Democracy is the worst form of government...

[zippy2006]

Democracy relies on having such a robust and informed electorate that even the (politically) blind and stupid cannot sway elections away from the best candidates for the offices available.

What source claims this? I can't think of a less-educated electorate than the demos. Democracy in our age is based on resentment and egalitarianism (and distribution of power). If we were interested in an educated electorate then we would have some form of aristocracy.

 

[Bradskii]

If we were interested in an educated electorate then we would have some form of aristocracy.

I'll skip the political bumper sticker comments. But an aristocracy would be hereditary. There'd be no guarantee the children would be as capable as the parents. Notwithstanding that there's no connection between having an aristocracy and an educated electorate in any case. So I most definitely wouldn't want that.

But I also wouldn't want to work in a company where the directors were all voted in by the workers. I'd want them to be the best people available for running the business. So a meritocracy is surely what we'd want. And it could be acheived by democratic means. Exactly how is open to discussion.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll skip the political bumper sticker comments. But an aristocracy would be hereditary.

No. Here is Wikipedia:

Aristocracy (from Ancient Greek ἀριστοκρατίᾱ (aristokratíā), from ἄριστος (áristos) 'best', and κράτος (krátos) 'power, strength') is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats.[1] The term derives from the Greek: αριστοκρατία (aristokratíā), meaning 'rule of the best'.[2]​

​

The aristocrat is noble, educated, virtuous, etc.

 

[Pommer]

What source claims this? I can't think of a less-educated electorate than the demos. Democracy in our age is based on resentment and egalitarianism (and distribution of power). If we were interested in an educated electorate then we would have some form of aristocracy.

But the “problem” that one encounters is that we’re always going to be fighting the lowest-common-denominator, which is the “good thing” in democracies because it can keep us from veering off in this or that direction…it’s only a problem when politics gets “popular” like what happened when the SPORTSBALL seasons were shut down during that Thing that Happened and the “my team good holy/ your team anathema” SPORTSBALL trope got shunted over to the politcal realm.

 

[Pommer]

No. Here is Wikipedia:

Aristocracy (from Ancient Greek ἀριστοκρατίᾱ (aristokratíā), from ἄριστος (áristos) 'best', and κράτος (krátos) 'power, strength') is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats.[1] The term derives from the Greek: αριστοκρατία (aristokratíā), meaning 'rule of the best'.[2]​

​

The aristocrat is noble, educated, virtuous, etc.

It was a twenty-minute joke if heard correctly.

 

[Occams Barber]

No. Here is Wikipedia:

Aristocracy (from Ancient Greek ἀριστοκρατίᾱ (aristokratíā), from ἄριστος (áristos) 'best', and κράτος (krátos) 'power, strength') is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats.[1] The term derives from the Greek: αριστοκρατία (aristokratíā), meaning 'rule of the best'.[2]​

​

The aristocrat is noble, educated, virtuous, etc.

That's what 'aristocrat' meant in ancient Greece but words change their meaning over time (never confuse etymology with a dictionary definition)

In modern parlance 'aristocracy' is usually associated with monarchy which is normally hereditary,

From your Wiki article;

Differentiation[edit]​

In contrast to its original conceptual drawing in classical antiquity, aristocracy has been associated in the modern era with its more general and degenerated form of oligarchy, specifically an aristocracy class based oligarchy, with entitled nobility as in monarchies or aristocratic merchant republics. Its original classical understanding has been taken up by the modern concepts that can be loosely equivalent to meritocracy or technocracy.​

​

OB​

 

[Bradskii]

No. Here is Wikipedia:

Aristocracy (from Ancient Greek ἀριστοκρατίᾱ (aristokratíā), from ἄριστος (áristos) 'best', and κράτος (krátos) 'power, strength') is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats.[1] The term derives from the Greek: αριστοκρατία (aristokratíā), meaning 'rule of the best'.[2]​

​

The aristocrat is noble, educated, virtuous, etc.

As per the original use of the word in Greece that's correct (as per OB above). But as per the wiki, it was understood that the general understanding that an aristocracy was hereditary would be specifically discounted. If you want to use the term in that way, then I've no problem. It's only the hereditary component to which I'd object. But what we end up with is a meritocracy in that the best people for the job are selected (again as per OB). The terms become interchangeable. So I think we're in agreement.

Now all we need to do is decide who is noble, educated and virtuous and how to get them into power. And please, let's not start party political squabbling about current or past leaders.

