What is the ideal form of Government?

@wanabe: I do not understand. What do you mean? Are you trying to say that the knowledge to perfection is impossible to gain, maybe you should check out psychology. Once that knowledge is gained certain people can extract this knowledge and apply it, namely the teachings of the special high class individual exam.

@Grecorivera5150: Why don't you wish to be led?

@Maldon007: Join me on the general discussion forum, namely the "some of my views on religion and ethics" thread if you want a real debate. Or are you scared because it's my home turf?

Because I don't believe in perfection and I think force is immoral. I value the ideals of mutual respect and cooperation. Of course in cooperative situations leaders emerge through a consensus and I have been in a leader ship role many times in my life but it was never because I though I was perfect or even better then those whom I led. I believe I was given my opportunities because of my ability but what successes I had where because of my humility and willingness to engage everyone involved in the process. As far as being led by someone there has to be respect and trust and I don't think this could ever truly be achieved on such a grand scale. I tend to feel the idea of governing should be centered as locally as possible so you can deal with people directly .

A test is not going to yield the perfect government, just as they don't yield perfect students. Exams also do not teach they judge. Perfect knowledge is impossible to have. It's not a matter of psychology it's a matter of mathematical probability.

One that keeps the public's attention, one that begs to be thrown off stage for scrutinizing public affairs whilst revealing its own, one that doesn't know how to keep a secret, unless its under the belt and in danger of creating a stink that would choke society, one that takes the good in something and makes it better, rather than looking to undermine any good, making it worse. Most good stand up comedians tend to do that...if you want truth, look to comedy, if you want comedy, look to politics. I guess.

@Grecorivera5150: You're contradicting yourself. You say you were not placed in a leadership position because you were better than those you led yet you say you were made a leader because of your ability. People are not equal. Half of the reason people think all humans are equal comes from religion the rest is just to keep the equilibrium. Clearly a genius scientist with a loving family, many successes in life and a good appearance is vastly superior to a nobody who happens to have down-syndrome. You were chosen because you were better. Maybe you chose to live a humble and modest life but you've got to wake up from your delusions of ideal morality else you will always be limited as a philosopher. Philosophy is seeking the truth and the truth is almost never the superficial.

Quote - "As far as being led by someone there has to be respect and trust and I don't think this could ever truly be achieved on such a grand scale."
Why do you say that?

Quote - "I tend to feel the idea of governing should be centred as locally as possible so you can deal with people directly.”
I agree. My world government would also function like this. Or do you disagree that my system would not function like this? If so, why? I shall explain myself after you reply.

@wanabe: You are wrong. School examinations that test ones intellect are completely different from a special high class individual exam that tests ones humanity and all possible areas of life. Also you're forgetting the 0.001% of students that are perfect through their exams. Conventional exams judge and not teach. This is just common sense and merely an everyday observation. Special high class individual cadets would be taught, and of the highest calibre of teaching at that. Also the exams would serve as an experience to teach them many things, such as you cannot defeat society.
Perfect knowledge? Are you confusing that with knowledge of perfection or are you meaning the same thing? Regardless explain yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You all seem to be misunderstanding the point of my autocratic system. Remove stereotypes of Hitler etcetera from your head and focus on being objective. One of the key reasons my government functions the way it does is organisation, organisation of humans, from the superior and more competent people at the top to the bottom feeders at the bottom. People would also be organised in accordance with compatibility. You may think an elitist system like this would breed conflict but that is not true. We just need to change objective morality. If people would still reflect on history and still hold those sentimental values of past morality then we just need to manage history and limit it. Manipulation of knowledge is easy, especially under a dictatorship where so many things are possible. All this world need is a positive dictatorship, one unlike any we have seen before.

