A coalition of theocrats and technocrats!

Did you just say anarchy would result in the formation of social groups? heh.

Anarchy has happened in the past. Look at any transitioning period.
The result of anarchy is exactly what civilization 4 says it is. A 2 year period when the government transitions from Monarchy to Dictatorship/Democracy

anyway, I don't think you have to guess what my oppinion on the if not democracy then what question is.

The one problem with Anarchy is in theory, I could create a large farm, hire some people to work for me in exchange for larger food portions for them. They help farm/protect it from robbery. I then start slowly expanding and BAM! a new nation is formed.

This is not menitioning the higher crime rates due to lack of cops, the risk of foriegn invasion due to lack of armies and government officials.

@fasces: yes, that was my point, i'm of the opinion that any anarchy will quickly become an organised social group, and whichever one is most successful will be able to wipe out it's competitors.

but i believe the free market has manged to leverage the power of individual decision making - as opposed to centralised decision making - at least for a large selection of choices in any individual life.

"@fasces: yes, that was my point, i'm of the opinion that any anarchy will quickly become an organised social group, and whichever one is most successful will be able to wipe out it's competitors."
I.... uhhh.... I like it. Why is it always you that makes me question my fascist beliefs?

I agree with Plato: it's either a dictatorship/communal rule by Philosopher Kings and you hope to GOD these folks don't turn out to be Neros or Hitlers, or else you settle for a corrupted republic and democracy.

It's either Hobbesian protection--which, taken to Hobbes' extreme, means a severe cut in rights and certainly opens the door for tyranny--or Locke-like freedom--which, in turn, allows for enough personal and political freedom that corruption WILL occur, it just hopefully won't be as concentrated in one person holding absolute power.

Pick your poison.

why are you so convenced Corruption Will occur in an democracy? I think the countrys who are the least corrupt are those in northen Europe, democracy's par example.

With a dictator, one person has to control everybody. Don't you think his 'henchman' would be the most corrupt ones, because they are the voices of the power?

Corruption is defined as political actors (officials/representatives) acting in private or personal interests when using their public/official power.

Obi, you keep giving theorticals. All I am asking is which poison would you pick. I would pick the dictatorship for the tyranny is less likely to happen.

Anyway, Oligarchy is (tied with Anarchy) the best form of government.

All forms of goverment have corruption. The thing is that with other forms there is little you can do about it other than armed revolution. At least in a democracy you can vote the basterds out.

yeah, and you dont think that would more of a problem when the leaders aren't accountable to the people than when they are?

Best form of government.

That is a tall statement to make, sir. I'm assuming you have some evidence that this is so?

the problem is the people don't know whats best. And so we normally vote the wrong guy in.

"Best form of government.

That is a tall statement to make, sir. I'm assuming you have some evidence that this is so?"
its the most efficient . (can make decisions fast without worrying about the people or the tyranny of one man). Is the cheapest (as democracy's are two expensive due to voting and dictators are two expensive in loss of efficiency due to lack of knowledge). Is the smartest as the best of the best will be chosen to become the oligarchs and we don't have to rely on the idiots in congress to make decisions.

The essential problem with dictatorships or "real" monarchies (monarchies where the monarch takes an in depth hand in the affairs of state) is twofold.

One, if there is an absolute ruler, if all credit flows to them, all blame does likewise. You can't replace them if they start to go off track, because of the nature of the beast.

Two, in a system where all power hinges on one person, that person has an incredible motivation to make sure they're indispensable to the method of government. You're never going to get a system where there is true one person rule and have the person in that role being replaceable. Just doesn't work that way.

Examples of the latter point would be Alexander's Empire, Napoleon's Empire, Hitler's Reich, and the list goes on. All of those individuals powers were carefully crafted to suit them, and none of them survived their creator's death.

The essential strength of a democracy is that no particular individual is absolutely required for the State to carry on. Therefore, the State can continue to function even if the supposed leaders are mediocre (or even barely competent). The strength is in the system itself, instead of in one particular person.

Efficient: If its so efficient, why are dictatorships in the world almost entirely made up of third world shitholes with extremely corrupt governments, and barely functioning economies?

Cheapest: See point one

Smartest: Yes, because Idi Amin was obviously a brilliant guy that benefited his entire country.

Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others." He was probably right. As warprite said, at least you can vote the bastards out.

