Most apt ideology

[SolitaryWalker]

Dogma 1: Only ordinances based on sound reasoning are justifiable.

Dogma 2: An individual is permitted to do all things that do not interfere with the autonomy of other individuals.

Axiom:The sole task of the government is to protect the autonomy of the individual.

---------------------------------------------------------------


Proposition: Democracy is undesirable because philistines tend not to know what is best for them.



Form of government: Platonic Aristocracy. Comprised of 6-8 philosopher kings who are bound to the two dogmas of rationalism. A philosopher who fails to demonstrate proficiency with reasoning will be removed from bench.

Entailed clause: Legal Positivism--all legal enterprises are bound by law to follow the stipulations laid down by the philosopher kings. Law can only be changed by their will. We trust them because they are most likely to make reasonable decisions. Moreover, those who are in tune with their reasoning faculties tend to highly value autonomy. Therefore, despite their power being absolute, they are unlikely to impinge on our autonomy.

[logan235711]

i think everybody would starve to death in this society

[OneBadMother]

Well, if you're saying that the common people "don't know what's best for them", you're obviously not a proponent of their autonomy. :P Plus, just because a person has a capacity for reasoning does not mean that they will agree with a law. In fact, they may chafe at its existence because it disagrees with their own internal reasoning. Also, who would determine the initial selection of philosopher-kings, and who would test them for reasoning capabilities? What would the standard for reasoning capability be?

[SolitaryWalker]

Well, if you're saying that the common people "don't know what's best for them", you're obviously not a proponent of their autonomy.?
Perhaps we could say that because these people cannot think for themselves, they would lose their autonomy should we let them do as they please. In order to give them as much autonomy as possible, we must first impose some sanctions on them.

P Plus, just because a person has a capacity for reasoning does not mean that they will agree with a law..?

This looks like a necessary evil. Though the point of such a regime is to turn everybody inward so they can become in tune with their inner being.

[Tarrick]

Free people cannot be guaranteed security. Secure people cannot be guaranteed freedom.
People who cannot choose are not free. People who are not free but have security will eventually be neither free nor secure.

I would rather be free and have to fear for my safety then walk the streets in complete safety knowing I'm not free.

[SolitaryWalker]

Free people cannot be guaranteed security. Secure people cannot be guaranteed freedom.
People who cannot choose are not free. People who are not free but have security will eventually be neither free nor secure.

I would rather be free and have to fear for my safety then walk the streets in complete safety knowing I'm not free.

Yes, Freedom and Security are often antithetical to each other. Though the purpose of such an ideology is not to guarantee security, but rather create an environment where we all could focus on our inner worlds as much as possible. The security aspect was not intended, it came by only incidentally.

[Tarrick]

A society of philosophers? Perhaps, but such a society would be completely dependent on other societies that have goods and serves run by people who are more interested in more mundane things. A society like what you are proposing would be very unstable in terms of actual functionality.

[SolitaryWalker]

A society of philosophers? Perhaps, but such a society would be completely dependent on other societies that have goods and serves run by people who are more interested in more mundane things. A society like what you are proposing would be very unstable in terms of actual functionality.

Very much so. I am thinking more along the lines of a village for philosophers to retire to for short periods of time in order to experience the most profound and intense contemplation possible.

[Aestheticbend]

Proposition: Democracy is undesirable because philistines tend not to know what is best for them.

Forgive me if this does not make not sense, but there is somewhat of a contradiction here. Your comment regarding democracy suggests a disparaging view of the populous, however asserting autonomy as worthy suggests intrinsic rationality because of autonomy means essentially self govern. Autonomy cannot be valuable if most people are phillistines and thus do not know what is best for them. Autonomy is so linked to the concept of practical wisdom that it necessarily requires one view humans as having the capability to use their practical reason to do what is right. If one sees the value in autonomy the idea of a benevolent oligarchy guiding the herd seems uneccessary and in opposition to the conception of humanity that autonomy implies. Also, there is the whole issue of "angels among men" in the oligarchy itself.

I understand your opposition to democracy. I oppose it on the grounds that it is simply a formalization of might makes right and thus essentially mob rule.

[SolitaryWalker]

Forgive me if this does not make not sense, but there is somewhat of a contradiction here. Your comment regarding democracy suggests a disparaging view of the populous, however asserting autonomy as worthy suggests intrinsic rationality because of autonomy means essentially self govern..

Most people being philistines means that they cannot handle autonomy having things as they are. Yet, we can adjust the situation to a point where they would be able to embrace autonomy despite being philistines.



Autonomy cannot be valuable if most people are phillistines and thus do not know what is best for them..

They will have to learn the hard way. The reason why we have to limit their autonomy at first is to ensure that they dont impinge on the autonomy of others. However, if it is the case that even 20% of the population can readily embrace their full liberty, it is worth guarding their autonomy from the vulgar. The rest will have the liberty to do all they need to do in order to make themselves happy, having embraced full autonomy, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others to do likewise.


issue of "angels among men" in the oligarchy itself. .. Yes, it would be very difficult for us to find the oligarchs that we can trust will not degenerate into tyrants.

