|
Post by Gerard on Dec 1, 2013 23:20:48 GMT -5
How is society best governed?
1) By truly benevolent and logical dictators?
or
2) By way of elections in which the common rabble are permitted to participate?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 2, 2013 3:14:19 GMT -5
How is society best governed? 1) By truly benevolent and logical dictators? or 2) By way of elections in which the common rabble are permitted to participate? The expression "truly benevolent and logical ditator" is a contradiction in terms. Dictators of any kind assume their positions irrespective of the will of those whom they then seek to govern; where is the benevolence in that? And who is to say that, during such a dictatorship, thgere might not be a coup resulting in another dictator seizing power? "The common rabble"? Who are they - and defined as such by whom and on what grounds? And how might the government of "a truly benevolent and logical dictator" be of help to them and in their best interests?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 2, 2013 8:52:04 GMT -5
Is it not obvious? The common rabble have certainly shown over the past hundred years that they are incapable of governing themselves! When a wise and skilful dictator is in charge, there at once is the benevolence - helping the common rabble towards everything they cannot attain themselves (Art, peace, security, order, progress, piped water, piped music, the suppression of capitalists, and so on). I see no contradiction there; and in regard to the way he "assumes his position" the "will of those to be governed" is of no importance - that is the meaning of the word "dictatorship," so no contradiction there either. What are important are the continuing benevolence and logic, not the method of assumption.
"Common rabble" is just another expression for the "demos", as in demo-cracy. That too should be obvious. If I remember rightly Kant's word was "Pöbel."
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 2, 2013 9:01:57 GMT -5
Not at all, otherwise I would not have responded as I did. The common rabble have certainly shown over the past hundred years that they are incapable of governing themselves! I do not understand this statement. The government, whether or not democratically elected, is the government and accordingly comprises a group of people each of whom is elected (in cases of democratic gvernment) by all who assume their entitlement to vote and which, having been selected successfully, is thereafter charged with so doing. When a wise and skilful dictator is in charge But put in a position of power by whom? Any unelected government will have to seize power by force and can therefore be unseated by another who does the same. Where's the "beneficence" in that and who can determine, evaluate, account for and thereby guarantee what "skill"? Who determines and evaluates the wisdom or otherwise of such a dictator and his/her henchpersons and on what grounds? there at once is the benevolence - helping the common rabble towards everything they cannot attain themselves (Art, peace, security, order, progress, piped water, piped music, the suppression of capitalists, and so on). I see no contradiction there; and in regard to the way he "assumes his position" the "will of those to be governed" is of no importance - that is the meaning of the word "dictatorship," so no contradiction there either. What are important are the continuing benevolence and logic, not the method of assumption. There's no such thing. I don't want piped music anyway, thanks. That said, the means and manner of seizure of power is indeed important, because a dictatorship (which of course must consist of not just one person but enough people to try to put together a functioning governmental structure) can be assumed only by force and not by democratic consent. If the governed do not consent to the dictatorship, you may have a revolution on your hands in no time. Who in any case is to say that the populace in general is incapable of attaining at least some of what they want, provided that funds can be secured towards it provision? It's hardly as though the populations of most democratically governed countries are bereft of those things that you enumerate! And without wishing to consider separately each of those things that you mention above, what guarantee could there be that a dictatorship, purely by dint of so being, would seek to "suppress capitalists"? In referring to this notion, you seem to assume that all would-be dictators must be anti-capitalist, which is by no means the case. More importantly, perhaps, than all of this, however, is the exemplary historical evidence that you have conveniently omitted to provide as to dictatorships that can genuinely be said to have acted benevolently, wisely and constructively towards their subjects at all times and in their best interests; I'm struggling to call to mind as many as one such.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 2, 2013 12:14:41 GMT -5
. . . Any unelected government will have to seize power by force . . . Not so!!!! I do not follow this idea of "force" at all. What I envisage is that the rabble at a certain point will (and should) say "we give up, over to you, who are wise benevolent and logical - don't bother us with this government lark ever again."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2013 12:16:56 GMT -5
