From: den Otter (otter@globalxs.nl)
Date: Sat Apr 04 1998 - 13:29:32 MST
----------
> From: Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <warrl@mail.blarg.net>
> A perfect social or political system, in all systems I have examined,
> requires perfect people in some quantity -- dictatorship being the
> best in this regard because it requires the fewest perfect people,
> and anarchy among the worst because it requires that the overwhelming
> majority -- possibly everyone -- be perfect. In this part of the
> world, perfect people are a rather scarce item, and what I read in
> the newspapers doesn't tell me that this is a strictly local
> shortage.
>
> Imperfect anarchy is unstable, and seems likely to quickly collapse
> into tribal warlordism, and then later into dictatorship or
> hereditary monarchy.
Yes, exactly! I couldn't agree more. From a purely rational point of view
a "dictatorship" or oligargy based on enlightened principles (as discussed
earlier) would be the most preferable form of government. There is a
reasonable possibility to pick the right people to rule a country (there
have been benevolent emperors in the past, I belief for ex. the Romans had
a few), it's usually the ones who really _don't want the job_. The possibility
that all or at least the majority of "the people" is rational and benevolent
(as needed for good democracy or anarchy) on the other hand is about 0.0...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:51 MST