Plato was right Timocracy vs. Tyranny / Democracy

[curiousphoton]

It light of the recent worldwide uprisings (Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Madison - Wisconsin, to name a few), our 'democratic' world is proving it is indeed in dire need of directional change.

Let us investigate 'Republic' by Plato. 'Republic' ranks four forms of government. In the ranking, democracy is 3 out of 4, only ahead of tyranny. Western civilization (and today this includes all those influenced by Western civilization) has fluctuated between democracy and tyranny throughout history. This fluctuation was predicted perfectly in 'Republic'.

Ranked 1 of 4 was a system named 'Timocracy', where the most honorable and knowledgeable, rather than successful and popular, hold power. Timocracy seems to make great sense and with some thought and modification, would seem to work leaps and bounds better than Democracy-Tyranny, again as Plato predicted.

Do you think Western society will ever break free of the forever oscillating democracy-tyranny sinusoidal wave?

 

[apeiron]

Do you think Western society will ever break free of the forever oscillating democracy-tyranny sinusoidal wave?

Very amusing question. Should we prefer the tyranny of the few, or the tyranny of the many?

Seriously, I would argue that the best political option is the one that spreads wisdom hierarchically and evenly over all scales.

Timocracy would be trying to do that in rough way - power hierarchically allotted according to wealth and class - but clearly as brains and worth have a large genetic component, this does not really work.

Democracy should allow decision-making and wise choices to be made over all scales of a society, if all the tiers of responsibility are in place. So the multiple rungs of appropriate boundary-setting from neighbourhood to national to international. And it is founded on the sound principle that anything which is not collectively forbidden, you are individually free to do. (Sound because this maximises the creativity and resilience of a society).

 

[Pythagorean]

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I have no idea how to vote and I often disagree with the more popular Christian motivations of US-based policies. So I'm not well represented by the majority making democracy useless to me.

If I were brought up by politicians, I would certainly be playing the game and know exactly who to vote for (or rather, convince 100 others to vote for) but I was raised by fishers.

 

[JoeDawg]

Timocracy seems to make great sense and with some thought and modification, would seem to work leaps and bounds better than Democracy-Tyranny, again as Plato predicted.

And who decides who is "the most honorable and knowledgeable"?

Should we vote on it?

 

[alt]

Any political system is rarely anything other than a plutocracy IMO, no matter the guise.

Timocracy ..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Timocracy

1. a form of government in which love of honor is the dominant motive of the rulers.
2. a form of government in which a certain amount of property is requisite as a qualification for office.

Timocracy - from the Greek, obviously, meaning 'τιμή' (timi) - honour ..

But the identical word, 'τιμή' also means price;

Note, google translate;

You have no honour - Δεν έχετε την τιμή

What is the price - Ποια είναι η τιμή

See ? Plutocracy after all ..

 

[ThomasT]

Any political system is rarely anything other than a plutocracy IMO, no matter the guise.

Maybe a combination of plutocracy and oligarchy -- plutarchy?

Iron Law of Oligarchy

 

[alt]

Maybe a combination of plutocracy and oligarchy -- plutarchy?

Iron Law of Oligarchy

But is a combination of wealth (plutos) and few (oligos) reflected in your new word ?

Maybe it is. The oligarchs are never going to be the poor, after all. So it is implicit in 'plutos'. But why do you substitute 'archy' for 'cracy' ?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Any political system is rarely anything other than a plutocracy IMO, no matter the guise.

Timocracy .. But the identical word, 'τιμή' also means price;

Business corporations might be thought of as timocracies on the theory that those most capable of governing rise to the top levels of power. In the Adam Smith model at least, corporations that are not well governed simply do not survive; so a Darwinian process selects the best governed.

I personally don't think this should apply to states. States should be governed for the benefit of its citizens. I disagree with Plato and agree with Churchill. Democracy may be a "lousy" form of government, but it's better than all the rest.

 

[alt]

Business corporations might be thought of as timocracies if you take it mean the most capable of governing rise to the top levels of power. In the Adam Smith model at least, corporations that are not well governed simply do not survive; so a Darwinian selection process selects the best governed.

