In Frank Herbert's God Emperor of Dune, a partly prescient, seemingly immortal man/creature has total control of a galactic empire. He impliments a 3,000 year plan that he calls the Golden Path. The Golden Path is supposed to oppress humanity into peacefulness under the rule of one tyrant. Is it possible that Democracy is not the best form of government at this stage in our development? We all know that we'd like to be in control, but we also all know that the masses have a much much lower IQ than any one person. There is too much debate over what is right and what is wrong for anything longstanding to get done. But with one ruler and one aim, a lot of things do get done. So far, the only despots able to attain the throne are the most ruthless, the most conniving, the ones who are best able to make it look like they are giving the majority what they want. But since the majority isn't smart, what they want is, most of the time, not beneficial to the entirety of the community, let alone the entirety of humanity, let alone the entirety of the world. But what if the next step was to find the most altruistic (yet also generally aware) people and place them in full power as a monarch or despot. Thus we have someone who would otherwise not have the ability to reach such a position, but would act with one focus, and with motivation to help others as a key priority. Or are we not yet far enough past the stage where we can't stop blowing each other up?
True democracy is virtually impossible in any form of society ...other than that of only one individual. How interesting that you say that, when just prior to that, you said, "But since the majority isn't smart, what they want is, most of the time, not beneficial to the entirety of the community, let alone the entirety of humanity, let alone the entirety of the world." See? Your own "what if" statement/question is completely negated because "we", the great masses, could never agree on what they wanted, or how to get it, ....and surely not who would be "The Great Leader". Blowing each other up is one of the things that humans not only do, but they enjoy it. That and murdering, raping, robbing, assaulting, ....., and any of thousands of things that some of think is "bad". Well, obviously, since it's being done so much all over the world, some people DON'T think it's so "bad", do they? You, like many, are trying to find a way for peace on Earth, goodwill towards man, but there are many who don't want that. So what are you going to do in your new world with those kinds of people? ...just shoot 'em? ...get rid of them? ...imprison them? ...exile them to deserted islands? If you want to create a peaceful world, then FIRST AND FOREMOST, you must deal with those who don't want a peaceful world. Do that, then you can start you little dream world. Baron Max
Enlightened philosophers generally don't want to rule, and those who want to rule are seldom enlightened.
Don't you mean Leto III? HERESY, baby! But yes, I agree: Democracy cannot be practiced because the bulk of the people are not fit to rule. As I have said several times before, I think the greatest government so far envisioned was the Venetian Republic. It blended well autocracy, aristocracy, and meritocracy.
Best ever, i think james, was the hunnish system . Evryone loved their lives, loved their jobs, contributed to their society, and wanted to be the best. It is trully a survival of the fittest... And yes i do know that they didn't survive in the end. They got brought down by the usual battle of the fittest after Attila got killed. But their system while he was in power, if you really anylize it is a perfeect system.
How long did it last? And did they have any outside enemies? How 'bout inside enemies? It's pretty easy to be "good" when nothing threatens you from without or within. Baron Max
If the "length of time" a country/empire existed is indication of success, then the Japanese must be the most successful country on earth. And yes, Venice had many enemies, not least of which was Genoa. In fact, Venice even had to fight off the corsair pirates from the Barbary Coast and the Ottoman Turks too.
Baron Max: 8th-18th century. Venice had many enemies throughout most of its time. Byzantine, the Moslem powers, the other powers of Europe...she was not isolated from external strife. In fact, she was the engineer of several crusades in order to control the Mediterrenean. Also, of course, there were internal struggles. It was not peace and lollipops every day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetian_Republic
Timbuktwo: I admire the Hunnic and Mongolian systems of government. The meritocratic warrior spirit was especially pronounced amongst them and their dedication to their cause and lifestyle was admirable. Atilla the Hun was also a profoundly good ruler. Even the Romans conceded this when their ambassador remarked kindly of the king.