There is no best form of government, Gerard! You cannot make one straight thing out of the crooked timber of humanity. What works well in one country might work badly in another country, so government tends to be culture and time specific. Feudalism might have been the best form of government in medieval Europe a thousand years ago, for example, but times change! The British form of government has evolved over many centuries, although it is not necessarily that good. Here are some forms of government for everyone reading ' The Third' today: 1. SOCIALISM You have 2 cows. You give one to your neighbour. 2. COMMUNISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk. 3. FASCISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk. 4. NAZISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you. 5. BUREAUCRATISM You have 2 cows. The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away ... 6. TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income. 7. SURREALISM You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. 8. THE c PLAN You have two cows. You offer one of them a drink, and then ask the other one to dance. If it is kleines c, he invites you to skate at Somerset House around Christmas. He tells you that it is an intense pleasure. Both cows agree. If I may nevertheless address all three questions in the opening post (OP) directly: 0) How is society best governed? Wisely. 1) By truly benevolent and logical dictators? Well, I suppose that you could argue that the Queen, for example, is a truly benevolent and logical dictator, which probably explains why she does not dictate. 2) By way of elections in which the common rabble are permitted to participate? To be honest, I quite like the rough and tumble of the common rabble. One should never put on one's best trousers to go out to battle for freedom and truth, Gerard!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 2, 2013 16:44:53 GMT -5
. . . Any unelected government will have to seize power by force . . . Not so!!!! I do not follow this idea of "force" at all. What I envisage is that the rabble at a certain point will (and should) say "we give up, over to you, who are wise benevolent and logical - don't bother us with this government lark ever again." You "don't follow" it, sure - that's fine as an admission, but that does not of itself make it "not so"! You might well "envisage" the electorate of a democratic country publicly "giving up", but it remains no more than a figment of your unscientific imagination and something for which there has - as I pointed out previously - been no historical precedent; why would they decide to want to "give up" - and why, were they to do so, would they not want to move somewhere else rather than subject themselves to a dictatorship with whose policies and lack of democratic sanction they are in profound and fundamental disagreement in principle?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 2, 2013 19:16:29 GMT -5
. . . a dictatorship with whose policies and lack of democratic sanction they are in profound and fundamental disagreement in principle? The member should not be allowed to get away with that one! "They" (the common rabble) are NOT in "profound and fundamental disagreement" - in principle or even in practice - with the policies of a wise benevolent and logical dictatorship. Why else do they keep on precisely plumping for old Etonians to "represent" them in a kind of temporary (five-year) dictatorship? The great task of the wise benevolent and logical heads of this generation (who constitute at most five per centum of the populace) will be somehow to ensure that ONLY the wise benevolent and logical are able to govern. Not so long ago only men of property were permitted to participate in the government; women and the common rabble were excluded. It would be best would it not were we to return to some system like that, except that "the wise benevolent and logical" will replace "men of property." The great reformer of the future will be he who somehow contrives to exclude the common rabble from the process. And of course once the wise benevolent and logical hold the reins there will be never need for so-called "free elections" at all.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 3, 2013 2:15:48 GMT -5
. . . a dictatorship with whose policies and lack of democratic sanction they are in profound and fundamental disagreement in principle? The member should not be allowed to get away with that one! "They" (the common rabble) are NOT in "profound and fundamental disagreement" - in principle or even in practice - with the policies of a wise benevolent and logical dictatorship. Why else do they keep on precisely plumping for old Etonians to "represent" them in a kind of temporary (five-year) dictatorship? The great task of the wise benevolent and logical heads of this generation (who constitute at most five per centum of the populace) will be somehow to ensure that ONLY the wise benevolent and logical are able to govern. Not so long ago only men of property were permitted to participate in the government; women and the common rabble were excluded. It would be best would it not were we to return to some system like that, except that "the wise benevolent and logical" will replace "men of property." The great reformer of the future will be he who somehow contrives to exclude the common rabble from the process. And of course once the wise benevolent and logical hold the reins there will be never need for so-called "free elections" at all. Not everyone in British government is an "old Etonian". People vote for the candidiates available as chosen by each party - or not if they have insufficient faith in any of them. As to the rest of what you write, it cannot even be taken seriously. Who is/are the "common rabble" and who determines of what or whom it consists at any given moment? Why no women? They do make up more than half of the population, you know! Who decides what constitues wisdom, benevolence and logic in a governmental context? Who allows the dictator and his henchpersons to dictate and why? What makes you think that dictators cannot be overthrown by the kinds of revolution that give rise to their establishment in the first place? Even dictators die, you know; who decides on their replacements when they die while still in office? These and many other questions that I simply cannot be bothered to set down illustrate the sheer fatuity of what appears to pass for your "ideas" here. That current government in Britain is deeply flawed cannot be denied, but that fact is not an excuse knowingly and wilfully to seek to make matters far worse.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 3, 2013 2:36:58 GMT -5