Yes, I can't argue with that.

I personally don't think this should apply to states. States should be governed for the benefit of its citizens. I disagree with Plato and agree with Churchill. Democracy may be a "lousy" form of government, but it's better than all the rest.

But really, has there ever been a true and persistent democracy ? Anywhere ? Sure, states should be governed for the benefit of it's citizens - I agree. But always, so far as I can see, the benefit of the plutocratia comes first.

And most corporations would be declared insolvent - bust - were they to approach the debt levels, mismanagement, and wastage of some states.

 

[ThomasT]

... why do you substitute 'archy' for 'cracy' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarchy

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But really, has there ever been a true and persistent democracy ? Anywhere ? Sure, states should be governed for the benefit of it's citizens - I agree. But always, so far as I can see, the benefit of the plutocratia comes first.

And most corporations would be declared insolvent - bust - were they to approach the debt levels, mismanagement, and wastage of some states.

Well the USA is in its third century and there are lot more democracies in the world today than there were in 1787. It's far from perfect, and it will never be perfect; but it certainly has improved since the 1787 constitution said slaves count as 5/8ths of a person. Ultimately the fate of a democracy is in the hands of its citizens. The plutocrats have just one vote each; the same as the homeless person.

 

[alt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarchy

Ah ! Thanks. There seems to be a subtle difference between 'archy' (archigos- leader) and 'cracy' (kratos - to hold power), although they seem similar and interchangable.

I must confess, I've rarely seen the word 'plutarchy' used. Even the wiki article you linked used it once only, then reverted to plotocracy.

 

[alt]

Well the USA is in its third century and there are lot more democracies in the world today than there were in 1787. It's far from perfect, and it will never be perfect; but it certainly has improved since the 1787 constitution said slaves count as 5/8ths of a person.

I'm not arguing with that at all, and it seems to be the best we've got, warts and all.

Ultimately the fate of a democracy is in the hands of its citizens. The plutocrats have just one vote each; the same as the homeless person.

Yes, but surely you'd understand that the plutocrat has the millions to contibute to the installation of HIS representative (how much does a presidential campaign cost in the USA ?) while the homeless person can whistle.

Even so, it's a Darwinian process IMO - a process which you said earlier applies only to corporations. I reckon it goes all the way up. I have no real beef with it mind you - unless it approaches Lord Actons "absolute power corrupts absolutely" ..

 

[ThomasT]

Ah ! Thanks. There seems to be a subtle difference between 'archy' (archigos- leader) and 'cracy' (kratos - to hold power), although they seem similar and interchangable.

I must confess, I've rarely seen the word 'plutarchy' used. Even the wiki article you linked used it once only, then reverted to plotocracy.

How about plutoligarchcracy? Anyway, I agree with your take on it.

 

[curiousphoton]

And who decides who is "the most honorable and knowledgeable"?

Should we vote on it?

No. Please read Plato's Republic for answer.

 

[curiousphoton]

Very amusing question. Should we prefer the tyranny of the few, or the tyranny of the many?

And that is the million dollar question I think the argument is stronger for the tyranny of the few, as long as the few are honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving. Plato's Timocracy included a method of selection that ensured only the honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable gained positions of power.

Today's democracy is governed not by this type. It is governed by the vote of the majority and the majority base their voting on commercials and colors (blue or red), not whether the candidate has proven he is honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving.

Seriously, I would argue that the best political option is the one that spreads wisdom hierarchically and evenly over all scales.

Agreed. I just don't think democracy accomplishes this (for reasons above).

 

[curiousphoton]

Business corporations might be thought of as timocracies on the theory that those most capable of governing rise to the top levels of power. In the Adam Smith model at least, corporations that are not well governed simply do not survive; so a Darwinian process selects the best governed.

You're idea of Timocracy is incorrect. Timocracy does not select the most capable of governing. Timocracy selects the most honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving of a society and allows them to govern.

This is completely different than a business corporation where yes the most capable of governing rise to to the top. But what does 'the most capable of governing' mean to a business corporation? It means 'the most capable of ensuring the highest profit for that business corporation'! This is not comparable to running a society that ensures the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You're idea of Timocracy is incorrect. Timocracy does not select the most capable of governing. Timocracy selects the most honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving of a society and allows them to govern.

