Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Types of Government: General Discussion
Alan wrote: "Abdul wrote (post 48): "Hello Alan. My name is Abdul. I just joined the group. I published my first book on Amazon a few months ago:WHY AFRICA IS NOT RICH LIKE AMERICA & EUROPE: Why it must indust..."
Ohhhh Alan!!! Thank you so much!! This means a lot to me. I hope you enjoy it and I would be looking forward to hearing your comments. Thanks for the advice on academia.edu, Amnet and hyperlinking the endnotes. Asides the cover I did everything else myself to save money. Times are really hard back home but soon as my financial situation improves I will check out Amnet. Happy reading!!!
Alan wrote: "Feliks wrote: "Ha! It is really a preposterous concept, isn't it. Inconceivable. Geography divides the world up into competing parties. What possible circumstance could draw us all together agreeab..."Hi Alan. Any thoughts as to why reason and ethics are inseparable? I am inclined to think that reason often being a search for truth if not always, compels one to live by truth when one has found it or least makes it difficult to live in denial of it.
Feliks wrote: "That's exciting news, Alan. Bravo. Are these all self-issued? Any chance of getting them picked up by a publishing house specializing in such topics? Routledge for example. Or get them into college..."Syllabuses and syllabi are both acceptable.
Robert wrote: "One thing that is different in today's world is the massive presence and power of multinational corporations. Just as in the US, corporations can play off state against state to secure benefits for..."Sorry I was looking for the "Like" button but since there isn't one this was the best I could do!!
Mod
My experience with Amnet is that they are not expensive, but that might have to do with the monetary exchange rates between the United States (where I live) and India (where Amnet is located).
Mod
During the last few weeks, I have published my latest book, Reason and Human Ethics. The hyperlink leads to the Goodreads page for the book. The Amazon.com page is at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B.... Both the Goodreads and Amazon pages provide a chapter synopsis of the book. This synopsis provides an overall perspective of my view of the relationship between reason and ethics.
I have posted excerpts, including the entireties of Chapter 1 (“What Is the Basis of Human Ethics?”) and Chapter 2 (“Human Reason”), from this book at https://www.academia.edu/82835731/Exc.... This PDF document is freely accessible at that Academia.edu link, though you might have to create an Academia account (which is free) to access it.
See also my posts in the various topics in this Goodreads group, including Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking and Human Ethics: Basis, Principles, Applications.
The foregoing sources provide much of my view of the interrelationship of reason and ethics. The complete statement is in my book Reason and Human Ethics. This book is affordably priced and is available, in either Kindle or paperback editions, in most places around the world. If you have difficulty accessing it (I don’t know where you currently live), please send me a private message on this Goodreads platform, and we can discuss alternatives.
Alan wrote: "Abdul wrote: "Any thoughts as to why reason and ethics are inseparable? I am inclined to think that reason often being a search for truth if not always, compels one to live by truth when one has fo..."Thank you for all the links Alan. I will go through them. Oh, I am in Nigeria by the way.
Re: msg #33 this thread. Alan wrote: "I recall one of my professors saying long ago that Greek and German were the most philosophical of the languages...."Alan, do you happen to know whether German words are based on Greek word-roots, in the way that English words are?
For instance, if an English word such as 'logical' stems from the Greek 'logos', does the German word for 'logical' also stem from 'logos'?
This is a question I can't figure out how to pose on Wikipedia. Just curious.
Mod
The German word for "logical" is logish, so there is an obvious Greek derivation there. It's been quite awhile since I studied German, but I think it is safe to say that there are other such Greek words that have been incorporated in the German language (especially philosophical and scholarly terms), though I would guess that it is not as frequent as in the English language, since modern English has borrowed extensively from many languages, including but not limited to Greek.
Members of this group who are fluent in German and also know some Greek might be able to provide a more accurate answer to this question. I probably could have answered it off the top of my head some decades ago, but, alas, I've forgotten much of the German that I used to know.
'Plebiscite'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
I've often seen and read this word but never gave it enough thought. Interesting term.
"A plebiscite is a direct vote by eligible voters to decide an important public question, such as a change to the constitution, secession, or a similar issue of national or regional importance."
Mod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
I've often seen and read this term but never gave it enough thought. Interesting term.
"A plebiscite is a direct vote by eligible voters to d..."
In the United States, some state constitutions allow popular referendums, i.e., "a type of a referendum that provides a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can force a public vote (plebiscite) on an existing statute, constitutional amendment, charter amendment, or ordinance . . . ." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular....
Some state constitutions also allow initiatives, which are "a means by which a petition signed by a certain number of registered voters can force a government to choose either to enact a law or hold a public vote in the legislature in what is called indirect initiative, or under direct initiative, where the proposition is put to a plebiscite or referendum, in what is called a Popular initiated Referendum or citizen-initiated referendum." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative.
Most (perhaps all) states that allow referendums also allow initiatives. Perhaps the most famous example is California. When I was a lawyer in Ohio, I was involved in some initiative and referendum cases. However the last decade of my legal career was in Pennsylvania, where there is no right to initiative or referendum.
Initiatives and referendums were adopted by many states during the Progressive Era (1896–1917) of American politics.
The U.S. federal government has never had any form of popular initiative or referendum.
Intriguing website which allows one to monitor bills in Congress and track exactly how your elected reps vote on those bills. https://www.causes.com/
I believe it also has a 'petition' function which lets you add your name to one-or-the-other-side of any debate on any house floor.
Who knows but that maybe this kind of thing will become more popular, as American citizens increasingly live more virtually?
On the other hand, maybe this is 'old news' to everyone but me. I did carry out a quick keyword search before posting this, and did not see it mentioned.
Mod
Abdellatif Raji, a member of this Goodreads group, is the author of Heaven Is Under the Feet of Governments, a book that, in his words, “delves into the profound impact of governance on societal well-being and the potential of spiritual values to enhance secular governance.” His work “advocates for the Maqasid model, emphasizing the preservation of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property, aiming to guide policymakers towards more ethical and holistic governance practices.”
For some discussion of this book, see posts 432–35 (May 14, 2024) of the “Government and the Economy” topic of this group.
I have not yet read this book and, accordingly, will not comment further on it at this time.
June 14, 2024 Note:
As a result of its length and my current compressed schedule, I will be unable to read this book in the immediate future. However, I hope to find time to read it at some point.
