a reply to a post
Okay, so I decided to reply to the post of a friend of mine (tormsen) about propositions for changes to our form of government, but the stupid livejournal system said that my post was too long by a factor of about two. So here is the original post and here is my reply (if anyone cares):
secular technocrat monks:
Questions - How would you prevent nepotism/entrenchment of certain 'ruling' families? Say that children of monks can't become monks? Wouldn't this be unfair and defeat the "purely merit-based"-ness of it all (in a reverse way, of course)? Tackle the class-system so that it's not only the richest families which can afford the education to develop the merit in their children? This is a much larger question. Promote chastity as another 'monk' trait? This has been done before, but remember that the sexually-frustrated have a tendency to make poor choices.
You might say that your other safeguards would deal with this but I think that there are problems with that too. There must be something that makes it a good thing to be a monk, or what's the motivation to become one? Basically you're giving these monks power. Generally, if you want power, you want to do something with it. What we would need to do was make sure that these monks did not act from personal reasons, but from altruistic ones. But how would one accomplish this? You could recruit from the altruistic (assuming you could reliably weed out fakers), but the problem with this is that you are giving power to/forcing power upon those who don't want it. I don't think this would be a fair system, or even a viable one. Such a trauma (being told you'd been chosen to lead your country, and you can't say no, even though you want to) would tend to warp, don't you think? So you end up with someone possibly no longer altruistic, but possibly warped and damaged, and possibly harbouring a grudge. Or you could try and beat/train it into them, possibly with the poverty/humility methods you described but I ask - is this actually viable? Remember that you are trying to one the one hand broaden these monks'-in-training minds (with the history, philosophy, etc) and on the other hand trying to narrow and shape them. I have no doubt that if you wanted to and had no ethics you could brainwash enough people into being educated and smart and perfect little parrots of what you tell them, but then that's not exactly what we want is it?
I think this point can be basically summed up in that only those who don't want power should be those trusted to handle it, but that's a catch-22 situation. And through various techniques you could get people that acted altruistically, but really are just repeating what they've been told - not a good situation. For who would do the teaching? And their teaching? And who will watch the watchers?
These are both tangents which distracted me from the main point I was going to make - how exactly would this junta seize and keep power? It would be nice if everyone would trust them to govern, and give over control, but is this likely? Then, if it was decided that it was a thing that must be so, and we know this because we think so, how are we sure that we are right? I mean, it looks good in theory, but remember that we would be imposing our will upon others. Is this the correct vein for our government to take? Or do we know better than everyone else/and they'll see/they should have just trusted us/it's their fault really for not trusting us? Remember though that if one took this path you couldn't have your altruistic monks take it - to be altruistic is not not desire to enforce one's will upon another.
Given you have somehow gotten your ruling class into power, how would you keep it there? Remember that all government can be boiled down to the basic premise that Power Rules. In an autocracy it is the personal power of the leader (usually militarily/I can kill you) that keeps power for him. In a democracy it is the sum of the personal power of each of the majority which rules. In socialism there is the concept that the state is due the personal power of each of its citizens and will act for the greater good of all if everyone will just work together, nicely. In a plutocracy it is the money that you have and what you can personally finance which gives you power. But what about a meritocracy? What is it about merit that will give you power? How would you, possessing only merit, keep power from someone who disagrees with you? People (being the contrary creatures they are) might get behind a demagogue (being the easily-led creatures they are) and overthrow the government. Unless you hold another form of power, correct? Which? A strong military? Economic dominance? Voting? Support of the proletariat? All these suggest a form of government other than a meritocracy, in fact a form of government quite like a lot of those tried before. The general term for a this form of government, I suggest, would be an oligarchy. Of course, you could always argue, once again, that it's for their own good that we keep them oppressed - that we have a moral right/duty to rule. After all, we do know best. We're not imposing our will so much as a system which will make everything better.
Supposing that we could, somehow, get everyone to agree that these monks should take over, and they do such a good job of it that no one ever thinks they could do it better. How, then, would we keep it a meritocracy? We would have to make sure that these tendencies towards other forms of power did not evidence themselves at all, or if they did, how would we stamp them out? This band of monks would have to be stopped/stop themselves aligning behind a leader, but they could also not vote on issues. They couldn't control resources of any sort, either. Given this, they could possibly be a meritous society, but I ask you: How would they govern?
