Laws, Aristocracies, or Kings?

[BladeRunner]

So here are three ways you can run something. You can have a group of people who judge what is best (aristocracy). Or you can have one man who can judge what is best (king). Or you can have laws that judge what is best.

Here's something interesting I've noticed.

Ok I was in a chat room. The chat room included all 3 types of governments. There's a guy who runs the chat room, the king. There are MODs who can use the power of the king. And then there's a robot that merely does what the laws say for it to do, all automatically.

So, there's like 20 mods in this chat. Now the mods, they abuse their power all the time. They ban people because they hate those people, instead of banning them because those people broke the laws. They silence the people all the time for saying things they don't like. They clear the chat to interrupt the chat. It's generally mod abuse after mod abuse.

Now the king, he's actually a pretty cool guy. He generally lets the people do what they wish, and only really uses any of the rules against them when they've broken his laws and have been really horrible. He never abuses his power.

But, if the king were as terrible as the mods, the chat room would be even worse because he has total power. Luckily, he's a benevolent dictator!

And then the robot is the fairest of them all. It merely makes everyone adhere to the proper rules of the chat. It can't abuse its power. It treats everyone equally and impartially. You wouldn't even know it's there except that it pops up every once in awhile merely to enforce rules.

--------------------------------------------------------

So anyway, this is what I've learned from studying how people act in this chat.

The aristocracy is the worst form of government. The laws are conflicting, because every MOD has a different view on what the laws should be. And also, the mods abuse their power all the time for various reasons. It's just a terrible government to have to be under. You never know who you're going to piss off or whose toes you're going to step on, so it makes it hard to say anything in the chat.

The next best form of government is the king. Now the good thing about the King is, there's only one law, his law. It's not many conflicting laws from many different people. But, because he's got so much power, the even slight abuses he might do are even larger and more catastrophic.

And finally, the best government is the robot. The robot is always fair and enforces the rules it's told to. It's completely lawful and completely keeps order. It never abuses anything and never treats anyone worse or better than anyone else. It's the laws themselves with no personal judgement or capriciousness.

So, from studying the differing types of government in action, it would appear that a government of laws is best.

 

[Razor]

The King's form of government is only okay when the King is a benevolent ruler. If the King is a dictator, ala Julius Ceaser or Nero of Rome, then the rule of a King is even worse than the rule of Aristocrats.

The rule of Aristocrats if better, because then you have a higher chance of rolling a few Aristocrats that can fight for the good of the Land. However, when you have a bunch of dictators, ala Athenian Aristocracy around the time of the Peloponessian Wars, then you have a problem. A problem that many would see as worse than the Rule of a Evil Dictator King.

However, the rule of Law is uniform and just. Sure, that's fine. But what happens when the people in charge of the Laws are just as corrupt as the evil Aristocrats? That's what we have now. If it's not the Republicans stripping rights away for no reason with the PATRIOT Act, then it's people like the radical Pelosi standing upon their mountain of Power and looking down at us lowly mortals as nothing more than bugs to be squashed.

The Rule of Law is hindered by the inevitable need for a group of Aristocrats to oversee that Law. Now, if you can make robots that can automatically enforce the law, then it would be super fair. But what about necessary lenience? A mentally ******ed person who doesn't know what he's doing shouldn't be shot dead for robbing a person, a mental ill person who has blacked out shouldn't be put to death for killing someone when he has no control over his actions.

Humans, in this case, are the necessary evil of the Justice System.

 

[BladeRunner]

The Rule of Law is hindered by the inevitable need for a group of Aristocrats to oversee that Law. Now, if you can make robots that can automatically enforce the law, then it would be super fair. But what about necessary lenience? A mentally ******ed person who doesn't know what he's doing shouldn't be shot dead for robbing a person, a mental ill person who has blacked out shouldn't be put to death for killing someone when he has no control over his actions.

Yes, it would seem to me that inevitably juries are needed when things are called into question. And I agree, each case should be judged individually and accordingly.

I'm not saying a robot should run laws. I'm saying the robot in that particular instance was the laws directly. But that isn't possible in reality, or should I say, it would be possible but very imprecise and imperfect. Think of the "I, Robot" movie, where the motherbrain robot tries to protect everyone. Big problems ensue.

But generally, things like a constitution are a good thing to keep people from abusing the law and twisting it's meaning. A constitution that says no man is above the law, including the government itself. That's what I mean by a government of law instead of a group of individuals, or a king, saying conflicting instances of the law based on their own personal preferences and running everything.

 

[Shadowmancer]

Good to see that we are talking Artistotle on this forum. In which he descibes that there is 3 types of leadership, Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy which is what you are effectively talking about. Both have good and bad, Monarchy is good, Tyrannos however is not. Aristocracy is good, Oligarchy is not. Democracy is actually the bad one according to Aristotle. Because it leads to the minority making decisions for the majority.

This also happens in cycles. A good Monarch is in power, either his son or his grandson is a Tyrannos and is overthrown by the aristocracy, this aristocracy is great for a while and then an oligarchy is formed, this gets overthrown by the people and they set up a good democracy, this then dissolves into Aristotles' Democracy, requiring a leader to take the reigns and put the state back on track and the cycle starts all over again.

However there is also the works of Machiavelli to take into account, most specifically "The Prince" which talks about the rule of one man as the ruler of a state and how he should do it.

There is more I could talk about but it is late and I can't really be bothered looking through stuff for quotes from Machiavelli, Aristotle, Plato, Marx and Engels, Burke or Voltaire. Though there are some names to look through for ideas on where to lead the discussion.

 

[ABMorales787]

They all have their flaws. Hell, anarchy sometimes seems like a way to go, but of course it has mayor flaws. People can't think alike and a "clash of the minds" will always take place. It can't be helped. Placing order always creates disorder somewhere. However if good people take charge, order always has the advantage. However you never know if the person is just acting good to get what he/she wants. They're all double-edged knifes.

 

[Tastycles]

The problem with any system of government is that humans are inherently flawed. Communism and anarchy will never work, because people are selfish and self-supporting. People talk about the MPs expenses a lot in this country, but I don't know anyone that could honestly say that they would turn down free money that they were entitled to. I'd like to see the expenses of the tabloid journalists who are fueling this fire.

A monarchy only works if you have a virtuous leader, and a brief history of English kings will tell you that they are few and far between. An aristocracy suffers from the problems mentioned previouslt. I'd disagree with the Aristotelian reason for why a democracy doesn't work, but I'd add my own problems. Firstly, some people are too stupid to be trusted to vote. People can be manipulated and as a result we could get some horrendous results. The second is that nothing would ever get done in a true democracy as there are too many viewpoints.

Now, for me, the only system that theoretically works is a meritocracy. People who succeed do so on the basis of their own acheivements, and that is what the robot is doing. However, who would set those levels? Answer that question without resorting to one of the other systems and you have solved all the problems of governance the world has ever faced.