They say the brain is where our consciousness exists, what we actually are. But I think it's suspicious that we only have the brain's opinion on that.
Hot take but i agree with Plato on the first half. People are too dumb, blind, and easily manipulated for a democracy.
But obviously a benevolent, kind, and uncoercible king with the interests of the people at heart is not realistic.I dont have a solution. 🤷♂️
People often pull out the supposed quote from Churchill that "democracy is the worst system, except all the others". But, they omit an important bit from the actual quote:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
IMO, a critical part of that quote is "that have been tried". The US is especially dumb here. A bunch of 25-year-old aristocrats from 250 years ago tried to design a government system. They did a pretty good job. But, they weren't political geniuses, or if they were, they were heavily biased by the times they lived in. They came along nearly 200 years before the development of game theory, let alone centuries of work in political science. The constitution should be a living document, learning from the mistakes those 25 year olds made.
They didn't understand the degree to which parties would take over. They didn't know about game theory showing that a FPTP system inevitably devolves into a 2-party system. They thought about the threat of a demagogue in the president's chair, but they were blind to the idea that he'd be the head of a party, and his party would prevent impeachment.
Unless it's too late, the US should start amending the constitution and fixing these bugs. But, instead it's seen as a holy document that should no longer be changed.
The last few centuries have been a process of taking power away from a hereditary class and distributing it to the people. But, the name "aristocrat" actually suggests why that form of government was supposed to be good. "Aristos" -> the best. "Kratos" -> rule. Aristocracy was supposed to be the "best" people ruling the country. It was the people who were educated from birth about how to govern ruling over peasants who had no education or knowledge of the world. Of course, the fact it was hereditary meant that the kratos were no longer really aristos.
But, maybe, there's a germ of an idea there. For example, it makes no sense that education policy be decided by a cabinet member / minister who is elected by being the least bad option in some random district, then joining the inner circle of the leader, then being appointed in charge of education. The people making decisions on educational policy should be educators: teachers, professors, scientists who study learning, etc. Of course, you need checks and balances, and maybe popular voting should be part of that, but not in the current way. Maybe professional organizations and unions should have a formal role in government, instead of simply having to spend money to lobby the education minister.
I don't know the solution either. But, what I know is that we should still be searching. Maybe the US is too far gone, but other countries should be coming up with new tweaks to their systems. Maybe (hopefully) that will mean less direct voting, and more decisions made by subject-matter experts.
When you think about it, it's pretty unreasonable to expect the entire population to become educated and engaged about everything involving running a modern society. Modern government is incredibly complicated. It's no wonder that tribalism wins over nuance. Who has time for nuance when they're worried about their jobs and families?
That's why I'd like to see some form of sortition tried. Draft a jury to do nothing but learn about a single topic for a period of time. Make all of their contact with the outside world public record to ensure nothing shady is going on. Let representatives from all sides of the issue address them. Then let them make their decisions and go back to their normal lives. No campaign donors or political careers to worry about.
In order for that to happen we all first need to chill. Most people's lives are just too hectic due to the strain the system puts on them.
People are too dumb, blind, and easily manipulated for a democracy.
I hear this claim made routinely, but I rarely see the folks saying it believe that they personally are too dumb, blind, and easily manipulated.
I might argue that people are routinely very clever, observant, and stubborn. And this is why simplistic, generalized political systems are so prone to failure. People worm their way into every crack and flaw in the system, seeking out every vulnerability as a potential personal advantage. And once they've found profit more people pour through the cracks until the system crumbles.
This isn't a problem unique to democracy.
I'd argue that anyone arguing politics online for either side probably has more knowledge about politics than 99% of the population, even if they are arguing with bad arguments and have bad information they've got SOMETHING
Most people we are talking about don't even know the candidates, don't know shit about shit and get their opinion from the last Facebook ad they saw.
Futarchy?
I have: automate the government.
Automation is a labor multiplier, not a labor replacement. We'll still need some mechanism for deciding on which distro.
And who will create the automaton? How do we select people to maintain the automaton that will play the role of government?
That automatic government has to be created by a group of people. How do you plant to select them? The government automaton would also need to be maintained, as it is impossible for the authors of the machine to predict what humanity is going to look like 500 years from now. How do you select those?
The logic of "code is impartial, therefore code should be law" is flawed because code as to be written by someone, and that someone is not impartial.
But obviously a benevolent, kind, and uncoercible king with the interests of the people at heart is not realistic.
It has happened. It's certainly not the typical outcome.
Having a political education test before being allowed to vote
Who writes and administers the test? And who ensures everyone has equal access to education so a non-voting underclass isn't created?
The United States used to have a "voting literacy test" which effectively existed to keep non-whites from voting. It was practically impossible to pass, so it was at the clerk's discretion who could or could not vote.
Diogenes would have been a great king of the universe, specifically because he wouldn't have wanted the part.
Casually laying out biblical punishment after insulting some hypocrisy or another. In want that God
Instead of fighting wars he'd just jack off on the other nation's king
"Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others"
I still can't find a way to disprove this statement. Popular vote inherently favors the majority as opposed to minorities and only cares about charisma. And yet, nothing else seems to beat it.
