How did you make your Opening post so long? I can usually only get about 4 lines in before it's considered to long to post.

That's a good question. I don't really know. I originally tried to post the whole thing and it obviously didn't allow me. So It's probably very close to the character cap

It helps that he's not using Enter.

Also I disagree with the implication that we can't change the world. However, in my opinion, only entrepreneurs can make major changes, as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions and limitations, of course. But I think the idea that the world is just the world and we individuals can't change anything about it is wrong.

Netflix put out a Brazilian series called "3%" last year that dealt with this question in, I thought, a good way. Basically, all the brilliant people you talk about have built a "perfect" world for themselves on a terraformed continent in the Atlantic. Everyone else lives in pretty awful poverty, but are given one chance when they are 20 years old to pass a series of tests and join the 3%. I tend to agree with their conclusions; in my mind it's very hard to realize the technologist utopian dream without leaving the rest of humanity in a really shitty spot.

The name for Hugo's system of government is "totalitarian one-party dictatorship." Geniuses, by definition, are a tiny fraction of the population. He wants this tiny group of people (who, in the movie, are self-selecting--the only way to be accepted as a genius is to meet the criteria of the people who are already geniuses), to decide how the world should be run without input from the other 99%. This has been tried repeatedly, and it doesn't work.

The biggest problem is one that's alluded to in the movie. When a government allows a small group of people to have great power, someone will use that power for their own purposes. There are many examples of dictators and monarchs who genuinely benefited the people they ruled, but those systems always (and I do mean always) break down when an incompetent successor gets in charge.

you can't find one example of a successful oligarchy? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know.

Napoleon!!!

@Wyatt, plenty of examples of successful oligarchies (Meiji restoration, in particular), but finding a dictatorship or oligarchy that was able to successfully manage a transition of power to a new generation and *remain* successful is very hard to find (are there any?).

Who's to say these "geniuses" even agree what a better world looks like or exactly how to get there? It'd devolve into politics.

The "3%" plot sounds very unrealistic, since a significant part of the "3%" would realise what a stupidly egoistic approach this is and would not join. Moreover, the other 97% could easily screw over the 3% along with themselves. There's only one earth, and if 97% of the world pollutes it etc., the 3% won't be saving it from within their bubble.

I do think that the world would indeed be much worse without that 3% though, so in that sense, one could argue that geniuses are already exerting positive influence on the world, preventing it from being more shitty than it is right now.

technocracy now!!!!!!!!!!!

Who is going to decide who is a genius and who isn't? Trump?

Wyatt14, the problem isn't oligarchy. A republic with an elite group of people who get to vote for leaders is actually pretty stable. However, republics tend to have lots of politics and bureaucracy.

But when you say you want "freedom from politics and bureaucracy," it means you want to do what you see fit without checks and balances from other people. That's when we move from an oligarchy or republic to a one-party totalitarian dictatorship.

Freedom from politics and bureaucracy sounds like anarcky.
We have tried that alllready

And it leaded to monarky and beuarocracy.
No freedom

Google the rules for rulers, first youtube hit will have you all upset that no sustem of utopian no sense can ever truely work.

The first rule is, no-one rules alone.

You can be dictator for life, but you can't build the roads, police safety, and collect taxes on your own. Every dictator needs key supporters. (The same applies to democratic rulers, thry just tend to need more keys...)

I wouldn't know about other geniuses, but writers, poets and philosophers just need a pen and paper. No limitations there.

In fact, I wonder what "artists" Hugo meant. In general, bureaucracy and greed pose no hindrances to artists. He probably meant those who create "spectacular" stuff that needs lots of money. After all, that's the only art that can impress the rabble.

Oh James, you make it so easy..Napoleon ???
A talented General, but a failure as a National leader, one of his best critics is Talleyrand, aka the Bishop of Autun
It's easy to think of a better National leader than Napoleon.. I offer Queen Elizabeth the first. Came to Power against the odds, "inherited" a virtually bankrupt "state coffers" ( Henry 8th spent the wealth his father left & more ) Had to deal with a powerful France, and an even more powerful Spain, a hostile Catholic Church & Popes, etc etc She managed both external enemies, and her own ambitious nobles, including one with a legitimate dynastic claim to her throne and who was Catholic ( Norfolk ? executed for treason early in her reign ) Elizabeth was almost the perfect Machiavellian "Prince" imho

@Major, Queen Elizabeth is overrated. Managing an island? Big deal.

I'm not saying Napoleon was a better leader, but what were his odds of coming to power? He started as a perfect nobody.

And what did he inherit? The horrors of the Directorate. Also, he had to deal with the land armies of entire Europe, where no storms could come to his aid.

Napoleon was incomparably more able than Elizabeth. But try telling that to the English.

@Zmaj, someone had to come to power in france after the revolution - that was inevitable.

He managed to assemble probably the largest army since the Roman Empire (if not larger) to put more men under arms, and supply them effectively, than any other nation-state.

That alone shows exceptional logistical skill. And political leadership - getting the majority of the french to support him, in a way most monarhies would be envious of.

Never mind his law reforms, and defeating the first five or six coalitions arrayed against him. Not sure if i'm for or against Napoleon... But coming to power isn't enough.

Length of reign in power.
Napoleon a "Logistics genius" one of his greatest mistakes, imho, was his policy of not supplying his armies with food and having them "forage for supplies locally" ,that is raid local farms etc.. A guaranteed way to antagonise populations under his rule.. If an occupying army pillages and rapes, the locals will support any resistance group, competing foreign power.
His Russian campaign was hardly a triumph of logistical planning, men and horses starving and freezing.. If you rely on sourcing supplies as you go from the lands you enter, you make a scorched earth policy by the retreating side so much more effective.. And scorched earth strategic Retreats were quite common..Robert the Bruce used them 500 years earlier to great effect.

Wellington's great quote..an army marches on it's stomach..underlines his different approach. Napoleon had talent, driving ambitions etc, but his length of reign was short and he never negotiated an effective long term peace, a political solution that ensured his empire's survival

The point is, he won and kept winning (until russia) because he was able to get 400 thousand men under amrs at once; previous armies were lucky if they had 100 thousand.

The political leadership of getting that many frenchmen to support him - and 'foraging off the land' was a necessary part of an army that size.

Yes, it pissed off some locals, but they weren't all that vital when he started out; as it started out a series of defensive wars, not wars of conquest.

By the middle of the second coalition, Napoleon took over. It wasn't really until the war of the sixth coalition that Napoleon decided to invade Russia and start his own war of aggression.

So yes, if you ignore the first 10 years of Napoleon's rule, sure, you could come to that conclusion.

@orathaic, I agree with everything you said.

@Major, the fact that you attribute Napoleon's quote to Wellington speaks volumes about your bias.

Very good points, MajorMitchell. On balance, Napoleon successfully encouraged great loyalty in some(keyword some) of the areas he conquered by treating them well. Poland is a good example. It had been partitioned and didn't exist until he reestablished it.

I think we can all agree that Nappy's attack on Russia was simply going a step too far. Russia was already a trading partner and wasn't complaining, so I attribute the mistake of attacking Russia was simply a product of Nappy's ego.