[Aestheticbend]

Most people being philistines means that they cannot handle autonomy having things as they are. Yet, we can adjust the situation to a point where they would be able to embrace autonomy despite being philistines.


Fair enough, while I disagree this position is defensible. The whole debate on whether the individual or the state is prior is too much to get into here. Have you read any Strauss? I sense a touch of Straussian Civic Republicanism in this proposal.


They will have to learn the hard way. The reason why we have to limit their autonomy at first is to ensure that they dont impinge on the autonomy of others. However, if it is the case that even 20% of the population can readily embrace their full liberty, it is worth guarding their autonomy from the vulgar. The rest will have the liberty to do all they need to do in order to make themselves happy, having embraced full autonomy, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others to do likewise.


The only problem I see here is that you seem to using autonomy in a more rule utilitarian sense similar to Hayek. The reasoning is fine, but that would require saying that autonomy is a means to an end, rather than being an end in itself. Otherwise the inpinging on one's autonomy through the ruling class and their limitations and guidance would have to have the moral criteria applied to them, making any state of rulership self refuting. For, if autonomy is an end in itself, and thus violation of it is immoral by nature any violation even by the ruling class would have to be viewed as morally repugnant.

[SolitaryWalker]

Fair enough, while I disagree this position is defensible. The whole debate on whether the individual or the state is prior is too much to get into here. Have you read any Strauss? I sense a touch of Straussian Civic Republicanism in this proposal. .

I am vaguely familiar with Strauss's political philosophy. Though unlike Strauss, if I read him correctly--I promote the individual over the state. I am in closest affinity with Spinoza however.



The only problem I see here is that you seem to using autonomy in a more rule utilitarian sense similar to Hayek. The reasoning is fine, but that would require saying that autonomy is a means to an end, rather than being an end in itself. Otherwise the inpinging on one's autonomy through the ruling class and their limitations and guidance would have to have the moral criteria applied to them, making any state of rulership self refuting. For, if autonomy is an end in itself, and thus violation of it is immoral by nature any violation even by the ruling class would have to be viewed as morally repugnant.





I argue that autonomy is an end in itself and that it is justifiable for the state to take liberty away of the individual to some degree under certain circumstances. From the standpoint of the state, autonomy of the individual is an end in itself. Yet, we know that if we simply let people do 'what they want', they will lose their autonomy. Thus our task, as sovereigns of the state is to place the citizens in the position where they will have as much autonomy as possible. For this reason we need to impose certain laws on them.

Seems to me, if I recognize autonomy of the individual as the greatest possible good, it is acceptable for autonomy to be treated as an end in itself. Clearly, the individual comes before the state, and the task of the state is to maximize the autonomy of the individual. Thus a ruling violation will be justified in the long run because it conduces to maximization of autonomy of an individual.

[Emma]

create an environment where we all could focus on our inner worlds as much as possible.

A society of INTJs in the making;)?


Back to the topic at hand, this ideology- having a few enlightened decide on what is best for the community- kind of frightens me. It always starts with good intentions, a "for the greater good" ideal, and we end up with tyrans.

For the record, eigteenth century enlightened despots- like Catherine the Great- were very fond of philosophers like Voltaire, but the extent to which they followed their advice can be questioned.

(of course, it could have turned out differently if we had an example of a true society ruled by the philosophers themselves, but I can't think of one. And the masses dislike the quiet, thoughtful types- they are more likely to go for the "God inspires me" speeches of the extroverts).

[LSB]

The ideology is completely irrational - firstly you would need to decide what kind of viewpoints you would like to promote, then you'd have to find highly regarded proponents of that viewpoint and give them all the power in the world. What happens when some of them die or retire and need to be replaced? Who picks the rulers? Themselves?

They have this form of government in Iran - the chosen ideology is Islamism. The true rulers perpetuate themselves and appoint one another, while the electoral process and the elected representatives are just bread and circus. I'm not sure it works that well in any way, shape or form, Islamist or not.

I agree that 'democracy' by definition is undesirable - the individual needs to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Plain democracy is nothing but mob rule. The elected officials need to be restrained in their dealings by a formal document which recognizes the rights of the individual, and also states in plain text what the role of government is and that they should not expand it beyond that. The U.S. was an experiment in this - the problem is that the Founders underestimated the shrewdness of politicians and the apathy of the people.

[SolitaryWalker]

The ideology is completely irrational - firstly you would need to decide what kind of viewpoints you would like to promote, then you'd have to find highly regarded proponents of that viewpoint and give them all the power in the world. What happens when some of them die or retire and need to be replaced? Who picks the rulers? Themselves?


No particular view is to be promoted. This is anathema to my ideology because the end to our activity is to inspire people to concoct ideas of their own.