@Grecorivera5150: You're contradicting yourself. You say you were not placed in a leadership position because you were better than those you led yet you say you were made a leader because of your ability. People are not equal. Half of the reason people think all humans are equal comes from religion the rest is just to keep the equilibrium. Clearly a genius scientist with a loving family, many successes in life and a good appearance is vastly superior to a nobody who happens to have down-syndrome. You were chosen because you were better. Maybe you chose to live a humble and modest life but you've got to wake up from your delusions of ideal morality else you will always be limited as a philosopher. Philosophy is seeking the truth and the truth is almost never the superficial.

When I say I was not chosen because I was not better I was actually exposing the contradiction inherent in your system. I was chosen from among others who also had formidable skills and abilities but who fit more into your idea of what a leader should be. When people see that someone may lack the self control and humility needed to lead in certain situations they are sometimes not chosen regardless of their "perfections".

Please explain what you think my delusions are? I am not really clear on that. As to being limited as a philosopher I am not seeking truth for anyone else as I am not in anyone else's head. I am only seeking to live a good and humble life for myself and am engaged in my philosophical pursuits to those ends. If those around me that I care about or interact with can benefit from interacting with me then all the better. It seems that this exposes a grand contradiction in your system. If it is better to have a humble leader who is leary of power and tries to wield it responsibly then having a tests to try and reach some ideal of perfection and create an elite authoritative system seems a paradox. It would likely lead to the serpent swallowing its tale as the egoism inherent in the system starts to fester in the face of diversity and the system degrades into an oppressive regime through eventually engaging in the initiation of force.

@Grecorivera5150:

My idea of what a leader should be?
Self-control and humility are among these "perfections" naturally, else these leaders would not be perfect like you say and would be flawed.

Well, morals are just concepts created by humans although the feeling of doing something right or wrong may very well be inherent in our being. For example loving someone makes you feel good and hurting someone makes you feel bad. It's just, being humble isn't exactly going to take the world forward.

So what is this grand contradiction you speak of?
I still don't see it. The way you speak gives me the impression that you are a democrat and that you firmly believe in that type of system.

Perfect leaders would wield their power responsibly else-wise they would be removed with immediate effect. All you speak of is weak leaders.

Again where is this paradox?
My system would never turn into an oppressive regime. The world would be unified, can you think of any negatives for world unification. Maybe one or two, but the positives would greatly outshine the negatives and the way we perceive a lot of existing ideas or concepts would be changed or altered. It's difficult to imagine the differences world unification would present mostly because world unification is probably impossible to achieve. The obvious solutions to everything yet the narcissistic pigs of this world are more concerned about themselves than the betterment of humanity.

@Grecorivera5150:

My system would never turn into an oppressive regime. The world would be unified, can you think of any negatives for world unification.

This and you say that I am an idealist. The idea of individual liberty will not just go away because a system based upon state meritocracy is being imposed on everyone. Without force people will need to consent to be governed. There are literally millions of hours of breaking bread that would need to be done between all of the worlds opposing factions in a genuine and respectful manner in order to even begin to implement such a system and as and as much of the world is still very willing to kill one another when things get difficult I don't see this pipedreamocracy as at all viable. People need to be able to govern themselves before they can ever truly give consent to be governed so completely by others without the threat of force and the uncertainty that accompanies human existence makes this self governing dynamic a never ending project.

TheAutocrat,

a special high class individual exam that tests ones humanity and all possible areas of life.

This can't exist, it's not possible.

Special high class individual cadets would be taught, and of the highest calibre of teaching at that.

This then is not a test it's a school.

I haven't forgotten about the 1 in 100,000 people that do perfectly on exams(that's being overly generous it's more like 1 in 4 billion, these people only come around once every couple of generations), those are the hawkings' and eienstins' of the world. A test or school can't produce that, it's something they are born with. Even those individuals make mistakes.

Knowledge of perfection and perfection are both practically impossible, the idea of perfection is subjective and abstract.

The above is my explanation, it's simple.

Please, write the test, write the laws, explain your system, then we can talk. I think you will have a very had time as you are not the 1 in 4 billion needed to write this test. I sincerely encourage you to pursue write the test.

