4 ms·

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

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.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Isn't this roughly how it works now? You implement legal rules for when and how protests can occur and allow people to protest within those rules but a protest is no guarantee of policy change. I guess a truly benevolent dictator would have some objective principles to decide the best course of action and use those. What those principles would look like, I have no idea.
    - asgard1024 13y ago
      If we really lived in democracy, it wouldn't have to be that way. We would just accept defeat if majority would disagree. That's what people in Switzerland do. You just hid the contradiction of "benevolent dictator" into "objective principles I have no idea about". That's the reason why you have no idea - such principles don't exist independently of subjective values of each person!
      - jiggy2011 13y ago
        I think that the closest you could get would be to define some formula for quality of life or happiness, possibly based on neuroscience and predictive modelling that is far more advanced than we have now and govern based on that perhaps based on median happiness or some such. Of course you will still get people under such a system who would be worse off than they would under others. You also have questions about whether you let some people be happier than others if their actions are likely to cause the average level of happiness to increase. Similar to the conversations we have about wealth now. However I don't think the choice would be between implementing majority rule on every micro decision and tyranny. Perhaps it makes sense to think of such a system as a representative democracy where every election is won by the same candidate because they are so vastly superior to the others.
        asgard1024 13y ago
        But there is also an issue of freedom and trust. Sure, you could provide "endless happiness" by making everyone stoned, but what freedom that is? The point isn't to implement majority rule on every micro decision; people are often generous enough not to be control freaks. But again - when they are not, then it probably isn't just a "micro" decision. Your last sentence was exactly my point. If such a dictator is going to win every election, why he needs to be a dictator? Why we can't just have those elections? By this, you also gain trust. I love Linus Torvalds quote: "People can trust me [about kernel development], because they don't have to trust me." I think it's true everywhere - trust is only gained if you have choice not to trust.
jacques_chester 13y ago
The empirical experience is that direct democracies move faster because the population can easily be seized by a particularly urgent desire to see some law enacted or action undertaken. The distinction with an ordinary mob is basically just a very thin whiff of law. And that too breaks down eventually. The ancient Greeks had enough experience of direct democracy that they built theories of government cycles (democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy) to explain the instability. Eventually they were conquered by the much more stable republic up the road which practiced a slow-moving, complex form of representative democracy. I invite you now to imagine a world where internet lynchmobs are able to pass laws. And whether you would be satisfied if you were falsely accused in such a world.
- asgard1024 13y ago
  I can give the evidence. In Switzerland, it took very long time to enact laws for protection of minorities. Progressive politicians in other countries enacted these much sooner. It's also empirically true that direct democracies tend to save on government budget, as opposed to politicians, who are usually interested in giving money away (often to useful pet projects). So what's your evidence for the opposite claim? I want hard evidence, not "imagining things". I don't consider "Ancient Greek" system to be democratic. In particular, you cannot restrict other people from voting democratically, then it's not a democracy (that would be type of Russell's paradox). I also think that "Greek" theory of government cycles is bullshit. (Almost any theory that has "cycle" in name is bullshit, for what is it worth.) Historically, there have probably been more failures of representative democracies than of direct democracies. I do however consider representative democracy to be a form of democracy. (There are 3 basic implementations of the democratic principles - direct voting, representation and random drawing, each having advantages and disadvantages for different things.)
  - jacques_chester 13y ago
    > So what's your evidence for the opposite claim? I want hard evidence, not "imagining things". Probably the most famous example was Socrates being directed to die because he asked annoying questions.

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.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Isn't this roughly how it works now? You implement legal rules for when and how protests can occur and allow people to protest within those rules but a protest is no guarantee of policy change. I guess a truly benevolent dictator would have some objective principles to decide the best course of action and use those. What those principles would look like, I have no idea.
  - asgard1024 13y ago
    If we really lived in democracy, it wouldn't have to be that way. We would just accept defeat if majority would disagree. That's what people in Switzerland do. You just hid the contradiction of "benevolent dictator" into "objective principles I have no idea about". That's the reason why you have no idea - such principles don't exist independently of subjective values of each person!
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      I think that the closest you could get would be to define some formula for quality of life or happiness, possibly based on neuroscience and predictive modelling that is far more advanced than we have now and govern based on that perhaps based on median happiness or some such. Of course you will still get people under such a system who would be worse off than they would under others. You also have questions about whether you let some people be happier than others if their actions are likely to cause the average level of happiness to increase. Similar to the conversations we have about wealth now. However I don't think the choice would be between implementing majority rule on every micro decision and tyranny. Perhaps it makes sense to think of such a system as a representative democracy where every election is won by the same candidate because they are so vastly superior to the others.
      - asgard1024 13y ago
        But there is also an issue of freedom and trust. Sure, you could provide "endless happiness" by making everyone stoned, but what freedom that is? The point isn't to implement majority rule on every micro decision; people are often generous enough not to be control freaks. But again - when they are not, then it probably isn't just a "micro" decision. Your last sentence was exactly my point. If such a dictator is going to win every election, why he needs to be a dictator? Why we can't just have those elections? By this, you also gain trust. I love Linus Torvalds quote: "People can trust me [about kernel development], because they don't have to trust me." I think it's true everywhere - trust is only gained if you have choice not to trust.

jacques_chester 13y ago

The empirical experience is that direct democracies move faster because the population can easily be seized by a particularly urgent desire to see some law enacted or action undertaken. The distinction with an ordinary mob is basically just a very thin whiff of law. And that too breaks down eventually. The ancient Greeks had enough experience of direct democracy that they built theories of government cycles (democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy) to explain the instability. Eventually they were conquered by the much more stable republic up the road which practiced a slow-moving, complex form of representative democracy. I invite you now to imagine a world where internet lynchmobs are able to pass laws. And whether you would be satisfied if you were falsely accused in such a world.

asgard1024 13y ago
I can give the evidence. In Switzerland, it took very long time to enact laws for protection of minorities. Progressive politicians in other countries enacted these much sooner. It's also empirically true that direct democracies tend to save on government budget, as opposed to politicians, who are usually interested in giving money away (often to useful pet projects). So what's your evidence for the opposite claim? I want hard evidence, not "imagining things". I don't consider "Ancient Greek" system to be democratic. In particular, you cannot restrict other people from voting democratically, then it's not a democracy (that would be type of Russell's paradox). I also think that "Greek" theory of government cycles is bullshit. (Almost any theory that has "cycle" in name is bullshit, for what is it worth.) Historically, there have probably been more failures of representative democracies than of direct democracies. I do however consider representative democracy to be a form of democracy. (There are 3 basic implementations of the democratic principles - direct voting, representation and random drawing, each having advantages and disadvantages for different things.)
- jacques_chester 13y ago
  > So what's your evidence for the opposite claim? I want hard evidence, not "imagining things". Probably the most famous example was Socrates being directed to die because he asked annoying questions.