![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI come to argue that in one of the sub-categories in this month's topic, to wit - "Elitism, aristocracy, rankism and oligarchism. The caste system" there contains a conflation of both the good and bad. No one can deny that rule by aristocracy or oligarchism is most often a bad thing, only ever justified by the alternatives being worse. A caste system also seems iniquitous. No-one should be prevented by birth from achieving or attaining excellence. But, in some ways that is my point.
Do we accept that some things require degrees of understanding and training which are not commonplace? And are those things important?
Some disciplines have fairly extreme entry conditions. Medicine and Law spring to mind without scratching those things which require extreme Maths beyond most of us. We accept an elite in terms of who we are prepared to allow to fix us when we get an operable brain tumour - one which can be fixed by the right surgeon. We accept that there are rankings of lawyers when we want someone to represent us. (If we have the money to make the choice, of course.) We accept that there is a de facto technical elite, and sometimes in some ways we may happen to be part of it.
I would contend that any elite worthy of its name should be comprised of folk who are good at things, and more specifically good at the things which society requires. But being good at things may not be sufficient, unless those things appertain directly to good government. The conclusion of which appears to me to be is that it is sequential: first it is necessary to be good at something, and then that excellence needs to be integrated into a wider learning of the world and politics.
So... In my version of the NationState game anyone can qualify to run for office by passing difficult exams, whereupon those that make the qualifying standard can get voted for by the public. No-one can stand for office who hasn't passed the examinations. Of course, then we argue about who sets the exams and who marks them etc & etc, but at least we're putting the fear of thinking into the bastards who are our politicians.
I'd say we need an elite. Just the right elite. And not an elite dependent upon the vagaries of birth or parental wealth, but an elite made up of folk of skill, ability, professional ethics, and human understanding; which will have to substitute for noble intent in the modern world. Call it a meritocracy, call it rule by the skilled or the cunning, but it is actually the rule of the intellect leavened by human need and understanding. Alas as a form of government it is as profoundly condescending as any rule will be until we are overtaken by A.I. (However I'd suggest it better than any of the previous alternatives, but probably less good than a serious A.I. would manage things - despite Professor Hawking's misgivings.)
The Piñata is up. Get your baseball bats. :)
Do we accept that some things require degrees of understanding and training which are not commonplace? And are those things important?
Some disciplines have fairly extreme entry conditions. Medicine and Law spring to mind without scratching those things which require extreme Maths beyond most of us. We accept an elite in terms of who we are prepared to allow to fix us when we get an operable brain tumour - one which can be fixed by the right surgeon. We accept that there are rankings of lawyers when we want someone to represent us. (If we have the money to make the choice, of course.) We accept that there is a de facto technical elite, and sometimes in some ways we may happen to be part of it.
I would contend that any elite worthy of its name should be comprised of folk who are good at things, and more specifically good at the things which society requires. But being good at things may not be sufficient, unless those things appertain directly to good government. The conclusion of which appears to me to be is that it is sequential: first it is necessary to be good at something, and then that excellence needs to be integrated into a wider learning of the world and politics.
So... In my version of the NationState game anyone can qualify to run for office by passing difficult exams, whereupon those that make the qualifying standard can get voted for by the public. No-one can stand for office who hasn't passed the examinations. Of course, then we argue about who sets the exams and who marks them etc & etc, but at least we're putting the fear of thinking into the bastards who are our politicians.
I'd say we need an elite. Just the right elite. And not an elite dependent upon the vagaries of birth or parental wealth, but an elite made up of folk of skill, ability, professional ethics, and human understanding; which will have to substitute for noble intent in the modern world. Call it a meritocracy, call it rule by the skilled or the cunning, but it is actually the rule of the intellect leavened by human need and understanding. Alas as a form of government it is as profoundly condescending as any rule will be until we are overtaken by A.I. (However I'd suggest it better than any of the previous alternatives, but probably less good than a serious A.I. would manage things - despite Professor Hawking's misgivings.)
The Piñata is up. Get your baseball bats. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 00:36 (UTC)We have debates here - but most of those questions only let you know who is the best at grandstanding.
General history, hypothetical situations (something like the trolley problem?) - I could get behind something like that - but could we all even agree on the questions, much less the answers to them?
(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 06:25 (UTC)You know. I reckon even competing parties would be able to agree on tests determining competence rather than moral stances. Make it purely about function?
Also rank them when they leave office. All subsequent positions depending on the ranking the politician got while in office; i.e. you get rewarded for doing your job well.
Even though it appears to be jobs for the boys, so to speak, the street sweeper option is still available. :) (Also if you get the calibre of folk I'm thinking of, society will want them to be recycled into jobs needing competent folk when they leave office.)
