting functional government is the goal, it's clearly been successful. Let's not believe the USA was founded as a utopian project.
  - diordiderot 4y ago
    I mean there was that whole civil war deal
lkrubner 4y ago
Plato was among the first to stand liberalism in contrast to democracy: ---------------- Hayek said "If I have to chose between a democratic society and a liberal society, then I must choose a liberal society." That idea has been at the heart of Western political theory since Plato, who also suggested that it was better to live in a liberal society than a democratic society, but Plato was reacting, specifically, to the democratic murder of Socrates. Socrates had advocated for a style of probing philosophy that would wake people up by forcing them to "Question everything" and this made the people of Athens uncomfortable, so they accused him of "corrupting the youth of Athens" and they sentenced him to death. And Plato's analysis of the democratic murder of Socrates set up the conflict between democracy and liberalism that the West has spent the last 2,500 years discussing. The criticism of the "tyranny of the majority" usually starts with a discussion of the democratic murder of Socrates. https://demodexio.substack.com/p/is-it-true-that-entrepreneurs-will?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/is-it-true-that-entrepreneu...
- engineer_22 4y ago
  Pardon my simple question: What is Liberalism?
  - gameman144 4y ago
    Nothing to pardon! Liberalism is the philosophy in which individual equality before the law and inalienable liberties are the top priority. This can fit in well with democracy (e.g. Bill of Rights), but can also be absent in democracies (e.g. the majority being able to vote to kill you). Similarly, liberalism can influence governments of all types, codifying individual rights and laws which can limit the power (or at least the rights) of the government.
    - engineer_22 4y ago
      Well put, thank you :)

loceng 4y ago

Isn't it more that if corrupt people aren't held accountable, so too the government is corrupt - or something like that? Regulatory capture/policy capture by for-profit industrial complexes seems never ending, each major industry taking its turn at extracting wealth - which wouldn't be so much of a problem if individuals weren't left behind or extracted enough to suffocate them towards death.

dangerface 4y ago

> My unsolicited opinion: a government reflects its people. A democracy tends to reflect its people a dictatorship tends to reflect the dictator.

Aperocky 4y ago

> we'll pull together when the moment's need arises. Unless the need are manifesting slow enough (e.g. climate change).

mftb 4y ago
Yours is a great point, because it brings to light the follow-on question; what system, or improvements to an existing one, would help people work towards longer-term goals? I think it's a difficult ask, because even a responsible, civic-minded person, will honestly, almost always, choose to satisfy an immediate, personal, need over a concrete, community, ~500 year goal. (I'm not just speaking to climate, change here. I'm honestly interested in how groups might genuinely work toward such goals).
- engineer_22 4y ago
  I can only believe that organized Religion has that much staying power. Nothing else could last through 20 generations. I think religions are valuable because they give their adherents a common foundation on which to base their decisions. So if they live in a community with a fellow believer, they can be reasonably sure how they will behave over time - which has advantages to them. It's noteworthy that the thinking around climate change has some similarities with religion.
  - jimmygrapes 4y ago
    I think the only thing missing from the climate change/religion similarity is that climate change has no savior or ultimate authority
  - mftb 4y ago
    This is an interesting answer. There are some actual real-world examples to support it. I think someplace like Cologne Cathedral was planned and the plan executed to completion in ~600 years. I think it would also be fair to say, that there were other organizing factors in addition to religion, certainly civic, and economic.
  - solveit 4y ago
    The academy has also done exceptionally well. Individual institutions like the University of Oxford have unbroken chains of governance going back centuries, and so do scholarly societies. And of course, the institution of (say) science as a whole could also be regarded as a common endeavour lasting centuries where the highest-status individuals routinely make decisions with the far future in mind (although you would usually say that they're doing it for their legacy).
    - biomcgary 4y ago
      Despite the history, it is clear that the academy is also failing in the current error. I was in academia (science) for a very long time and watched the collapse of the cultural norms that made it successful. I had mentors and friends that are a generation older than me who confirmed my observations of accelerating decline. The reproducibility crises in multiple fields are just the tip of the iceberg.

whatshisface 4y ago

>It devolves to sensualism, that is, the highest aim of the people is to satisfy their desires, and they capture the government for that purpose. If Plato's hypothesis is that all democracies will elect 100 mega-Bernies to their senates, I think we can safely say it has been falsified.

