mordicai caeli (mordicai) wrote,
mordicai caeli

  • Mood:
  • Music:
you know, i've sort of slowly caught myself up in this wave of admiration for samurai. i should explain that by samurai i don't mean actually historical samurai, but rather the kind of archetype of what a samurai could be, should be; a representative figure rather than a historical one. really, thinking about government always leads me down a similar road, so i shouldn't be surprised. i mean, i have a hard time considering a governmental system that doesn't have an aristocracy. how fluid a definition for aristocracy you have might lead to a semantic argument, but lets assume that again, i mean the word as a stand-in for "ruling elite." i certainly think true direct democracy would be a stunning failure; i have never seen anything to incline me to the opinion that as a group humans are capable of self government. rather, i've seen quite the contrary. this leads to a great deal of disenfranchisement with democracy over-all, as well as corporations (a more truer democratic model, i don't know of). clearly a hereditary system is deeply flawed as well, despite the stop-gap measures of training & duty, you still are essentially electing at random. a lot of systems have been smart variations of these themes- the roman heredity-by-adoption system is somewhat admirable, & the american system of republic is conceptually a good kludge of pragmatics with idealism. still...not complete systems, instead, deeply flawed. america is really a hereditary plutocracy, existing with a mandate from the masses. i think clipping the strings of that plutocracy with "absurd" inheritance taxing is probably a good idea, but also sort of opens the door to corporate neofeudalism. i don't have a solution for corporations, yet. man, those are some tricky darwinian constructs. i think there is a good chance that interconnection of information may spell their eventual downfall, but we'll see.

what it comes down to is selection of aristocracy, i figure. which is difficult to actually consider, because the temptation is there to just wave a magic stick in the air. "choose on merit!" yeah, that is a fantastic idea, except for being a totally meaningless statement. i would like a system that developed an understanding of the attributes of government, but even then i would mistrust any test of them. aasimov's psychohistory is a mcguffin, & an alluring one, but you can't just push the buck to it. well, you can, if you are writing a book. i think about psychohistory sometimes; it is essentially the government style in a lot of distopian novels too, right? i like it, but that is the allure of a macguffin; it solves your problem in one fell swoop. the best compromise i could come up with? ideology. ruthless ideology encodes whatever values you choose in your meme-government, allowing for diversity (a must in an ecosystem, especially an intellectual one) while establishing loyalty & commonality. & the exemplars of that ideology, those who sacrifice personal & individual liberty for it, rise to govern. this is sort of the system exposed by a lot of religions, & i got to tell you, maybe secular religion needs to have its day on the stage of the state. the french revolution had a lot of good things to say in that direction.
Tags: government, ideology, samurai
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.