Totalitarianist

This is an excerpt from a dialogue of mine. It is not of a high literary quality, as it is a conversation. I wrote this as I would say it in an every-day conversation. The characters, Vir and Alden, are fictitious.

Vir: I ask thee:-- if mass exploitation were necessary,--which it is, I might add,--who would be the most worthy of exploitation: those intrinsically competent for nought but labour, or the ones possessing immense wisdom and rationality,--the gifted?

Alden: Why, the labourers, of course.

Vir: But with democracy, every minority,--including the gifted,--is either consumed or exploited by the impulsive needs of the mediocre, irrational majority,--the ignorant. Can one ignorant of mathematics be a mathematican?

Alden: Impossible.

Vir: Is it safe to say, then, that anyone ignorant of a certain discipline is incapable of mastering it,--in that state of ignorance?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: Is not a master of mathematics a better mathematician than a master of nought?

Alden: The master of nought cannot be called a mathematician.

Vir: Quite so. Then I suppose the master,--the wise,--is greater than the non-master,--the ignorant. So the master,--the expert, the wise, whatever you want to call him,--is better than the non-master, correct?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: Now, the master of a profound discipline has to become somewhat ignorant of disciplines unrelated to the one of the master's interest. We all know about the absent-minded mathematician....

Alden: Yes.

Vir: Then is not the scientific out-put of the master of the discipline of a higher quality when the master enjoys his discipline?

Alden: Of course.

Vir: And do people generally like the science of, say, mathematics?

Alden: They do not, unfortunately.

Vir: And we have gathered that mastery of a discipline is imperative for the scientific out-put of the master,--within his special discipline,--to be of a higher quality?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: And are some people innately inclined to master a certain discipline? Some people are mathematically sound, correct?

Alden: Correct.

Vir: And like/dislike is correlative to inclination/disinclination?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: And the master is the master of only his special discipline(s)?

Alden: Of course.

Vir: By the above logic, then, it is impossible for a master to dislike his discipline. Then why should an ignorant majority rule a discipline of which they dislike,--and, as such, are incapable of mastery, in that sate of ignorance? Ignorance is a state of not-knowing, caused by dislike and uninterest. How can a discipline be mastered by minds in a state of ignorance? We have gathered that mastery requires both interest and inclination, have we not?

Alden: We have.

Vir: And how can a discipline be mastered by minds in a position of ignorance and not knowing?

Alden: It is impossible.

Vir: The majority are ignorant of a certain discipline which must be mastered (ensuring the scientific "out-put" to be high in quality), and mastery of such a discipline is incompatible with dislike/uninterest/disinclination; and who is more inclined for a discipline than a master?

Alden: No one.

Vir: Will the scientific out-put of a master, within his discipline, be of a higher quality when he is, well, a master of his discipline?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: And is the highest possible quality prefered?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: Are the wise logical?

Alden: Of course.

Vir: Yes; and logic is a discipline. Some people, as afore-mentioned, are mathematically sound,--and logic exists within the same realm of intelligence,--and so the mathematically sound one is, of course, logically inclined. Now, is an illogical decision prefered over a logical decision?

Alden: No.

Vir: So logical decisions are prefered. Are decisions involved in politics?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: And the wise one is the master of logic.

Alden: Yes.

Vir: And the logically inclined are the mathematically sound.

Alden: Yes.

Vir: Logically speaking, then, the majority should be ruled by a certain minority,--the wise: the masters of logic, who are best fit for making logical decisions. Who is more fit for such a position? The unwise and illogical,--the majority? Majority should not rule. Is logic a discipline?

Alden: Yes.

Vir: Since logic is a discipline, and logical decisions are to be prefered, and the masters of logic are the wise, who exceeds the wise in decision making?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
So I've concluded that all political decisions should be made by the wisest of the wise.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

emphryio

Who will choose who is the wisest of the wise?