Mod
Jaqueisse, a member of this Goodreads group, is the author of The Philosopher Kingdom. The Goodreads description of this book is as follows:
A witty, entertaining and insightful successor to Plato's Republic, this Socratic dialogue adapts the Kallipolis to the modern nation state. Our philosophers discourse on Justice, Freedom, Virtue and Happiness and expound on their principles for a modern audience, while merging Western and Eastern Philosophy to create a government superior to present day liberal democracy. Our philosophers discuss modern problems facing society and how to use political tools of the past to remedy them. The book is meant to challenge your previously held conceptions of the nature of freedom, happiness and justice. Three modern day international conflicts are discussed through the lens of classical political philosophy.I have not yet read this book and accordingly will not comment on it at this time.
Mod
I have reviewed Jaqueisse’s The Philosopher Kingdom at https://www.academia.edu/120896197/Re....
Alan wrote: "ADDENDUM TO MY PRECEDING POST:I have reviewed Jaqueisse’s The Philosopher Kingdom at https://www.academia.edu/120896197/Re...."
Dear Alan, thank you for the review.
The topic of Jaqueisse's book falls within the sphere of my interest, I have downloaded the book, but it probably would be hard for me to allocate the time necessary for reading.
Your review gives a very good idea of the book. I agree with the author that current democratic mechanisms are not perfect, but I also strongly agree with your criticism of his suggestions on virtually all the counts - abolishing human rights and freedoms and totalitarianism is definitely not a cure, in my opinion.
I have also searched the book for the fragments related to Ukraine, and ... well, not only I emphatically disagree, but I do not even see a space for a reasoned discussion with the author, when he, for instance, writes things like "I don’t agree with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but ...". How can there be any “buts” here? We seem to be in different realms.
Mod
You probably noticed my critique of his views on Ukraine on page 10 of my review.
I have one more book to read and possibly review before I get to your books.
Mod
I have reviewed Jaqueisse’s The Philosopher Kingdom at https://www.academia.edu/120896197/Re......"
By your logic, Winston Churchill was wrong to criticize Hitler in the years leading up to World War II. After all, he did not hesitate to "insult" Hitler. It would then have been better to follow the then popular policy of appeasement, which would have resulted in the permanent Nazification of Europe and, if followed elsewhere, of the world.
You (by way of the character Phil) repeatedly say in your book "I have heard," and you repeat this phrase in your foregoing post. In none of these instances do you document the source of such hearsay so that objective readers using critical thinking can evaluate your statements. There are many instances in your book where I am aware of facts contrary to those asserted in your "I have heard" statements. You should not expect us to take such statements on faith.
More generally, I encourage people to read your book and then my review and decide for themselves who is right.
As for Ukraine, I have made my position clear, but Anatolii, who lives in Ukraine and knows much more about the facts on the ground there than either of us, may wish to respond further to your remarks.
Jaqueisse wrote: "Whether or not you will reach the same conclusion will depend on if you really wish an answer to the question “What is superior government?” My book details Kallipolis, the best city and the best government. The reviewer simply wants to create “a slightly less bad democracy.” Our aims are different indeed._..."
re: post #69 this thread, (Jaquiesse)
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
H'mmm. In my experience: 'ivory-tower', 'top-down' approaches never succeed in US governance. The American character in general --and our frazzled state employees specifically--reject stringent, rigid mandates.
We are a pragmatic & impatient people; we want swift, practical results over airy, abstract theory. Our country's founders provide us with all the Greek ideals we need.
If the Heavens above all our heads possess any mercy left, they will relieve America from meeting up with any more 'reformers'. We've had more than our share of perfectionists. We need no more temples, pyramids, or ziggurats.
Doesn't history show that democracy is never perfect? Isn't U.S. democracy always fragile, wayward, fitful? Always taking great effort to maintain? Isn't all honest progress full of backtracking?
Things are not 'pretty' behind committee-room doors. But perfectionism is a much worse bugbear and a hobgoblin.
US cities & states are ridden with cliques and factions, lobbying, and special-interests. There is nepotism, favoritism, and cronyism. There are many back-room deals and handshake agreements. Not even mentioning the very powerful employee unions.
But sweaty, dirty, messy bickering is how things get done in our land. We totter and bobble along at rapid pace, for the sake of paltry little gain.
But thus does America advance forward --shakily, and in maddening fashion --precisely because Democracy listens to so many critics from within her body. It's because she is the most open and participatory.
She is notoriously difficult and exasperating, but who would prefer her any other way? Ruling is only ever easy & perfect, for the rulers of police states.
Mod
I have edited the first full bullet point (regarding Ukraine) on page 10 of my review of The Philosopher Kingdom (https://www.academia.edu/120896197/Re...). To be sure you see the edited version, refresh your screen once you have accessed the review.
Jaqueisse wrote: "Anatolii wrote: "Alan wrote: "ADDENDUM TO MY PRECEDING POST:I have reviewed Jaqueisse’s The Philosopher Kingdom at https://www.academia.edu/120896197/Re......"
Unfortunately, you answer contains a collection of false statements and manipulations. I do not have time nor desire to attend to all of them. Just a few most obvious remarks.
You are trying to justify Russian invasion by the “insults” made by our President towards “much larger and stronger neighbor”, and then provide the list of some allegations (I do not even address the issue how correct they are) which can be attributed to the period AFTER the invasion. The causal links do not work like this.
There were no “insults” on behalf of our President towards the “neighbor” prior to the war. To the contrary, the President Zelensky made many attempts of appeasement, including the public appeal made in Russian immediately before the full-scale invasion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1OVZ...).
The very idea that the cause of the invasion were “insults” is ridiculous. If you write about governance, you should have the general idea how wars are prepared and fought. You do not invade the “smaller and weaker neighbor” because somebody said something disrespectful. You plan the invasion in advance, for years and decades. That is what Putin did. Putin invaded my country in 2022 (and before that – Georgia in 2008, Crimea and Donbas in 2014) not because of some non-existing insults, but because he has some crazy ideas about Russian and personal domination. And he denies (since long before 2022 – see, among many other sources, https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/ukraine...), the very right of my country to exist. He denies my right to be Ukrainian, and my right to speak Ukrainian language. That is the reason he invaded. And that is the reason we fight. That is the reason I have voluntarily enlisted the Ukrainian Armed Forces in March 2022, being civilian with zero military experience.
You seem to think that Ukrainian identity is not worth fighting for. I disagree, but I will not argue with you. But what about fighting for life? We know exactly what will happen after the Russians take over. We know, what happened in Bucha, Izyum, Mariupol and other places. Those, who are not loyal to Russia – die. Those, who are loyal, die as well, but differently - as forcefully conscripted soldiers serving in Russian army as cannon fodder when attacking the next “smaller and weaker” neighbor for whatever bogus excuse. Therefore, that is the survival what we are fighting for. That simple.