You're repeating the tired old argument of the Marxists. The first step in communism was "dictatorship of the proletariat." The Marxists, for all of their presumably genuine selfless caring about humanity, did not respect humanity enough to treat them as equals. I'm reminded of Abe Lincoln who claimed to desire "freedom" for black people but felt that they needed to be ruled by white people because they were inferior to us. Yes indeed. For decades Italians said in awe of Mussolini: "He made the trains run on time." Of course he was executed for all the other things he "got done." And who gets to decide what is "beneficial to humanity? You? The Marxists? The Green Party? The Christians/Muslims/Jews? I have decided that what is beneficial to humanity is the inexorable advancement of civilization, which slowly but more-or-less steadily brings about peace, prosperity, health and culture. And guess what? We have been achieving that for ten thousand years. Peace, prosperity, health and culture are at an all time high if you take an average over the whole planet. And it must be an instinct, an archetype, because we've done that without anyone (even me) having to become a planetary despot. You ignore one of the most basic truths of history: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Within ten or twenty years that benevolent despotism will turn malevolent. Even bureaucracies that spread the power within an elite group turn malevolent. The civil servants who are running America into the ground are not evil people, but the organization they comprise has become evil by having too much power. The only way to avoid this is not to centralize power. The power of those who govern must be limited to the greatest extent possible, regardless of the consequences, because history shows that the alternative is invariably worse. This is a separate question. Communities blowing each other up is the last vestige of tribalism, which is the antithesis of civilization. We continue to make peace with our neighboring tribes and form ever larger communities. Civilization has evolved to the level that the communities doing the blowing up are very large, rather than groups of a few hundred thousand lobbing bombs at each other. We're close to the last step of a single global community. We just have to make sure that final transcendence does not facilitate the anointment of a single world despot. Dune was a fairy tale and it was horrible enough. The reality would be insufferable.
I am not arguing that we should collectively agree on a leader who is more respectful. I am between wondering if there is a more peaceful system of government and wondering if there is a more productive form of government. To me, it seems that single-leader governments are more productive in the sense that they get more done, for better or for worse. I am not here to debate the moral issues behind the question. I am wondering how many of you would agree that a Monarch or even a tyrant would force the general populous into a more productive and/or more altruistic lifestyle. Against their will or not. Lets throw this into the mix, say that this whole idea is for the purpose of 'training' humans. The ruler in question has an idea that he can train society to be more productive and altruistic. But he knows he also must be a cruel tyrant to get it done, and that the people might very well hate him for forcing them to act differently. So in this society, those who are not peaceful (including those other than the ruler who try to force their ideals on others) are locked away or killed outright. No questions asked. Not only are people forced into a different lifestyle, but violent genes and upraising are removed from the genepool. Think of the ruler as wanting to be god--but smart enough that he could convince some that he actually is. We have only come to the conclusion (as individuals) on what is beneficial to humanity through subjective social experience and our inherent genetic makeup which has allowed us to survive to this day. But a lot of us just base what is beneficial to humanity on what society does that is beneficial to us directly. Fact is, we won't choose anything either way until we do. Whatever the ruler chooses now to be beneficial to society will set the norm in the future, if his influence is strong enough. Somebody just has to take a stand and do something--submit all of humanity to their own ideals. Because most people--despite the fact that they would rather listen to themselves than others--are looking for a leader. And yet the smaller picture just rises and falls, never with any steady rise, more or less chaotic up and downs. But this is only if you relate it to subjective happiness. Whether or not people have better quality lives, its all they've know their entire life. They don't know how other people lived hundreds of years ago, because if they did, they'd be a lot more happier about their own situation. I do know what you are talking about, though; the undirected course of human advancement. It seems that, in spite of individuals' being known for their contributions to society, someone else would have come along and done the same thing, or better eventually. Our advancement seems to be a collective and inevitable path. But I'd like to think (if its sublime intuition or just wishful thinking) that individuals create a kind of butterfly effect such that the way they do things can speed up or slow down that progress. Also, the Golden Path is a 3,000 year path that is supposed to force humanity into peacefulness for so long, that all factions mesh and everyone forgets why they fought in the first place. Or possibly that they become so fed up with being forced into something that they come together as one and take back the power for themselves. I realize the other end of the spectrum. For no one, or no group to have power. To be completely autonomous. I'd like for this to happen, but it requires a tough balance. It seems that most of the destructions humans make is because we think we know a lot more than we really do. Animals don't question. They observe and act. But I'm getting on another topic, I think. But is the insufferable just the straw that we need to break the proverbial camel's back? This is what Herbert implied; that we needed this forced upon us so that we would be forced to take that power back into our own hands more responsibly.
The main reason it wouldnt work is because people dont believe it will work, as indicated by the posts above. Even the slightest doubt would ruin your altruistic dictator. So I guess to answer your question, no it is not the best thing for us at this time.
I think a Republic is probably the best for large countries like the USA. Democracy is probably good for city-states like Singapore. ??? The avergae IQ is, by defintioin, 100. About 20 points higher than GW Bush Jr. :jawdrop: Plato's Philosopher King? Michael II
The average IQ of any one person is 100. But I am speaking of the collective IQ of the masses. Which we [should] all know by now is not too bright at all. Generally, people cannot come together on any one idea so they have to compromise with something that isn't nearly as cohesive as a more determined, one-sided plan. If we all were motivated by the same reasons, we could work together to create something better than any one person. But due to the number of people and the variety among them, this isn't likely.
