Selecting Leaders to End Democracy

[Mithrandir]

This question is for anyone who can answer it, but especially the admins of this page. I was reading the end-democracy section of this site, http://www.anus.com/tribes/ada/ and came across the idea of the "leadership caste" amid the other suggestions.

The site seems to be suggesting a form of oligarchy coupled with meritocracy. How will the members of the leadership caste in a local government system be short listed, because there will surely be many vying for the limited positions? How will their performance be evaluated? Who will do that?

[Cargést]

Philosopher-Kings.

[Mithrandir]

I would like a bit more explainable answer Most of the "philosophers" I know are the last people I would entrust with running even a household, let alone leading a local government.

[scourge]

Democracy doesn't work because of pluralism.

[Nimbostratus]

Philosopher-Kings.

Ideally, we want aristos to rule, but how are we going to determine nobility of character? Even the most corrupt pig shows himself as honorable, regardless his political affiliation.

We need voting to limit the government influence, we need voting to allow mobility, we need voting to allow competence in the political sphere. The problem is that in democracy, everyone has the same right in voting. My point is that voting should be a privilege that can be earned and that can be lost.

For now, let's push that wall named "mass culture".

[Chains]

Philosopher-Kings.

Way to not answer the question in the slightest.

This question is for anyone who can answer it, but especially the admins of this page. I was reading the end-democracy section of this site, http://www.anus.com/tribes/ada/ and came across the idea of the "leadership caste" amid the other suggestions.

The site seems to be suggesting a form of oligarchy coupled with meritocracy. How will the members of the leadership caste in a local government system be short listed, because there will surely be many vying for the limited positions? How will their performance be evaluated? Who will do that?

For starters, voting could be limited to those who could demonstrate their ability to reason, their knowledge of politics and current events, and their willingness to spend time and effort actually thinking things through. All these things can be tested to some extent. This would thin out the herd of incompetents by a lot already and does not require all that much effort or reforming of the system.

[nous]

I would like a bit more explainable answer Most of the "philosophers" I know are the last people I would entrust with running even a household, let alone leading a local government.

Most of the "philosophers" you know are not philosophers in the platonic, and true sense of the name.

You should read the Politeia in order to understand why Cargést has given a good answer.

[Antihuman]

For starters, voting could be limited to those who could demonstrate their ability to reason, their knowledge of politics and current events, and their willingness to spend time and effort actually thinking things through. All these things can be tested to some extent. This would thin out the herd of incompetents by a lot already and does not require all that much effort or reforming of the system.

Something about voting, though: at the moment there is no good option.

Also, "the people" feel like they are doing their duty when they vote, but they essentially accomplish nothing.  The people really don't have any power in this regard as it is.

[Conservationist]

I think voting's great. It lets you select the better choice of the two.

But over time, the system is easily gamed, so gradually moves from effective government into government for show. It's just a job.

I think the point is monarchism made from our smartest and best people:

"If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Heredity_and_eugenics

[Nimbostratus]

I think voting's great. It lets you select the better choice of the two.

But over time, the system is easily gamed, so gradually moves from effective government into government for show. It's just a job.

I think the point is monarchism made from our smartest and best people:

"If you want Utopian plans, I would say: the only solution to the problem is the despotism of the wise and noble members of a genuine aristocracy, a genuine nobility, achieved by mating the most magnanimous men with the cleverest and most gifted women. This proposal constitutes my Utopia and my Platonic Republic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Heredity_and_eugenics

Think of voting as capitalism: it depends on the consumers.

That's the triumph and the failure of democracy, on one hand, we have to accept that in certain degree, democracy was effective to bring power to the masses, on the other hand, the masses are unable to meet the requirements of a real political participation.

Just think about it, with a more selected electorate, we could fulfill the expectations of participation that democracy couldn't!

That allows an alternation between aristocrats in power, not just spoiling nepotism that Plato correctly warned us about in the Republic.

[Conservationist]

Democracy would work if:

* We culled the under-125s
* Every person served in the army 18-22 in a war zone
* Education was quality and compulsory

No nation so far has achieved that. Ergo, democracy is another step to doom.

I suggest we elect a weak president and find an oligarch to maneuver a military coup. That's about the best option at this point.

Then, it's time to feed 6.5bn shitheads into the woodchippers, and reclaim earth by re-inventing humanity through eugenics, evolution and a society centered around spirit.

This modernist Kali-Yuga (Ragnarok 2.0?) is just tiresome

[scourge]

Just think about it, with a more selected electorate, we could fulfill the expectations of participation that democracy couldn't!

America started as a republic with only responsible white males voting. But as the quantity of oppressed grew, some of this responsible electorate found an opportunity to grab power for themselves by harnessing the dispossessed masses and appealing to their wants. This opportunist branch runs the Democrat party today.

[Nimbostratus]

Just think about it, with a more selected electorate, we could fulfill the expectations of participation that democracy couldn't!

America started as a republic with only responsible white males voting. But as the quantity of oppressed grew, some of this responsible electorate found an opportunity to grab power for themselves by harnessing the dispossessed masses and appealing to their wants. This opportunist branch runs the Democrat party today.

Excellent, let's learn from that lesson. Let's make an electorate of just responsible people, in order to avoid that opportunism based in race or gender.

[scourge]

But, that's just the problem. You can't win a sheer quantity game based on selecting a proportional minority. The Democrats focused on sheer quantity - any featherless biped they could convince us was human.