"One, if there is an absolute ruler, if all credit flows to them, all blame does likewise. You can't replace them if they start to go off track, because of the nature of the beast."
Hence Oligarchy

"Two, in a system where all power hinges on one person, that person has an incredible motivation to make sure they're indispensable to the method of government. You're never going to get a system where there is true one person rule and have the person in that role being replaceable. Just doesn't work that way."
Hence Oligarchy

"Examples of the latter point would be Alexander's Empire, Napoleon's Empire, Hitler's Reich, and the list goes on. All of those individuals powers were carefully crafted to suit them, and none of them survived their creator's death."
Hence Oligarchy

"The essential strength of a democracy is that no particular individual is absolutely required for the State to carry on. Therefore, the State can continue to function even if the supposed leaders are mediocre (or even barely competent). The strength is in the system itself, instead of in one particular person."
However their is still the demand for self preservation, the president is now forced to make choices based on what would favor the country short term and destroy it long term.

For example, everyone I know agrees that the crop subsidization in America is retarded inefficient and expensive. But any change to it would result in the loss of 3 million jobs.
In an oligarchy, you could just change it and then its done, with little worry about the consequences as long term it is the best plan. But short term, in a democracy the president would be hated and would get voted out next election and every person who voted in favor of the bill in congress would be out of a job 2 years down the road. (well at least most)

Thats the problem with democracy, there is a high demand for short term goals and no demand for long term ones.

"Efficient: If its so efficient, why are dictatorships in the world almost entirely made up of third world shitholes with extremely corrupt governments, and barely functioning economies?

Cheapest: See point one

Smartest: Yes, because Idi Amin was obviously a brilliant guy that benefited his entire country"
I will stop answering your posts until you can respond with the definition of oligarchy.

Oligarchy suffers from the same problems.

Just because an original group of people are competent to run a country doesn't mean their descendants would be equally so. And those individuals have every motivation to keep the power concentrated in a few hands. Therefore, corruption, therefore stagnation, and therefore the State goes to shit. There is no mechanism for replacing the oligarchs with people who would actually be competent.

There are plenty of examples of oligarchy going terribly wrong, Rome is but one example.

"you could just change it and then its done, with little worry about the consequences as long term it is the best plan." Sure let the 3 million starve or rebel that's good for the country.

@Victorious:

Two reasons, at least, why corruption will occur in a democracy, both simple:

-Human beings, by their very nature, are, to quote Hobbes, "desire-pursuing machines," and so have a propensity to be, at least somewhat, corrupt. This can be as little as lying about who ate the last brownie or as big as the most gross cases of state corruption you can fathom--but to paraphrase another great figure, James Madison, if men were angels or devils, there would be no need for government, as they would either be so perfect and virtuous or so beyond help that it would be useless. Men are between such states of "perfectly good and honest" and "perfectly evil and dishonest"--and if you wanted to take NIETZSCHE into account he'd say they were Beyond Good and Evil, but I digress--and so it follows that while man will not be as absolutely corruptible as devils, they will likewise not be as free from corruption or from lying as angels would be. Men lie and cheat, at least a bit, and hence the need for government and regulations to control men, ergo, government is formed BECAUSE men are ALREADY, NATURALLY susceptible to being corrupt, and to assume men are not in the least but corrupt or suspceptible to the temptations of lying is to cease viewing men as men and to stop being a realist to enjoy the fantastic idealized view of man as a perfectly, saintly, angelic creature, which he is no more than he is an utterly devilish fiend.

-Democracy is built upon the idea that all have a say, but another key cornerstone of most all democratic systems, then, is a great component of corruption--compromise. A compromise in legislation cna very well mean a compromising of one's principle's, and it isn't too much of a leap to picture a senator, whole-heartedly anti-smoking, voting for a pro-smoking bill as a favor to another senator in exchange for that second senator voting on a piece of legislation the first, anti-smoking senator wrote up. Even more commonly, democracy often runs with capitalist societies, and so MONEY is needed to get and stay elected...and as the old saying goes, "money is the root of all evil." It's not only exceptionally easy to picture a congressman taking bribes from a lobbyist to vote one way or another--it's a FACT that such events occur, do occur, will occur so long as democracy and capitalism both stand, as lobbying powers HAVE been protected as free speech, at least to an extent. Votes ARE bought and sold...and so beings the rise of corruption in the State.

So--men are naturally corrupt, ergo a State of Men is naturally corrupt, and then an example of how corruption arises that is specific to democratic, capitalist societies.

THAT is how democracy is, necessarily, corrupt.

@Fasces:

It would depend, which I would choose.

IF I could somehow have PROOF that either I could become a Philosopher King or others could a la Plato's vision and NOT become corruptible AND that such a person truly WOULD BE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CURRENT STATE OF COMMON MAN, then in THAT situation, yes, I'd be alright living with an IDEAL Philosopher King.