(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 05:49 (UTC)I'm glad you were the one to start the monthly topic :)
(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 06:35 (UTC)Posting on April Fool's Day - c'mon dude, it's me. If I can, I will, even if serious or semi-serious.
(There's always a remnant when a person who would naturally be Loki is forced into the role of Baldur by circumstance and moral necessity.)
(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 06:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 07:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 20:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/4/18 22:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/18 20:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/4/18 00:56 (UTC)The most obvious problem is that the elite will not necessarily have the experience of those that rule and yet, as you say, those at who are not members of the elite may not have the ability to rule effectively.
In my opinion, the alternative is a deliberative democracy. One where public policy is open to any and all to contribute, but requires effort and consideration by those who want wish to participate.
(no subject)
Date: 3/4/18 10:43 (UTC)Deliberative democracy is a brilliant idea because it requires folk to be involved in the political process to have a say. However, in that case the electorate will be dominated by the politically interested... and the greater the political interest the smaller the need for numbers, if you catch my drift. I would contend it is a recipe for political extremism to really have a field day, allied to the fact that the voters will have to accept moral responsibility for not participating in the process and allowing the extremists their say.
It is a great idea though. It throws the moral responsibility for bad government on to the folk who haven't taken part, as much as those who, fired by god knows what zeal, have a more robust view of political engagement.
(no subject)
Date: 3/4/18 23:23 (UTC)That is an argument against participatory democracy, and whilst deliberative democracy does include participatory elements it protects itself, to a degree, from motivated extremism by requiring deliberation, rather in the same way that court juries do accounting for an initial knowledge gap (c.f., Danish Consensus Conferences).
The biggest weakness I can see is the time factor involved. Deliberative democracy is only a partial solution in a complex society, but I do think it's a good means of preventing the twin issues of self-selected isolated elitism and a democracy of the ignorant.
(no subject)
Date: 6/4/18 15:18 (UTC)There appears no obvious synthesis at present. Maybe our "starting conditions" have to improve/evolve before we are educated enough en masse for any sort of democracy to work in all circumstances. Though even classical democracies could suspend the democratic process in times of war or emergency.
(no subject)
Date: 6/4/18 23:56 (UTC)Such are the ingredients of populist revolutions, and usually of the far-right variety. With all that follows.
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/18 07:28 (UTC)I'd suggest power always devolves to the self-interested, the pushy, the loud, the rich, and very occasionally the dangerous types committed to some sort of radical change or other. There are other more noble reasons that folk have for getting involved in politics; but in politics, as in economics, altruism has a value which can be easily discounted.
I'd say the connection between the elite and the underclass has been severed since the aristocracy was replaced by the corporate oligarchy. But that's no reason to replace something bad with an older version that is in many ways worse. My contention is, that given where we are as a culture, we are going to be run by an elite of some kind or other: I just want it to be the right elite.
The problem I see is that my thought experiment still gives too much place to the Boris Johnsons or Jacob Rees-Moggs of this world. Folk bright and educated enough to jump through any intellectual hoops given them, but still ambitious, mendacious, manipulative, and shockingly careless of the nation's best interests in the furtherance of personal goals.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/18 02:24 (UTC)I think you're on the ball there; self-regulation, conflict of interest, regulatory capture, etc all serve as dangerous evidence of this tendency.
(no subject)
Date: 10/4/18 06:47 (UTC)I'd wager even Putin started out trying to "Make Russia Great" again.
Sometimes it's the way you go about things and the tactics and strategies you use that mark you out rather than your reason why.
A culture that has evolved to be aware enough of these issues may be the impetus to change. We are all getting there slowly, but it is the interregnum until then which bothers me, because that is often the critical period. And I guess, given the concerted effort by hemi-demi-semi fascists and worse worldwide, that I'm not alone in that analysis.
(no subject)
Date: 3/4/18 08:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/4/18 10:57 (UTC)One part of privilege is access to the tools which enable an individual to achieve merit or excellence; equality in this access is more difficult to engineer.
The decision-making on things you are expert in seems great. But who co-ordinates? Who governs? Experts in Government?
When you have non-experts in government in charge things can get interesting, as we can see. But I would contend that you can't train folk to rule from birth or to be an expert in government. Millennia of monarchical rule worldwide seem to confirm this, which is why most monarchies are now constitutional. In my thought experiment therefore we have to pick our rulers and legislators from a pool of the competent and then expect them to put the hours in to pass the exams to pre-qualify them for potential office before an election.
If our government can make teachers jump through hoops in the name of verified good teaching standards, I think we should make our politicians do the same; with benchmark tests and maybe an independent of Parliament, Ofsted style monitoring of performance with necessary sanctions for the failing.