Mod
For further information regarding Putin’s longstanding imperialistic grand design, currently focused on Ukraine, see my posts (with linked articles) at https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..., https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..., https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..., and https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/.... Many books by experts have also been written about this, including but not limited to Michael Millerman’s Inside "Putin's Brain": The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin and Timothy Snyder’s The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Snyder’s book is one of the best works I have read regarding these matters. I highly recommend it.
Alan wrote: "Thank you Anatolii. I was going to mention some of those things, but I figured it was better coming from you.For further information regarding Putin’s longstanding imperialistic grand design, cur..."
Thank you Alan. A very good choice of materials.
Mod
Jaqueisse wrote: “The issue is that Russia wants Ukraine in its orbit and to submit its foreign policy to Russia. This can be done without sacrificing one’s people or identity. Belarus has done this. Georgia is doing this at present. It involves submission.”
This is parallel to Hitler’s imperialistic designs and practices. You state that “[t]his can be done without sacrificing one’s people or identity.” That may have been the case with Hitler, who had a racial theory in which allegedly “inferior” nations should serve the Aryan “race” as slaves serve their masters. Thus, Hitler ruthlessly exploited, economically and otherwise, the nations he subjected, just as Stalin did on a different theory (Communism). Ukraine has not forgotten the famine in Ukraine, resulting in massive death, that Stalin deliberately caused in that country. (See Anne Applebaum’s Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine.)
The word “submission” is not in the American vocabulary, nor does it appear to be in the Ukrainian vocabulary. As Patrick Henry was famously reported to have said in a speech in Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775, “Give me liberty or give me death” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give_me...!). Shortly thereafter, Americans took on the superior (on paper) might of the British Redcoats and eventually won independence. Back in the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, I used to argue with my best friend at the time (we were both in high school debate). I said, “Better Dead than Red (Communist).” He countered, “Better Red than Dead.” My position has not changed since that time. There are things worse than death. One is submission to a totalitarian despot. Once such submission has been made, as Anatolii observed above, one ends up both conquered and (especially if one resists being a slave) dead.
Your “submission” theory is not, of course, new. I was a political science major in college (1960s). One of my professors was Hans J. Morgenthau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Mo...), who famously formulated a “realist” theory of international politics based on “spheres of influence.” Although I received an “A” in his course, I never accepted his approach. In some instances (the Vietnam War, for example, which he opposed on strictly realist grounds), he turned out to be right, though for the wrong reasons.
Jaqueisse wrote: “At one point a king asked Mencius about what to do when threatened by his much stronger neighbor. He offered two options: 1) submit/run away or 2) follow the kingly way. It’s the concept of Heaven’s mandate, which gives a divine mandate to rule. This includes ruling over others. It is mentioned in the book in regards to Ukraine as well. A good ruler has a mandate to punish others and absorb their territory.”
The foregoing is consistent with the mystical/religious view throughout your book. Sorry, but just as I don’t accept the Christian Bible’s Old Testament theocracy as the basis of rule (see my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience), so I don’t accept Mencius’s theory of “Heaven’s mandate” as the basis of rule. Using religion, instead of reason, as the basis of ethical and political philosophy ignores the fact that there are many different religions that contradict each other on such principles and that demand “faith” and/or tradition, instead of reason, as the basis of agreement. See my book Reason and Human Ethics, which discusses this at considerable length on pages 9–13, 49–52, and 161–82. That said, I point out in my book some areas in which Confucius and I agree on ethical matters. But Confucius relied, in those instances, on reason, not mysticism. According to Analects 7.21, Confucius never talked of miracles or spirits; cf. Analects 11.12.
Jaqueisse wrote: “Should Churchill have criticized Hitler? That depends on what you believe Justice to be. The Republic defines it as doing what you are supposed to be doing. If his duty includes criticizing, then he should be performing his duty. Behavior as a private citizen is far different than what is expected of a leader in government. As leader should he have done so? Prior to war, no. Once war has begun, it no longer matters. This is a law of Machiavelli---never insult or injure an opponent. You can kill them, but to insult or injure them is to reveal your intentions and invite reprisal. You may not like this line of thinking either, but a ruler would be wiser to heed this lesson.”
You say here, and you say throughout your book, that Plato’s Republic defines justice as “doing what you are supposed to be doing.” That’s not what the Republic says. I discuss the problematic nature of your translation in my review of your book. You seem to suggest three different things by your formulation: (1) that what each person is “supposed to be doing” is governed by some sort of predestinarian “fate,” (2) that the ruler has an ability (presumably by way of divine access to the supernatural) to determine what each individual’s fate is, and, (3) most importantly, that, regardless of such “revelation,” the ruler has a right, as a matter of power, to assign each person a job and a mate according to the ruler’s own notions of what society needs (jobs) and who would be good mate for that individual. I reject all three of these rationales. As I explain at greater length in my review, the character Socrates in Plato’s Republic states that justice for an individual means such individual’s reason supervises his/her spiritedness and desire. Socrates does initially propose a parallelism between the individual and the polity, but such parallelism is tentative and is incorrect due to its being a category error, a false analogy, and an impossibility.
(last edited June 16, 2024, 11:52 p.m. U.S. Eastern Daylight Time)
Mod
I have reviewed this book at https://www.academia.edu/121509996/Re....
Alan wrote: "Review of Anatolii Miroshnychenko’s Democracy: Beyond Majority Rule I have reviewed this book at https://www.academia.edu/121509996/Re......"
Dear Alan,
Thank you very much for your review. It is very useful, and I will do my best to use it for improving my line of reasoning.
It seems to me that your main point of critique is that the representative system in principle can work efficiently, as “many of today’s issues ultimately boil down to values”. In my opinion, the problem is that the number of “relatively simple” value-based questions, which are being publicly discussed (and in relation to which the voters, indeed, can have some informed opinion) is diminishingly small in the general number (hundreds and even thousands) of important issues to be decided by the parliament (or a president). And even in relation to few relatively simple issues “the devil lies in the details”. For instance, very specific legal details can significantly change the meaning of, for instance, of the rule of law principle.
So, my claim is that there is no way to reliably determine the set of “objectives”, which will with sufficient precision and comprehensiveness determine what the MP will do in the parliament (or a president will do while in office) – even if he/she will follow the promises made. And, unfortunately, educating the voters cannot be the solution here – just because there is no way for the voter to give the MP/president a comprehensive set of instructions.
