Is Democratic Government Necessary to Achieve an Ideal Society?
I took an Intro to Philosophy class in college and one of the biggest assignments was a final paper. In the paper, we were supposed to follow the philosophical method of argument to answer one of several question prompts.
This post is just the paper I submitted.
“Is Democratic Government Necessary to Achieve an Ideal Society?”
Definitions
The terms used in this question have the potential to be quite nebulous. Before I attempt to provide and support an answer to the question, I will present my own definitions and distinctions to ensure that you, the reader, and I, the author, are seeing in our minds the same things as we move through this work.
An “Ideal Society” is that community of people who can provide for all its members the highest possible standard of living. Absolute economic equality is not necessary to have this ideal society, but it is required that some reasonable or even generous standard be made for what poverty is, and no person can exist below that standard.
The society must be sufficiently caring that whatever means are required, a solution is brought about to prevent preventable suffering due to lack of necessities such as poverty brings about (lack of food, shelter, clothing, safety, comfort, access to basic transportation, education, and entertainment).
An ideal society would be extremely productive, creating at least as much is necessary for all, but productivity would not be the highest goal. Happiness must always be of chief importance.
If the choice between paying a laborer a very low wage and requiring huge overtime hours in order to increase profits and allowing people too much time off from work and more pay than they might minimally accept, that which benefits people over pennies must be chosen (ideally out of genuine compassion and not the imposition of laws and threats of punishment).
A “government” is a system which rules over a community of people. A government may take many forms, but what I see as constant between each of these forms is that government makes the final decision about what will be permitted and what will be punished.
A “government” is a system which rules over a community of people. A government may take many forms, but what I see as constant between each of these forms is that government makes the final decision about what will be permitted and what will be punished.
If you don’t think about it too hard, it seems crazy that all people can’t just agree. There should maybe be some set of beliefs, behaviors, goals, standards, and ethics which all would just be right, or which would be good enough that all people could agree.
This is not the case, and will likely never be, because everyone has opinions that differ greatly about what the goals of society should be, even if those goals are agreed upon, the methods with which we attempt to achieve those goals may be disputed, and it seems that these differences all stem from people's differing value systems, which for the majority of people were formed either entirely by or were greatly influenced by their families and communities (religious, secular, and proximal).
A government must decide what is best for the society and then make the decree to everyone about the final decision. The people’s opinions can still be expressed, but as far as action, decrees are law and will be enforced.
Some describe government as an entity which has a monopoly on the use of force. If an average citizen punches someone or detains them or kills them, they have committed a crime and will be punished for it. If, however, an agent of the government does one of those things, they are generally not going to be punished for it because it is part of their job that these things are sometimes done.
I believe that a wide distribution of people who have the potential to use force would be the best society, where each person has a gun or baton or basic combat skills, and proper training to ensure they know both how to use force and when to use it.
I believe agents of government should have the ability to use force, but not a monopoly over it.
I might not get this directly into a part of my answer or argument, but just as a point of passion on the topic, I don’t believe prisons should be the punishment for crimes. The reason most people commit crimes (and crimes are actions with victims - drug use and possession does not count as a crime) is because they are suffering from something, they see the crime as the solution to their problem, and they do not see a better way of solving the problem.
I might not get this directly into a part of my answer or argument, but just as a point of passion on the topic, I don’t believe prisons should be the punishment for crimes. The reason most people commit crimes (and crimes are actions with victims - drug use and possession does not count as a crime) is because they are suffering from something, they see the crime as the solution to their problem, and they do not see a better way of solving the problem.
People commit robbery, theft, murder, identity theft, squatting, pollution and any other crimes, sometimes because they are human garbage with black hearts that smell of sulfur, but far more often it is because they need help, they need guidance. They are ignorant, they grew up abused without appropriate role models, they live in fear of something, they have mental illness or physical disability, they have never seen a better way.
The end goal is happy people in a happy and safe society. The way to do that is to help those who clearly don’t have it figured out, provide rehabilitation, mentoring, counseling, and don’t require that a crime be committed before that help is freely offered. That is the way.
