Is there a better form of government than a Monarchy led by a Philosopher King a la Plato?

Is there a better form of government than a Monarchy led by a Philosopher King a la Plato?

Plato sucks.

delet this

Any other form of government

Plato couldn't even stop Dionysus II or Dion from being shitty tyrants, even though both of them went to him for advice and education, and respected him. It's also not awfully coincidental that his last dialogue (Laws) is basically about "O.k. guys, this time I'm being realistic of how shit should be governed)" and makes it out to be a mixed aristocratic-democracy whose pretense to creating it is just as unrealistic as his Republic.

Aristotle, who probably understood Plato than most of the scholars on him, and who wrote some elaborate political theories himself, couldn't sway Philip 2, which, regardless of how you view the morality of his expansion actions and if they were 'just' or not given the times he was in, was flawed enough to not win over all the Macedonian nobles that led to his assassination; also so for his multiple wives and concubines that produce some disastrous internal fields who Aristotle and Plato, and pretty much all of the Greeks didn't approve of that custom. Aristotle who was also said to have tutored Alexander, apparently didn't do a good enough job, as Alexander--who I am also going to leave out the morality of his conquering--went on to be an alcoholic that killed some of his long personal friends in rage, was said to lose his emotions and order actions that he later regretted (like burning down Persepolis), did wanton unnecessary actions that almost got him killed numerous times, and likely followed the same folly as his father and pissed off his subordinates enough to get assassinated.

How is it that these two great philosophers--some of the best thinkers of all time--didn't know enough to fully persuade their students enough that they were willing to listen and follow their teachings? If they couldn't, who could educate a proper king? Unless philosophers take it upon themselves to do it, which they don't (Aurelius isn't an example, he just reiterates points he learnt and didn't write any meaningful inquiry)

philosophers are beta bitches

Any other form of government that doesn't submit society to the whims of one, pontificating somebody.
>Brrbldbthhfr I have an idea, make it law and enforce it!

Democracy is more stable but generally takes longer to accomplish anything.

Autocracy can be really great or really shit. It'll reach both extremes and there's not much that can be done about it.

Having an enlightened despot can be pretty great but it's a game of chance.

It's not chance if these enlightened philosopher kings were actually trained in accordance to the rules set out.

Eugenically bred of the upper class, classical education to 18, 2 years of military training, 10+ years of mathematics, dialectics, 15 years of being a teacher/leader/philosopher

Then, at the ripe age of 50, would the perfect king come out.

>Democracy is more stable but generally takes longer to accomplish anything.

This makes me wonder about contemporary politics and society. If everything is "speeding up" with the advent of advanced communications and automation, can democracy survive?

Sure. But how do we decide who is suitable for the title of "Philosopher King"?

Voting? Same problems we face now.
Meritocracy? So someone who just appeals to the sensibilities of the elite.
Hereditary? Perhaps - if each philosopher's child is trained as a philosopher.

King Philosopher > Philosopher King

>Voting? Same problems we face now.
The majority electing a meh or wildcard candidate?
>Meritocracy? So someone who just appeals to the sensibilities of the elite.
All systems can be gamed I guess.
>Hereditary? Perhaps - if each philosopher's child is trained as a philosopher.
Charles II of Spain

Just don't let them inbreed.

Democracy will simply degenerate to classic autocracy/fascism as people vote their own rights away.

At least SOMETHING happens under autocracy

Reminder that the best form of government is no government

You do understand that training isnt the only requirement of being a king, right? You need an aptitude for it and frankly that does come down to luck.

I mean it's not like this is something that's never been tried.. Autocrat if governments were a thing for over a thousand years. We have an extensive list of examples we can look at.

You have just as much chance of a Marcus Aurelius as you do of a Commodus.

Reminder to ignore anarchists

Max Stirner memers need to leave

But we aren't just breeding one philosopher king and hoping they stick, we're actively combing the landed aristocracy and weeding out the bad matches.