The problem remains, if we would forget about the promises the candidate makes before the elections altogether and focus on his/her personal merits. May be, we (the voters) can select the best people to do the job according to their own disposition? I am sure, that the answer is no, as to choose the best people we need to invest a lot of time and resources into the selection. The voters cannot do this on their own, even if they would possess the necessary training and skills. Here additional education will not resolve the problem.
I am not sure that my arguments will be persuasive for you, but I just want to make my line of reasoning clearer.
On a technical point, I would also like to clarify, that setting meritocratic thresholds for those running for elected offices (not only in the parliament) is not the only measure I am suggesting for implementing the general and gradual “meritocratization” of existing democratic political systems. Other measures should be increasing the role of meritocratic authorities (like national banks, courts comprising of appointed judges, expert boards etc.), increasing the role of “meritocratic veto” etc.
At the same time, the possibility for active participation of public should be extended and encouraged - through the mechanisms like electronic petitions, opinion polls, public hearings etc., and especially – through enforcement mechanisms like citizens suits and democratic vetoes.
Thank you very much once again.
Mod
Anatolii wrote: "It seems to me that your main point of critique is that the representative system in principle can work efficiently, as “many of today’s issues ultimately boil down to values”."
When I stated on page 7 of my review that “many of today’s issues ultimately boil down to values,” I was specifically referring to the issues involved in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. In the next full paragraph (after the bullet points), I listed some (not all) of the issues that are not so much purely value questions in the present election. See also the paragraph preceding the one with the bullet points. In this unique presidential election, the question of values is of much greater significance than is usually the case, since Trump represents, in my view, the antithesis of what the United States has always stood for, and a vote for him is a vote to replace the United States Constitution with an authoritarian regime. This was not the situation in the pre-Trump elections, where the contest between candidates did not directly and obviously implicate core values.
The choice for U.S. voters in the 2024 presidential election is quite stark. Never before in U.S. history has been there so clear a choice between a political leader committed to the rule of law (Biden) and a demagogic, authoritarian politician (Trump) who has already promised to be “a dictator on one day one” if he becomes president again and who has already been convicted of felonies in one criminal trial, with three more criminal trials—all involving felonies that are far more serious than the ones of which he has already been convicted—to come. It does not take a PhD in economics or political science or even political philosophy to make a judgment in this case. It is simply a question of morality—“These are the times that try men’s [and women’s] souls,” as Thomas Paine wrote during the American War for Independence.
Your position seems to be oriented toward the “normal” situation, as it existed in the United States in the decades and centuries before Trump. Think, however, of your situation in Ukraine. Was it at all difficult for voters to distinguish between those candidates who were pro-Russian during the years before the Russian invasion and those who favored Western principles of rule of law? The people involved in the 2013–14 Revolution of Dignity did not need to consult any expert before knowing which side they were on.
But let us consider the “normal” situation that existed for a very long time before the current political crisis in the United States and will probably exist in Ukraine after the Russian imperialistic tyrant is defeated (assuming he will be defeated, as you and I both ardently hope). I realized yesterday that I should have included in my review a few more specifics about your meritocratic proposals. I gave indications of my views on that subject by pointing out (page 9 of my review) that a test for a candidate for president, prime minister, or legislator would have to be much different from the kinds of professional testing for licensing plumbers, pilots, physicians, lawyers, and judges (though federal judges in the United States are not required to take any qualifying test other than having passed the bar). This is because being a president, or prime minister, or member of a legislature involves a broad range of knowledge that includes a political philosophy as well as technical knowledge. So, who gets to decide which is the correct political philosophy when there are many alternatives on offer? How would any candidate be tested for that important question, and who would devise the test? Of course, Jason Brennan would proceed on his assumption that anyone not accepting libertarian economics is worse than ignorant, thereby devising a test that would exclude anyone other than economic libertarian elitists. In other words, to use Max Weber’s dichotomy, a test for licensing plumbers, pilots, physicians, and lawyers is “value free,” whereas a test for a president, prime minister, or legislator would be impossible unless one were to assume that every president, prime minister, and legislator should be, alternatively, an economic libertarian, a Marxist, or a social democrat (depending on the examiner’s preference). It’s better, in my view, to properly educate the electorate in what the fundamental alternatives are and the historical experience of countries living under those respective alternatives. Otherwise, channeling Hamlet (page 2 of my review), we are in an undiscovered country “from whose bourn no traveller returns” and “makes us rather bear the ills we have than fly to others we know not of.”
I also have doubts that education is always, or even sometimes, a proxy for political competence. Very few people are formally educated in the kinds of fields that are appropriate for political leaders. And the kinds of ideologies now present in the academic social sciences and humanities (postmodernism, relativism, and positivism, for example) may be more detrimental to political understanding and prudence than helpful. I’m aware of many professors who are insanely ideological and whose bizarre notions have absolutely no relationship to facts on the ground.
Regarding the last two paragraphs of your comment:
I did read those discussions in your book but did not address them in my review because it was already too long and also because I don’t necessarily have a position on all of them at this point. Each of those proposals has various pros and cons. After thirty years as a litigation lawyer in both federal court (where all Article III judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate) and the state courts of Ohio and Pennsylvania (where all trial court judges are elected, though with some special procedures in the case of Pennsylvania), I much prefer appointed judges, though historical experience shows that appointed judges can occasionally be worse than elected ones. There have been some proposed schemes in the United States regarding merit selection, at least in part, of state court judges, but they have usually been rejected by the state legislatures or, when submitted to popular referendum, by the electorate. On the whole, I found federal (appointed) judges better than state (elected) judges), though some federal judges are quite ideological and some of them can be downright tyrannical. If you can access “Rumpole of the Bailey” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpole...), you will see some behavior by some appointed judges in the United Kingdom that is similar to what I (and perhaps you) have experienced.
Other meritocratic suggestions in the last two paragraphs of your post may be good (to the extent they do not already exist), but I haven’t investigated them in any depth.
re: msg #77 Anatoliihttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
The issues which 'figure into' a candidate leading an election naturally aren't quite the same which 'figure into' an official's posture, once he's in office.
See Gore Vidal's stage play (and movie) about this difference: 'The Best Man', is based --as I recall --on the 1964 convention and the race between Kennedy and Nixon.
The Best Man by Gore Vidal
I don't see how we can insist on some method of guaranteeing a man's character once they're in power. There's a certain amount of risk in any institution which relies on human psychology.
If it were not thus, then we may just as well turn our leadership over to robots.
