The more I think about social systems the more convinced I become that the only social/political structure that will be successful is a dictatorship. More specifically, the impossible benevolent dictator for eternity. I'm not sure if there is a more manageable phrase that expresses that concept more eloquently.
Maybe I've just been reading too much Frank Herbert.
Some definition is in order. By benevolent I mean doing what is best for the society in the long term. Benevolence is, of course, relative. Not all members of the society will see a leader thus constrained as benevolent all the time... in fact that is probably impossible.
In my mind the advantages of dictatorship are clear. A dictator answers to no one, is beholden to no one, and choses his or her influence. A dictatorship is not plagued by beaureaucracy and all of the points of failure that come with it. A dictatorship requires simple, direct, and possibly brutal methods... anything more becomes unmanageable for one person.
Finally, the whole concept rests on the "for eternity" bit. That's the only way to prevent this person from being succeeded by someone that doesn't meet the criteria above. Additionally, imagine the wisdom and ability to plan long-term this person would eventually acquire.
There are, of course, a number of flaws in this fantasy beyond those that are immediately obvious. The tip of the iceberg here is that the worst enemy of a person that lived forever would be boredom. Ah well.
I'm sure all this ground has been covered before. I'm not a political scientist and, frankly, I'm not in the mood to research it right now. I would, however, love to hear your thoughts on the ideal form of government. I find it fascinating to think about.
...
Almost forgot: before anyone points out that my definition sounds a lot like some of the popular conceptions of god I would point out the subtle difference with a simple question: "where is god?"
...
I'd probably better shut up before you all think I'm nuts. ;)
I've been suckered in to taking an internet quiz. What kind of porno would you star in?
Amateur movie! You might not be too experienced in the way of sex...but chances are, you do enjoy it (or the thought of it). We'll probably see you in some home video that surfaces on the internet one day. Brought to you by Quizilla
(I had to remove the image that went with this link. It was loading slowly or not at all)
Thanks, Fathom.
I have read Faust. I was too young to really focus on it or understand it... and I didn't finish the second bit. I got bored. I'll revisit it. It would be interesting even outside of the context of this discussion.
By stable I mean unchanging. It seems to me, at first glance, at least, that that's the only kind of stability a dictator could strive for. I suppose there would also be freedom from widespread civil unrest. As dictator you would be forced to deal with it aggressively or lose your power. The problem with this is manifold. The two most significant issues that spring to mind are 1) un-change = stagnation 2) people intuitively bristle at oppression.
You did, indirectly, raise one point that I hadn't really thought about. to be successful a dictatorship would depend on a homogenous population. Anything else would be too hard to control. Getting to that point would require a ruthless single- mindedness and would be utterly oppressive.
Largely, I agree with you about both dictatorship and democracy. Our system of representational democracy has definitely withstood the test of time... but I am not certain for how much longer. It feels to me like it's starting to fray at the edges. Too much overhead and too much corruption (the economic influence). If nothing else, it seems to have strayed far from the original principles. I think if it could be returned to those principles, trimmed down, and de-liced, it would continue to be effective.
It certainly does become immediately apparent, if you spend any time thinking about this sort of thing at all, that it is unlikely there will ever be a system with which everyone is satisfied all the time.
I love the Regime Change in 2004 slogan, by the way.
It will be interesting to see how things play out in say the next 20 years. I wonder if we'll ever get to a point at which money openly rules the world and governments are reduced to giant HR departments? World as corporation. I guess that's what I see as the most extreme form of the idea you were talking about in your second post.
All I know about Sociology is what I've picked up willy-nilly in grad school, but it seems to be axiomatic in the discipline that societies are constantly in flux. I'm not sure that when you mean stable society you mean "unchanging" or "free of widespread civil unrest." I tend to think democracy is the best way to pursue the goal of maintaining order and meeting all members needs. The United States' implementation of representative democracy is far and away the oldest standing government in the world which I believe testifies to ability adapt and its relative equality, the last two (to twenty) years notwithstanding.
Its interesting to think about dictatorship, tho. Assuming the dictator is human, groups within the society are bound to be marginalized or mistreated whether through malice or neglect. I think of dictators like Mussolini, who presided over a relatively homogenous nation (at least compared to the US or Latin American nations), yet less than 100 years before his reign, Italy was a loose aggregation of city- states with sometimes mutually intelligible dialects and no national identity to speak of. Perhaps some of the hubris in the West's attempts to kluge together diverse nations like Yugoslavia or Iraq (or, heck, Spain) is understandable when you look at the success of Germany and Italy to create a stable and coherent national identity and allegiance.
A lot of literature I read discusses the increasing irrelevance of the nation-state. Because economic forces often determine the power and well-being of people more than goverment regulation or social programs, they look to