So...here's my line of thinking, as purely logical as possible.
The best possible world is desirable, and therefore should be worked towards in all respects.
One aspect of the best possible world is that is has only the best possible rulers.
Therefore we should attempt to put only the best possible rulers in power.
The best possible ruler makes the life of their subjects the best possible life.
To do this, the best possible ruler must have two qualities. They must have the best interests of their subject(s) at heart, and they must understand their subject(s) enough to know what those interests are in any given scenario. If they have both these things, they will give their subjects the best possible life.
The first requirement is simple enough, but the second is the truly difficult part. It may be impossible for a ruler to truly understand subjects that are entirely different from them, but we'll forget that for the moment and come back to it later.
In any event, the best possible ruler has the best possible understanding of their subject(s)
It takes time for a ruler to increase and maintain their understanding of their subjects.
There is finite time in the day.
Therefore the best possible ruler has the fewest number of subjects so that they can have the greatest possible understanding of each of these subjects.
If the population remains the same but the number of subjects per ruler decreases, the number of rulers must increase.
It is therefore desirable to have as few subjects as possible and as many rulers as possible, as this will result in the best possible rulers.
The fewest number of subjects is one, and the greatest number of rulers is everyone.
Therefore, everyone should be the ruler of only one subject (themselves, who they understand the best and whose best interests they must have at heart) and no one else, if we truly desire to move towards the best possible world.
What does /pol/ think?
philosophy is so fucking retarded. all that great philosophy and the greek and roman empires still fell to bread and circus politics.
gibs>logic
>write 2000 character post detailing logic and reasoning behind non-standard political views
>1 unrelated reply
>write 2 sentence shitpost about brexit/BLM/trump
>hits bump limit, discussion continues until 404
Hwy.
>>80512551
That is one aspect.
The greatest number of rulers, unfortunately, guarantees that the vast majority of the rulers are objectively bad rulers, with strongly conflicting interests in regard of all other rulers. This would not contribute to the best possible world.
>>80514711
>The greatest number of rulers, unfortunately, guarantees that the vast majority of the rulers are objectively bad rulers
>objectively bad rulers
But we've already set the conditions for good rulers, and they meet these conditions in spades. To call them bad, you must challenge those conditions already in place and suggest your own.
>>80514913
Just because rulers have subject's best interests at heart doesn't mean they have the capability to do that. For example, a population of rulers who's best interest is world domination who also lack any military training might go to war to and get wiped out. Or in a society where everyone wants to be rich and never do any work, the rulers would be incapable of making this happen. Therefore a good ruler can not be one the has everyone's best interests at heart, but one that is capable to do the most good for the majority of people.
>>80514913
So I would amend your starting conditions and add a third quality to the best possible leader. They must also have the capability to give their subjects the best possible lives.
>>80514913
>>80514913
So I would amend your starting conditions and add a third quality to the best possible leader. They must also have the capability to give their subjects the best possible lives.
>>80512551
>subjects that are entirely different from them
This is where you fuck up. All humans share a basic set of needs. These needs are the important things a leader should be exceptionally familiar with.
Not every individual will be capable of meeting these needs equally. Therefore, not every individual will have the optimal chance of surviving through his/her own abilities.
That will literally never happen except in your imagination, OP. Where there are people, there is hierarchy and social structure.
>>80515815
>They must also have the capability to give their subjects the best possible lives.
And since, depending on world view, the best possible life requires things that are in short supply in relation to the total population (all kinds of things), to ensure the best possible life to their subjects (one person) leads to less possibilities to other rulers' subjects.
All the rulers would be very competitive and selfish. The best possible world is not one where every single opinion matters. Including mine.
Yes this is what many capitalist of the 16th and 17th century wrote volumes about thank you for condensing I guess.
>>80512551
I like philosophy so I'm going to respond to this. I think you should have enumerated though, for ease of critique.
>It takes time for a ruler to increase and maintain their understanding of their subjects.
There is finite time in the day.
this is where you go wrong.
The understanding of subjects, given that we are talking about Americans, isn't pragmatic. Knowing what people face in terms of daily problems, personal, economical, or social, doesn't grant any useful knowledge.