 

[zippy2006]

That's what 'aristocrat' meant in ancient Greece but words change their meaning over time (never confuse etymology with a dictionary definition)

In modern parlance 'aristocracy' is usually associated with monarchy which is normally hereditary,

From your Wiki article;

Differentiation[edit]​

In contrast to its original conceptual drawing in classical antiquity, aristocracy has been associated in the modern era with its more general and degenerated form of oligarchy, specifically an aristocracy class based oligarchy, with entitled nobility as in monarchies or aristocratic merchant republics. Its original classical understanding has been taken up by the modern concepts that can be loosely equivalent to meritocracy or technocracy.​

​

OB​

You claim that aristocracies are hereditary, but I don't see that anywhere in the article or in the quote you give. (The reason that 'aristocracy' retains its more rigorous meaning in the context of political philosophy is because regime comparison hearkens back to Aristotle's Politics.)

Quibbling aside, the self-same point is that if we were concerned with an elevated electorate we would look to something like traditional aristocracy or a kind of meritocracy. Democracy provides the least-elevated electorate possible (as far as education and distinction go). Democracy is thus preferred for reasons other than an educated electorate.

 

[stevevw]

Back to the topic, though, America was designed as a republic, not a democracy. Never has been. Electors were sent by each state legislature to cast their votes, no public election involved. Same as congressmen and senators. In principle, public elections were only held at local level, not federal levels, the president is INdirectly elected.

Well there you go, I always thought of the US as a beacon of democraacy. It makes one wonder what Lincoln meant when he said "government of the people, by the people and for the people".

 

[Bradskii]

Quibbling aside, the self-same point is that if we were concerned with an elevated electorate we would look to something like traditional aristocracy or a kind of meritocracy.

I think maybe you're confusing the position as it looks like you're using the term 'electorate' to mean 'those elected'. Whereas it means 'those who vote'. And while I tend to agree with you, how do we ensure that we get a meritocracy and not a bunch of people who happen to be popular/have more money/lie through their teeth/are more concerned with specialist interests etc.

 

[zippy2006]

I think maybe you're confusing the position as it looks like you're using the term 'electorate' to mean 'those elected'. Whereas it means 'those who vote'.

First, remember that <this> was the post that I was first responding to. Second, what is at stake is the electorate. "Ruling class" tends to refer to both electorate and nominees, because they ultimately come from the same class, but I am talking about the electorate. An aristocracy restricts the vote to aristocrats. A democracy extends the vote to all. This is one reason I don't like substituting the word "meritocracy," because it has so many distinct connotations.

 

[Pommer]

First, remember that <this> was the post that I was first responding to. Second, what is at stake is the electorate. "Ruling class" tends to refer to both electorate and nominees, because they ultimately come from the same class, but I am talking about the electorate. An aristocracy restricts the vote to aristocrats. A democracy extends the vote to all. This is one reason I don't like substituting the word "meritocracy," because it has so many distinct connotations.

A “feature” of using an aristocracy to govern a land is that the aristocracy chooses who’s in it and who’s not.
This is fine so long as the aristocracy proves beneficial to the population as-a-whole; but should it become decoupled from the general hoi polloi then “hilarity-ensues” and the aristocracy is crushed beneath the wheels of social-justice.
Going from a democracy to an aristocracy seems short-sighted, and fraught with peril.

 

[Bradskii]

First, remember that <this> was the post that I was first responding to. Second, what is at stake is the electorate. "Ruling class" tends to refer to both electorate and nominees, because they ultimately come from the same class, but I am talking about the electorate. An aristocracy restricts the vote to aristocrats.

Ah, you want the vote restricted to those in charge. That's disenfranchising most people. And which is completely different to even the original idea of an aristocracy. From the wiki again:

'...a system where only the best of the citizens, chosen through a careful process of selection...'

I don't think that means a process whereby the leaders choose their successors. In Greece it was the electorate who did so, albeit with many people not allowed to vote (women being the obvious ones). What we need to determine is what that 'careful process of selection' should be without disenfranchising anyone. Or if we do, how is that done.

 

[zippy2006]

Ah, you want the vote restricted to those in charge. That's disenfranchising most people. And which is completely different to even the original idea of an aristocracy. From the wiki again:

'...a system where only the best of the citizens, chosen through a careful process of selection...'

