Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Types of Government: General Discussion
date
newest »
newest »
message 101:
by
Alan, Founding Moderator and Author
(last edited Oct 13, 2024 06:14AM)
(new)
Oct 12, 2024 10:08PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
Apologies for not seeing your post until just now. I cannot give a short answer to your question. The long answer is in my book Reason and Human Ethics (a PDF replica of the paperback of which is freely viewable and downloadable at https://www.academia.edu/107899091/Re...).
Alan wrote: "Anatolii wrote (# 97, October 10, 2024): "An interesting example of meritocratic preselection of candidates running for parliament by a political party from Africa: https://www.eisa.org/storage/202..."Dear Alan,
Thank you for your comment and for referencing the article. Indeed, the situation you describe regarding the American political system is emblematic and reflects a phenomenon that is not exclusive to the U.S., but can be observed in various democracies around the world.
The central issue you raise, about how the popular primary system has led to the election of extremist or even mentally unstable candidates, touches on a crucial point: political polarization and the role of social media, which amplifies radical voices and often distorts public debate. This situation can be seen as a symptom of a larger problem, including the lack of civic education, the weakening of trust in institutions, and the manipulation of misinformation.
Possible causes:
Polarization and fragmentation of the electorate: The primary system encourages candidates to appeal to the most radical bases of the parties, as these are the most engaged and vocal voters in the process. This means that, instead of trying to attract the general electorate, candidates seek to win over the extremes, which can result in the selection of leaders with more extreme views.
Effects of social media: The spread of false information and conspiracy theories, like the examples you mentioned, causes a portion of the electorate to lose touch with objective reality. The popularization of these ideas among groups of voters creates a dangerous dynamic, where politicians see advantages in adopting radical rhetoric to gain notoriety.
Lack of civic and ethical education: As you rightly pointed out, the long-term solution may lie in education. The absence of a solid foundation in ethics, critical thinking, and democratic values means that many voters lack the necessary tools to distinguish between sensible candidates and those who pose risks to democratic stability.
Proposed solutions:
Civic and critical education: I fully agree that the long-term solution is education. Developing citizens with critical thinking skills is essential to combat misinformation and political manipulation. Educational systems at all levels should include subjects that promote understanding of democratic functioning, respect for institutions, and analytical thinking.
Electoral system reform: One of the options you mentioned, the adoption of ranked-choice voting, could help reduce polarization by encouraging candidates to adopt more moderate and coalition-building stances. This system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, favoring those who can appeal to a broader base.
Regulation and accountability in social media: Given the influence of digital media, it would be crucial to adopt stricter regulations to combat misinformation and hold platforms accountable for allowing extremist content. Additionally, promoting digital literacy is important so that people can identify reliable sources and accurate information.
Community and local engagement: Strengthening political engagement in local communities could be another way to create a more informed electorate that is less susceptible to manipulation. Encouraging civilized and constructive debate, starting at the grassroots level, can help break the polarization dynamic.
Responsible leadership: Finally, a cultural change within the political parties themselves is necessary. Parties should take greater responsibility in selecting their candidates and the messages they promote, avoiding the support of those who appeal to extremism and misinformation.
While, as you mentioned, it may be difficult to "put the genie back in the bottle," I believe these reforms can be steps toward mitigating the negative effects of the primary system and bringing more balance to the electoral process.
Mod
I look forward to reading your book sometime within the next few months. However, I have to prepare a paper that I have been planning, tentatively titled "Individual Rights and Judicial Review." Also, I promised to read and review two new books on free will by an eminent scholar on that subject.
Mod
Chris Cuomo on Bill Maher’s Real Time television show last evening (November 15, 2024) called Trump’s emerging second-term government (with special attention to his announced Cabinet picks) as a “kakistocracy,” which Merriam-Webster defines (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...) as “government by the worst people.” See also the Wikipedia article on “kakistocracy” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakisto....
“Kakistocracy” is a Greek neologism, which Cuomo said was coined in ancient Greece, but Wikipedia says the earliest use of the word was in the seventeenth century.
Wikipedia says there is no Greek term for “rule of the best,” but that is, of course, incorrect. The word is “aristocracy,” and the most famous example is Plato’s fictional construction in the Republic. I do not recall whether Plato or another classical political philosopher actually used the term “aristocracy,” but that is the word that is historically used for this concept.