This is completely different than a business corporation where yes the most capable of governing rise to to the top. But what does 'the most capable of governing' mean to a business corporation? It means 'the most capable of ensuring the highest profit for that business corporation'! This is not comparable to running a society that ensures the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

I was responding to Alt's alternative translation of timocracy as "price", whatever that might mean. I was really getting at the idea of a "meritocracy". I clearly stated I disagreed with this idea in the second paragraph which you did not quote.

If a timocracy allows all citizens to participate in the choosing of a leader, and the leader is subject to the continued support of the citizenry to remain in power, then I don't see how this is different from democracy.

My understanding is that Plato thought rule by a self-sustaining landed aristocracy or secondly, a military "timocracy" were the best forms of government; the idea of a caste based "philosopher king"
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/timocracy

 

[JoeDawg]

No. Please read Plato's Republic for answer.

Been there, done that, oligarchy's are by their nature tyrannical. Sounds like Plato is just playing semantics and ignoring human reality.

 

[alt]

You're idea of Timocracy is incorrect. Timocracy does not select the most capable of governing. Timocracy selects the most honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving of a society and allows them to govern.

But you speak here (and in your OP) as though those traits of honor, courage, passion, knowledge, etc, are absolute. They are not - they are quite relative. And many dictators and despots have been possessed of them. Alexander The Great was honorable and courageous. Hitler was passionate. Lenin was knowledgeable .. etc.

This is completely different than a business corporation where yes the most capable of governing rise to to the top. But what does 'the most capable of governing' mean to a business corporation? It means 'the most capable of ensuring the highest profit for that business corporation

Yes, and in the case of the largest corporations, it's many thousands of shareholders. This is no bad model for a competent government.

spelling edit

 

[Pattonias]

The problem with our current system is the idea that a career can be made in politics. The honor that should be seen should be the willingness to make a decision that you foresee as the best solution in the long run, even if its not the one that will keep you in office.

Our current leaders are motivated by remaining popular and staying in office. A truly honorable leadership would be chosen of those with the willingness to make a tough yet necessary decision at the cost of their own popularity. The fact of the matter is that in a democracy those willing to make tough decisions never make it above your local aldermen.

A girlfriend once told me that the ideal government would be composed of those leaders who are willing to have all their possessions and property stripped of them while they were in leadership so they would have no personal conflicts while leading. At the time I thought that would be crazy, but you have to think about the impact that would have.

 

[Cinitiator]

How do you define forms of government as being good or bad? We need to know what we actually want before picking up something which merely sounds good and even seems so after some unsophisticated thinking.
For example, to know whether decisions are good or bad, we need to be able to explain all variations in the opinions which formed those decisions. Once we can explain absolutely all variation, we need to have a sample of population with varied qualities to test the decision approval rate on. The better the qualities attributed with the decision are for each deviation of qualities (which would contain some people each), the less variation of opinions there should be. We then should predict whether variation will completely disappear or not - if it won't, we need to make more qualities enter this test.
Those qualities are also subjective, just like all opinions, so there would be many group supporting different qualities entering this test.
This would allow the humanity to have more unified and centralized values, opinions and beliefs as well. If we won't use or fail to use this system, each would fight for his/her own values, making sure to fulfill the most benefit possible in relation to the values the person in question has - rational people would use proper reason to determine this. Many would probably develop mathematical methods to quickly determine this.

 

[curiousphoton]

How do you define forms of government as being good or bad? .

Logic. Reason. Argumentation. Hypothesis. Trial and Error.

All pillars of any great science or philosophical breakthrough. All parts of Plato's Republic, which started this thread.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

How do you define forms of government as being good or bad?

Logic. Reason. Argumentation. Hypothesis. Trial and Error.
All pillars of any great science or philosophical breakthrough. All parts of Plato's Republic, which started this thread.

How about effectiveness in promoting the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

or if that's too vague:

Effectiveness in establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing liberty and basic human rights for the population governed. (paraphrased from the preamble of the US Constitution.)

