I like the idea that Jefferson had of a government by the educated, but I haven't had the time yet to read to much into other philosophers. I would definitely consider myself an elitist though...so I guess that is like your meritocracy you were talking about?

Somewhat, yes.

I hold that power in a society should be delegated according to merit, ability, and desire alike, a mixture of the three...

If you're gifted with your hands and wish to work as a manufacturer, I see no reason why you should be kept after, say, 15 or so, from a near-full-time apprenticeship and then more advanced work learning how to become a GREAT manufacturer. I agree with Plato's analogy of the farmer who succeeds, he being the one who focuses solely on being the best farmer he can be and not worrying about building his own home or catching his own food or building his own tools, and the farmer who fails, the one who is forced to split his energy between all those tasks, making tools AND building a house AND catching food AND farming.

The more time you ahve to focus and perfect your craft, the better you will be, and the better you are, the higehr you should rise in your field--as it will be your higher abilities that elevate the state.

Who should be the Secretary of Agriculture? The best farmer/agricultural technicians.
Who should be the Secretary of Defense? The most decorated, celebrated generals.

And AMONG these best of the bests, THESE are the people who should be chosen from to run for office.

But I think it rather absurd to think that, say, the greatest football player should then be allowed to run for President, athletics is NOT all that relevant for command of a nation, after all...




I think we can agree that there are many sides to a state, and of those sides msot vital to its nature are those of Defense, Intellect, Agriculture, Industry, and various other Scientific and Political affairs.

As such, it is from our greatest soldiers, our greatest intellectuals, our captains of industry, our greatest scientific minds...THESE MEN should make up our government.



I would mandate that a relatively-high standard of education be maintained, that from 5 to 15, a decade at least of schooling, and during those first 5 years the Core Four of Math, English, Science, and History should be given extra focus to determine who likes and who is able to do what, and then for the second half of those years, and further if they continue with their education, two of those Core Four curricula will be stressed and the others gradually phased out after the base-level has been learned (For Math, I consider Algebra I and Geometry the base, for English, the ability to compose properly while holding a knowledge of some of the most important literature of THEIR CULUTRE, ie, if you're in America you'd learn Twain and Poe and Langston Hughes and so on, if you're in Britain, I suppose Dickens and Shakespeare and whoever else is deemed important, and so on, for History, a basic knowledge of World and State history, and for Science, a basic knowledge of at least one science, I'd recomment Biology, as it seems most pressing to the most amount of people as it could pertain medically to all.)

But on the flip side of that, while ALL will be given the chance to learn and learn equally, and all will be allowed to vote on the most basic issues, ONLY those qualified to vote on higher-level or specific forms of legislation will be permitted the vote, ie, if we were ammending laws about the justice system, policemen and women, judges, social workers, lawyers--all of them would be allowed the vote...

A person whose main career point is to ask "Would you like fries with that?" has no business in such matters.



I feel Nietzsche and Plato are right in their criticism of democracy, that it's a feel-good system with a bundle of compromises and too often becomes a celebratin of and exercise in mediocrity.

But Fascism or Plato's Republic is a step too far.

Therefore, to avoid the compromised nature of democracy, ironically enough, I propose the compromise of an Elective Meritiocracy:

Keep the educational and merit-based ideas of Plato's Republic, but allow for basic legal rights for all nonetheless--regardless of intellect or ability, a person is a person, not thre-fifths, not one-half, but a PERSON, and should be treated as such legally before the law--and allow for a freedom of choice in both careers and who rules...

You CAN be the most brilliant person on the planet, but if you're a tyrant and malicious as well, we have the right NOT to choose you, as there are plenty of other qualified candidates in the sea.

I completely agree with you! The vote is not something that should be given to just anyone, its a very powerful thing. Also, what you mentioned with the qualified people in cabinet positions, I believe that's already the truth in appointed positions, but not so much elected positions. But why should a high school dropout have the same political power as someone holding a doctorate? One doesn't contribute as much to the country as the other. Don't get me wrong, everyone should have the right to an education, but based on your elevation in education, you should get certain rights others do not.

Your idea on education system is very interesting, but I think it would require much too much state planning to be successful. Also, what if someone is really good in the sciences, but has a true, genuine interest in history? I just think it is a novel and good idea, but in its actual implementation, is not what we need. I think rather that we need to revamp our education system. looking back, why did I have to wait until 3rd grade to learn multiplication? Why did we spend 6 years in elementary school shitting our pants and doing nothing when my friends in private schools were learning other languages and moving into advanced math? Its not that we don't have time to learn everything we need to, its that our school system basically babys us until high school and then starts making up for the difference.

As for your industry specified vote, I think that's interesting as well. I wanted voting only for the educated, but you took it a step farther and I think that's interesting. But I agree that democracy is corrupted an inefficient. i actually think we would have better representation with less votes and thus a smaller scale democracy

Is your question about philosophers? Or people in general?

Either, Putin,m whomever infuences your pov.

