"Bush undid the greatness of 5 good presidents"

EXACTLY MY POINT...

IMAGINE IF HE WERE KING GEORGE INSTEAD OF PRESIDENT BUSH!

Why, we'd already be in Iran, North Korea, we'd be even worse off economically, and I have a feeling old Dubya wouldn't be too hesitant to press the nuclear button if he was freed from all democratic consequences...

Notice how many kings and emperors have TONS of wars. Why, it was almost a rite of passage for every Roman Emperor--get the throne, have a war or a campaign to show how awesome you are and to get more riches and slaves.

That sort of thing is stopped when 2/3 majorities are required for military action (or SHOULD BE...War Powers Act my ass...TERRIBLE idea...and to those who believe otherwise, I'm just going to point to the huge elephants in the room named Vietnam and Iraq...)

Again--I'd LOVE to either be or to be ruled by a Philosopher King!

FAR MORE than I would a President!

Just show me a REAL Philosopher King first. ;)

You're right in that in the scenario I gave the ones who decide who replaces them are the oligarchs themselves. Having said that if some sort of ideology of merit could be cultivated then that could combat corruption. An able person is probably going to be able to recognise ability in others and advance them.

I don't think you're referring to me but both Republican and Imperial Rome fit the broad definition of oligarchy, which in Greek essentially means 'rule by the few'. Republican Rome was theoretically a Republic but in fact the constitution and political system meant that only a few people's votes mattered and even their votes were easily gained through bribery and manipulation. While Imperial Rome technically had an Emperor for the majority of the time the ruling was still done by the senatorial class. Most generals and governors were senators, with Emperors usually being titular and Rome-bound (with some notable exceptions).

"Just show me a REAL Philosopher King first. ;)"
5 good emperors
Tudor Dynasty
Catherine the Great
Augustus Ceaser
Qin Shi Huang
just to name a few

The fact is a Monarchy once lasted for 2856 years and worked quite well. (it fell when Alexander the Great conquered it) I have and never will see a democracy last more then 482 years.

My 5 good emperors trumps any card. Because the fact is, for only 100 years was their a prerequisit to be emperor that didn't involve hereditary right. Is it a coincidence the the 5 emperors who ruled at this time have been dubbed the 5 good emperors. (remember these weren't the only 5 good emperors, but the title of the dynasty is 5 good emperors. )

To be fair all those emperors weren't 'kings' though. The Empire actually ran on an oligarchy, especially on the military front. The only Emperor who came closest to running everything was Augustus and even then he needed the Senate to actually rule. Note that he didn't need the people, just the Senate. Technically he was never really emperor, he just made the Senate vote him Dictator for life which made him an all-powerful magistrate, but a magistrate nonetheless.

I would argue NONE of those figures were, in fact, Plato's Philosohper King.

Remember that the Philosopher King was QUALITATIVELY different and superior to his subjects, not just QUANTITVATIVELY superior; for example, remember that Plato associated the Kings with Gold and the Soliders with Silver and the Workers with Bronze.

These are QUALITATIVELY different; Plato's Philosohper Kings aren't just really, REALLY great people, they're almost of a demi-god, better-than-huamn-beings status.

Just like no amount of silver will suddenly change the silver to gold, no amount of human greatness can ever equalm Plato's Philosopher King or, to use another example I drag out all the time, Nietzsche's Ubermensch.

The Ubermensch and Philosopher King are of a different state of being than you or I or anyone yet to be, Nietzsche even said that the Ubermensch has yet to be, and Plato made similar comments about his Philosopher King.



So historical precedent will NOT convince me or make your argument work for proving that a Pihlosopher King has ever been--as they have yet to be.

THUS I will keep with my safe-but-flawed democracy until they DO appear UNLESS you can somehow prove to me that there has ever been a figure that WAS qualitatively different and not jsut a GREAT, GREAT human being...

So unless you can locate Superman for me... ;) (No, really, it would ahve to be someone like Superman or Hercules or King Arthur, someone who had powers, either physical or mental, beyond what you or I could ever have--OTHERWISE I'm quite happy to rule MYSELF, I only would EVER submit to a dictator if that person was like a King Arthur or Superman, namely, if he DID possess super-human abilities that I could enver have and thus truly WAS the gold to my silver...)

" would argue NONE of those figures were, in fact, Plato's Philosohper King.

Remember that the Philosopher King was QUALITATIVELY different and superior to his subjects, not just QUANTITVATIVELY superior; for example, remember that Plato associated the Kings with Gold and the Soliders with Silver and the Workers with Bronze.