Alan wrote: "Thank you, Anatolii, for your thoughtful comments.Anatolii wrote: "It seems to me that your main point of critique is that the representative system in principle can work efficiently, as “many of..."
Thank you, Alan. It is a pleasure to participate in such a discussion.
You have used a very good example of the events related to the Revolution of Dignity in 2013/2014 in Ukraine. I can give several comments first-hand.
Yes, indeed, it was very easy to choose sides during the Revolution itself. But when it came to the elections, the situation became much more difficult. When choosing among several political parties opposed to Yanukovych during the post-revolution elections, it was difficult for many former protesters to make a choice. For me personally, the choice was relatively simple, but I was not completely happy with it, because the quality of the best (in my opinion) team running for office was, to say the least, not perfect, both in professional terms and in terms of integrity. Which affected the future performance of the team, of course.
I would be much happier with my choice if the candidates would pass some meritocratic preselection mechanism.
As to this mechanism, I am not claiming that there can be (at least for now) some comprehensive set of tests which would select the fittest men to be MPs and Presidents. And I agree, that education is not the ultimate answer, and that the subjective selection presents serious risks of abuse (I wrote on this in my book). But even the basic meritocratic selection (or rather deselection), which provide for relatively low, but impartial threshold, is able to significantly improve the situation. Think of a simple and impartial requirement that the convicted felons cannot run for office.
Judging from the example of Ukrainian parliament, I am convinced, that even relatively law-threshold selection mechanism, which is used in Ukraine to select officers of patrol police, when applied to candidates running for parliament, would ensure far better cohort of MPs, not to say about the mechanism which is used to select future judges. Of course, I am not saying that this mechanism should be used to select MPs and presidents; I suggest that the elements of this mechanism can be used to disqualify some candidates, clearly unfit for the office.
I fully acknowledge, that it is necessary to be very cautious with meritocratic preselection. That is why my suggestion is to move slowly and to consider starting not even with formal disqualification, but with simple mandatory disclosure of some mandatory impartial tests (IQ, simple knowledge of legislation, psychological etc.), which can, in particular, reveal future dictators.
Mod
Article II, section 1, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth very basic requisites for president: a president must be at least thirty-five years old, must be a “natural-born citizen” of the United States, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Similarly, Article I, section 3, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” Article 1, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution states: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five year Years, and have been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Could additional requirements for these offices be imposed by law short of a constitutional amendment? Although there are some procedural requirements applicable to the president (see https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/...) and members of Congress, it has always been my understanding that such substantive requirements as not having been a convicted felon can only be imposed by way of a constitutional amendment, and, as I have previously mentioned, it is almost impossible, under current political conditions, for a constitutional amendment to meet all the requirements for passage under Article V of the Constitution. However, I have not studied this precise issue in depth, and perhaps Congress could pass substantive requirements by law without a constitutional amendment. If so, I certainly would not be opposed to a requirement that a presidential candidate cannot be a convicted felon or perhaps some other basic qualifications.
With regard to the last paragraph of your comment, I am again not clear that such laws could even be imposed by Congress absent a constitutional amendment. In any event, I would be reluctant to use IQ tests for such purposes, as such tests are inadequate and even misleading for this purpose. See Keith E. Stanovich, What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009).
You and I have the same ultimate objectives. Whether they can be achieved by meritocratic legal requirements may depend on the constitutional arrangements of each different country. Also, as you indicate in your book, there is the possibility of misuse for nefarious purposes. The historical abuse of literacy tests in the United States to exclude African Americans from voting makes us Americans suspicious of all such restrictions on voting or holding office, especially when Jason Brennan, for example, claims the following on Kindle page 33 of his book Against Democracy:
Political knowledge is positively correlated with being or leaning Republican, but negatively correlated with being a Democrat or leaning independent. It is positively correlated with being between the ages of thirty-five and fifty-four, but negatively correlated with other ages. It is negatively correlated with being black, and strongly negatively correlated with being female.See my discussion of such matters on pages 6–9 of my review of Brennan’s book (https://www.academia.edu/106405232/Fr...). This kind of thing is an example of why I do not trust certain types of academic elitists. I am also suspicious of the use of psychological tests. I recall very well that the Soviet Union had a practice of sending opponents of the regime to mental asylums, not to mention the Chinese Communist practice of sending dissidents to reeducation camps.
Alan wrote: "Anatolii, I would agree that some such prequalifications might be good. And they might work in Ukraine or other countries. Unfortunately, in the United States, even a criminally convicted person ca..."Alan, I agree that any tests should be used with great caution, and of course they have serious limitations (I acknowledge this in my book). As for me personally, in my teaching experience I was very reluctant to use tests for evaluation of law students.
However, if to use tests not to select the winner, but to disqualify those manifestly unfit for office, or even just to warn the voters of some risks related to candidate (as a first step), they seem to be a practical tool for improving the quality of elected officials. If and then it will be clear that the tests are reliable and impartial, it will be possible to give the results formal value, and after that to gradually raise the threshold.
If there is little chance to introduce the relevant rules legislatively (and even less so constitutionally), may be as a first step some candidates can do some tests and disclose their result voluntarily – for instance, during the presidential campaign in Ukraine in 2019 both major candidates voluntarily did the drug tests and disclosed the results (https://www.reuters.com/article/world...). I think this is a good practice, and those who will introduce it first can gain some electoral advantage.
Mod
The following might be an example of an unofficial test that is nevertheless influential.
In his June 27, 2024 presidential debate with (former) President Donald J. Trump, President Joe Biden stated:
I wasn't joking. Look it up. Go online. 159 or 58, don't hold me the exact number, presidential historians. They've had meetings and they voted who's the worst president in American history. One through best to worst. They said [Trump] was the worst in all of American history. That's a fact. That's not conjecture. He can argue the wrong, but that's what they voted.A Snopes fact check (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...) remarked:
Biden's claim is true, though the numbers, as he suggested, were inexact. The survey from the Presidential Greatness Project went out to 525 “social science experts in presidential politics, as well as scholars who had recently published peer-reviewed academic research in key related scholarly journals or academic presses” between Nov. 15 and Dec. 31, 2023. The survey yielded 154 responses, which determined Trump was the worst president in U.S. history — even accounting for the participants' political views.Perhaps we should endow this meritocratic group with the powers currently given to the U.S. Electoral College to select the president of the United States. I kid, of course, but still . . . .
re: msg #82, Anatoliihttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Something about this discussion has been nagging at me and I think it's this: meritocracy is utterly anathema lately in American government. At least at the municipal level. That's why the back'n'forth above sounds so strange to my ears.