Why no women? They do make up more than half of the population, you know! Not for the first time the member has misunderstood me. Women were indeed excluded in the nineteenth century; I am not qualified to explain to him why that was. But I took great care not to exclude them from my own proposition. Indeed would not a wise, thoughtful, benevolent, and logical lady such as Iris Murdoch was be just the ticket?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Dec 3, 2013 3:24:00 GMT -5
Why no women? They do make up more than half of the population, you know! Not for the first time the member has misunderstood me. Women were indeed excluded in the nineteenth century; I am not qualified to explain to him why that was. But I took great care not to exclude them from my own proposition. Indeed would not a wise, thoughtful, benevolent, and logical lady such as Iris Murdoch was be just the ticket? OK - but just one redeeming factor doth not a logical and acceptable suggestion make.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 6:50:20 GMT -5
What do you want government to do, Gerard?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Dec 3, 2013 7:36:08 GMT -5
What do you want government to do, Gerard? Benevolently to use wisdom, skill and logic to provide at last for the common rabble everything that they (the aforesaid said common rabble) have over the past hundred years demonstrated themselves to be incapable of attaining unaided (Art, peace, security, order, progress, piped water, piped music, the suppression of capitalists, and so on). By the way, I believe we have a dexterous plagiarist among the membership!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 9:29:32 GMT -5
If I may address both your points below directly, Gerard: a. Benevolently to use wisdom, skill and logic to provide at last for the common rabble everything that they (the aforesaid said common rabble) have over the past hundred years demonstrated themselves to be incapable of attaining unaided (Art, peace, security, order, progress, piped water, piped music, the suppression of capitalists, and so on). The common rabble has demonstrated over the past century an inability to attain art, peace, security, order, piped water, piped music, the suppression of capitalists etc. This is, of course, something of a generalisation. Let us therefore choose a member of the common rabble as an example: kleines c. It is arguable that kleines c has failed to attain art, peace, security, order, piped music and the suppression of capitalists. I have, to be honest, attained piped water, although I do occasionally use rain water, spring water and bottled water as well. b. By the way, I believe we have a dexterous plagiarist among the membership! As the membership of ' The Third' is relatively small and select, it is not difficult to guess the identity of the dexterous plagiarist. According to Wikipedia, plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work. Wikipedia - PlagiarismAs I do not always give acknowledgement in my posts, it is possible that I might be considered to be such a plagiarist. It might therefore be appropriate if I admit that I do not always quote the source of what I write online, or off. Sometimes, to be honest, I do not know the source, although at other times, I simply cannot be bothered to do so. Returning to the common rabble, I suspect that the rabble is, in reality, less common than you might imagine, Gerard. The nineteenth century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, had nothing but contempt for the masses. Nietzsche was to philosophy what Søren Kierkegaard was to theology. Both were pioneers of existentialism. "Christianity resolved to find that the world was bad and ugly," declared Nietzsche, "and has made it bad and ugly." He was an intellectual, revolted at the rise of mass literacy, and of mass culture in general. The important point to remember, of course, is that the masses, as reviled by Friedrich Nietzsche and their detractors, did not and do not actually exist. The common rabble can be seen, but the mass, the sum of all possible common rabbles, turns people into a conglomerate and denies them that individuality which we ascribe to ourselves and the people we know. So if I may ask you directly, Gerard, how do you know that the common rabble even exists? How about a specific example?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 19:58:32 GMT -5
So if I may ask you directly, Gerard, how do you know that the common rabble even exists? How about a specific example? May I be permitted to leap in and respond in Gerard's place? That Brighton Beach exists, despite - or indeed because of - its consisting of innumerable little stones, is beyond question is it not? The same may be said of Farmer Jones's field: it exists, and is made up of little bits of dirt, of various shapes, sizes, and consistencies. The universe exists although it is made up of atoms innumerable and infinitely divisible space in between. We are reminded are we not of Leibniz's profound question, "Why are all atoms identical?"
|
|