Totalitarianist

Anyone can become a member of the oligarchy through his deeds.

Christopher Lord

Is the Oligarchy smaller than the population?

Totalitarianist

Originally posted by Christopher Lord:
But their limited number in combination with their instinct for power will quickly unseat the ideal.

Then it'd be out of their own wisdom: the wisdom of the majority within the oligarchy.

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.

Agressive emotionalism is what you fear. Wisdom is the highest thing, and if anything can overcome it, it has got to be logical decision-making. If wisdom, the highest element of the human mind, is incapable of overcoming the instinct of power, then overcoming power is impossible. They do have power. They just make use of it democratically, not individually. I think that is a good thing.

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

Totalitarianist

Of course. And anyone capable of hard-work and rational thought can become a member of the oligarchy. Is that not a good thing?

Christopher Lord

Wisdom is not the highest thing. Not by a long shot. You show me the wisest man on earth and I'll show you an ape decendant who's mind is designed in part to ATTRACT AND PROTECT MATES.

Of course, the alpha male troop leader has the best chance to obtain mates, and so there is a lust for power inbread among ALL humans.

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

Christopher Lord

whoops, missed this:
What percentage is a part of the Oligarchy? if its &lt; 10%, your going to have major issues with power hording.

If its ~50%, then you may have a stable system, but its only going to be marginally better than a democracy.

Going on, 80-100% in the ruling class will somewhat reduce the quality of some of the decisions, but if it is built right it will not be corrupted by power lust.

Anyways, this is more a Political topic, is it not?

Christopher Lord

To tell the truth, when I was younger I thought an oligarchy or meritocracy would be the solution to all problems. Really! Like, It would bring about world peace, man!

The more exposure I have to real people from the real planet earth, the more I realize that such a thing would be a catastrophic mistake of holocostian proportions.

I can understand the argument for such a thing, but I think that there is no way it could be achieved. Even as a thought experiment.

Like I said, super intelligent agenda-free computers from the distant future may change that position.

David Gould

I think that someone randomly chosen from the adult population to act as dictator with as much power given to them as possible would be the best thing.

They would be restrained from excesses because they cannot influence who next holds the position.

They would wish to do as best a job as possible because of their lack of future if they do a poor job.

They will owe nobody anything in that nobody assisted them to power.

They will have control over who influences them because they can be offered nothing that they do not already have except a future and promises for the future are not that compelling when you have absolute power now and can do your best to ensure you have a better future than the one they can offer.

If the person is an idiot, they will be prevented from doing too much harm by the standard inertia of any beauracratic system, an inertia they will not be smart enough to overcome.

If they are smart enough to overcome this inertia then they wil be able to achieve things. It is in their best interests to make the best decisions for the future that they can as they will be judged in the future by what they do while in power.

Totalitarianist

You're thinking of a traditional oligarchism, Chris.

Here's how there could be an oligarchy and a classless society.

Each commune (which would, together, compose a city) would be exactly the same in structure, but small enough for citizens to know one another. Food, shelter, clothing, education, monthly hair-cuts, and all other needs would be provided. If an individual chooses not to contribute to the community, he would gradually have his needs taken away. He would obtain "points" for intellectual and/or physical work. It would be considered a dishonour to not contribute to the community, as they would all know one another (like one big "family"--which would decrease the crime-rate). If an individual chose to contribute to the community through his music, he would also have to contribute through his labour, unless he proves that he is a truly brilliant musician. In such a case, the musician would be allowed to contribute to the community wholly through his music; and since genius is exceptionally rare, most individuals would contribute through either only their labour, or half labour and half intellectual work (e.g., art-labour, music-labour, science-labour). As above-mentioned, the truly brilliant musician or scientist (or anything else of value) would be allowed to contribute only through his musical or scientific deeds.

If he obtains a certain amount of points for philosophy, communism, mathematics, and a science of his choice, and if he passes a series of tests, he could become a member of the oligarchy (which controls everything), where he could vote, present his philosophical/political ideas to the oligarchy, and such. He would not, however, be a member of any "upper class"; he would be of the same class as the proletariat and everyone else. All citizens would be of the same class. Criminals, the insane, the profoundly mentally challenged, and the military would not be considered citizens.

The whole "dishonour" thing has been proven to work in tribes, primitive towns, the army, and, of course, family.

To ensure that everyone knows one another, possessions beyond books and sentimental things would not exist. Everything would be owned by the entire community (or rather the government, but it would feel as though it belongs to the community). What I mean is, there would be a community computer centre, a library, a single place to watch films, etc. We are a social species, and possessions (beyong things like photographs and such) alienate us from the community. It such things as televisions and computers and books existed only in community centres, everything would be much more natural, more social. Religion, like possessions, also alienates us from everyone else, and it too should be completely abolished.

All things like stories, musical compositions and technological things made by any individual/group of the community would be sold to outside countries. The inventors and writers and composers and artists would only get "points" and recognition. It would be quite an honour for them. Of course, I'm over-simplifying everything.

Basically a combination of classless oligarchism, and Communism.

Sorry if this is more political than philosophical, but it was, at the beginning, philosophical with but a political conclusion.

Christopher Lord

Perhaps…
Could you define what you mean by “needs”?
Until what? What is punishment for not participating? If someone chooses not to participate, the worst you say the commune can do is to remove his access to things which he ‘needs’. I doubt this would be enough for the truly bent. For example, I could survive in wilderness with 4 or 5 other people quite easily for an indefinite period. Do you plan on controlling the supply of mountain streams and mountain goats as well? Or will people who will not participate ‘Criminals’?
Crime rates among family members is not terribly less than among those who are not related. In some places it is more! I guess this is because you kill who you know… In any case crime is a simple fact inherent to potentially all people. Opportunity is all most people need to perform ‘Petty Crimes’. I know I would have a tough time returning a bag full of money…
Sounds great…
All well and good on paper, but you can not honestly be saying that people will ‘Just Get Along’ when you have a CLEAR division of the population, with one group getting privilege and the other not? It has been proven that people will draw ‘membership’ to a group over what particular set of lines they where born within or even what SPORTS TEAM they like. I doubt they would just IGNORE clear and obvious lines like this. Such a society would quickly collapse due to either power mongering by the privileged or a radical unbalancing of the two groups.
but NOT for a whole society.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard of collective property working on a large scale. We did not evolve in such a situation and therefore OUR INSTINCTS ARE NOT GEARED FOR IT. We evolved in a situation where having a hut and a plot of land meant the difference between life and death. Not only that, we came to be in a time of no law, and so have strong feelings when someone tries to take things which we feel are OURS. If we don’t obtain property and protect it once we have it, we are unhappy (instinctually). We are like this because this is what served our ancestors best when there was no such thing as law and order. This is a simple fact, irregardless of how it SHOULD be according to idealists.