Military Dictatorship is the best form of government because it is the most authentic and clear cut. As long as a perpetual state of conflict with brief periods of rest can be maintained and a general level of productivity achieved. Conflict is the major driver of scientific and manufacturing progress. Cohesive social order through universal military service and singe party governance. Large scale public works and defense spending to maintain high employment, conflict to deal with excess unemployed, you can always loose a few ten thousand in battle here and there. Keep warrior class as highest order (full political rights to vote and office holding, speech and protest) scientists as second highest (voting rights, and speech rights only), and artists as third class (easier to control thier subversive tendencies if they are lavished and dependant on the state, speech rights only) tradesmen and workers 4th order (protest and voting rights after military service), merchants and financial institutions as the lowest order (most heavily taxed, significantly stigmatized, and have no voting rights, no speech rights, no protest rights). Class is not birth dependant, but merit based and rigorous training and education and accomplishment must be demonstrated. Limited state run industries but not state control of financial institutions (so they can be maintained as a domestic service and easy scape goat for financial woes). State sponsored media only, with token free speech. Public and universal education and health care. Free industry with heavily incentivized central control through taxation or other "public interest" coercion. Highest emphasis of providing state assistance in personal development through merit based achievement. Service to the state and the people is rewarded with housing, financial assistance and class promotion as desired. Scientific achievement, military power, and knowledge based exploration of space, conquest of new planets highest goals.

That..sounds like a caste system ant colony.

One planet, One people, one state, one government. Get used to it, your children will.

you've think a board about history would know the history of military dictatorships worldwide has been absolutely dismal

A form of government that could reliably select someone like that would be good.

Military Dictatorships function if and only if the country is facing imminent danger.

In any other case, everyone, even the warrior class themselves will become war-weary and wont for peace, effectively ruining your caste structure.

So create lots of imminent danger, there are always new generations of young dumbs full of cums ready to die for their country.

Saddam did exactly this, it didn't work out for him

"Not my unique brand of true military dictatorship that has never been tried!"

Just kidding, I know the history is dismal, doesn't mean we should give up. Perpetual war, perpetual progress, the glory of the state and the glory of the people. I don't want the dream to die.

How long was Saddam in power?

your dream, much like your waifu, is shit

Single party rule, autocratic or oligarchy doesn't work outside of theory because nobody can hold them accountable for failure even when they're responsible for it without risking a violent revolt and potentially a revolution.

Democracy gentrifies people knowing their officials can be displaced without these risks. A productive society needs that stability

>perpetual war is progress
I'm crossing my eyes right now. Try telling that to Iran, Serbia, the soviet union, north korea et cetera. Defense budgets directly stack against research budgets

Well he faced down the global superpower and they didn't even take his country or kill him the first time. The second time they did and instantly regretted it when it turned out he was actually brilliant at managing that corner of the world. Now they have to deal with tens of thousands of little monsters much worse than Saddam ever was. I think he did ok despite his blunders.

Being in power for a long time doesn't make your rule successful

God in much displeasure gave a king to the Israelites, and imputed it a sin to them that they sought one: but Christ apparently forbids his disciples to admitt of any such heathenish government: the kings of the gentiles, saith he, exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authoritie upon them, are call'd benefactors: but ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that serveth. The occasion of these his words was the ambitious desire of Zebede's two sons, to be exalted above thir brethren in his kingdom, which they thought was to be ere long upon earth. That he speaks of civil government, is manifest by the former part of the comparison, which inferrs the other part to be alwaies in the same kinde. And what government coms neerer to this precept of Christ, then a free Commonwealth; wherin they who are greatest, are perpetual servants and drudges to the public at thir own cost and charges, neglect thir own affairs; yet are not elevated above thir brethren; live soberly in thir families, walk the streets as other men, may be spoken to freely, familiarly, friendly, without adoration. Wheras a king must be ador'd like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughtie court about him, of vast expence and luxurie, masks and revels, to the debaushing of our prime gentry both male and female; not in thir passetimes only, but in earnest, by the loos imploiments of court service, which will be then thought honorable.

Anarchy: billions of small borders and wars

all the guy did was stir up shit with other countries and make domestic politics so spiteful that they'd turn on each other the moment there came a vacuum. Fuck off with that relativistic bullshit, he caused almost all of Iraq's future problems bar none

But, but, if extraterrestrials invade I think military dictatorship will be most successful and global.

Other than that, yeah people like their freedom too much and will settle for false choice and political quagmire.