This will be my last post in regards to your thesis, because it is silly & not worth my time... Not saying I'm better than you, just smarter.

@Grecorivera5150: You're contradicting yourself. You say you were not placed in a leadership position because you were better than those you led yet you say you were made a leader because of your ability. People are not equal. Half of the reason people think all humans are equal comes from religion the rest is just to keep the equilibrium. Clearly a genius scientist with a loving family, many successes in life and a good appearance is vastly superior to a nobody who happens to have down-syndrome. You were chosen because you were better. Maybe you chose to live a humble and modest life but you've got to wake up from your delusions of ideal morality else you will always be limited as a philosopher. Philosophy is seeking the truth and the truth is almost never the superficial.

There is some truth to this, of course... if looked at subjectively. Yes the scientist you describe is superior to the "downs nobody"... At science, social nuances, and looking good. Does that mean he will be a great leader of men? Who knows, many smart & socially adept people have failed as leaders. The downs nobody may excel at selfless altruism, a trait your scientist lacks.

People are probably not equal, there may very well be an objective measurement of their worth that could be theoretically arived at. But that is the issue with your test, we have nowhere objective to START from.

People are subjective, we can ONLY truely see things through our point of view, how do we judge the worth of anyone? Who judges this worth? Only a very perfect person can judge whether a person may be perfect. Take this thread, you judge your government system to be superior, most others do not, are you superior to those who disagree or is it the other way around?

Quote - "As far as being led by someone there has to be respect and trust and I don't think this could ever truly be achieved on such a grand scale."
Why do you say that?

Quote - "I tend to feel the idea of governing should be centred as locally as possible so you can deal with people directly.”
I agree. My world government would also function like this. Or do you disagree that my system would not function like this? If so, why? I shall explain myself after you reply.

If your system uses local governance, then why does it need a world ruler? Proximity is important, the greater the distance from those who are lead, the weaker the leadership. The more vast the empire, the more likely to fail is the system of distribution/collection. Even if your leader is perfect, the rest of your system will suck, cause people tend to suck.

Lets say you find your perfect leader, now he (or some subjective person(s)) must pick/have a vote on the rest of the leaders, regional, state, local, etc. Why will these leaders not be the same kind we have now, suckie? Yes I know, if they suck they will be "immediately removed!" but by who? Who will determine if they suck? Will the main guy, Mr. Perfect, spend every waking hour judging his underlings? What information will he use to decide on these cases... Intel gathered by imperfect, subjective nobodies? If you can't see the fail in this, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

A leader everyone trusts is impossible for the same reason flipping a coin 7 billion times, and having it come up heads every time is. Odds are there will be people who dont like even the most perfect person, why should they, does the world population become great judges of perfection overnight? As of today, in general, they suck at it... Show them your perfect person, and they will tear him down. The world population is 30% good 30%evil %30 don't give a **** and %10 down syndrome nobodies... These numbers are of course my subjective view.

@wanabe: You are wrong. School examinations that test ones intellect are completely different from a special high class individual exam that tests ones humanity and all possible areas of life. Also you're forgetting the 0.001% of students that are perfect through their exams. Conventional exams judge and not teach. This is just common sense and merely an everyday observation. Special high class individual cadets would be taught, and of the highest calibre of teaching at that. Also the exams would serve as an experience to teach them many things, such as you cannot defeat society.

Again, any test is subjective. Any test is written by people, the importence of given subjects weighed by people, what is right and wrong on this test is decided on by people. Imperfect people, sometimes greedy self-serving people... You must first test these test makers, and you must first test the test makers testers, and you must first test the testers of these test makers, ad infinitum.