OTHERWISE the risk of a Nero or a Hitler is FAR too great, as one Nero can undo the greatness of 5 Augustuses.

We can have a string of 5 good, honest men who increase the well-being of all, and then 1 Hitler afterward who wipes out 6 million people and destroys the nation.

UNLESS I am SURE that ALL of the Philosopher kings will not only be just and fair but will also be of a QUALITIATIVE difference, that is, they're not just good guys but they're literally of a higher, more evolved state of Man than I, I must advocate for a democracy or, better still, a republic.

The risk is lesser when no one person, going corrupt, can destroy the nation, which can certainly happen in a dictatorship gone wrong, as history and human nature tells us since, again, ALL men are necessarily corrupt, at least to some degree (and, again, that degree can be as little as lying and saying Sally ate the last cookie when you, in fact, did, or it can be as great as to take away all liberties and to exterminate entire populaces while draining the nation's wealth.)



A Leviathan a la Hobbes and Plato's Republic is what is philosophically ideal.
A safer democracy a la Rousseau and Locke, corrupt though it may be, is more practical.

So until man becoems wholly philosophically realized according to his potential, I must side with the practical and the corrupt democracy--the lesser of two evils.

I would also add that Anarchy presents an interesting alternative, but this, too, seems unstable, and one of the few things Hobbes AND Locke agree on is that anarchy would be disasterous.

Nietzsche sort of goes backa dn forth on the issue, he can sound very pro-Anarchist at times, and other times he can sound like he's condemning it...really I think he's just condemning the State, and so he's not praising anarchy so much as attacking its alternative...

I, for one, would not be in favor of it right now, as from where I stand I don't hate the concept of a State so much as I do its current execution...

If someone IS an anarchist and DOES have a compelling reason why they think anarchy is superior to living in a State, I'm all ears, I'd be curious as to what such a world YOU, the Anarchist, would envision in place of a world of States or even a world of one, unified State of Earth.

Oligarchic Meritocracy has always seemed to be best to me. I have no faith in the wisdom of crowds at all. The main problem is the requirement that the oligarchs believe in and enforce the principle of meritocracy rather than becoming nepotistic or corrupt as you say.

I still think I'd rather be in a place ruled by a group of extremely able people who I had no control over than a group of people who were best at persuading everyone they were capable. It also has the added bonus that if I were to be sufficiently able to become a member of the oligarchy I wouldn't have to worry about losing my power because of unpalatable but necessary policies.

@Hereward77:

I LOVE the idea of a meritocracy! :D Like I've been banging on and aon about, as other folks will say, I DO believe people have different merits to them and are not all blanketly worth the same (except in the legal department, I don't care if you're Shakespeare committing a murder or a drug dealer, either way it's still reprehensible.)

An oligarchy...I like that less...perhaps if it were like Plato's commune of Philosopher Kings, but then again we run into the issue of actually having people of THAT high of a merit.



But yes, definitely--if there's one overriding requirement and ideal MY government would be based on, it would be MERIT and ACHIEVEMENT.

All people may be created equal--but they do not all live their lives equally or act equally, and so, with the exception of the law, cannot be treated equally.

"Oligarchy suffers from the same problems.

Just because an original group of people are competent to run a country doesn't mean their descendants would be equally so. And those individuals have every motivation to keep the power concentrated in a few hands. Therefore, corruption, therefore stagnation, and therefore the State goes to shit. There is no mechanism for replacing the oligarchs with people who would actually be competent.

There are plenty of examples of oligarchy going terribly wrong, Rome is but one example."
I will stop answering your posts until you can respond with the definition of oligarchy

"Sure let the 3 million starve or rebel that's good for the country."
Who said let them starve. It will just cut their income by 30% and would provide a decrease in agricultural productivity for 5 years before having a steady increase to above would be outputs and incomes. However no party or president would last long enough to make sure it happened.

"IF I could somehow have PROOF that either I could become a Philosopher King or others could a la Plato's vision and NOT become corruptible AND that such a person truly WOULD BE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CURRENT STATE OF COMMON MAN, then in THAT situation, yes, I'd be alright living with an IDEAL Philosopher King.

OTHERWISE the risk of a Nero or a Hitler is FAR too great, as one Nero can undo the greatness of 5 Augustuses."
Bush undid the greatness of 5 good presidents, and was relected. Democracy has just as bad of a track record as dictatorship. The only problem is democracy is 240 years old, while dictatorship is 12,000 years old, so your bound to be able to name more bad examples of Dictators then Democracy's.
Thats what you need to realize. (does anyone know where Putin is, I could use him to back me up)