i consider myself a fairly radical leftist/anarchist. i also appreciate some of the philosophical views of the “classical liberalists” such as Jefferson, Adam Smith, etc.
essentially, i believe that when someone says, “hey let me be your president/leader/boss/manager/etc…” you should respond, “uhhh absolutely not”. i believe that “the people” aka “the masses” ought to decide what’s best for them, not the elite “ruling class”.
where do you all stand?
People such as Jefferson as well as the great majority of the founding fathers of the United States were against such an idea. Just thought I should point that out.
I am a meritocrat, for lack of a better word. I think people should be judged by their worth, objectively speaking. An elite ‘ruling class’ is the natural order of things, as the cream rises up out of the masses of lethargic stupid cattle and takes power for themselves. History speaks for iteself…over…and over…and over…spanning every government model yet to be tried.
They all end up in a similar heirarchy. The strong always rise and rule over the weak.
Democracy is a sham.
I believe in an artificial caste system. No joke, I do. I do not think all men are created equal, so we should place those who are intended to be in positions of power IN positions of power ruled by a philosopher king. If you look at the U.S.'s current state of affairs, democracy clearly is not working as the majority of people do not think independantly. If you look at communism, you see that all people are not created equal and, therefore, should not be treated equally. If you look at capitalism (yes, this relates), you’ll see that those with the power are NOT those most qualified (otherwise, they would not get caught, or they would not break the rules, or they would not hurt others for the most minor betterment of themselves).
I think a Socialist Republican Caste System is appropriate. The question now is, to what do we determine merit (this system sounds a lot like Satanical’s). I would never say IQ, as the smartest people can be some of the most dogmatic. I would never say money, because very few of the richest people actually earned their riches. I wouldn’t say popularity because of herd mentality. I’d have to say that, in the best system, the best man for the job would be bred to be the best man for the job.
Yeah, I’m out there.
Actually Dr Satanical, an elite ruling class is not the natural order of things. Ethnological records of primitive societies in North and South america and in New Guinea, Australia and Africa show that hunter gatherer societies are structured to prevent such a catastrophe from taking place. Society is against the State. As Much as one can say that anything political is “natural”, a homogeneous undivided society of equals would, in fact, be the natural order of things. Check out Pierre Clastres, primum enter pares.
Hermes. I agree with you, to an extent. Let me clarify my position.
I do think a tribal ‘hunter gatherer’/native american style ‘governmentt’(for lack of a better word) is our most basic and true to nature existance. Just look at other primate species, and how they conduct themselves…we are not very different at all. However even in a tribal environment, there will always be a chief. There will always be those that want to be chief, and aspire to become chief. This is not only true of man but all primate species. It is really just a micro scale of any other government. The strong always rule over the weak.
i said i appreciate their ideas at times (Jefferson and Smith). i didn’t imply any connection between the idea of “the masses deciding whats best for them” and the ideas of Jefferson or Smith.
I absolutley agree with Raf. As much as we would all not like to think so, the masses are not fit to rule, as is the case in democracy.
Except that the role of the chief in these societies is not to tell people what to do, but to remind them of what their mythico-religious law tells them. He is their representative; he speaks with his people’s voice. Normally when a chief tries to take power in these societies (usually to further a war or to gain more trinkets) the people ostracize them. The role of chief is to acquire prestige, not power - a subtle, but real and powerful difference
first of all, politics operates as a group activity not individual… strong indiviuals DO NOT rule over the weak masses, rather it is the other way around… (see Nietzsche for one explaination) democracy isn’t a sham it is the tyranny of the majority… the cream doesn’t “rise to the top” rather its more like the single cell organisms that compose the slime that covers a cess pool…
Second of all, who or what is to be the “judge” of merits? i have a feeling your answer will be a tautology… and on what basis is the “natural order” a correct one??? if you give me a social darwinian response i will refer you back to my first point…
and as far as primitivism goes, the gun put an end to that possibility…
if their was the poltical equivalent of atheism i would be that. (NO, not an anarchist) I don’t believe in political ideologies…
Wow, a bunch of unsupported assertions, neat.
Strong individual don’t rule over the mass huh? I supose the entire population gets a say in govermental decisions? Not hardly. The people making those decisions are people that have outdone many others trying for the same positions. IE- the strong.
‘democracy the tyrany of the majority’? Please…
People will vote for whoever shows them the shiniest object. The fact that politicians almost never do what they say they will do never seems to factor in. The herd, as a whole, is easily swayed.
But once a power set is established, whether it be a tyrany, democracy, or communist regime the people have little to no say in what happens.
Merits=contribution to society through financial, artistic, scientific, or some other tangible form of success.
There is no ‘correct’ natural order, simply that which is. People behave according to certain patterns, and always have. These patterns are quite demonstrable and should be obvious to anyone that studies history.
illocutionary, I think you May misunderstand me. I am not advocating a return to the primitive. This discussion between the good Doctor and myself is rooted in my disagreement with Him over the characterization of strong over weak as the “natural” order of things. I pointed to the work of French anthropologists and ethnologists to try and bolster my argument. I simply said that the natural order of things, at least amongst the hunter/gatherers still left on earth between 1935-2004, is a Society fighting like hell to prevent the consolidation of prestige in one place and the transformation of that prestige into ability to dominate other members of the society. In Clastres’ terms, the Society against the State.