And then for the tiny, maybe 1% of people who are genuine psychopaths that feel nothing for others and wish to see the world burn, maybe there should be an “Escape From New York” type of prison island, where we as a society send those who cannot be helped to be a part of our society, a place where they are free from cells and fetters, but also kept away from us so we cannot be harmed. Very few want to be bad, they just need help.
I see “Democracy” as being a method of government where every person in society, each citizen, has an equal voice, or say, or vote in what the decrees of government are. In democracy there can be no excluded group who gets no say, aside from the developing young who are not old and educated enough yet to have reliable beliefs about how society should work.
I see “Democracy” as being a method of government where every person in society, each citizen, has an equal voice, or say, or vote in what the decrees of government are. In democracy there can be no excluded group who gets no say, aside from the developing young who are not old and educated enough yet to have reliable beliefs about how society should work.
Aside from the exclusion of children from having a voice in government, no person should be denied their share of influence and power based on gender or race or social class or religion or any other factor. If you are old enough and you live within the border of the nation (on an intended ongoing basis, you cannot be a temporary visitor) you get a vote.
Of all the forms of democracy ever formulated (such as direct, representative, etc.), I think the common thread that joins them all is that people who do not have sufficient expertise or knowledge on nearly any subject and who do not apply their time in pursuit of the necessary information to make good opinions and decisions get equal chance to muck up the system for everyone.
Those who have the quietest whispers of thought and reason inside their own heads have the loudest voices in public spaces, or the stupider someone is the louder they shout about their own ill-formed opinions.
I do not believe that democratic government is necessary for an ideal society. I do not believe democracy to be the worst form of government - surely violent, oppressive dictatorships are worse, those that censor and trap and harass their citizens (victims).
Answer
I do not believe that democratic government is necessary for an ideal society. I do not believe democracy to be the worst form of government - surely violent, oppressive dictatorships are worse, those that censor and trap and harass their citizens (victims).
Democracy is a fine stage in the evolution of government. It was necessary in moving from a system where those with the biggest muscles and clubs ruled by force, to one which could truly result in an ideal society.
I believe that Plato had much of the ideal society figured out correctly. I do believe in a sort of elitist oligarchy, that there are people who are born more fit to lead than others. I think that every person in the society should be educated about how the system of government works and how their oligarch rulers ought to rule, but unless they grow into ruthless tyrants, the average person should get no say.
The average person is too uninformed on specific issues and too uneducated in the broad topics of this world to have any useful or insightful opinions. They are also not particularly selfless, helpful, generous, or kind.
Most people smile and would say they care about others, but if you had a pair of special x-ray glasses which could show the real shape of their inner being, they would be ugly, hunchbacked, greedy ogres who clasp their hands connivingly as they wait to pounce on those weaker than themselves in an attempt to get just a little bit more. These people are not who society needs to lead and command it.
1) Society needs government to get along, be prosperous, and be happy.
2) Governments require someone to be the leader.
3) Leaders should be selfless, to care about their society's well-being as much as commoners would care about themselves.
4) Leaders should be intelligent and wise so that in addition to having good intentions, they can adequately rule society towards its ideal shape.
5) People who have these characteristics are not so few as to be called rare, but they are uncommon.
6) People can follow laws and obey in order to be good, but it is few who are genuinely good without them.
7) An ideal society is possible only under the rule of an elitist oligarchy.
Along the lines of what I said in the definitions section, it seems that people are incapable of all agreeing on what is best. People are selfish, uninformed, bitter, cruel, jealous, indoctrinated, weak, foolish, and too heavily influenced by their idols and role models.
Argument
1) Society needs government to get along, be prosperous, and be happy.
2) Governments require someone to be the leader.
3) Leaders should be selfless, to care about their society's well-being as much as commoners would care about themselves.
4) Leaders should be intelligent and wise so that in addition to having good intentions, they can adequately rule society towards its ideal shape.
5) People who have these characteristics are not so few as to be called rare, but they are uncommon.
6) People can follow laws and obey in order to be good, but it is few who are genuinely good without them.
7) An ideal society is possible only under the rule of an elitist oligarchy.