Basically, I think this idea wouldn't work because for the monks to be trustworthy of acting (independently) always for the greater good they would have to be perfect people, and for citizens to let them rule they would have to be forced (which leads down a slope that I believe is too slippery to be successfully navigated and provide a satisfactory descent) or be perfect people themselves (in which case we would not need a government).
vote on issues, not individuals
Not a bad idea, at least on the surface. Be wary, however, of viewing this as panaceatic. Remember that democracy in its earliest form (i.e., in Athens) was direct, and yet still oppressed the majority of its people (slaves, women and criminals were prevented from voting). Of course, at its basics, the concept of democracy is simple, yes? The majority rules, and what they say goes. I put it to you that in a western democracy this is the case. The important thing to realize, however, is that what the majority says, in the majority of cases, is "we don't care". They say that they don't care enough about things to stage protests and sit downs and violent revolution. They are happy with having others care about the minutiae and leaving them to set general government policy. How many of your countrymen (and women, of course), do you think, would really enjoy the duty of having to learn enough about every issue to make an informed decision about it? Leaving aside Australia here, where I live, and everyone has to vote to elect a government, and set general government policy - what about certain other countries, where not everyone has to, and quite a few people don't ever do that? How many people would want direct democracy? And if it's not wanted by the majority, is it democratic to have it? I think the basic issue we have here is a similar one to the one about compulsory voting: what is so morally superior about making a choice between alternatives? What fundamentally makes the choice "I don't care" invalid?
And yes, I know that you put "I don't care" as valid choices on your choice spectrum, but a general "I don't care" is what I'm talking about - what we currently have, I would say. So in a way, the people are voting directly (by their lack of glorious revolution) that they want issues taken out of their hands and dealt with by others, who actually get paid to deal with minutiae.
If people were all 'nice' and 'perfect' and the 'way they should be', then sure, they'd all care about every issue, right, and have an opinion. But then, wouldn't they all have the same opinion, given they're all perfect (this opinion would just so happen to be my own). So, what's with the voting, then?
a political competence test
I agree with a previous comment, by Shigawire. I think that the contents of a "political competency test" would be too open to manipulation, unless you could find a neutral organization to administer the testing, yes? Where? Where in our society do you find a group of people who have absolutely no interest in what our governmental policy is? It couldn't come from within, as a government governs its people (all of them). So you would have the power to affect the next x years of your life, and then again, and so on. It couldn't come from without, as nations (and therefore the governments running them) interact and care about the policies of other governments. Given altruism is once again shown to be impossible to implement, we come down to the unfortunate problem that only a truly perfect person could be trusted by each voter to handle deciding whether or not one should be allowed to vote. But given they are perfect (i.e., they agree with me), why not just sit back and let them govern. In all ways that matter, they will be my avatar in the political world, and make all the decisions I would (since they agree with me completely) and I can sit back and not do anything. Once again, we come to the point that if everyone was perfect (i.e., everone agreed with me [and thereby with each other]), this could, conceivably work, but then there would be no need for government. Given that one cannot find a guaranteed impartial way deciding if one should be allowed to vote or not, allowing all to vote is the safest option.
In conclusion, it's all bad, and we should all just give up and die. Or possibly vote in the next election.
secular technocrat monks:
Questions - How would you prevent nepotism/entrenchment of certain 'ruling' families? Say that children of monks can't become monks? Wouldn't this be unfair and defeat the "purely merit-based"-ness of it all (in a reverse way, of course)? Tackle the class-system so that it's not only the richest families which can afford the education to develop the merit in their children? This is a much larger question. Promote chastity as another 'monk' trait? This has been done before, but remember that the sexually-frustrated have a tendency to make poor choices.
You might say that your other safeguards would deal with this but I think that there are problems with that too. There must be something that makes it a good thing to be a monk, or what's the motivation to become one? Basically you're giving these monks power. Generally, if you want power, you want to do something with it. What we would need to do was make sure that these monks did not act from personal reasons, but from altruistic ones. But how would one accomplish this? You could recruit from the altruistic (assuming you could reliably weed out fakers), but the problem with this is that you are giving power to/forcing power upon those who don't want it. I don't think this would be a fair system, or even a viable one. Such a trauma (being told you'd been chosen to lead your country, and you can't say no, even though you want to) would tend to warp, don't you think? So you end up with someone possibly no longer altruistic, but possibly warped and damaged, and possibly harbouring a grudge. Or you could try and beat/train it into them, possibly with the poverty/humility methods you described but I ask - is this actually viable? Remember that you are trying to one the one hand broaden these monks'-in-training minds (with the history, philosophy, etc) and on the other hand trying to narrow and shape them. I have no doubt that if you wanted to and had no ethics you could brainwash enough people into being educated and smart and perfect little parrots of what you tell them, but then that's not exactly what we want is it?
I think this point can be basically summed up in that only those who don't want power should be those trusted to handle it, but that's a catch-22 situation. And through various techniques you could get people that acted altruistically, but really are just repeating what they've been told - not a good situation. For who would do the teaching? And their teaching? And who will watch the watchers?
These are both tangents which distracted me from the main point I was going to make - how exactly would this junta seize and keep power? It would be nice if everyone would trust them to govern, and give over control, but is this likely? Then, if it was decided that it was a thing that must be so, and we know this because we think so, how are we sure that we are right? I mean, it looks good in theory, but remember that we would be imposing our will upon others. Is this the correct vein for our government to take? Or do we know better than everyone else/and they'll see/they should have just trusted us/it's their fault really for not trusting us? Remember though that if one took this path you couldn't have your altruistic monks take it - to be altruistic is not not desire to enforce one's will upon another.