“Kakistocracy” is, needless to say, a pejorative term, but one can understand why Cuomo did not hesitate to use it with regard to Trump’s Cabinet picks. See, among many other media reports, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgl....
There isn't a lot of discussion of the theory of autocracy in ancient Mesopotamia, although the Greeks had the Persian variant much in mind. In Mesopotamian texts the common attitude seems to be that "Kingship came down from Heaven," in the words of the "Sumerian King List."It has been discussed as an ideology underlying the so-called "Babylonian Genesis," the epic known from its opening as Enuma Elish, "When on high..." It is once of the best-attested Akkadian compositions, and received a wide distribution. The story traces the rise of Marduk to be supreme head of the pantheon: he was originally a rather obscure patron god of the once minor city of Babylon, and this was a theological revolution. So was his absoluate power over the Assembly of the Gods, as seen in other myths.
A new text and translation, as "Enuma Elish: The Babylonian Epic of Creation," with accompanying essays, is now available as a free pdf at https://www.bloomsburycollections.com...
It is available in other formats, including forthcoming print editions, as Volume 1 of The Library of Babylonian Literature, Bloomsbury Academic (2025).
The introduction and several of the essays address this directly, notably: 6 ("Marduk's Elevation: A masterpiece of political thought"), 7 ("Divine Rhetoric: Enuma Elish on communicatiion and emotion"), and 8 ("A mirror for queens: Gender, motherhood, and power in Enuma Elish"). 3, "The cuneifiorm reception of Enuma Elish," deals with the real-life reactions to the epic, notably is adapation by the Assyrians to their own chief god, Assur.
Mod
Thanks, Ian, for this information.
Ian wrote: "There isn't a lot of discussion of the theory of autocracy in ancient Mesopotamia, although the Greeks had the Persian variant much in mind. In Mesopotamian texts the common attitude seems to be th..."The concept of autocracy in ancient Mesopotamia is mostly interpreted through its epics and myths rather than as a defined political ideology. Mesopotamian texts suggest that royal power was seen as divine, with the Sumerian King List stating, “Kingship descended from heaven,” indicating that kings’ authority was legitimized as a divine gift. This notion is also prominent in the Babylonian Genesis or Enuma Elish, an Akkadian epic that narrates the rise of Marduk, initially a lesser deity from the city of Babylon, to the supreme head of the pantheon. This epic not only elevates Marduk to a central role but also establishes his absolute authority over the Assembly of the Gods, symbolizing a theological revolution that positioned Babylon as a powerful religious and political center.
A new translation and analysis of Enuma Elish, titled The Babylonian Epic of Creation, is available for free from Bloomsbury Collections and includes essays that explore Marduk’s political role, as in “Marduk's Elevation: A Masterpiece of Political Thought.” This collection examines how the myth of Marduk was adapted by the Assyrians to reinforce the authority of their chief god, Assur, illustrating how religious narratives were used to consolidate centralized power.
An alternative interpretation proposes that this divine power may have extraterrestrial origins. Some theorists, particularly proponents of the “ancient astronaut” hypothesis like Erich von Däniken, suggest that the ancient Mesopotamian gods and their “heavenly” power were actually advanced extraterrestrial beings, perceived by early civilizations as deities and integrated into their political and religious structures. This perspective holds that these beings might have influenced early societal and political development, leading to a close association between governance and religion. However, such theories are largely speculative and lack academic consensus, remaining an alternative interpretation of ancient mythology.
I don’t know of any academic support in remotely relevant fields for “Ancient Astronauts,” although it used to be a minor staple of science fiction.* And anyone who has read the relevant mythology knows that the gods are kind of inferior, as Superior Beings go (to quote a science fiction fan punchline).*See, notably, Andre Norton’s Time Traders series.
Ian wrote: "I don’t know of any academic support in remotely relevant fields for “Ancient Astronauts,” although it used to be a minor staple of science fiction.* And anyone who has read the relevant mythology ..."Skepticism about the possibility of extraterrestrial life or external interventions on Earth is understandable, especially in a world rooted in science and empiricism. However, there are facts and accounts, both from ancient times and the present, that raise intriguing questions and cannot be dismissed simply because they challenge established beliefs. The following examples illustrate these points:
Questions from Antiquity
The global spread of pyramids:
Why did civilizations as distant and disconnected as the Egyptians, Mayans, and Chinese develop such similar structures? At a time when maritime transport was extremely limited, this raises questions about shared or external influences. Could there have been a universal archetype, or perhaps something more?