Along the lines of what I said in the definitions section, it seems that people are incapable of all agreeing on what is best. People are selfish, uninformed, bitter, cruel, jealous, indoctrinated, weak, foolish, and too heavily influenced by their idols and role models.
If it weren’t for government, in whatever form it takes, people would argue until the words became spears and bullets, and war would consume all. As long as everyone can put the blame and power of circumstance onto a government, they can get along just fine, even if the law isn’t in line with their opinion.
In order for government to work, there must be a leader, someone to make the laws. There has to be someone who gets to decide which of many differing opinions is going to be the one society must live by.
In order for government to work, there must be a leader, someone to make the laws. There has to be someone who gets to decide which of many differing opinions is going to be the one society must live by.
Most everyone is so firm and confident in the rightness of their own beliefs; how would everyone decide who gets to make the final decisions? Wouldn’t the leader just be picking their own opinions?
The person who is right for leadership is the one whose opinion would be in the best interest of the whole of society. They are not driven by greed, they are not short- or long- gaming their own success. They are not helping their personal friends and family. They are not excessively committed to some strange belief that doesn’t really seem to benefit society.
The person who is right for leadership is the one whose opinion would be in the best interest of the whole of society. They are not driven by greed, they are not short- or long- gaming their own success. They are not helping their personal friends and family. They are not excessively committed to some strange belief that doesn’t really seem to benefit society.
They truly want what is best for everyone. This part is absolutely essential, because even a little greed can be worked on by influential or monied interests and bribes can form a thorough stranglehold on their integrity as they are trapped in their web of lies. These people must be almost superhuman in their dedication to the common good.
The person who is right for leadership must also be very intelligent and reasonable. If anyone were to meet this person, they would immediately notice how radiantly bright they are, their intellect towering over nearly all they meet.
The person who is right for leadership must also be very intelligent and reasonable. If anyone were to meet this person, they would immediately notice how radiantly bright they are, their intellect towering over nearly all they meet.
Even people who fancy themselves quite smart would feel they’ve lost in comparison to this person. This is not to say that this person would brag of their intelligence or show it off or attempt to make others feel small. Not at all.
The ideal leader would have this intelligence coupled with that selflessness from the previous premise, and so they only seek to help others, but that only makes them shine brighter. What is more attractive and trustworthy than this combination of traits? They would be well able to see the path to the ideal for all.
Either of these traits is somewhat uncommon to occur in a person, and for both to occur in the same person is really rather uncommon. In a planet of over 7 billion people, there must be thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands of them, but they, like Plato said, mostly won’t run towards leadership on their own because they are not greedy or hungry for power.
Either of these traits is somewhat uncommon to occur in a person, and for both to occur in the same person is really rather uncommon. In a planet of over 7 billion people, there must be thousands, maybe tens-of-thousands of them, but they, like Plato said, mostly won’t run towards leadership on their own because they are not greedy or hungry for power.
We as society must seek them out and convince them to help us to live our greatest potential. There should be testing in all parts of the world which would identify these possible people, and then further refinement in the findings to end up with those who are exceptionally qualified to lead. (Not necessary for my argument, but on a side note, if we were to find ideal leaders, there would be no need for separate nations, and we would need to share these precious people, so nations would need to join together and maybe we’d end up with just 6 nations, one for each inhabited continent).
People are nasty when left to themselves, but with laws that they have been shown are good for themselves and all others, they will behave. These people do want to prosper and if there are laws that make that happen, they will obey. They will do their part to contribute to the good.
It is only under the rule of these uniquely selfless and intelligent leaders that we may reach ideal society. We as a world have exceptional wealth, and yet half the people on the planet live in poverty so bad they cannot afford the basic necessities for a safe and healthy life. Clearly, we, using all the systems previously devised, are not capable of reaching ideal society. We require their guidance.
(Instead of directly attacking one of my premises, I am choosing to propose a situation in which the outcome might not be “ideal society”, a sort modified elenchus step).
If societies chose these “ideal leaders”, what would stop them from establishing dictatorships? If we give absolute, unchecked power to these people who are considerably smarter than the rest of society, wouldn’t they eventually fall into the same traps which have befallen leaders before them? Without democracy, tyranny will follow.