EDIT: Note that's the standard government should aspire to. I'm not making any statement about how any government actually performs.

 

[curiousphoton]

How about effectiveness in promoting the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

or if that's too vague:

Effectiveness in establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing liberty and basic human rights for the population governed. (paraphrased from the preamble of the US Constitution.)

EDIT: Note that's the standard government should aspire to. I'm not making any statement about how any government actually performs.

Ok that does not help anything.

'Effectiveness in establishing'. That is what we are after. How do you effectively establish everything you mentioned? That is the reason for this thread.

Let's stay on point.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ok that does not help anything.

'Effectiveness in establishing'. That is what we are after. How do you effectively establish everything you mentioned? That is the reason for this thread.

Let's stay on point.

I think I'm very much on point. The issue is democracy vs other forms of government. Plato rated them from best to worst: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. By Plato's own definition democracy is only better than tyranny, but inferior to three other non-democratic forms.

I'm arguing that democracy is better than any non-democratic form, for no other reason than it puts power into the hands of the governed. In every other case, one can only hope for a benevolent despot. This may be the most efficient form of government, but how do you assure benevolence? How do you assure the qualities of honour, reason, or even competence?

Do you know of any society that put Plato's vision into practice? The question I was answering is how do you know how good a government is? Obviously one has to consider how effective it is in meeting whatever goals it sets for itself.

 

[stevenb]

Democracy works the best provided there are geat people that rise in times of urgent need, and most people decide to be smart enough to follow the lead. A mass of mediocre people without good direction is doomed.

Also, don't be worried by a little uprising now and again. Silence is the sound of a dying democrocy. Anger and violence mark its birth and rebirth.

 

[curiousphoton]

I think I'm very much on point. The issue is democracy vs other forms of government. Plato rated them from best to worst: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. By Plato's own definition democracy is only better than tyranny, but inferior to three other non-democratic forms.

I'm arguing that democracy is better than any other non democratic form, for no other reason than it puts power into the hands of the governed. ?

And what if the heads of the governed have been brainwashed, are ignorant, or just plain unintelligent? Do you want this group making the decisions that determine the way you live your one life? I sure do not.

In every other case, one can only hope for a benevolent despot. This may be the most efficient form of government, but how do you assure benevolence? How do you assure the qualities of honour, reason, or even competence?

Your Question: How do you ensure benevolence?

Answer: Again, read 'Republic' it clearly states the process. Because you do not know the process, I'm assuming you Wikipedia'd 'Plato Republic'.

Do you know of any society that put Plato's vision into practice? The question I was answering is how do you know how good a government its? Obviously one has consider how effective it is in meeting whatever goals it sets for itself.

No I don't know any society that has put Plato's vision into practice. I'm not saying it is perfect either.

Reread the post that started this thread. There is a worldwide uprising in 'democratic' societies - clearly democracy is not working.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Democracy works the best provided there are geat people that rise in times of urgent need, and all people decide to be smart enough to follow the lead. A mass of mediocre people without good direction is doomed.

Also, don't be worried by a little uprising now and again. Silence is the sound of a dying democrocy. Anger and violence mark its birth and rebirth.

Now that's a different issue, but relevant. Democracy puts power into the hands of the governed. How well the public handles this power is something else. Many posts here refer to a trend toward a plutocracy. If the people want to be governed by the rich, they have to the ability to put the rich into power and to vote them out. I don't accept the idea that the rich can buy power. No one is standing by the voting booth with a club (or shouldn't be anyway). A rich person who goes into public service is not necessarily a bad thing. They can bring skills and usually a certain level of knowledge and education.

I do think that influence peddling and catering to lobbyists by elected officials must be curtailed. In a democracy, the people have the means to push for laws limiting this activity and to throw out those who do not act in the public interest. When you give up democracy, with its implicit freedoms (speech, media), and place power in an oligarchy or dictator, you lose any non-violent means of dealing with corruption.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Reread the post that started this thread. There is a worldwide uprising in 'democratic' societies - clearly democracy is not working.

Seriously? The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are examples in "democratic" societies? What democratic societies are you talking about?