Plato's Republic... Have you ever tried to theorize your "Perfect State"?

[austin.weathers]

1) Are you guys familiar with Plato's Republic, in which he theorizes his ideal government, society, etc.?

2) If so, have you ever theorized how you would model, from scratch, your own ideal nation?

3) If you have, could you explain yours?

Here's the gist of mine:

Government type: Constitutional Republic

Legislative Body: bicameral, Upper and Lower houses.

Executive Body: President, chosen from joint selection made by legislature in the model of the UK's PM.

Judicial Body: same as the United State's current structure.

Election methods: legislature elected by popular vote based upon Proportional Representation in Lower House and Majority vote in Upper House.

Military: composed of a volunteer base to be supplemented by a draft if deemed necessary by a majority vote in both houses of the legislature.

Freedoms: freedom of press, speech, assembly, religion are guaranteed. No restrictions on personal consumption of ingestible substances after legal age. Legal age is 18, for everything from consumption to voting to military service. Private property protected.

Economy: free market economic system with limited structures in place regulating business or manufacturing. Structures that would be established would be simply to protect the safety of the workers on the job site.

[mp0295]

Well for starters, No political parties. People make independent choices based on reason.
Agree with you except for head of state, I would like direct election by the people.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well for starters, No political parties. People make independent choices based on reason.
Agree with you except for head of state, I would like direct election by the people.

The founders said the exact same thing. But within a couple years the founders themselves were split by factions. The Federalists for example. You can have a parliamentary type system with multiple candidates running for the same office but once in the legislature they will eventually form factions with others who share their opinion. Those factions will be comes parties that organize candidates running for office. There will always be parties in any type of political system involving a legislature.

Direct elections only work for presidential elections because they are follower by more people than legislature elections. Even then around half of registered voters actually vote to begin with. So I agree with direct election but maybe not for everyone. This however is a difficult issue. The founders were worried about direct election and so created the electoral college and made the senate appointed by state legislatures. However, what happen in 2001 was prob never envisioned by the founders. Bush got less popular votes and as it turns out less votes by electoral college but before the final votes were tallied the supreme court ruled he won. For the president I would argue direct election.

[CiviC]

Any atempt to make a perfect state and society will lead us to totalitarism, and totalitarism is the most imperfect system of all.

Plato's "perfect" society is a nightmare in my opinion.

[The Dude]

My ideal state would indeed be an altruistic dictatorship with a philosopher king at its head.

Yes, ideal. As in, "like an idea" in Plato's definition. And therefore inherently impossible because any sort of attempt to replicate an idea in the physical world inherently leads to a flawed product.

Not that Plato's theory of forms/ideas was entirely flawless either, but I'm sure the idea of his theory was.

[RomanSoldier9001]

Any atempt to make a perfect state and society will lead us to totalitarism, and totalitarism is the most imperfect system of all.

Plato's "perfect" society is a nightmare in my opinion.

EH is not bad.

The perfect state cannot exist, because the state is merely the reflection if an imperfect society. Good men need no government. Then again, if man is evil, then government is the worst possible thing you could have. In both a perfect and an imperfect world, the state shouldn't exist.

Withoud goverment and law and order we would erupt to Chaos no modern society exists withoud state. Even Tribes have Hierchy.

[Enemy of the State]

Well, if that government is best which governs least, then the perfect government is that which governs not at all.

[DarkArk]

then the perfect government is that which governs not at all.

And in the power vacuum left by not having a government, something else will take its place. But then that new body will not be held accountable to the people.

Benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, the problem becomes keeping it benevolent.

[CiviC]

Benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, the problem becomes keeping it benevolent.

There is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[The Dude]

There is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That's why we call it an ideal government. Ideal, "as an idea".

[Plant]

There is no such thing as benevolent dictatorship. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Well the benevolent dictorships in Europe did rather well and their Monarchs are usually regarded as fine leaders, seeing as they followed the ideals of enlightened absolutionism. Last time I looked Singapore, and Hong Kong (well strictly speaking not after 1997) was doing really well as well. Of course the real problem with the OP is that he doesn't define what he means by "Perfect".

Only an omniscient being with omnipotence and a doctrine based on a balance of individual and total good could act as a perfect leader.
We call this theoretical leader "Enel."
Man is not all knowing or all powerful and we naturally put ourselves before the individual and utilitarian good.
Thus mankind is not fit to rule itself.

