"The ghost of Plato gives you..."

[Aimless]

WARNING STOLEN FROM REDDIT POTENTIALLY USELESS WARNING

"The ghost of Plato offers you one of two pills. If you take the blue pill, from now on your government will precisely represent the will of its people. If you take the red pill, your country will be seized by an intelligent dictator whose political views are identical to yours. Which will it be?



The idea was inspired by this discussion, where many denizens of r/atheism expressed their displeasure with universal suffrage. I was wondering how many people here would gladly give up their nation's ability to control its fate if someone they can trust will get the wheel.

EDIT
bonus questions:
1. If I changed the description of the blue pill's function to "clean the government of corruption, self-interest and flip-flopping", how much difference would it make? Would the change impact your choice?
2. Suppose the choice is given not to you but to a friend with opposing political views. What pill would you advise him or her to take? Would you be honest about your own choice?"

[Ziggy Stardust]

The blue pill sounds horrible. I myself have many wills which are short-term and I don't have the oversight needed to run an effective and efficient government. The red pill sounds awful because of the obvious reasons. So this is tough I know for sure that the blue pill will ruin the country. But the Red Pill has all the disadvantages of the blue pill, only limited to my own limited political views. The best of two extremely bad situations is the blue pill.

Bonus question:
1. No, since it doesn't address my main concern. (I like how this implies I'd take the red pill )
2. I don't see a problem with advising him to take the same pill.

[RandBlade]

Blue pill, easy. While it does indeed sound horrible, the other one is worse.

1. No, same as Ziggy.
2. Blue still.

[LittleFuzzy]

As I've said in the past, I think that in the short-term, a benevolent and intelligent autocracy will do a better job of governing than a democracy (and I'll point out that the modern bureaucratic state has more than a few autocratic tools and behaviors which bear no resemblance to democratic policy-making). The problem which ultimately craters every regime, even the democratic ones, if external events don't remove it first is the task of ensuring that leadership in the future will also be benevolent and intelligent. The advantage of the democracies is that they seem to sustain success at this endeavor somewhat longer than the autocracies.

[Wraith]

WARNING STOLEN FROM REDDIT POTENTIALLY USELESS WARNING

"The ghost of Plato offers you one of two pills. If you take the blue pill, from now on your government will precisely represent the will of its people. If you take the red pill, your country will be seized by an intelligent dictator whose political views are identical to yours. Which will it be?

Do we get any assurances of benevolence from the dictator, or that he'll actually adhere to those political views? If yes with sufficient guarantees, red pill, if no, I'll be punching Plato's ghost and destroying his supply of pills because both options are unacceptably dangerous.

[Enoch the Red]

WARNING STOLEN FROM REDDIT POTENTIALLY USELESS WARNING

"The ghost of Plato offers you one of two pills. If you take the blue pill, from now on your government will precisely represent the will of its people. If you take the red pill, your country will be seized by not to you but to a friend with opposing political views. What pill would you advise him or her to take? Would you be honest about your own choice?"

What does it mean for a country to represent the will of its people? Isn't that assuming that the people's will is singular and monolithic, when in reality it is varied and at odds with itself?

Are we stipulating a simple majority is what constitutes the will of the country's people?

[Ominous Gamer]

To take that a little deeper. How do you calculate an individual's will? we all know how easy it is to hijack a vote based on wording and advertising.

A dictator could be the perfect form of government, problem is finding a good dictator.
On the other hand, blue pill ain't so bad (stolen):

Money in Politics
•Seventy-nine percent of Americans support constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court campaign bribery decision.
Economics
•Sixty-one percent say that increasing taxes to the wealthy should be the first step toward balancing the budget.
•19 polls show that the American people strongly support higher taxes to reduce the deficit and improve income inequality.
•Eighty-eight percent of Americans say bonuses at banks should be banned or taxed at 50%.
•Seven out of ten American say it’s Wall Street’s turn to help bail out the government Treasury, supporting a tax on Wall Street profits as a way to reduce the $1.3 trillion deficit.
•Eighty percent say don't cut Social Security.
•53 percent of Americans say jobs and the economy are the most important issues facing the country; just 7 percent say the deficit is the most important.

Environment
•83% of Americans believe Earth is in fact warming according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. Nearly 10% more Americans believe the world is actually warming than did so last year.
•Seventy-seven percent of Americans think that "Congress should let the EPA do its job". Only 18% of Americans think pollution safeguards should be lowered.

Health
•Ninety-one percent of Americans believe that someone without health insurance should be treated in an emergency room if they are seriously injured, even if they are in this country illegally. Just six percent (6%) feel a critically injured person without insurance should not be treated.