The only one I could think of is putting in a guy/AI that's really benevolent and competent this time guys I pinky swear.
I could see an AI being up to the task. At least with such an artificial system, you can hard-code guardrails and a constitution that a parliament can agree upon.
Of course, I wouldn't want current LLM-based AI anywhere near the reigns of power. Such a system would need to have proven itself secure and incorruptible over decades before we put it in power.
I could see an AI being up to the task.
There are no such things as AIs, but other than that, sure!
At least with such an artificial system, you can hard-code guardrails and a constitution that a parliament can agree upon.
You can bake in biases that you don't even know are biases, which hands power to a certain group, and then that group refuses to fix the "AI" because doing so would reduce their power.
I don't think anybody who works with computers would suggest that a computer be put in charge. It seems mostly to be the idea from people who only look at computers from afar and see them as these logical, unbiased oracles, which they're not.
You forgot the most important part of that quote (that's not actually a quote).
what about consensus systems? instead of going for a majority, u discuss different solutions until everyone is satisfied or at least ok with the proposed plan
Funny enough, the original Greek meaning of "idiot" was not a dumb person, but a "private" person who keeps to themselves and refuses to take part in politics. So, this usage is correct.
JFF: In Germany we have 'vollidiot' and 'fachidiot'.
The really important part missing from the cartoon is that the philosopher kings were not allowed to own anything and all the wealth was to sit with workers. The idea is that those making decisions shouldn't be in a position to personally benefit from it. It's not a terrible idea
Not owning anything? Like Diogenes?
Well, no. Diogenes was a twat. Plato wasn't expecting people to be idiots. His idea was that philosopher kings would have to live amongst the ordinary people of the state. They would be dependent on the good will of the governed.
Hover-over text of ExistentialComics' comic:
Some people have called Plato the first totalitarian thinker, but if you look at what Democracy is producing these days it's hard to not think he had a bit of a point...
And text beneath comic:
Also, my Dad is trying to raise some money for a surgery, I already posted this before and we met the goal, but then he contracted dengue fever so the surgury had to get delayed, so we are trying to raise a little more money to cover those expenses. If you could spare a few dollars it would really help.
As for Plato, he criticized democracy heavily, claiming that it gave people too much freedom, and if anyone could be elected by the ignorant masses, it would be too possible for selfish people who only wanted power and wealth to get into power. Democracy, ironically, would inevitably lead to tyranny and demagogues. He thought a better system would be for the wisest, most virtuous, and most selfless people to govern society, which of course would be philosophers like himself. How this system was immune to corruption is a little unclear to me, but given what's going on with democracies lately you can probably at least say he has some good points.
Greece had democracy too, and it ran into the exact same basket of problems we experience today.
Candidates would smear each other through rumor campaigns, foreigners would be scapegoated for domestic problems, religious organizations would lobby for special privileges by promising their constituents' support during election season, wealthy men would bribe whomever won to guarantee them favorable treatment, and large portions of the population were disenfranchised in order to maintain a patriarchal nationalist system built on the back of slave labor.
Consequentially, people lost faith in democracy as a mechanism for selecting popular rulers and became increasingly enamored with the military as a source of domestic income, social advancement, and national pride. The Greek system ultimately failed in the face of oligarchy during the Peloponnesian Wars, reemerged in a reformed state for almost a century, and then collapsed entirely following the conquest of the Macedonians.
Plato's idealism not withstanding, his criticism is worth reading because it demonstrates a repeated pattern of human behaviors that modern political groups can learn from and respond to.
Nayib Bukele, current president of El Salvador, describes himself as a philosopher king on his Twitter/X account.
Well, he also looks and acts like one.
Nope. Platos system had the philosophers owning nothing. Our politicians would hate it
I would love a source.
Thank you very much! Now to binge.
Anytime philosophers are arguing in a semi detailed way it's prob existential comics
Well, this comic goes against what Plato wrote in the "Republic". In it, Plato advocated for a city/country/polis which had three classes: the ruling class, the guardian class (military) and the ordinary folk. The ruling class would be made out of philosophers (multiple, so not just one or a few), but by "philosopher" it is meant someone who spent many decades studying philosophy since they were a child. I can't remember the cut off age, but if someone were older than 13 or something like that, and they haven't began their philosophical education (which, besides things we would traditionally consider philosophy, includes things like astronomy and mathematics), they weren't eligible. So, by his own writing, Plato wouldn't be fit for the ruling class.
Also, English didn't even exist back then.
I like the attention to detail that they did Plato as a beefcake.
In 1930s Germany an edition of The Republic was printed with a swastika on the cover.
They really liked what he had to say about an ethnicly superior society where the government controlled all commerce and decided what children could be exposed to in school.
I'd vote for Diogenes, but I know he'd resent me for it
Republican, to the core...
I honestly think the Framers of the US Constitution had the right idea: letting every idiot over the age of 18 vote was a bad idea.
Thing is if you take out the initial racism and sexism, you just get a government ran by landlords and real estate moguls... moreso than currently.
What I was getting at was people with no grip on reality shouldn't be allowed to vote on who runs the country. Of course, doing that is just as hard as the other social/moral issues we have.
