6 ms·

I would say, yes. Theoretically, an all-knowing Philosopher King would be the best form of government. In reality, that's extremely hard to achieve. Modern day

I would say, yes. Theoretically, an all-knowing Philosopher King would be the best form of government. In reality, that's extremely hard to achieve. Modern day democracies, like in the US, are intentionally designed to move slowly, so that no single person or group of people can radically change how it affects it's citizens. That also means it is slow to reform.

Peaker 13y ago
They didn't mean "is Democracy overrated" in a hypothetical way. There are no "all-knowing Philosophers" to be made kings, and even if there were, there would be no reliable mechanism to find them. And if there was, there would be no reliable mechanism to ensure the former reliable mechanism is used to actually appoint such a philosopher and make them yield actual power. In short, Democracy is superior to this method, because it can be made to work.
- Afforess 13y ago
  >In short, Democracy is superior to this method, because it can be made to work. I'm not sure how that makes it better. Democracy has failed much more often than it has succeeded. Many a revolution to Democracy has been tried, with only a few succeeding. And even where Democracies are lasting, they can still be cruel and brutal to minorities, by the hands of the majority. The main reason there is no protests in the street of America, despite the abysmal approval ratings of Congress, is that most Americans have reached a point where their day-to-day lives operate with almost zero visible interference from the government. Out of sight, out of mind. That's basically the best we can hope for.
  - asgard1024 13y ago
    Failure to introduce democracy is not the same thing as failure of democracy. Just like a failure to implement encryption doesn't mean that encryption is a failed concept. Can you provide example of democracy brutal to minority? Which actually allows the minority to vote as well? That could be prevented if only political elite of the time would have say in the matter, then it wouldn't have happened? I don't think there is a historical example.
asgard1024 13y ago
No, it would not. The all-knowing philosopher (AKA enlightened dictator) would basically amount to democracy. Let's say this philosopher wants to do something which is undeniably correct, but majority of people still disagrees with it, and they are willing to protest and risk lives. Then what is he going to do? Is he going to kill those protesting? Or beat them up? Then I would submit he is not enlightened in any way. Or is he going to back down with his proposal? Then here you have it. He basically let the people decide. He also may have a third option, deceive the majority of the population. I would not consider that enlightened either. It's a slippery slope - he has to know what is good for you before _you_ know it, if that's possible at all. I also don't think democracies are _designed_ to move slowly. In fact, the more direct democracy, the more slowly it moves - common people are much more conservative than people who want power. You can actually observe that empirically, and it is arguably a weakness of democracy.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Or he could just allow them to protest peacefully but implement his plan anyway. A truly wise and benevolent leader (if such a thing were possible) would also be skilled at assessing public mood around a proposal and would weigh that into his plan. Of course the difficulty is in knowing what constitutes a "good" policy. Is it something that makes the majority of people happier right now? Is it something that rewards desired behaviour? What about weighing long term factors against short term? For example if we can increase greatly quality of life right now at the cost of massive environmental destruction that won't be felt for several generations.
  - asgard1024 13y ago
    So what if they wouldn't stop protesting? What does it mean, allow to protest peacefully? Like a free speech zone? But isn't this "weighing" you talk about just a form of voting? If he caves in based on public opinion, then he is being effectively democratic. That's the problem. The concept of "benevolent dictator" is just oxymoronic. I would be glad if people stop using it as an argument, because it's just so contradictory.
jacques_chester 13y ago
> Theoretically, an all-knowing Philosopher King would be the best form of government. Just as certain ciphers are mathematically flawless but can still be defeated by side-channel attacks, certain forms of government are apparently perfect but suck in practice. The idea of philosopher kings comes from Plato's Republic. I encourage you to read it. He lays out a vision for a totalitarian state in which a specialist Guardian class governs, partly in secret, according to the highest and noblest of intentions. But consider: you've given these folks unlimited power because you have unlimited trust in their goodness, education and training (Plato lays out a 30-year curriculum). 1. What happens if someone usurps them or there is a coup? The population, who are used to a government with unlimited powers, might simply shrug and accept it. 2. What kind of person plans such a coup? Freaking psychopaths. 3. What happens if there is a irresolvable dispute between the Guardians? A voting mechanism? I guess not, since we're not using democracy. Let's appoint a single arbiter. 4. Who chooses the arbiter? Oh please, now you're just being ... 5. So who is actually in charge? The Guardians, still. 6. What if the arbiter bribes one Guardian to always disagree, meaning all disputes are referred for arbitration? Well I guess you've got a de facto single philosopher-king now. 7. What happens if someone usurps them or there is a coup? Well shit. I guess that didn't last very long. I guess we need some sort of countermeasures to prevent that. Some sort of policing body, able to gather intelligence on such plots from within the community. I guess they couldn't reveal their intentions in public. 8. What are the incentives for the people who disagree? To hide their true intentions. 9. What does this do for everything else in society? Creates a corrosive low-trust atmosphere that slows trade, impedes the spread of innovation, mucks up education. 10. But the philosopher-king will be secure? Yes. Just stuck with a shitty society, secret police and an unending threat of being replaced with an even worse psychopath.
nly 13y ago
Yes, because the "all-knowing Philosopher King" theory works out so well for the religions of the world, where no single person or group of people can radically change how it affects it's citizens, and everything is reformed at a blistering pace.