Given you have somehow gotten your ruling class into power, how would you keep it there? Remember that all government can be boiled down to the basic premise that Power Rules. In an autocracy it is the personal power of the leader (usually militarily/I can kill you) that keeps power for him. In a democracy it is the sum of the personal power of each of the majority which rules. In socialism there is the concept that the state is due the personal power of each of its citizens and will act for the greater good of all if everyone will just work together, nicely. In a plutocracy it is the money that you have and what you can personally finance which gives you power. But what about a meritocracy? What is it about merit that will give you power? How would you, possessing only merit, keep power from someone who disagrees with you? People (being the contrary creatures they are) might get behind a demagogue (being the easily-led creatures they are) and overthrow the government. Unless you hold another form of power, correct? Which? A strong military? Economic dominance? Voting? Support of the proletariat? All these suggest a form of government other than a meritocracy, in fact a form of government quite like a lot of those tried before. The general term for a this form of government, I suggest, would be an oligarchy. Of course, you could always argue, once again, that it's for their own good that we keep them oppressed - that we have a moral right/duty to rule. After all, we do know best. We're not imposing our will so much as a system which will make everything better.
Supposing that we could, somehow, get everyone to agree that these monks should take over, and they do such a good job of it that no one ever thinks they could do it better. How, then, would we keep it a meritocracy? We would have to make sure that these tendencies towards other forms of power did not evidence themselves at all, or if they did, how would we stamp them out? This band of monks would have to be stopped/stop themselves aligning behind a leader, but they could also not vote on issues. They couldn't control resources of any sort, either. Given this, they could possibly be a meritous society, but I ask you: How would they govern?
Basically, I think this idea wouldn't work because for the monks to be trustworthy of acting (independently) always for the greater good they would have to be perfect people, and for citizens to let them rule they would have to be forced (which leads down a slope that I believe is too slippery to be successfully navigated and provide a satisfactory descent) or be perfect people themselves (in which case we would not need a government).
vote on issues, not individuals
Not a bad idea, at least on the surface. Be wary, however, of viewing this as panaceatic. Remember that democracy in its earliest form (i.e., in Athens) was direct, and yet still oppressed the majority of its people (slaves, women and criminals were prevented from voting). Of course, at its basics, the concept of democracy is simple, yes? The majority rules, and what they say goes. I put it to you that in a western democracy this is the case. The important thing to realize, however, is that what the majority says, in the majority of cases, is "we don't care". They say that they don't care enough about things to stage protests and sit downs and violent revolution. They are happy with having others care about the minutiae and leaving them to set general government policy. How many of your countrymen (and women, of course), do you think, would really enjoy the duty of having to learn enough about every issue to make an informed decision about it? Leaving aside Australia here, where I live, and everyone has to vote to elect a government, and set general government policy - what about certain other countries, where not everyone has to, and quite a few people don't ever do that? How many people would want direct democracy? And if it's not wanted by the majority, is it democratic to have it? I think the basic issue we have here is a similar one to the one about compulsory voting: what is so morally superior about making a choice between alternatives? What fundamentally makes the choice "I don't care" invalid?
And yes, I know that you put "I don't care" as valid choices on your choice spectrum, but a general "I don't care" is what I'm talking about - what we currently have, I would say. So in a way, the people are voting directly (by their lack of glorious revolution) that they want issues taken out of their hands and dealt with by others, who actually get paid to deal with minutiae.
If people were all 'nice' and 'perfect' and the 'way they should be', then sure, they'd all care about every issue, right, and have an opinion. But then, wouldn't they all have the same opinion, given they're all perfect (this opinion would just so happen to be my own). So, what's with the voting, then?
a political competence test
I agree with a previous comment, by Shigawire. I think that the contents of a "political competency test" would be too open to manipulation, unless you could find a neutral organization to administer the testing, yes? Where? Where in our society do you find a group of people who have absolutely no interest in what our governmental policy is? It couldn't come from within, as a government governs its people (all of them). So you would have the power to affect the next x years of your life, and then again, and so on. It couldn't come from without, as nations (and therefore the governments running them) interact and care about the policies of other governments. Given altruism is once again shown to be impossible to implement, we come down to the unfortunate problem that only a truly perfect person could be trusted by each voter to handle deciding whether or not one should be allowed to vote. But given they are perfect (i.e., they agree with me), why not just sit back and let them govern. In all ways that matter, they will be my avatar in the political world, and make all the decisions I would (since they agree with me completely) and I can sit back and not do anything. Once again, we come to the point that if everyone was perfect (i.e., everone agreed with me [and thereby with each other]), this could, conceivably work, but then there would be no need for government. Given that one cannot find a guaranteed impartial way deciding if one should be allowed to vote or not, allowing all to vote is the safest option.
In conclusion, it's all bad, and we should all just give up and die. Or possibly vote in the next election.