In my city, if you exhort people to any kind of 'educational standard' you will get attacked as a 'white privileged imperialist trying to maintain a dying tradition'. You are perceived as restricting advancement.
Ethnic groups recoil at the very thought. They get up on their hind legs; it invokes bitter fury. The way things are going, any notion of meritocracy applied to leadership has no viability for at least the next 500 years.
EDIT: adding links:
https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2023/...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/suit-challe...
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local...
Feliks wrote: "re: msg #82, Anatoliihttps://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Something about this discussion has been naggi..."
Thank you for the interesting links.
As I do not know the context, I am not sure if I got everything correctly. From what I understood, it seems that the dispute is about whether admission mechanism in education is supposed to consider some subjective factors (racial origin, quality of neighborhood or prior education etc) when deciding on the student’s admission.
If this (subjective preferences) is indeed the case, my experience in academia and with the procedure for selecting future judges says that nothing good is likely to come out of this. With all its drawbacks and limitations, only objective and impartial uniform testing (blind to the personality of a candidate) is a practical tool for such a selection. Not only in terms of student's "quality", but also in terms of social harmony. If some preferences are set subjectively, there will never be consensus on their scope, target groups etc.
Anatolii, I myself find the controversy difficult to fathom. It rather sounds like ethnic lobby groups are insisting that the tradition of 'rigid' fairness (?) be dropped from testing. All for the sake of an 'artificially enforced' affirmative action among the more proficient students.
In other words, stop looking 'merely' at test scores. But this makes no sense. Advancement should be based on test scores and nothing else.
You can find the same debate going on in the world of symphony orchestras. Here, issues are somewhat easier to grasp.
https://symphony.org/features/rethink...
In this case, American symphonies instituted 'blind' auditions, (students performing behind screens) in order to rule out the possible bias of white males to hire more white males like themselves. But it turned out not to make any difference at all.
After this measure was instituted, the diversity of orchestras stayed the same. Caucasian, Asian-American, and oh by the way plenty of females too (which doesn't seem to matter to the accusers and baiters).
Eh. All these race-based witch-hunts, wear me thin.
Mod
I myself find the controversy difficult to fathom. It rather sounds like ethnic lobby groups are insisting that the tradition of 'rigid' fairness (?) be dropped from testing. All for th..."
The United States has a long history of racial discrimination (including but not limited to slavery and Jim Crow), which such measures such as affirmative action have attempted to ameliorate. Like most other countries, the U.S. also has a history of gender discrimination. Whether or not affirmative action is advisable or not is a question that has been with us for many decades, and I express no opinion about that at this time.
Testing itself has its limitations, even apart from racial considerations. Given the past history of abuse of literacy tests, Americans are skeptical of any testing as a prerequisite of voting or eligibility for elective office. As I explain in my critique of Jason Brennan's book, I definitely oppose any testing of voters or elected officials that is based on ideological commitments of any kind. Brennan's entire analysis is based on the premise that laissez-faire macroeconomic theory is the absolute truth and that other economic views are demonstrably false. I don't accept that premise, either as a general proposition or as a premise of testing. Given the complexity of the issues faced by elective officials and the vast disagreements among economists, political philosophers, and other relevant experts, I seriously doubt that it is possible to devise a test that is both useful and free of unwarranted ideological assumptions.
Dear Alan E. Johnson, I have read your book The Electoral College: Failures of Original Intent and Proposed Constitutional and Statutory Changes for Direct Popular Vote, and posted a short review both on Goodreads and Amazon.The book was very interesting and informative for me. Now I understand both the logic of the original design and the reasons why it failed (I agree with you, that the college is not working). Your proposals how to improve the election system are very well drafted and reasoned, and I agree with you, that popular vote will bring some improvement. However, as I have mentioned earlier during our discussion of my book, in my opinion, popular vote without setting some meritocratic barriers will not guarantee against the election of demagogues and outright criminals to the office. The issue of barriers to passive suffrage is very complex, one should use them very cautiously, but, in my opinion, this option is at least worth considering and discussing.
Mod
Thank your, Anatolii, for your review and for your thoughts about meritocratic barriers to demagoguery. I do think such measures are worth discussion. As I have mentioned, some of these ideas might require a constitutional amendment in the United States.
I am working on a relatively brief paper provisionally titled "Proposals for Education in Rational and Ethical Thinking," which I will post on Academia (and cross-reference in this forum) when it is finished. Although I think that James Madison and others were right to incorporate limits to pure majority rule in the U.S. Constitution (with the exception of the Electoral College, which Madison only agreed to as a compromise late in the Constitutional Convention, since his first proposal was for direct popular vote), I continue to think that the ultimate solution is to educate people to become more rational and ethical. However, any such project, would take centuries, if not millennia, to succeed (if it ever succeeded), so it is kind of a utopian vision.
Mod
I have now posted my paper “Proposals for Education in Rational and Ethical Thinking” at https://www.academia.edu/122128491/PR....
fun anecdote: on my undergrad campus there was a renowned professor of law who was allegedly so deft at constitutional principles that --as a sideline to his tenure --he supposedly wrote new constitutions for emerging third-world countries (at the time).I wish I had interacted with him better; but I was very much in a muddle. I wasn't even a drug-user; simply a mixed-up, befuddled freshman liberal arts student. My mind was mush.
But at this point it is maddening to me that I can't even recall his name.
Anyway, I've been having fun with a pal lately joking about taking command of his homeland. He's my best friend; was raised by a powerful SE Asian clan. We're talking about how the time is ripe for him to return to his island and make a bid for the presidency.
I've agreed to be his speechwriter.
Alan, I'm looking at you to provide a Constitution. What would you do in such a case? If you were cast in the role of a founding father?
Mod
I just asked Bing AI “who was the law professor at Rutgers who wrote constitutions for developing countries?” It responded in about 10 seconds with the following answer: “the law professor at Rutgers who specialized in writing constitutions for developing countries is Professor Robert F. Williams. He has been a premier legal scholar dealing with American state constitutions and subnational constitutions in other countries.” Is he your guy?
In my first year of law school, I had to take a moot court course. I wrote a brief and did an oral argument, as in an appellate proceeding. I was assigned a partner for the oral argument; he was a visiting student from Africa. I no longer remember his name (though I think he went by the English name “Eric”) or his country of origin). He was a nice guy. His family was high up in the government and politics of his country, and he expected to obtain high political office after he finished law school and returned to his country.
