Thoughts

[will_to_power37]

I have been pondering something interesting as of late. It never occurred to me until recently to research the philosophy of the commonwealth until I realized how many great philosophers, Muggle and wizard alike, that touch on the subject. What amazes me is how many of them seem to say the same thing, which is that the best government is one under

Comments

[flaming_lion]

I didn't say our government reflected what they believed in, only that the current definition of democracy was closer to the ideal government they envisaged than to the previous definition of the term.

I think our government is far from ideal. But I think this because I do not think the minister truly represents the people, and I think he has too much personal power, as I think do all the senior persons in the ministry. I think our system lends itself far too easily to corruption and even when it does not it acts at a remove from the populace to such an extent that I fail to see how its members can understand and meet their needs. I think the philosophers in question were talking about a hypothetical in which a truly good man exists and can, more importantly be identified by observation. Without such a man and the power to identify them their systems become tyranny in spirit as well as in format. Even if such a man is good and remains uncorrupted no man is perfect and he will make errors in judgement, and this is why there needs to be checks on his power. I believe in muggle democracy. By the modern usage of the term.

[will_to_power37]

I cannot assume to be an expert on the modern democracy, but does it not seem to be currently experiencing the same problems that our own system of government is confronting, that is that leans more toward oligarchy, resting on the ignorance of the masses and the money of the few?
I must disagree with you that most of the philosophers in question believed themselves to be the man that could rule with excellency. Even Cicero believed that Rome had its share of a series of perfect monarchs. I do not find it merely ideal at all, but a reality that should be reevaluated by our society. I believe we are simply too afraid to admit that others are far superior to ourselves and would rather accept the delusion that all are corrupt and none rule well. But, I do believe this type of thinking errs on discussions we've had before.

[flaming_lion]

Some governments are. Muggle America seems to be having all sort of exciting problems related to both tyranny and oligarchy and the British parliament does not seem to be doing much better. I am not actually opposed to oligarchy though, I think it can serve the people well, and I have little faith in the lone magnanimous man. I also think that any man who truly thinks he could be that man, with no checks imposed on his power may be sincerely dangerous and ought to be kept from power.

I believe in proportional representation. Its a form of oligarchy where instead of being ruled by the dominant party a number of seats are assigned proportionally out a finite and pre selected number by vote percentage. They are then ruled by commitee and by vote and it can be very effective. They act as checks and balances on each other. This is currently in use in several of the quieter muggle countries and it has a bit of a bad reputation internationally because it was this government in muggle Germany that lead to their second world war. I forget, do you know about that? But anyway, this perception that this style of government was at fault is actually flawed as it was the emergency clause that really did it; they made it so that in emergency situations one man could take over and rule in the fashion your philosophers described.

I do not think it is a delusion, rather I think it practicality. I think all men are tempted, that they can rule well but that pressure or temptation will cause them all the fall in the end. I also believe that we rule best with guidance and other opinions to temper our own. I do not think all men are corrupt but that they are human. I believe in human fallability. And even if I did not I would not think it responsible to raise one man to such a peak of power no matter how perfect he may seem because we cannot truly look into the hearts of men, and we do not know what lies there.

[will_to_power37]

I am not sure what to think of oligarchy. Seems to me almost good but not quite good enough. I am not sure as much gets done when there is more than one person in charge. Still, how would you define a minority in your system? Based off of ethnicities? Magic usage? Pureness of blood? Opinions? Gender? What exactly does that mean because to represent each minority could be as complicated as having each man be his own representative. What standard would you set?
It is funny that you bring up Muggle Germany for I am very much aware of that, but my opinions on the matter I prefer to keep to myself seeing as I do not think you would appreciate them.
Well, by that definition of mankind, why trust anyone with power at all? Why not live in anarchy and chaos?

((ooc: *COUGH COUGH*))

[flaming_lion]

Ah I don't mean that each minority should be represented by a percentage of their members, rather that each political party should have members proportionate to the number of votes recieved.

You do not trust people with power. You trust the system and the checks put in place and you always have someone to watch the watchman. Always. Anarchy is basically the same as tyranny in that the strongest and most base woul impose their tyranny upon those incapable of defending themselves.

[will_to_power37]

But how do you ensure that the checks themselves do not become corrupted as in Muggle America where each have an agenda of their own? And, in fact, how do you ensure the checks do not get in the way of appropriate and emergency measures that a country may need to take? Simpler to me is the monarchy by far!

[flaming_lion]

Simpler does not mean better. The system is imperfect, which is why there has to be a capacity for the people to challenge it. It is not infallible, but nothing can be, and that is no reason to give up and succumb, which in this case switching over to monarchy would be so doing.

((Mun has a migraine so this is coming out garbled, can we please pretend it is more coherent?)

[will_to_power37]

I hardly see monarchy as giving up and succumbing. On the contrary, I see giving in to lesser forms of government as doing such.

((lol, sure. XD))

[flaming_lion]

I am aware of your opinions on monarchy, but to switch to monarchy because we cannot find a perfect form of government that adresses the problems monarchy presents would be giving up. It would be saying we cannot be perfect, so we there is no point in being.

[will_to_power37]

I don't believe we should switch to monarchy because there is no perfect government, rather, I think monarchy is the most perfect system we have provided we find the right ruler.

((ooc: *cough* like me *cough*))

[flaming_lion]

Yes I know you believe that, but I was refuting the argument you presented about how we cannot perfect the safeguards against abuse of the system in other forms of government and why this alone was not reason to convert me to your perspective.

[will_to_power37]

Of course it isn't, just as you pointing out the flaws in my system isn't enough to turn me to yours! Are we old men so set in our ways? Oh, but it is entertaining at least to sharpen our ideas against each other.