These are QUALITATIVELY different; Plato's Philosohper Kings aren't just really, REALLY great people, they're almost of a demi-god, better-than-huamn-beings status.

Just like no amount of silver will suddenly change the silver to gold, no amount of human greatness can ever equalm Plato's Philosopher King or, to use another example I drag out all the time, Nietzsche's Ubermensch.

The Ubermensch and Philosopher King are of a different state of being than you or I or anyone yet to be, Nietzsche even said that the Ubermensch has yet to be, and Plato made similar comments about his Philosopher King."
Ok how about this. In most species, evolution has divided races into two classes, where the alpha class is on average (but not necessarily all 3, normally just 1 or 2) smarter, stronger and faster then the omega. This gave them genetics that would make them superior to the others and would give them the right to rule.
approx 5% are Alpha's and the rest are Omega's. In this case, alpha's would be philosopher king material, while the Omega's would be your average Joe.

however I don't think you have a good understanding of politics if you assume that they would have to have super-powers to know how to run a country, so I am just going to ignore the end of the comment.

Here are my two cents:
Whether or not you believe that the future holds a "world state" or similar political entity, you must accept that as a nation grows in size and population, the responsibilities and duties associated with guiding the nation will increase as well.
So, for a moment, let us assume that there is a "world state" led by the The Magnificent Emperor (May He Live Forever). For one man to totally assume control of all duties regarding the entire planet is quite preposterous. Regardless of that individual's morality, the shear volume of duties that one man would have to attend to would be enormous. So this responsibility and duty would have to be divided amongst (for lack of a better term) a bureaucracy. Do you now trust these individuals to uphold the same morals as your almighty Platonic Philosopher King? As the size of the government increases, would not the amount of corruption within the bureaucracy would increase as well?
So if you have a sole monarch leading this hypothetical world state or similarly large entity, the responsibilities of this leader would be so immense that little progress could be made. On the other hand, if you favor a bureaucracy, then I would think that the amount of corruption would increase dramatically as the government grew larger.
I suppose that a Philosopher King may be ideal in a small scale, where the King can make judgments based on his high morals, but as the nation increases in size, a lone monarch would become impractical

1. NOW you're making the same argument as Hitler, that is, taking Nietzsche's argument for a MENTAL and SPIRITUAL evolution into the Ubermensch into a GENETIC one.

Genetics are NOTHING to the Ubermensch or Philosopher King ideals, as really strong or really shiny silver, even super-shiny silver is still silver and not GOLD.

2. I'm not sying they'd need supoer powers or to be beyond-human to run a country.

They'd just need to be beyond human for ME to bow down to THEM--otherwise, why can't I rule myself, if I'm silver and so are they, and again, genetics does NOT make them an Ubermensch or a Philosopher King--and to say otherwise is to cease this being about Nietzsche's Ubermensch and to turn your idea into Hitler's Aryan Superman, which is NOT the road you wna tto go, I think, considering even YOU have cited him as an example of a bad ruler--why should all other silvers bow down to one silver, even if he's the shiniest of the lot?

You have to prove the person is mentally, spiritually, and UTTERLY SUPERIOR, hence my King Arthur and Superman reference, as the latter IS the Gold, physically speaking, to all other's silver, he Is stronger than all other men, and the former, King Arthur, as he was generally almost super-human in his judgements and legendary spiritual strength, he was BETTER that way than all others, the gold to their silver--even Lancelot and Gawain, the best of his great Knights, were just shiny silvers to his GOLD.

Show me a gold--or again, one silver cannot and should not rule them all.

"IMAGINE IF HE WERE KING GEORGE INSTEAD OF PRESIDENT BUSH!"

Why, we'd already be in Iran, North Korea, we'd be even worse off economically, and I have a feeling old Dubya wouldn't be too hesitant to press the nuclear button if he was freed from all democratic consequences..."

One could easily make the claim that the Iraq war was launched with getting re-elected in mind - the rally around the flag effect. So, had Bush not had to worry about re-election, he might not have launched the war. Many argue that Thatcher waged the relatively bloody war in the Falklands because her popularity was sagging at home. Lo and behold she wins the 1983 election after the Falklands victory.

In fact, there is considerable research on this question (democratic peace theory). Democracies are no less war-like than dictatorships. In fact, new democracies in particular are *more* war-like than dictatorships. The only instance in which democracies fare better is when dealing with other democracies - there are relatively few instances of democracies fighting each other - at least in the modern era. That could, however, be a consequence of alliance politics.