As for constitutions, I know mostly our own (U.S.), which has both good points and bad points (the Electoral College and equal state suffrage in the Senate being examples of the latter). The Scandinavian and some of the continental European countries have interesting constitutions, as does Ukraine (see the English text of the Constitution of Ukraine at https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/file...). But I couldn't begin to formulate a constitution for another country. Much might depend on their history and traditions. When I was an undergraduate political science major, I wanted to take a course on comparative law, but none was offered at that time to undergraduates.
The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, but they nevertheless recognize certain rights and governmental principles from Magna Charta to the present. When they were in the European Union, they had to abide by certain EU constitutional principles, but they have accomplished Brexit, so I don't know the current status of that.
Like you, my mind was in kind of a muddle in college. I've since learned that one's prefrontal cortex does not fully develop until age 25 or 30 (or later). A few decades of life experience also help. I definitely wouldn't want to repeat my youth.
re: Robert F. Williams. I am very much sure that he is the individual I have long had in mind. I thank you for pinning him down. Deft!Somehow I could never rightly concoct an efficient "search-phrase" that would have brought him to light.
He is quite the distinguished-looking gentleman. And what a list of accreditations and degrees he has!
At the time, I never would have dared to introduce myself to him had I ever passed within orbit of such a man.
Me, I was in a Fine Arts track. W'uthless! Utterly no-account, an' shiftless, reprobate; scape-grace; wastrel. Truly was I, just a measly undergraduate 'shade' back d'en. A non-entity.
I remember being thoroughly daunted by 'established men' with wives, savings, tenures, cars, property. Men with 'names'; an' 'stature', an' 'reputations'.
But --this is not to say Williams had no salubrious effect on me. Such men often do. Word-o'-mouf' gets aroun'.
He was a member of a pantheon --m' undergrad professors --all of whom were instrumental in shaping my trajectory, much as Leo Strauss was to yourself. And it turned up trumps.
"The look of the land changes by the men we admire" --Larry McMurtry
Mod
As I have recently mentioned in another post, perhaps the most difficult intellectual problem I have faced is understanding how I can agree so much with someone's philosophical or intellectual position on some things and yet disagree with the same person on other issues. For decades, I assumed that my disagreements with Strauss and the Straussians were only apparent, that when I understood them better I would actually agree with them. During the last few weeks and months, I have realized that this is not the case. I really do disagree with them on some points, and I have always disagreed with them on those same questions. However, the points on which I agree with them (and with few others on these issues) are strong. All this is finally becoming quite clear to me as I prepare my book on political philosophy.
Anarcho-capitalism, being a system based entirely on free markets and the absence of a state, presents a series of significant risks, especially in scenarios of financial crises or drastic changes in the global market. These risks stem from the lack of a central regulatory entity and the complete reliance on the market to resolve structural and social problems. Here are some of the main risks of this regime:1. Lack of Stabilization Mechanisms in Financial Crises
Without a government or central bank to intervene during a financial crisis, such as a recession or depression, the market would be fully exposed to the natural fluctuations of capitalism. There would be no monetary policies (such as printing money or adjusting interest rates) to stabilize the economy, nor fiscal stimulus to rescue collapsing sectors.
Risk: In a major crisis, businesses would fail en masse, increasing unemployment. Without welfare or security programs, people would have no economic safety net.
Historical Example: During the Great Depression of 1929, government intervention was crucial in stabilizing the economy through the New Deal in the U.S. In an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be no such intervention, leaving the economy at the mercy of total collapse.
2. Extreme Inequality
Anarcho-capitalism could exacerbate economic inequalities, as the wealthiest and most powerful would have greater control over resources and services. Without state regulation to redistribute wealth or provide basic public services like health and education, disparities between rich and poor could rapidly widen.
Risk: The richest classes would control most of the resources, while the working and poorer classes would have little or no protection. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few could lead to significant social tensions.
Example: Companies and corporations could monopolize essential sectors like health and security, creating a society deeply divided between those who can afford these services and those who cannot.
3. Fragility in Times of Global Crises
Global crises, such as pandemics, climate change, wars, or natural disasters, require centralized coordination and significant resources for mitigation. In anarcho-capitalism, where there is no state to coordinate efforts, these crises could become catastrophic.
Risk: In a global pandemic, for instance, the lack of coordination to provide vaccines, containment measures, and affordable healthcare would be a major problem. Private companies might charge exorbitant prices for essential services, excluding most of the population.
Recent Example: During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide coordinated efforts to distribute vaccines and support those most affected economically. Without such state intervention, many would have been left helpless.
4. Monopolization of Power
Although anarcho-capitalism advocates for free competition, in practice, the absence of state regulation could lead to the formation of monopolies and cartels, where companies dominate entire sectors of the economy. These companies could dictate prices and conditions for access to essential services like security, health, and justice.
Risk: Large corporations could monopolize sectors such as security and justice, creating private "mini-governments" with enormous power over people's lives. Without regulation, these corporations could act authoritatively, with little concern for social welfare.
Example: In regions where private security forces replace the state, there could be abuses, discrimination, and exploitation, as companies would be motivated by profit rather than public service.
5. Lack of Social Safety Nets
In an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be no welfare programs like unemployment insurance, public health assistance, social security, or education support. This means that individuals would be responsible for providing everything for themselves, including security, healthcare, and education.
Risk: People facing personal crises, such as job loss or severe health issues, would have no support from public networks and would be completely dependent on their financial capacity.
Example: Without a public health system, poorer people could die from treatable diseases simply because they couldn't afford private healthcare services.
6. Difficulty in Coordinating Large Projects and Infrastructure
Large-scale projects, such as building infrastructure (roads, bridges, power grids), are difficult to carry out without state coordination and funding. In anarcho-capitalism, private companies would have to bear the costs, and there wouldn't always be an incentive to carry out these projects in less profitable areas.
Risk: Rural and less economically attractive areas could be neglected, leading to a lack of development and infrastructure in these regions. Additionally, essential services like energy and water could be controlled by a few companies, which would charge high prices.
7. Difficulty in Resolving Conflicts
In anarcho-capitalism, justice systems would be private and hired by interested parties. This could lead to unequal justice, where the wealthiest could hire the best private courts, while the poor would be disadvantaged in disputes.
Risk: Access to justice would be determined by financial capacity, creating a system where the wealthiest have the upper hand in any conflict or legal dispute.