Peaker 13y ago

They didn't mean "is Democracy overrated" in a hypothetical way. There are no "all-knowing Philosophers" to be made kings, and even if there were, there would be no reliable mechanism to find them. And if there was, there would be no reliable mechanism to ensure the former reliable mechanism is used to actually appoint such a philosopher and make them yield actual power. In short, Democracy is superior to this method, because it can be made to work.

Afforess 13y ago
>In short, Democracy is superior to this method, because it can be made to work. I'm not sure how that makes it better. Democracy has failed much more often than it has succeeded. Many a revolution to Democracy has been tried, with only a few succeeding. And even where Democracies are lasting, they can still be cruel and brutal to minorities, by the hands of the majority. The main reason there is no protests in the street of America, despite the abysmal approval ratings of Congress, is that most Americans have reached a point where their day-to-day lives operate with almost zero visible interference from the government. Out of sight, out of mind. That's basically the best we can hope for.
- asgard1024 13y ago
  Failure to introduce democracy is not the same thing as failure of democracy. Just like a failure to implement encryption doesn't mean that encryption is a failed concept. Can you provide example of democracy brutal to minority? Which actually allows the minority to vote as well? That could be prevented if only political elite of the time would have say in the matter, then it wouldn't have happened? I don't think there is a historical example.

asgard1024 13y ago

No, it would not. The all-knowing philosopher (AKA enlightened dictator) would basically amount to democracy. Let's say this philosopher wants to do something which is undeniably correct, but majority of people still disagrees with it, and they are willing to protest and risk lives. Then what is he going to do? Is he going to kill those protesting? Or beat them up? Then I would submit he is not enlightened in any way. Or is he going to back down with his proposal? Then here you have it. He basically let the people decide. He also may have a third option, deceive the majority of the population. I would not consider that enlightened either. It's a slippery slope - he has to know what is good for you before _you_ know it, if that's possible at all. I also don't think democracies are _designed_ to move slowly. In fact, the more direct democracy, the more slowly it moves - common people are much more conservative than people who want power. You can actually observe that empirically, and it is arguably a weakness of democracy.

jiggy2011 13y ago
Or he could just allow them to protest peacefully but implement his plan anyway. A truly wise and benevolent leader (if such a thing were possible) would also be skilled at assessing public mood around a proposal and would weigh that into his plan. Of course the difficulty is in knowing what constitutes a "good" policy. Is it something that makes the majority of people happier right now? Is it something that rewards desired behaviour? What about weighing long term factors against short term? For example if we can increase greatly quality of life right now at the cost of massive environmental destruction that won't be felt for several generations.
- asgard1024 13y ago
  So what if they wouldn't stop protesting? What does it mean, allow to protest peacefully? Like a free speech zone? But isn't this "weighing" you talk about just a form of voting? If he caves in based on public opinion, then he is being effectively democratic. That's the problem. The concept of "benevolent dictator" is just oxymoronic. I would be glad if people stop using it as an argument, because it's just so contradictory.

jacques_chester 13y ago

> Theoretically, an all-knowing Philosopher King would be the best form of government. Just as certain ciphers are mathematically flawless but can still be defeated by side-channel attacks, certain forms of government are apparently perfect but suck in practice. The idea of philosopher kings comes from Plato's Republic. I encourage you to read it. He lays out a vision for a totalitarian state in which a specialist Guardian class governs, partly in secret, according to the highest and noblest of intentions. But consider: you've given these folks unlimited power because you have unlimited trust in their goodness, education and training (Plato lays out a 30-year curriculum). 1. What happens if someone usurps them or there is a coup? The population, who are used to a government with unlimited powers, might simply shrug and accept it. 2. What kind of person plans such a coup? Freaking psychopaths. 3. What happens if there is a irresolvable dispute between the Guardians? A voting mechanism? I guess not, since we're not using democracy. Let's appoint a single arbiter. 4. Who chooses the arbiter? Oh please, now you're just being ... 5. So who is actually in charge? The Guardians, still. 6. What if the arbiter bribes one Guardian to always disagree, meaning all disputes are referred for arbitration? Well I guess you've got a de facto single philosopher-king now. 7. What happens if someone usurps them or there is a coup? Well shit. I guess that didn't last very long. I guess we need some sort of countermeasures to prevent that. Some sort of policing body, able to gather intelligence on such plots from within the community. I guess they couldn't reveal their intentions in public. 8. What are the incentives for the people who disagree? To hide their true intentions. 9. What does this do for everything else in society? Creates a corrosive low-trust atmosphere that slows trade, impedes the spread of innovation, mucks up education. 10. But the philosopher-king will be secure? Yes. Just stuck with a shitty society, secret police and an unending threat of being replaced with an even worse psychopath.

nly 13y ago

Yes, because the "all-knowing Philosopher King" theory works out so well for the religions of the world, where no single person or group of people can radically change how it affects it's citizens, and everything is reformed at a blistering pace.