You all seem to be misunderstanding the point of my autocratic system. Remove stereotypes of Hitler etcetera from your head and focus on being objective. One of the key reasons my government functions the way it does is organisation, organisation of humans, from the superior and more competent people at the top to the bottom feeders at the bottom. People would also be organised in accordance with compatibility. You may think an elitist system like this would breed conflict but that is not true. We just need to change objective morality. If people would still reflect on history and still hold those sentimental values of past morality then we just need to manage history and limit it. Manipulation of knowledge is easy, especially under a dictatorship where so many things are possible. All this world need is a positive dictatorship, one unlike any we have seen before.

Remembering the past dooms you to repeat it, forgetting it makes that happen twice as fast. Why would we want to forget hitler & etcetera? They are examples of leaders that MANY thought were great, maybe perfect, but were not.

Your organization is stupid. It needs to be smartest/most perfect at the top & worst at the bottom... But how can it BE organized, logistically? Who will put it together? You will need a vast system of organizers to determine this flow chart... And these organizers need to be perfect, so really they should be in the pool of governance... But they can't be, because they are needed to construct the governance... There are literally not enough people, who are as good as is required, to do what you need done. And even if there were, the DON'T WANT TO.

Grecorivera5150 for example, pushed into leadership, didn't really want it... what really smart person decides to do a thankless, dangerous, very hard job, like rule people?... None really, why would they? They can be rewarded for their aptitudes elsewhere, with less chance of being dragged into the street & beheaded.

Finally, when you throw in that your govorners will- "also be organised in accordance with compatibility" to cover your ass on the "conflict" angle, it makes me giggle... It is incomprehensible to organize governors by two distinctly different criteria and not compromise one of them.

But what am I saying... every distinct measure of "perfection" will also be a separate criteria, compromising each with the other. Your system is perfectly silly, I wish you no luck with it.

The most practical form of government is the one that has lasted the longest. If there was an ideal government, it would already be in place as we have had over 2000 years to do this.

The most practical form of government is the one that has lasted the longest. If there was an ideal government, it would already be in place as we have had over 2000 years to do this.

This is just a temporal fallacy based on a historical normalcy bias. Also practical for who? I can meet you half way in agreeing that there is no ideal form of government that exists as of yet but we have no idea how humans will change over the course of the next 2000 years or beyond that if humans are lucky enough not to destroy the planet first. I am skeptical but not so much willing to throw in the towel.

I unfortunately tend to agree, and give most of the blame to human nature, in trying to make what might be "good enough" into what is perfect... Or not taking care of what might be "good enough" and letting it fall to various internal or external attacks.

Our inability to ever be hapy with something & leave it be is one of our greatest strengths & weaknesses I think

Also practical for who?

Not practical for a "who" but just practical, or for a better word effective, in terms of survival. Democracy is the most practical form of government at this moment in time as it relies on fooling the people into believing that they actually have a say in what goes on. In the UK we have to vote for one of three lesser evils having been socialised by the media and propaganda into accepting that the Labour party, Conservative party and Liberal Democrats are the only real options. The results are very similar in the end. We waste lives burying ourselves in foreign affairs/wars, pretend that new and more radical ideas will solve the flaws in our education system and even cover up the fact that we have one of the most unequal societies in the world. Democracy has survived because it relies on deception nowadays and that is what makes it effective.

The most important battle being waged around the world right now is to keep the internet up and free from government controls. The information age could be the undoing of current systems of government. I am not saying that there is an answer waiting in the wings but the "practical" ability to keep duping people is getting more and more difficult. There is indeed a lot of obfuscation over on our side of the pond as well(USA). Marketing, indoctrinating education systems , flooding the markets with consumer goods and lots of entertaining distractions and a continuation of a pseudo religious patriotism. Evolution in government systems tend to be triggered on the backs of wide scale economic mismanagement and or failure.

Here is a fascinating discussion from youtube with Stephan Molyneux of free domain radio having a discussion of the Zeitgeist movement /Venus Project. The gentlemen involved leave no stone unturned and do not pull their punches when criticizing the status quo. Its an excellent philosophical exploration into potential human systems of the future. Slowly but surly critical thinkers are taking action and trying to affect change.