There is reason to believe that dictatorships risk more by launching aggressive wars. Because whereas the biggest cost for a democratic leader is losing an election, dictatorships risk coups or revolution and permanent removal from power. The disastrous defeat in 1982 in the Falklands war led to the generals being overthrown. Idi Amin's failed attempted invasion of Tanzania led to his ouster in the late 1970s.

"That sort of thing is stopped when 2/3 majorities are required for military action"

Exactly, democracy doesn't do anything to stop war. The elected representatives are usually caught up in the war fever, and let the executive act with few restraints. On the contrary, wars launched by democracies tend to have more 'legitimacy', so they're harder to stop.

If our Congress ran our foreign policy, we'd be close to bombing North Korea, Iran, and China by now. They're a bunch of populist hotheads.

And for a counter-example, China - a one-party state - has acted like a responsible power in cooling off tensions in Korea every time they get hot.

@Putin:

"One could easily make the claim that the Iraq war was launched with getting re-elected in mind"

Considering he SPIKED after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan wasn't yet unpopular in 2003...sorry, I don't buy that "rally around the flag" excuse, it jsut doesn't fit, especially as public opinion on IRAQ was so divisive whereas Afghanistan...not so much.

I DO understand what you're saying, however, about the general case, that an elected leader COLD want a war for that "rally around the flag" effect, but...

A dictator could just launch a war on a whim and not even need a Congressional approval--how, then, is the president wanting to go to war but, theoretically, being checked by a Congress more dangerous than just one guy waking up and saying "I'm bored...let's go bomb Iran today, huh"

Granted the Congress COULD also side with the president, but AT LEAST it's a POTENTIAL check to sto an on-a-whim-war...with a dictatorship, there is none.

As mentioned earlier though true dictatorships can't exist with mere humans. If a dictator were of one mind and the people, armed forces and bureaucracy were of another the dictator could not get his way, even with constitutionally unlimited power.

For instance, if the Wehrmacht, civil service and people had opposed Hitler he would never have been able to invade anywhere. Dictators don't really dictate, they manipulate. Whimsical wars aren't possible through manipulation, especially in nation-states (I admit they're possible in sparsely populated kingdoms or warlord-type regions but those don't really exist anywhere any more except Somalia). I don't think there's ever been an absolute leader who has gone to war on a whim against the will of every single person they rule.

Has anyone mentioned Demarchy yet? I came to know it through a sci-fi book. It is not being practiced anymore, but seems to be a very good option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy

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

How did it go 'terribly wrong'? Rome formed the basis of western civilization and law. I'd say it performed very well.

"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."

This is only really true in a parliamentary democracy. It's very difficult to remove a President in a fixed-term Presidential democracy short of impeachment. Look at Sarkozy (which is technically semi-Presidential, but only increases his power). His popularity is very low and his policies are failures, but nobody can do anything about it. The French Presidency has tremendous power, being able to implement law by decree in many cases and completely bypass the assembly. Look at Bush after Katrina. His government was woefully inept and we had to sit here and put up with it for several more years. His early second term was filled with scandal after scandal even after the Katrina debacle. So how did we replace a government that was on the wrong track?

The only side of the corruption coin that nobody has brought is the fact that often good government is punished in a democracy. Governments that make wise decisions for the long-term health of the future may be unpopular in the short term, so they are punished at the ballot box. The result is bad policies that cater to the whims of the public.

"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."

Except it has happened in every kingship that has ever existed. If you have a system in which the rule of one person is backed by a hereditary system of legitimacy, then that person's offspring will inherit that indispensable position.

"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."

A couple of problems with your examples.
1-In the German and French cases, they were defeated militarily by foreign powers hostile to their regime. It had less to do with their regime being unworkable than the fact than this fact. Neither ruler was overthrown by an internal revolution.
2-In the Macedonian case, it is wrong to say that Alexander's system did not outlive him. The end of his rule was followed by the Hellenistic period, one of the greatest periods of western (Greek) civilization. His generals established flourishing kingdoms thoughout the territories of his former Empire.
3-In the Hitlerian and Napoleonic cases, their ascent to power followed democratic revolutions. Hitler was democratically put into power. Napoleon's rule followed the Directory and the democratic French Revolution. Their "examples" are as much a consequence of democracy as anything else.

"Dictators don't really dictate, they manipulate. Whimsical wars aren't possible through manipulation, especially in nation-states"

+1 Hereward

Both Napoleon and Hitler were very popular, as were their wars until they went badly.