In Summary:
Anarcho-capitalism, in situations of financial crises or changes in the global market, presents significant risks such as extreme inequality, economic instability, and the absence of social safety nets. Without a state to intervene during critical moments, society would be vulnerable to monopolies, social exclusion, and the collapse of essential services. Global crises, like pandemics or natural disasters, could also be worsened by the absence of state coordination and the prioritization of private profit over public welfare.
Mod
Thank you for your analysis of anarchocapitalism, with which I concur. Anarchocapitalism, however, is primarily based on a moral argument. In this connection, see my following critical review of Murray Rothbard’s book For a New Liberty at https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... Rothbard was the founder and leader of anarchocapitalism in the twentieth century.
You also might consider copying your post to our “Classical Liberalism; Libertarianism and Anarchocapitalism; Objectivism” topic (https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...).
Alan wrote: "Thanks, Anatolii.The following might be an example of an unofficial test that is nevertheless influential.
In his June 27, 2024 presidential debate with (former) President Donald J. Trump, Presi..."
Dear Alan,
An interesting example of meritocratic preselection of candidates running for parliament by a political party from Africa: https://www.eisa.org/storage/2023/06/....
If correctly interpreted, the results show that meritocratic preselection of candidates (which is done without any formal legal basis) by the party can indeed give serious electoral advantage to the party which resorts to this measure.
Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "Anarcho-capitalism, being a system based entirely on free markets and the absence of a state, presents a series of significant risks, especially in scenarios of financial crises or ..."Alan, I read your post through the link you provided, and I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I find Murray Rothbard’s vision to be very reductive and completely anarchic, the practical outcome of which would resemble something like the Wild West. Rothbard seems to believe that it’s possible to govern without laws or rules to moderate social and economic behaviors, which is utterly utopian. The blind faith he presents assumes that people are all on the same level of rationality, ethics, and civic behavior, forgetting that the political, social, economic, and educational conditions of each nation shape its personality, beliefs, and preconceived ideas, resulting in a wide diversity of behaviors.
Anatolii wrote: "Alan wrote: "Thanks, Anatolii.The following might be an example of an unofficial test that is nevertheless influential.
In his June 27, 2024 presidential debate with (former) President Donald J...."
Dear Anatoliii,
Thank you for sharing this example of meritocratic preselection from Africa. The idea of selecting candidates based on merit, even in the absence of formal legal frameworks, indeed resonates with some of the core concepts I’ve explored in Global Disorder. In the book, I advocate for a technomeritocratic approach to governance, where decision-making and leadership positions are not driven by political populism or short-term gains but by competence, ethics, and a deep understanding of societal and economic complexities.
However, as promising as meritocratic systems can be, we must also be cautious about the broader implications. One of the central concerns I raise in Global Disorder is the erosion of critical thinking and civic responsibility within societies. The assumption that meritocracy alone can solve governance issues often overlooks the deep-seated psychological and emotional vulnerabilities that influence human behavior. In a world plagued by misinformation, fanatism, and political extremism, ensuring that both leaders and the electorate are equipped with critical thinking skills is essential for the success of any system, including meritocratic ones.
While preselection based on merit can offer advantages, as seen in this African example, it must be complemented by a societal framework that fosters rational discourse, ethical leadership, and an informed, engaged citizenry. Otherwise, as I argue in Global Disorder, even well-intentioned systems can fail if they do not address the root causes of social instability and polarization.
Mod
I have now read the article you referenced, and it reminds me of the system we had in the USA not too long ago.
Political parties in the USA did not adopt the popular primary system until 1972 and thereafter. The selection of a presidential candidate by a party before that time was by the party’s congressional caucus in the early decades, national party conventions in the middle stage, and binding primaries beginning in the late twentieth century and continuing until today (though a few states have caucuses in addition to or instead of primaries). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_.... There are also various primary or caucus procedures for candidates for the US Congress and for state and local government throughout the United States. Each system had its advantages and disadvantages. However, some commentators have noted that the popular primary system has resulted in candidates who are very extreme and even mentally unbalanced. This is especially true in the Republican Party at the present time, where, for example, a Republican member of the US House of Representatives has recently stated that the recent hurricanes were caused or directed by Democrats who know how to control the weather and who has talked about “Jewish space lasers” targeting this country. There are pros and cons to the idea of abandoning the popular primary and returning to the national party convention as the body deciding on the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Of course, the national conventions still formally choose the candidates, but each state delegation is required to follow the popular primary election result in its state.
The Democratic Party once had “superdelegates” who could vote independently at the party’s national convention for the candidate they preferred. The following quote is from the above-linked Wikipedia article (endnotes omitted):
In Democratic primaries through 2016, about 85% of delegates to the Democratic National Convention are "pledged delegates" who are apportioned to candidates according to the results of primaries and caucuses. The remaining 15% are unpledged superdelegates (consisting of sitting Democratic governors, sitting Democratic members of Congress [i.e., senators and representatives], former and current Democratic presidents and vice presidents, and a few leaders of Democratic National Committee-affiliated organizations, such as the Young Democrats of America) who can vote for whomever they wish. Some superdelegates are former or current state or federal lobbyists, In 2016, following a push by independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran as a Democrat, the party voted in favor of superdelegate reform, such that in future presidential elections most superdelegates will be bound to their state primary results.There is a good argument that it would be better to abandon the primary process (or make it simply a nonbinding, preferential expression of the popular will) and, instead, return to the party leaders at the national convention to select the party’s candidates for president and vice president. However, the genie is out of the bottle, as we say in this country, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to put it back in. An alternative might be to use ranked-choice voting in primaries as well as general elections. Some states and localities have already adopted rank-choice voting, though it is not yet the prevailing system throughout the United States. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-....
Generally, I am undecided about whether binding party primaries should be abandoned. The fact that it is politically impossible in the United States to do so at this time makes it unnecessary to decide the question in my own mind. I fall back on what I think is the only permanent solution: educating people to be rational and ethical so that they will no longer vote for candidates who are (certifiably or not) insane. That, of course, is a utopian notion that will not occur, if at all, during this century. I develop these ideas in my book Reason and Human Ethics.
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Books mentioned in this topic
The Electoral College: Failures of Original Intent and Proposed Constitutional and Statutory Changes for Direct Popular Vote (other topics)The Best Man by Gore Vidal (other topics)
Why Africa is not Rich like America & Europe (other topics)
All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity (other topics)
Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Alan E. Johnson (other topics)Alan E. Johnson (other topics)
I agree with you and Alan that it is well nigh impossible but some issues by their nature do seem to call for closer government collaboration. Two that come to mind are climate change and cross border financial flows. Of course I am not advocating for world government on the basis of these.