Add in a check or two of a landed Parliament and a superior court that can depose the philosopher-king.

Then go on. What makes rule successful? Just a quick one post answer so we have something to go on.

>domestic politics so spiteful that they'd turn on each other the moment there came a vacuum

What do you think political parties do? The same exact thing, until finally the political process collapses. The U.S. Is only one or two major crisses away from this.

Length of rule is the only measure of success unless you go for all that spooky &humanities shit.

For Saddam, length of rule was the standard. He achieved a long rule.

Length of rule is not good. What is the goal? Maintenance of power, or societal and economic prosperity? The Kims in North Korea are successful, ideal rulers by your standard.

This. Authority and hierarchy are natural components of human society. Once we have a common threat to unify against, humanity will realize its true potential and conquer the stars.
We are all different, but it is our differences that make us strong. Say 'no' to the SJWs who demand multiculturalism and false diversity in the mixing of all into a single brown mess. Say 'yes' to unity without the destruction of diversity, and the true way of human supremacy.

I guess we'd assume that most philosopher kings would be trained to appreciate similar views on the freedoms and rights of society, so I'd wager that we should use economic prosperity as the main metric of success.

United States of America as congressed by millions of representatives for millions of citizens. Fuck this few hundreds of representatives for hundreds of millions of citizens absolute terror field.

The more representatives you have, the closer you approach direct democracy.

Direct democracy leads to tyranny

The Republic was flawed as fuck to put it mildly.

Care to back up your claim?

>Direct democracy leads to tyranny

How?

Direct democracy becomes a system where people continually vote for "freedom".

Voting for "freedom" diminishes the power of state.

Diminishing the power of the state will inevitably lead to a complete abolition of the state.

After a period of anarchy, the people will seek order, and after having lived in a "might makes right" anarchist regime, will actively cling to a "champion", who will take over with the promise of order, but bring tyranny.

And not a single day in life spent working the kind of job the vast majority of the population works, in order to get some empathy and understanding of their needs.

I can make do without such a "perfect" king.

Almost all of them.

If you don't agree with me, then please explain why there are no Philosopher King systems running any country today

>there are no Philosopher King systems running any country today

Those are priests, not philosophers.

They get their authority from faith and divine revelation, not from reason and logic

How dare you imperialist swine. The define and glorious leader is the very ideal form of both enlightened philosopher and just and worthy king.

that's bullshit and you know it. The degree of polarization even today is far lower than what you'd get in ethnically torn countries or ones full of state repression. Hyperbolic bullshit

>calling him a king
And Tankies call themselves commies

Good, overly logical people have no empathy and create societies where robots thrive, not humans

democratic republic

philosophers are almost all retards

They are not priests, they are jurists qualified to arrive at their own interpretations of Islamic law.

Worst meme about reason.

Just like every politician in every country, right?

Enlightened despotism is pretty much the ideal form of government.

>rene descartes
>mind seperate entity from body
>creates literal schizophrenia (split mind, from body)
>based on circular self evidence that god exists
>entire life funded by the church
>burger kangz

also on this note thomas aquintis has some meditations akin to descartes of a similar thread to gods existence

fucking circle jerk to me, 1000 years of dark (medieval) ages with a few elite rich beyond belief cunts with no computer games to play gonna come up with some shit senpai

Now, that's some gross exaggeration.

Local politicians tend to be average joes, nationwide politicians tend to be lawyers, but excluding status-obsessed countries like Great Britain, those at least had to go through some shitty job before, e.g. when financing their studies. Heck, the former president of the EU parliament was a bookseller for half his life.

That would never happen in this scenario:

It's also a gross exaggeration that being schooled for 18 years, being in the military for 2, teaching for 15 years is vastly different to the types of lives that "average joes" tend to live.

You didn't mention the
>10+ years of mathematics, dialectics,

In my opinion, there's also a qualitative difference to
>15 years of being a teacher/leader/philosopher
in the consciousness that you're part of the only elite class that gets prepared to lead the country to working at least a part of those 15 years at a dead-end job.

He would have to be an immortal philosopher king. Succession is the biggest flaw of monarchy, or any system that relies on a single benevolent dictator.