Inexplicably advanced knowledge:
Structures like the Great Pyramid of Giza, built with extraordinary geometric precision, and technologies such as the Antikythera Mechanism, reveal levels of understanding that challenge what is attributed to the civilizations of their time.
Similar myths and deities:
Why do so many cultures describe “gods” descending from the skies with superhuman powers and advanced knowledge? Could these divine representations have been ancient attempts to explain phenomena we might now consider technological?
Contemporary Facts
UFO sightings over nuclear facilities:
There are documented accounts of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) flying over nuclear power plants. Incidents reported in the U.S. and Russia include cases where nuclear missile systems were temporarily deactivated, raising questions about the intentions and capabilities of such objects.
Global reports:
Across the world, multiple sightings and interactions with UAPs have been corroborated by eyewitnesses, including military and civilian pilots. The growing number of official disclosures, such as Pentagon reports, adds credibility and urgency to investigating these phenomena.
Human resistance to the extraterrestrial hypothesis:
Why does humanity readily accept religious myths with earthly traits while rejecting the possibility of life beyond Earth, even as scientific evidence increasingly points to the prevalence of habitable planets and organic molecules in the universe?
Philosophical Reflections
To dismiss the possibility of extraterrestrial life or external interventions without thorough investigation may mirror the same dogmatic beliefs that once led to the acceptance of flat-Earth theories or geocentrism. Science should remain open to all plausible hypotheses, no matter how uncomfortable they may seem—especially considering the vastness of the universe and the limitations of human understanding.
While traditional science often prefers explanations rooted in what is already proven, history demonstrates that truth frequently defies what was once considered “impossible.” Encouraging debate, rigorous investigation, and openness to the unknown are essential steps for advancing as a civilization.
Mod
As a result of Goodreads's elimination of email notification of new posts, I didn't see the two preceding comments until just now. As I previously mentioned, I am detecting a broad "dumbing down" of availability of digital procedures across the board, making intelligent use of the internet and other technology more rather than less difficult. Perhaps, however, I am committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.
As I approach eighty years of age, I doubt that science will find an answer to these interesting questions in my lifetime. Perhaps it will figure it out before the end of the present century.
Of course, it is possible that the recent UAPs may be Russian, Chinese, or other espionage. But, to paraphrase Socrates, what we don't know we shouldn't think we know. Although the US Government won't admit to it, perhaps it knows some things we commoners are not allowed, at present, to know.
But if, in fact, aliens are spying on us, my hypothesis is that they will consider humans so stupid that they will shrug their shoulders (if they have any) and go back from whence they came. Perhaps some of us should "pray" that they will take us with them. For his part, Elon Musk is welcome, in my view, to relocate himself and the entire MAGA cult to Mars, as is his desire.
Ricardo wrote: "Ian wrote: "I don’t know of any academic support in remotely relevant fields for “Ancient Astronauts,” although it used to be a minor staple of science fiction.* And anyone who has read the relevan..."It is certain that, in the face of the technological advances of extraterrestrials, we are considered significantly inferior, both emotionally and intellectually. In the highly probable scenario that they truly exist, if they had hostile intentions, we would have already been subjugated or eliminated long ago.
Allowing myself some imaginative freedom, I can deduce two possibilities: either they are genuinely interested in observing us as another galactic civilization, perhaps waiting for us to develop sufficient technology and an open mind to establish closer contact; or, according to the "Ancient Astronauts" theory, we are the result of some genetic crossbreeding or manipulation placed on Earth to continue and expand an ancient alien lineage.
In this case as well, it is likely that they are waiting for us to reach minimally acceptable conditions before revealing our origins. Given the deeply rooted mentalities, ideologies, and beliefs in most populations, such a revelation would cause the destruction of their identity, sense of belonging, and, ultimately, their very existence.
Mod
Along this line, I have been preparing my forthcoming book Reason and Human Government. I have drafted Chapter 2 (“Governmental Recognition and Protection of Individual Rights”), which is a slight revision of a paper I recently posted at https://www.academia.edu/125088484/In...). I have also partially drafted or outlined the other chapters. When I woke up yesterday morning, the content of the Epilogue suddenly occurred to me. Here is the current draft, which is the crystallization of several decades of my thought and study:
It has long been a dream of some human beings that a good society might be possible. In such a sociopolitical order, everyone would have sufficient economic resources to live comfortably, and no one would be corrupted by excessive wealth. All people would be guided by reason to treat themselves and all other humans with dignity. Crime, wars, and interpersonal hostility would no longer exist. Teleological (end-directed) ethics and teleological politics would become one.