Ideal form of government:
Oligarchic Meritocracy, not fascism. here are some examples of governments I think were really good and proven successful:
Pax Romana 96-180 CE
Nationalist Spain: 1936-1975
Singapore 1965-Present
Peru: 1974-1990
Canada: 1993-Present

Also may I ask that few people post here, if the thread moves to quickly I wont particapate as I wont have time

@Obi: You and I stand identically politcally by what you posted (so far, haven't read all of it)...

I'll take it my views on socialism (Being pro-socialism lite, with a twist of fascism) are not welcome then. Okay. I'll leave this thread to you lot

"I feel Nietzsche and Plato are right in their criticism of democracy, that it's a feel-good system with a bundle of compromises and too often becomes a celebratin of and exercise in mediocrity.

But Fascism or Plato's Republic is a step too far.

Therefore, to avoid the compromised nature of democracy, ironically enough, I propose the compromise of an Elective Meritiocracy:

Keep the educational and merit-based ideas of Plato's Republic, but allow for basic legal rights for all nonetheless--regardless of intellect or ability, a person is a person, not thre-fifths, not one-half, but a PERSON, and should be treated as such legally before the law--and allow for a freedom of choice in both careers and who rules...

You CAN be the most brilliant person on the planet, but if you're a tyrant and malicious as well, we have the right NOT to choose you, as there are plenty of other qualified candidates in the sea."
So are you saying have elections or don't have elections?

This is why I dislike this topic with you, the last time I broguht this up on this site you seems to mention that bad things of every ideology and could never support the same argument for 5 posts. I would like to know exactly where you stand politically before countering it...

My education plan is complicated so will talk in detail about it tomorrow

I'm saying we should have elections, Fasces.

And you've advocated in the past for the sort of Philosopher King that Plato wants, and Plato's Republic is essentially a totalitarian state, and your praise of the Roman Empire seems to back up that view...

I do NOT view the Roman emperors as being, on the whole, great leaders, a few were, but on the whole, they were quite wasteful...the Roman military was, of course, one of, if not the greatest militaries ever, but that's another post altogether.

And please give your opinion, damian...

If there's a place for my bombastic tones here, there's certainly a place for any view you might have, it's not as if we're going to cast you out like a leper... ;)

I think that was a response to my comment:
"Also may I ask that few people post here, if the thread moves to quickly I wont particapate as I wont have time"

will answer in detail tomorrow

twas in response to Fasces post. I'd rather not swamp him with way too many me posts. That and more often then not Putin covers most of what I would talk about anyways.

Marx, Lenin, Bentham, Braudel, Mackinder, Ratzel, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Herder to some extent.

@putin: what about Putin and Stalin?

"I'll take it my views on socialism (Being pro-socialism lite, with a twist of fascism) are not welcome then. Okay. I'll leave this thread to you lot"

Damian, you may enjoy Friedrich List's "National Political Economy". Anyway 'national socialism' that you speak of predated fascism and ultimately had little in common with it as fascism lacks a coherent economic theory. The founder of this idea was Rudolf Kjellen.

Overall Stalin simply explained in more straight forward language what Lenin was trying to say. He did theoretically advance people's understandings of the national question though. Putin's political thought does not interest or influence me. I simply like him as a matter of personality.

Yeah. National Socialism tends to have some negative connotations, but that is how I would describe myself. Thanks for the suggestion I'll take a peak at it!

Anyway, if I were to sum up my views - they'd be a "blend" of Marxism-Leninism, geographic determinism, legal positivism, and economic self-sufficiency.

Stalin, Putin? :/

Personally, I don't see how any nation can be economically self-sufficient in this world, Putin

Very small countries can't, large countries can. Trade as a % of GDP hasn't been all that high, historically, in the US at least since WWI. From about 1920-1970 it never really got above 4% (this includes both imports & exports). It was only in the 1980s that our imports began to exceed our exports.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7938.pdf

What essential goods produced outside the US can't be produced inside the US? If the answer is energy - the truth is the US has enough oil and gas reserves to satisfy 100% of domestic demand. I'm not saying the solution is necessarily to increase our production to do that, but a combination of increased production and drastically reduced consumption.

Anyway the solution to the small country problem is to conglomerate. I don't know why we have dozens of small economically inviable countries. I'm in favor of voluntary empires (mergers of tropical and temperate countries to form self-sufficient economic units).

Well there are lots of things that we consume that we cannot produce domestically. Lots of raw materials, from lithium to copper to bananas, rice, cocoa, coffee, etc that we need to import. Where are we to get fresh fruits and vegetables during the winter? I mean, the idea of a self-sufficient economy in this global era is pretty backwards. It doesn't allow countries to specialize. Instead of putting more people to work in scientific research or computer technology we'd be stuck staffing clothing factories and other entities that are now inefficient for us to do. We would not be maximizing our economic potential. As a warning, I am an econ major and a convinced Keynesian, so....yeah

The conglomeration thing though I would support. that actually is a good idea and the EU is a step in the right direction, though it may be growing too big, but that is for future generations to judge. It certainly would be interesting if a Caribbean of Latin American conglomerate were to form. Or a West African one...