Christopher Lord

What if the wisest of the wise chooses to act in his/their own interests instead of the interests of the vast majority? The government would no longer be a government, but a vast and powerful 'Interest Protector'.

A government should always work for the people of the state, and make compromises based on the situation, and not the agenda of a single group of people.

Even the wisest of the wise can be an ass.

Totalitarianist

Originally posted by Christopher Lord:
What if the wisest of the wise chooses to act in his/their own interests instead of the interests of the vast majority? The government would no longer be a government, but a vast and powerful 'Interest Protector'.

The majority acts in their own interest. They are irrational creatures. They have not mastered the discipline of Logic. Logical decisions are to be prefered. The wise one is the master of logic. It is thence logical to only have the wisest of the wise make the decisions. The mathematician is mathematically sound. The mathematically sound are logically inclined. Logical decisions are to be prefered. The wisest of the wise will be mathematicians (but not only mathematicians).

A government should always work for the people of the state,and make compromises based on the situation, and not the agenda of a single group of people.

The agenda of that single group of people will, of course, work for the people.

Since they are the masters of making logical decisions, and logical decisions are to be prefered, it is only logical to have only the logical,--that is, the wise,--make the decisions. Even if they make a few mistakes, they are far less likely, as they are the most logical, to make mistakes than, say, the majority.

If you were to choose someone to help you make an important decision, would you choose a highly emotional person who functions wholly on instinctual impulses, or a master of logical decision-making?

Plus the wisest of the wise would make decisions democratically, by their majority.

emphryio

That depends on how you define and determine the wisest of the wise.

Of course democracy is the least corruptible system. Maybe it is the best here in the real world (notwithstanding the control of information/elections) but the worst ideally as pseudonym is pointing out.

Christopher Lord

No emphryio, all people can be asses in the right situation. I will not back down from that assertion at all.

Totalitarianist

The "wisest of the wise" would be determined by the amount of "points" or "credits" they've acquired and a series of tests; not by the wishful impulses of the majority. Just look at George Bush. A horrible, delusionary president. How was he elected? His being Christian undoubtedly had something to do with it. Proof that the majority will choose their leaders based, in part, on irrelevant, wishful, irrational ideas.

Edit: UBB

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Christopher Lord

This is in no way guarenteed though (or even likely). You would need a super-intelligent bank of computers from the future in order to even come close to such an ideal. And these computers would have to have NO agenda whatsoever for all time. Thats the only way an Oligarchy will ever work.

People are weak-minded APES. I care not how "Wise" they are or are claimed to be. They could be genetically enhanced in order to be almost nothing but brain, and they would still have the same instincts as any of us.

Totalitarianist

Originally posted by Christopher Lord:
This is in no way guarenteed though (or even likely). You would need a super-intelligent bank of computers from the future in order to even come close to such an ideal. And these computers would have to have NO agenda whatsoever for all time. Thats the only way an Oligarchy will ever work.

People are weak-minded APES.

And, as such, are fit only to be ruled by their superiors. For decision making, it seems logical to choose a slighly more intelligent "weak-minded ape" than the majority: the average intelligent "weak-minded apes"; however, their superiors will be of the same class and eat the same food. Everyone must be equal. The individual would become a member of the oligarchy through his scientific and political deeds for the community, not by class or rank. That's an element of Communism.

And this particular kind of oligarchism is for both the people and the individual.

So, even with an oligarchy, there can still be a perfectly classless society.

The point is, they do not function as instinctually and wishfully as the majority.

If a despot, or any kind of government, for that matter, is compatible with Communism, so is oligarchism.

[ July 14, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

Christopher Lord

But their limited number in combination with their instinct for power will quickly unseat the ideal.

The more distributed power is, the less likely it can be used for purposes other than government of the state.

As you concentrate it, you fowl those who hold it. This is a basic fact intrinsic to all humans, and I dont think WISDOM is a powerful enough force to overcome it.