History does not give cause for optimism that such a political society will ever be achieved. Indeed, all historical experience suggests otherwise. Ethics and politics appear to be forever separated.
We should keep the good society in mind as we think about political philosophy and politics. But it is counterproductive to attempt to realize the good society by authoritarianism, military imperialism, or anarchism. Such approaches lead to the opposite of the good society. Examples include the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Hobbesian “war of all against all” that appears throughout human history in the context of what are called “failed states.”
Political philosophy and political action therefore require the utmost sobriety. We must use reason both to formulate ethical ends and to devise workable means that do not entail unintended, negative consequences.
For the current and foreseeable centuries, we should focus not on realizing the currently impossible task of a perfectly good society (or a perfectly good world order) but rather on improving the society and world we now have. Perhaps in some distant century the perfectly good society and world will be visible and within reach. But that time is not now. However much it may break our hearts, we must deal with human ethics and politics as we find it. Our immediate goal should be amelioration, not utopian perfection. [as revised January 18, 2025]
Alan,Thank you for your thoughtful insights, which deeply resonate with my own reflections, as outlined in Global Disorder. While I agree entirely with your observations, I would like to expand on some key points:
Humanity's struggle to orient itself purely through reason is indeed heavily influenced by deeply ingrained tendencies. These tendencies, shaped over millennia, act almost like an internal "virus" conditioning behavior.
The Drive for Power and Supremacy: A universal desire to prevail or dominate over others fosters division even among groups with similar ideologies or goals. This competitive instinct manifests in religion, politics, and even workplaces, perpetuating conflict and undermining unity.
Identity and Belonging: For many, the sense of belonging becomes paramount. Vulnerable individuals, grappling with emotional or psychological challenges, often gravitate toward ideologies that offer solace or purpose, reinforcing a dynamic of control versus refuge.
These behavioral patterns are deeply rooted in our genetic and evolutionary makeup—primordial instincts for survival, group formation, and leadership. However, the closer humanity aligns itself with these primal instincts, the further it strays from pure reason.
In my book, I propose the political and governance model of technomeritocracy as a path forward. This model emphasizes merit and competence not as tools for personal or partisan gain, but as pillars for national progress and sustainability. Crucially, it integrates Artificial Intelligence to moderate and oversee governance and societal activities. By leveraging AI, we can foster a system where reason and logic guide emotions and decisions, addressing the very challenges you eloquently described.
The journey toward reconciling reason and emotion will undoubtedly be arduous, but with innovative frameworks like technomeritocracy, we can begin to align humanity's intellectual and emotional essence for a more harmonious and sustainable future.
Mod
Thank you for your thoughtful insights, which deeply resonate with my own reflections, as outlined in Global Disorder. While I agree entirely with your observations, I would like to expand on..."
I have just now made some minor edits to my post to which your preceding post responds. I think you and I agree to a large extent on the diagnosis of the problem. I have doubts regarding your counterintuitive view that AI could provide a solution (as distinguished from making the situation worse), but I will have to read your book before taking a position on that question.
Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "Alan,Thank you for your thoughtful insights, which deeply resonate with my own reflections, as outlined in Global Disorder. While I agree entirely with your observations, I would l..."
I believe that globalization and the exponential advancements in transportation and communication systems have brought, like two sides of a coin, both substantial benefits and considerable challenges. On the positive side, the scientific and technological progress facilitated by globalization has transformed our lives. Breakthroughs in medicine, renewable energy, and information technology have improved healthcare, enabled sustainable development, and connected people across the globe, fostering innovation and collaboration.
However, the same processes have also led to significant negative consequences, particularly in how people perceive governance and social interactions, deeply affecting cognitive, ideological, and emotional perspectives. Among the negative indicators, we can identify:
Resistance from conservative and progressive mindsets: While innovation disrupts outdated norms, it often clashes with cultural traditions, creating tensions between those who embrace change and those who resist it.
Partisan and personal interests: Short-term gains, often driven by specific groups or political factions, prioritize individual or partisan objectives, which exacerbates divisions rather than promoting unity.
Inadequate leadership and governance: Poorly planned or executed decisions undermine public trust and exacerbate inequalities, providing fertile ground for polarizing ideologies.