netizen-936824 4y ago
Oh, because the US has long terms implemented currently?
- whatshisface 4y ago
  Plato's hypothesis was that shorter terms would lead to more democratic (and therefore baser) democracies. Our terms are not that long, although incumbent advantage makes them longer in practice.
  - netizen-936824 4y ago
    Really? Because the top comment to which you replied stated: >This is a problem as old as thought itself. One of the worlds first philosophers, Plato, wrote a book about it. He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Ancient philosophers did not necessarily think democracy was good. Some were even so direct as to say that noble blood deserved to rule. Plato believed longer terms were less influenced by democracy than shorter terms, and therefore they were a better form of government.
      - netizen-936824 4y ago
        I think someone is going to have to come up with some actual scholarly citations, because you and the top commenter to which I am referring are explicitly disagreeing and up until this point all anyone has done is make baseless assertions

Supermancho 4y ago

> He agreed, the best form of government is one where the terms are longer. That wasn't the only restriction. He also recognized that the longer someone is power, the more likely they are to be corrupted. Plato does not believe that democracy is the best form of government. According to him, equality brings power-seeking individuals who are motivated by personal gain. In the US, there is a mix but there is a telling wrinkle. The Supreme Court is a lifelong post, but the decisions are carefully documented and deconstructed. The President (and most legislators) have a much lower level of scrutiny because of intentional obfuscation (like National Security reasoning) and closed sessions without formal reasoning for their actions. Transparency is not valued highly at the most immediate levels, which is why corruption is inevitable under the current practices.

skinnymuch 4y ago
What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position. The lifetime appt likely means your side will defend you at most or all costs. Even if I am able to verify one side or the other of the Court is being hypocritical with their argument for lifting Roe v Wade (abortion legality) soon via the careful examining of the results, will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing?
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > What use does the Supreme Court distinction have? It’s a political position I think you mean political appointment. The discussion is centered around the philosophy of political positions and their utility over time. Regardless, the SCOTUS is also a political position that has a specific process and set of requirements (explicit and implicit). > will this mean anything more than catching any politician BSing? I think you're missing the point. The fact that the SCOTUS decisions are considered so important (despite being equally impactful to an individual as any local political decision) is a cognitive dissonance that is baked into modern US politics. One term is the longest that can be assessed and all others are relatively short term. That's worth trying to explain, rather than arguing over the merits of short-vs-long cycle political postings, as if there exists one-true-way.
- 4y ago

faangiq 4y ago

You’re right, except that the founder’s experiment clearly failed very early and was foolish to begin with.

engineer_22 4y ago
If lasting functional government is the goal, it's clearly been successful. Let's not believe the USA was founded as a utopian project.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  I mean there was that whole civil war deal

lkrubner 4y ago

Plato was among the first to stand liberalism in contrast to democracy: ---------------- Hayek said "If I have to chose between a democratic society and a liberal society, then I must choose a liberal society." That idea has been at the heart of Western political theory since Plato, who also suggested that it was better to live in a liberal society than a democratic society, but Plato was reacting, specifically, to the democratic murder of Socrates. Socrates had advocated for a style of probing philosophy that would wake people up by forcing them to "Question everything" and this made the people of Athens uncomfortable, so they accused him of "corrupting the youth of Athens" and they sentenced him to death. And Plato's analysis of the democratic murder of Socrates set up the conflict between democracy and liberalism that the West has spent the last 2,500 years discussing. The criticism of the "tyranny of the majority" usually starts with a discussion of the democratic murder of Socrates. https://demodexio.substack.com/p/is-it-true-that-entrepreneurs-will?s=w https://demodexio.substack.com/p/is-it-true-that-entrepreneu...

engineer_22 4y ago
Pardon my simple question: What is Liberalism?
- gameman144 4y ago
  Nothing to pardon! Liberalism is the philosophy in which individual equality before the law and inalienable liberties are the top priority. This can fit in well with democracy (e.g. Bill of Rights), but can also be absent in democracies (e.g. the majority being able to vote to kill you). Similarly, liberalism can influence governments of all types, codifying individual rights and laws which can limit the power (or at least the rights) of the government.
  - engineer_22 4y ago
    Well put, thank you :)