Foreign affairs
•Sixty percent of Americans look upon the UN favorably, with 85% saying it is important for the U.S. to be active at the UN.
•Fifty-eight percent of Americans want us to leave Afghanistan.
•Americans favor lifting Cuban embargo by a greater than two-to-one margin- Forty-seven percent of those polled said “yes” to lifting the embargo, compared to 22 percent saying “no”, and three in 10 (31%) unsure.

Culture
•52 percent of Americans now hold unfavorable views of the tea party, a new high. Only 35% of Americans like the Teabaggers. As for socialism, it’s viewed favorably by 36% of Americans.
•Sixty-nine percent oppose eliminating funding for PBS.
•Sixty-seven percent support separation of church and state.
•Fifty-eight percent of Americans say marijuana should legalized, regulated and taxed.
•Seventy-seven percent support DADT repeal.
•53% of Americans said they supported same sex marriage, compared to 45% who said they did not. The poll “reinforces a trove of recent polls that have produced similar findings, and it furthers a trend of Americans gradually becoming more accepting of legal recognition for same sex couples.”

[Aimless]

I interpreted the question as being limited merely to representation, promising nothing about execution. I assume one of the first challenges would be to determine how to execute "the will" of the people

[RandBlade]

As I've said in the past, I think that in the short-term, a benevolent and intelligent autocracy will do a better job of governing than a democracy (and I'll point out that the modern bureaucratic state has more than a few autocratic tools and behaviors which bear no resemblance to democratic policy-making). The problem which ultimately craters every regime, even the democratic ones, if external events don't remove it first is the task of ensuring that leadership in the future will also be benevolent and intelligent. The advantage of the democracies is that they seem to sustain success at this endeavor somewhat longer than the autocracies.

Is that not what we have somewhat? At least in the UK the phrase "elected dictatorship" is used from time-to-time. Between elections the public get no direct say in votes. I think its probably more an "elected dictatorship" here where the government by definition normally controls the Commons, than in genuine bicameral Parliaments or the US with its split responsibilities between President and Congress.

[Nessus]

If I can quick-save before answering, I'd give the red pill a go. Although my political views aren't very well defined

[LittleFuzzy]

Is that not what we have somewhat? At least in the UK the phrase "elected dictatorship" is used from time-to-time. Between elections the public get no direct say in votes. I think its probably more an "elected dictatorship" here where the government by definition normally controls the Commons, than in genuine bicameral Parliaments or the US with its split responsibilities between President and Congress.

Somehow I suspect the government in the UK *disregarding the basic functioning of a bureaucratic state which last I read did not see many major comparative differences among the collected 1st-world democracies* doesn't actually function in much more of an autocratic manner than the other representative democracies/republics.

[Crowheart]

Problem with the blue pill is, people are stupid.
Problem with the red pill is, I'm one of those people.

I'm too moderate for these hypotheticals..

[Ziggy Stardust]

Looked at my answer, and I found that I mixed the pills up in it.

Aren't they basically the same pill?

[RandBlade]

Somehow I suspect the government in the UK *disregarding the basic functioning of a bureaucratic state which last I read did not see many major comparative differences among the collected 1st-world democracies* doesn't actually function in much more of an autocratic manner than the other representative democracies/republics.

Why is the US so paralysed against cutting the deficit? Why can't the party in power just do what it wants? Incidentally, which party is in power?

Disregarding the rights or wrongs of austerity, in the UK there was not a chance (practically no matter what) of it happening while Brown was under control. We had a vote one day in May 2010 and for the next 5 years the budgets will be compeletely different than were Brown still there. In 2015 we'll have one vote and the next 5 years one philosophy will call the shots. That's not happening in the US. For one thing because you're always either in an "Election Year" or next year is (Congress), or because the President's a Lame Duck, or ...

[LittleFuzzy]

Why is the US so paralysed against cutting the deficit? Why can't the party in power just do what it wants? Incidentally, which party is in power?

Too many sacred cows/pet interests among the legislators to produce agreement on what spending can be cut or what taxes can be raised. And GOP has a bare majority in the House while the Dems have a comfortable majority in the Senate and of course the Oval Office.

[Loki]

Somehow I suspect the government in the UK *disregarding the basic functioning of a bureaucratic state which last I read did not see many major comparative differences among the collected 1st-world democracies* doesn't actually function in much more of an autocratic manner than the other representative democracies/republics.

How many other developed countries implemented radical economic policies (to the right and to the left) as frequently as the Brits in the post-WWII era? With parliamentary supremacy, strong party discipline, and an ability to call elections whenever the government feels like (as long as it's less than 5 years from the previous one) does give the British parliament nearly dictatorial power between elections.

[Momo]

Looked at my answer, and I found that I mixed the pills up in it.

Aren't they basically the same pill?

Well spotted Zigz

s that not what we have somewhat? At least in the UK the phrase "elected dictatorship" is used from time-to-time. Between elections the public get no direct say in votes. I think its probably more an "elected dictatorship" here where the government by definition normally controls the Commons, than in genuine bicameral Parliaments or the US with its split responsibilities between President and Congress.