"Considering he SPIKED after 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan wasn't yet unpopular in 2003...sorry, I don't buy that "rally around the flag" excuse, it jsut doesn't fit, especially as public opinion on IRAQ was so divisive whereas Afghanistan...not so much"

The Gulf War of 1990-1991 was even more contentious initially, but yet Bush I's victory led to his popularity soaring to above 90%. In early 2003 - Bush's popularity had been sagging, was around 55%, the Iraq war led to a substantial increase - up to 75% at one point.

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

"The only side of the corruption coin that nobody has brought is"

That should say "the other side of the corruption coin that nobody has brought up".....oy

I'm not sying they'd need supoer powers or to be beyond-human to run a country.

They'd just need to be beyond human for ME to bow down to THEM--otherwise, why can't I rule myself, if I'm silver and so are they, and again, genetics does NOT make them an Ubermensch or a Philosopher King--and to say otherwise is to cease this being about Nietzsche's Ubermensch and to turn your idea into Hitler's Aryan Superman, which is NOT the road you wna tto go, I think, considering even YOU have cited him as an example of a bad ruler--why should all other silvers bow down to one silver, even if he's the shiniest of the lot?

You have to prove the person is mentally, spiritually, and UTTERLY SUPERIOR, hence my King Arthur and Superman reference, as the latter IS the Gold, physically speaking, to all other's silver, he Is stronger than all other men, and the former, King Arthur, as he was generally almost super-human in his judgements and legendary spiritual strength, he was BETTER that way than all others, the gold to their silver--even Lancelot and Gawain, the best of his great Knights, were just shiny silvers to his GOLD.

Show me a gold--or again, one silver cannot and should not rule them all."
So you would rather be ruled by the bronzes (aka the workers) then the silvers (aka the upper class) just because you can't be ruled by gold. Does anyone else see the flaw in this?

"Why, we'd already be in Iran, North Korea, we'd be even worse off economically, and I have a feeling old Dubya wouldn't be too hesitant to press the nuclear button if he was freed from all democratic consequences..."

One could easily make the claim that the Iraq war was launched with getting re-elected in mind - the rally around the flag effect. So, had Bush not had to worry about re-election, he might not have launched the war. Many argue that Thatcher waged the relatively bloody war in the Falklands because her popularity was sagging at home. Lo and behold she wins the 1983 election after the Falklands victory.

In fact, there is considerable research on this question (democratic peace theory). Democracies are no less war-like than dictatorships. In fact, new democracies in particular are *more* war-like than dictatorships. The only instance in which democracies fare better is when dealing with other democracies - there are relatively few instances of democracies fighting each other - at least in the modern era. That could, however, be a consequence of alliance politics.

There is reason to believe that dictatorships risk more by launching aggressive wars. Because whereas the biggest cost for a democratic leader is losing an election, dictatorships risk coups or revolution and permanent removal from power. The disastrous defeat in 1982 in the Falklands war led to the generals being overthrown. Idi Amin's failed attempted invasion of Tanzania led to his ouster in the late 1970s. "
I have heard this point before from a senator I know...

"Exactly, democracy doesn't do anything to stop war. The elected representatives are usually caught up in the war fever, and let the executive act with few restraints. On the contrary, wars launched by democracies tend to have more 'legitimacy', so they're harder to stop.

If our Congress ran our foreign policy, we'd be close to bombing North Korea, Iran, and China by now. They're a bunch of populist hotheads.

And for a counter-example, China - a one-party state - has acted like a responsible power in cooling off tensions in Korea every time they get hot."
Agree, since 1950, China has been in one war, how many has America been in?

"Granted the Congress COULD also side with the president, but AT LEAST it's a POTENTIAL check to sto an on-a-whim-war...with a dictatorship, there is none."
hence oligarchy.

"The only side of the corruption coin that nobody has brought is the fact that often good government is punished in a democracy. Governments that make wise decisions for the long-term health of the future may be unpopular in the short term, so they are punished at the ballot box. The result is bad policies that cater to the whims of the public."
Actually I already bought this up:
"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. "

Anyone for a meritocracy?

the militrary can decide for themselves who has the most merit and appoint him/her commander-in-chief and advisor to the government. (i imagine a trial by combat)

The Universities can appoint their own academic advisors, both scientific, humanitarian, and legal. (i imagine some kind of debate within each school)

The Business classes and Trade Union can use whatever method they wish to elect their own leaders... (i imagine some kind of monopolistic board lying and making various deals to screw themselves over... OR trade Unions voting, sheesh...)

what am i missing?

I am already a support of Oligar

I am already a support of Oligarchic Meritocracy (sorry for the last post, accidentally posted reply to soon)