You will have to describe why omnipotence is needed, why balance of individual and total good is needed as a doctrine, and why a perfect leader is needed to be fit to rule.

But firstly you will have to describe the link towards why being fit to rule means you must be "a perfect leader".

Nice words, but unfortunately missing the links in between the statements.

Edit: Also the second statement is pointless. Clarity will be enabled by removing it.

[Col. Tartleton]

Well the benevolent dictorships in Europe did rather well and their Monarchs are usually regarded as fine leaders, seeing as they followed the ideals of enlightened absolutionism. Last time I looked Singapore was doing really well as well.


You will have to describe why omnipotence is needed, why balance of individual and total good is needed as a doctrine, and why a perfect leader is needed to be fit to rule.

But firstly you will have to describe the link towards why being fit to rule means you must be "a perfect leader".

Nice words, but unfortunately missing the links in between the statements.

Edit: Also the second statement is pointless. Clarity will be enabled by removing it.

We're talking about ideal. Always knowing all the information is the only way to make the correct decisions every time. Having the power to enforce them is the only way to make it relevant. Rule by mankind will never be ideal.

If I'm talking approximations, I'd want a dictatorship by a person who always tries to do those things. Know the problems and find the solutions so that the whole prospers but individuals are not marginalized in the name of a greater good.

[Plant]

All of this discussion about the "ideal government"! But no-one has described what they are looking for in a society as an ideal. Is it military, or economic prowess? Or freedoms and liberty and equality? Or education, crime-free or lack of poverty? Are you looking for people to be subverted to the government, of the government subverted to the state?

We're talking about ideal. Always knowing all the information is the only way to make the correct decisions every time. Having the power to enforce them is the only way to make it relevant. Rule by mankind will never be ideal.

If I'm talking approximations, I'd want a dictatorship by a person who always tries to do those things. Know the problems and find the solutions so that the whole prospers but individuals are not marginalized in the name of a greater good.

Ah yes, I suppose I'll have to look into your statements with talking about the ideal in mind. However you haven't described why being a perfect leader is a requirement to be "fit to rule".

That's exactly the problem, it's based on math. Human interaction is far too complex to explain with math. This is the fault with mainstream economics today.

It's almost impossible to predict the interaction of one human or company, but taken as a group, statistcally, it is possible to predict the motions of the entirety. You don't really think that modern sociology and economics got it all wrong do you?

[Enemy of the State]

The perfect state cannot exist, because the state is merely the reflection if an imperfect society. Good men need no government. Then again, if man is evil, then government is the worst possible thing you could have. In both a perfect and an imperfect world, the state shouldn't exist.

[Theseus1234]

The perfect state cannot exist, because the state is merely the reflection if an imperfect society. Good men need no government. Then again, if man is evil, then government is the worst possible thing you could have. In both a perfect and an imperfect world, the state shouldn't exist.

The idea of no government will never exist in practicality. People will form groups and small communities and establish some sort of higher authority. It's why we have this idea in government in the first place. People as a group were never meant to live like that.

The best government IMO would be a benevolent dictatorship ruled by me. Don't say absolute power corrupts absolutely since recent dictators have all been loonies.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

It will primarly consist of dancing like this:



One giant rave.

[Exarch]

yep
1) the Imperium in WH:40k which strangely resembles modern PRC
the 9 members of the Standing commitee of the politburo are analogous to the High Lords of Terra

[hellheaven1987]

yep
1) the Imperium in WH:40k which strangely resembles modern PRC
the 9 members of the Standing commitee of the politburo are analogous to the High Lords of Terra

Well, the High Lords, in reality, control nothing.

[Exarch]

Well, the High Lords, in reality, control nothing.

indeed,
Tzeentch controls all

even Khorne...your mighty blood god,
it's not too late, hellheaven

[hellheaven1987]

indeed,
Tzeentch controls all

even Khorne...your mighty blood god,
it's not too late, hellheaven

Tzeentch did not control everything, but it does own the device that create everything in universe despite Tzeentch itself has no idea how to control that device.

Not to mention Deceiver and Laughin God constantly trying to ditch Tzeentch for the title of "Just as Plan" champion.