We'd have to work out a system where the most rational human beings would remain in power throughout all times. We can accomplish this by virtue of our assessment of who is most adept at philosophical inquiry.

[Hdier]

In that society, one of two things would happen to me:

1. I would be caught and executed for treason.

or

2. Revolution! Three people are no longer all-powerfull in my socity!

[Nomad]

No particular view is to be promoted. This is anathema to my ideology because the end to our activity is to inspire people to concoct ideas of their own.

We'd have to work out a system where the most rational human beings would remain in power throughout all times. We can accomplish this by virtue of our assessment of who is most adept at philosophical inquiry.

First off, I have serious doubts about any system where the originator class gets to rule. Very convenient, that.

Second, philosophy translates to "love of wisdom" many times, wisdom is irrational. It's subjective, not objective.

Third, if the idea is to inspire ideas of their own, you are redundant. One of the definitions of leadership is promoting a view.If you promote no views, you are not leading, or even managing. You are not required. What you describe is not unlike anarchy.

No insult, I just don't think your making yourself clear, or you have not thought this through completely.

-Nomad

[Hdier]

What about promoting the idea of individualism; part of being an individual is coming up with your own ideas.

[Nomad]

Individualism also means to follow your own way, path or whatever. You pursue your own goals.You don't need a leader, so why are the philosophers in charge, if everyone is in charge of themselves and their own goals? if i understand the intent properly, they are mutually exclusive goals.

-Nomad

[Hdier]

But a 'leader' can be defined very loosely; what if the 'leader' of a certain area was simply someone who helped people achieve their individual goals, by supplying them with resources (based on how much they contribute?) as well as advice? This way, you would have a 'leader' who could help the 'clan' or whatever you want to call it while still keeping individuality. Also, since I'm sure that everyone could agree that survival is a goal that they all want, the 'leader' could help direct everyone in times of crisis, as well as help make sure that the 'clan' got everything it needed to survive.

[Nomad]

This sounds vaguely like communist theory. The idea was that communism would have a number of stages where "leaders' would no longer be necessary. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs"

Except that does not happen in the world. Once someone gets a hold of power, they are loathe to surrender it. For example, the north is starving because of floods, the south has extra food. The southerners don't want to give up their surplus because it gives them the resources to apply their individual goals.

What does the leader do? Subvert the individual goals, which is beholden in the ideology that is presented? or does the leader let the north starve?

The ideology as presented is unworkable. You cannot have leaders and individualism as a common society. Individualism defies leadership and common social paradigms. If there is a leader, there are followers. Individuals are generally not followers.

I'm not arguing the merits of any given model, I'm saying these two models are mutually exclusive.

-Nomad

[Hdier]

OK, part of my point was that the person wouldn't be a 'leader' per say, simply another role, though he could become one in times of crisis. He would help others with their goals with sage advice and stuff. The clan itself would decide what to do as a whole, while this one 'sage' would be able to tell them what they needed, and in what quantities. Perhaps I explained myself badly, or perhaps you did understand me the first time.

[Nomad]

I think I understood you properly. How long do you think this wisest of sages will take to decide, that, well, he IS wiser and more intelligent than everyone else, and people really should listen to him, and do what he advises? How long do you think it will take for him to decide that he knows better, and it would be better if everyone just does what he says, and it ceases to be advice?

People don't really set out to be tyrants, they convince themselves it's necessary for the public good. The most deceptive, the most alluring lies are the ones we tell ourselves.

It's a lovely theory, and I'd like to live in a world where self determination is the rule, and the rule of others does not exist, however, there is always someone who believes they know whats best for others, or are at least convinced of that fact.

It's not a workable social construct.Regrettably.

-Nomad

[Hdier]

When he gets to that point, he is 'overthrown' and a new Sage comes. Once he starts telling people what they want, he is no longer being a Sage.

I think that if humans evolve mentally, then it is workable without as many flaws as it has now.

[Nomad]

Thats a pretty big "if" . I think that what we forget here, is that we are rare beasts. Most can't make the decisions required to be an individual, self actualizing human. Most folks want to go along to get along, eat sleep, reproduce, have some fun. Get used to the phrase "You think too much" and it's variations. I'm curious, what do you mean, evolve mentally? I have not seen much evidence that folks have evolved much in recorded history, the same things preoccupy them then as now.

I want to be clear, I'm not picking on you, I think you have a good mind, and I find this topic interesting.

-Nomad

[Hdier]

"We are rare bests"...I like that . It implies a connection to animals that most people would rather ignore. Were you saying humans in general, or a more concentrated group?

More on topic, I was actually saying that if we evolve mentally, the hypothetical society would be easier to create, not necessary. When I say 'evolve mentally', I mean in maturity as well as being able to say 'I should help my clan, without constantly going 'what's in it for me'', and stuff like that.

Thank you for making sure I understood that.