I found this post surprising in that it emanated from Rand.

I've always held this belief even when first being taught the concept of democracy. There's no excuse for how today's democracies are run: we all have internet access and should all be voting at least once per day on new bills that come up in government which they then distribute on the web.

I don't like this lazy view of democracy where people vote in waves of over-seers and then sit back and enjoy a sense of entitlement to their 'democracy'. What a fucking farce, seriously.

[earthJoker]

As it seems to me, both pills would remove the division of power from our system. As I see this as a fundamental part of a working system I wouldn't like the outcome of any of those two choices. As I don't live in a "voted dictatorship" as Rand defines it, I would go with the blue pill. The same reason I stated several times before, the chances that the people are affected by their own choices has IMO two advantages: People think twice if it they are affected by something, and those that suffer form wrong decisions are the same who made the choice (maybe they will learn from their mistakes).

People might be stupid, but the idea that a dictator or politicians aren't stupid too is IMO naive.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well spotted Zigz

Hey! That was my nickname when I was down with the measles.

How did you find out?

[RandBlade]

Too many sacred cows/pet interests among the legislators to produce agreement on what spending can be cut or what taxes can be raised. And GOP has a bare majority in the House while the Dems have a comfortable majority in the Senate and of course the Oval Office.

So which party controls the Federal Government then: Dem or GOP?

[Hazir]

So which party controls the Federal Government then: Dem or GOP?

Neither.

[Nessus]

I've always held this belief even when first being taught the concept of democracy. There's no excuse for how today's democracies are run: we all have internet access and should all be voting at least once per day on new bills that come up in government which they then distribute on the web.

This sounds like a wonderful system. How many weeks would it take before people started being put in concentration camps? I say less than four.

[Momo]

This sounds like a wonderful system. How many weeks would it take before people started being put in concentration camps? I say less than four.

As you already know - that's what democracy is all about. If the people vote in concentration camps they should get them. Unless, of course, you only give them a suggestion of democracy but continue to call it democracy, in which case you're giving them a voted-in dictatorship that makes all the important decisions while giving the impression of communal governance. In which case, why not be honest about what you're offering, governments of the world, and change the name? What is the proper name for that anyway? An oligarchy?

Jung fully explored this with the notion of archetypal symbols rising up in public consciousness and causing existential terror in individuals, which leads to a process of rationalisation, with a teleological result of conscious dogmatism. People are then taught the dogmatic end-result of a powerful experience instead of having the experience themselves, as a form of self-defence. As etrenched dogma becomes all-powerful, so does the power of the original experience diminish. In the end, the collective unconscious looks elsewhere for inspirational power: foreign cultures, for example; or Hollywood or Steam. Hence, the original need for democracy remains within us, but the form of it has shifted into something less fear-inducing (the average president's fear reminds him that his majority should be kept in check).

That's a theory of mine, anyway.

[RandBlade]

Neither.

Exactly my point. You can't say that about the UK.

[LittleFuzzy]

Exactly my point. You can't say that about the UK.

Or any parliamentary system, technically. Granted the UK is all kinds of bizarre in that it routinely produces a single party able to command a majority and its thus harder to bring down a government there but still.

[RandBlade]

Or any parliamentary system, technically. Granted the UK is all kinds of bizarre in that it routinely produces a single party able to command a majority and its thus harder to bring down a government there but still.

Why is it all kinds of bizarre? Its quite common in similar systems, Australia's lower-house is routinely commanded by one (counting the Coalition as one party which it essentially is), Canada's very similar too, prior to switching to PR so was New Zealand. If the Senate was rather meaningless and the President chosen from the ruling party of the lower-chamber of Congress you'd be exactly the same too. The difference, as I said in my initial post you took umbrage too is that the US has Seperation of Powers, while most of continental Europe has some sort of Proportional Representation.

[Wraith]

In which case, why not be honest about what you're offering, governments of the world, and change the name? What is the proper name for that anyway? An oligarchy?

A representative democracy? A republic?

There's good reasons for representative democracy. Probably the most important reason is that issues are often difficult to understand fully. Most people simply don't have the time to educate themselves sufficiently to have an intelligent, reasoned opinion on all the issues that come up. It makes sense to have people whose primary job is just that. People ARE good at knee-jerk reactions, but that's not what I want to be deciding legislation.

The system has its problems, but surrendering to mob rule is the opposite of fixing them.

[Flixy]

Aye, not even all representatives are fully informed on everything, which is why parties (at least over here) have members responsible for specific issues, and are (supposedly, anyway) somewhat knowledgable on that area. They then inform the rest of their party and vote together.

[Ominous Gamer]

Over here we have lobbyists.

[Loki]

Yeah, those are unique to the US.