I don't know how interesting this will be to discuss, or even how completely I will be able to cover the subject matter (I could probably write a book if I wanted to put forth the effort to really flesh these ideas out).
That being said, the mention of plutocracies in another thread lead me mentally revisit some of my ideas on the subject matter, and I thought I might bounce them off the folks here.
What is the best way to govern a nation? It's the perennial question that everyone claims to have the answer to, but they generally don't know why they support what they do.
First, we must define what general role government plays. I think that there should be little controversy in the following:
The purpose of government is to promote the long term best interests of it's constituent people.
I think that both economists and Darwinians will agree wholeheartedly with this definition. It is from their respective world views that this definition takes root. For now, I want to focus on the first immediate consequence and open question the definition raises: what is meant by long term?
The simplest definition of long term is that it be long by anyone's definition - in perpetuity.
The first consequence of this is that a good government must be suitable for all time, and in all possible situations. That's a tall bill. Our finitude and fallibility make it an impossible one to fill beforehand, in fact. Since we cannot possibly foresee all possible situations, there will have to be some governing body in charge that has the ability to assess the situation and adapt as necessity dictates. Granted, we have specified nothing about this body (number of people, how they are chosen, or even if it should be humans at the helm), just that there is a job that needs to be filled one requisite of this job is adaptability.
It isn't hard at all, at the current time, to say that the rulers will have to be human.
The second consequence of interest to us is that because of the finite human lifetime, the rule must change hands. This may seem like a given, but it isn't. Many governments have fallen apart because no next ruler was chosen before the passing of the old ruler. Keep this in mind, because supplies the raison d'etre for the first requisite of a good government.
There's another catch to all of this. What keeps those who rule looking out for the best interest of those who are ruled? After all, just because there is a ruler doesn't imply that said ruler wishes to oversee a good government.
We are now ready to put forth the two requisites of a good government. They are:
1 - Any good government must rely on the law of averages in the decision making process.
2 - The welfare of those who rule must be bound to the welfare of those who don't.
The first requisite comes about thus: competence at running a good government is a rather variable trait. Because a critical failure in rulership can have terminal consequences, it is better to have many people involved in decision making than few. Granted, the more people involved, the more, well, average the results will be, but the potential long term benefits of a fantastic single ruler do not outweigh the potential society ending consequences of a bad one.
Remember, the point of requisite one isn't to have everyone endlessly debate every decision - it is to reduce the possibility of a bad ruler coming to power.
The second requisite comes about simply from the fact that any individual with free will can disregard the well being of others, but will have a hard time disregarding his/her own free will. Granted, there are those who disregard their best interests all of the time, but if the binding is obvious, and precept one is followed, then those with power will be bound to look out for the best interest of their constituents.
Now, we must return to the definition of a good government, and answer the question, "What are the best interests of the constituents?" Some might argue simple survival, others spiritual well being. Generally, though, I think that those who must be constituents would agree that they are generally best suited to deciding their own best interests. Keep in mind that this isn't self-interests specifically, because whether the constituent realizes it or not, sometimes sacrifices for the good of the others are necessary. Rant about collectivism versus individualism aside, this would tend to require that everyone somehow be involved in the decision making process. The precise nature and extent of this is not clearly defined here because that is a question of specific implementation and practicality. Note that this gels quite nicely with requisite one.
This is as far as I can go, concretely. Note, however, that this doesn't just apply to traditional governments, but all who rule (i.e. all leaders). Granted, there are requirements in other spheres that shape what exact form a good government takes (In the military, for example, time can be critical to the point where any one decision must be made by an individual, but the selection of which individuals are promoted involves many people).
I'm getting too tired and too hungry to continue. I apologize, I started this post with great ambition, but ran out of steam, so I'm not certain about the quality of it.
So, take it for what it's worth: some barely more than half-formed thoughts that I thought might be worthwhile to share.
The Black Griffen
Top