Huge amounts of testing would be done to find these exceptional people, and many false positives would be pared down until verified examples are found. Even then, these people would undergo extreme education to make them even more qualified. Part of that education would be on morals, ethics, and empathy. They would be now even more built up in those areas where they were previously superior.
If still, after that process, a leader is corrupted, then the rest of the leadership which makes up the oligarchy would notice and remove that person. If the craziest should happen and the entire bunch is bad, then the people would need to retake power in a temporary, emergency democracy. People, because of the additional political education they would receive which would inform them as to why the system of government that was chosen was superior and would lead to the ideal society, would notice quite quickly when there was corruption and would be informed of the exact, clearly defined procedure for how to remove the oligarchy from power.
The corruption would be found out very quickly because the leaders would be very excited about all of the decisions they make, and they would happily proclaim them to society. People would be well aware of the changes. This is in stark contrast to the way things are now, where decisions are made in private, in secret, and if they ever do find the light of day, it is after it is too late to change it, and leaders hide in their offices in their chairs worrying about how hard it is to lead and how they thought it would have been easier, they worry about how completely unprepared and unqualified they are to be a leader, and they try to balance all the expected favors they owe to all the people they’ve taken bribes from and they aren’t sure whose special favor to do first, or if they should re-open the bidding so that a new high price can be had. There is too much corruption in the governments of today. We need these exceptional leaders in an elitist oligarchy.
People are nasty when left to themselves, but with laws that they have been shown are good for themselves and all others, they will behave. These people do want to prosper and if there are laws that make that happen, they will obey. They will do their part to contribute to the good.
It is only under the rule of these uniquely selfless and intelligent leaders that we may reach ideal society. We as a world have exceptional wealth, and yet half the people on the planet live in poverty so bad they cannot afford the basic necessities for a safe and healthy life. Clearly, we, using all the systems previously devised, are not capable of reaching ideal society. We require their guidance.
Objection
(Instead of directly attacking one of my premises, I am choosing to propose a situation in which the outcome might not be “ideal society”, a sort modified elenchus step).
If societies chose these “ideal leaders”, what would stop them from establishing dictatorships? If we give absolute, unchecked power to these people who are considerably smarter than the rest of society, wouldn’t they eventually fall into the same traps which have befallen leaders before them? Without democracy, tyranny will follow.
Reply
Huge amounts of testing would be done to find these exceptional people, and many false positives would be pared down until verified examples are found. Even then, these people would undergo extreme education to make them even more qualified. Part of that education would be on morals, ethics, and empathy. They would be now even more built up in those areas where they were previously superior.
If still, after that process, a leader is corrupted, then the rest of the leadership which makes up the oligarchy would notice and remove that person. If the craziest should happen and the entire bunch is bad, then the people would need to retake power in a temporary, emergency democracy. People, because of the additional political education they would receive which would inform them as to why the system of government that was chosen was superior and would lead to the ideal society, would notice quite quickly when there was corruption and would be informed of the exact, clearly defined procedure for how to remove the oligarchy from power.
The corruption would be found out very quickly because the leaders would be very excited about all of the decisions they make, and they would happily proclaim them to society. People would be well aware of the changes. This is in stark contrast to the way things are now, where decisions are made in private, in secret, and if they ever do find the light of day, it is after it is too late to change it, and leaders hide in their offices in their chairs worrying about how hard it is to lead and how they thought it would have been easier, they worry about how completely unprepared and unqualified they are to be a leader, and they try to balance all the expected favors they owe to all the people they’ve taken bribes from and they aren’t sure whose special favor to do first, or if they should re-open the bidding so that a new high price can be had. There is too much corruption in the governments of today. We need these exceptional leaders in an elitist oligarchy.
I wrote the above paper many years ago, and haven't re-read it for quite some time. It is interesting and I guess I sort of still believe some of it, but I think I have come to believe that we do need democracy. Whenever there is political trouble, the answer seems to be more democracy.
We run into trouble when politicians are able to do too much without the input of the people.
What do you think? Do you agree? How do you think we can reach an ideal society? Is there ever too much democracy? Let me know in the comments!
Comments
Post a Comment