I don't think that means a process whereby the leaders choose their successors. In Greece it was the electorate who did so, albeit with many people not allowed to vote (women being the obvious ones). What we need to determine is what that 'careful process of selection' should be without disenfranchising anyone. Or if we do, how is that done.

Like I said, it restricts the vote to the aristocratic class. Greece had a democracy, not an aristocracy, which is why the demos had the vote. In an aristocracy the demos does not elect the leaders.

A “feature” of using an aristocracy to govern a land is that the aristocracy chooses who’s in it and who’s not.
This is fine so long as the aristocracy proves beneficial to the population as-a-whole; but should it become decoupled from the general hoi polloi then “hilarity-ensues” and the aristocracy is crushed beneath the wheels of social-justice.
Going from a democracy to an aristocracy seems short-sighted, and fraught with peril.

Yes, I don't advise an attempt to convert our democracy to an aristocracy, but that is what would be required if the goal was an educated electorate.

How do you make a democracy better? In the short-term I think Bill Barr's speech at Notre Dame gives many of the keys (Transcript | Video).

For more long-term strategies, there is an interesting interview with a professor of political philosophy, Peter Simpson (link to video).

 

[Occams Barber]

Like I said, it restricts the vote to the aristocratic class. Greece had a democracy, not an aristocracy, which is why the demos had the vote. In an aristocracy the demos does not elect the leaders.


Yes, I don't advise an attempt to convert our democracy to an aristocracy, but that is what would be required if the goal was an educated electorate.

How do you make a democracy better? In the short-term I think Bill Barr's speech at Notre Dame gives many of the keys (Transcript | Video).

For more long-term strategies, there is an interesting interview with a professor of political philosophy, Peter Simpson (link to video).

It would be a lot easier for readers if you were to, briefly, list these keys and long-term strategies to save us all from wading through 30 minutes of video and multiple pages of transcript.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

I have to agree that most people with the franchise shouldn’t actually have that access.
But that’s not democracy.

Democracy relies on having such a robust and informed electorate that even the (politically) blind and stupid cannot sway elections away from the best candidates for the offices available.

Reconsidering this, I should grant that education does significantly help improve a democracy, even though the democratic regime has the least-educated electorate. It is an interesting question whether the well-educated democracy transforms itself into a different form of government.

Unlike Churchill, Aristotle would rank governments as follows:

1. Monarchy
2. Aristocracy
3. Polity
4. Democracy
5. Oligarchy
6. Tyranny

(link)

 

[zippy2006]

It would be a lot easier for readers if you were to, briefly, list these keys and long-term strategies to save us all from wading through 30 minutes of video and multiple pages of transcript.

Those are just some resources that randomly came to mind as being helpful and informative when looking at different parts of this question.

I suppose one general theme in both of those sources is the importance of an organic moral fabric in the population. Barr focuses more on religion and Simpson focuses more on the common good, but in either case the emphasis is on a kind of collective virtue or collective good-character among the citizens, such that the government itself becomes more superfluous. For a simplistic example, a moral citizenry would abstain from stealing or killing even without the motivation of law.

 

[Occams Barber]

Those are just some resources that randomly came to mind as being helpful and informative when looking at different parts of this question.

I suppose one general theme in both of those sources is the importance of an organic moral fabric in the population. Barr focuses more on religion and Simpson focuses more on the common good, but in either case the emphasis is on a kind of collective virtue or collective good-character among the citizens, such that the government itself becomes more superfluous. For a simplistic example, a moral citizenry would abstain from stealing or killing even without the motivation of law.

Isn't this just stating the bleeding obvious?

If more people were nicer the world would be a nicer place​

​

In the context of this thread what steps can be taken to produce a more moral citizenry?

NOTE; Christianity has been tried. It doesn't seem to be working since we're all complaining about the current state of things - so do you have any other suggestions?

OB

 

[zippy2006]

Isn't this just stating the bleeding obvious?

Well go watch the videos you big lazy oaf.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Well there you go, I always thought of the US as a beacon of democraacy. It makes one wonder what Lincoln meant when he said "government of the people, by the people and for the people".

A beacon of democracy is fascism, you know, an axe sticking out of a bundle of rods. Promonent examples of democracy in the Torah include the tower of bable, the golden calf worship and the rebellion against Moses. That kind of democracy is a recipe for disaster proven by history, and the founding fathers knew that, therefore the US government was designed as a republic - "if you can keep it.". The three branches of the US government is based on Is. 33:22 - the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us.