These dynamics have led to growing ideological, religious, and emotional polarizations, which extremist and radical groups exploit to their advantage. The policies from both extreme ends of the political spectrum—whether far-left or far-right—tend to destabilize democratic principles. Highly authoritarian approaches or excessively permissive policies create significant imbalances, fostering social fractures and fueling distrust, hate speech, and even violence.
The solution, I argue, lies in leveraging Artificial Intelligence to address these systemic flaws. By eliminating emotional biases and self-serving interests, AI can act as an impartial and efficient tool for governance. It can monitor and moderate political, economic, and social activities, ensuring decisions are guided by merit, competence, and sustainability rather than short-term or partisan motives.
As detailed in my book Global Disorder, I propose the technomeritocracy model, where science, technology, and rational meritocracy drive governance. This approach not only reconciles human emotional and intellectual dimensions but also paves the way for a more just and sustainable global society.
Mod
Thank you for your thoughtful insights, which deeply resonate with my own reflections, as outlined in Global Disorder. While I agree entirely with your observatio..."
The analysis in your first six paragraphs is profound and, I think, correct.
Your last two paragraphs are very counterintuitive to me. Again, I'll have to read your book to find out exactly what you are proposing and how you propose to prevent AI from becoming a tool of a totalitarian political society, as it already is (or is becoming) in the People's Republic of China. Alternatively, perhaps you agree with Jaqueisse that totalitarianism is a good thing.
Ricardo wrote: "Alan wrote: "Ricardo wrote: "Alan,Thank you for your thoughtful insights, which deeply resonate with my own reflections, as outlined in Global Disorder. While I agree entirely with your observatio..."
Here’s how I propose technomeritocracy with strong AI support as a completely different concept from totalitarianism:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your skepticism regarding the potential misuse of AI in governance, particularly given the concerning precedents set by authoritarian regimes like the People’s Republic of China. However, my model of technomeritocracy, as detailed in Global Disorder, is fundamentally distinct from totalitarianism in its principles and implementation.
Core Principles of Technomeritocracy
Technomeritocracy is rooted in merit, transparency, and accountability, ensuring that governance decisions prioritize public welfare and sustainability rather than individual or partisan interests. Unlike totalitarian systems, which centralize power and suppress dissent, technomeritocracy is designed to decentralize decision-making, integrating diverse perspectives and fostering inclusivity.
Role of Artificial Intelligence
In my model, AI serves as a neutral facilitator rather than an authoritarian enforcer. By analyzing data objectively, it aids in decision-making while remaining free from emotional or political bias. For example:
AI can monitor and propose solutions for societal issues like economic inequality or climate change, presenting options based on evidence rather than ideology.
It ensures that governance is based on competence and measurable outcomes, not the pursuit of power or manipulation.
Safeguards Against Totalitarianism
To prevent AI from being weaponized by authoritarian actors, the technomeritocracy model incorporates several safeguards:
Transparent Algorithms: All AI systems are open to public scrutiny, ensuring accountability and preventing misuse.
Democratic Oversight: Decisions recommended by AI are subject to approval by independent, merit-based panels and, when appropriate, public referenda.
Ethical Frameworks: AI development and governance operate within a robust ethical framework, prioritizing human rights and democratic principles.
Contrasts with Totalitarianism
Totalitarian regimes use AI for control and surveillance, subordinating citizens to the state’s objectives. In contrast, technomeritocracy employs AI to empower individuals and improve governance, ensuring that policies are evidence-based, equitable, and sustainable. Far from endorsing totalitarianism, my proposal seeks to eliminate emotional and ideological biases that often corrupt human-led governance systems.
By aligning AI with principles of fairness, inclusivity, and rationality, technomeritocracy envisions a governance system where reason guides decisions, leading to a more just and harmonious society.
I hope this clarifies how my proposal fundamentally differs from totalitarian systems. I look forward to your further reflections and insights once you’ve explored the book in more detail!
Mod
Thank you for your thoughtful insights, which deeply resonate with my own reflections, as outlined in Global Disorder. While I agree entirely with..."
Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to read your book, which I hope to do soon.
Mod
Mod
I have posted the current draft (June 8, 2025) of Chapter 4 (“Forms of Government”) of my forthcoming book Reason and Human Government (scheduled for publication in late 2025 or early 2026) at https://www.academia.edu/129631840/Ch....
(Revised June 8, 2025)
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)