Because:
American life is predicated by standard of living, and part of 'understanding the subjects' is understanding what defines them as a group, their culture.
I as a rule could understand the core values of our nation, and make great decisions and policy that are most desirable because they give the best possible life.
>The fewest number of subjects is one, and the greatest number of rulers is everyone.
Therefore, everyone should be the ruler of only one subject (themselves, who they understand the best and whose best interests they must have at heart) and no one else, if we truly desire to move towards the best possible world.
I like your conclusion, even if you clumsily got to the right answer, that self government is key to the best nation.
no one cares
>>80512551
add me
Having "rulers" or "placing people in power" in the strict sense that we're used to is not a good way to achieve the best possible world. When the day comes that individuals possess enough knowledge and resources to spend their time working on personal goals rather than making others rich, we won't need rulers who have central control of resources and lawmaking over a region. Wed' essentially be ancaps at that point, because those who try to rule would be shunned, and the only leadership people would request would be from charismatic authorities, not rigid or coercive authorities.
>>80512551
>Therefore, everyone should be the ruler of only one subject (themselves, who they understand the best and whose best interests they must have at heart) and no one else, if we truly desire to move towards the best possible world.
>What does /pol/ think?
I immediately declare a war of conquest on my neighbors
My cassus belli is he is a faggot and i want his stuff
>>80512744
That's kind of disappointing to think about.
>>80512551
I think that
You must get people to understand what it means in the physical world
Knowing the theory means jack shit
>>80512551
But if the understanding of the discipline X is in your mind and not is the newt ruler's mind, how can they discuss and take good decisions?
I think it's a bad idea to put a clear cut between disciplines, subjects, whatever. You're right when you say that it's difficult to attain mastery, and you're right when you say that one need to limit himself to X or Y ; but one also need a good understanding of others subjects.
zzzzzZZZZZZzzz......ZzzzzZZZZZ*snort cough ahem hmmm*...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
>>80512551
>They must have the best interests of their subject(s) at heart, and they must understand their subject(s) enough to know what those interests are in any given scenario.
In all fairness, a great mass of people are simplistic and think largely in short-term benefits, or through heavy emotivism. This can be said of most political groups. A great leader should rather be someone competent who can make the people if not look up to, then at least understand and follow him/her. In a sense, a good leader needs to know the difference between what is in the people's best interest, and what their individual interests are, so as to better (through media, presumably) make them respect their leader's authority. Think Mustapha Mond.
Imagine Best Korea, but with a competent leader, and less Orwellian.
But if we for the sake of thought go along with your idea of an ideal leader, with the addition that each leader must be competent and productive. What would you then make of destructive or incompetent individuals, who without such an addendum would cause disorder? Eugenics? Or create a group of subservient individuals deemed by their own inadequacy to be ruled by an overseer?
Without a requirement for competence, your argument is simply one for anarchy. And I hope we don't need to discus the pros and cons of a pure anarchy here.
>>80523818
>pros
>cons
>anarchy
None of the above, because anarchy is like the God Particle, it exists for a moment then immediately disappears, only to be subsequently replaced by tribalism and city states
>>80524088
Meaning OP:s suggestion would be completely moot.
>>80513953
You've literally described God.
>>80512551
>>80513953
>>80514913
>OP runs off after getting BTFO, despite complaining about no one giving him attention.
This entire concept is stupid. If people constantly looked out for their best intentions and knew how to best achieve them, we not have suicide, bums, or anyone beneath their maximum capacity. We would have no one on sites like these, all of them actively out and improving themselves.
By your logic, the 'Best' ruler would be an average Joe, but one that understood both the motivation to succeed, and the lack of motivation that exists in many hearts. Only by comprehending both sides of extremes could he hope to encompass everything that fell in between.
Anyway, following your logic, why do we have managers in companies? Oh wait, people aren't competent enough to look out for themselves. If they were, we wouldn't elect leaders and allow them to rule us, while all we did was complain about them. Humanity is 99% complainers, and 1% doers.
>>80526327
Ah leave him alone, he's not wrong, in that, to his credit, he made a lot more effort than the troll threads running rampant
>mfw retards say man is just a fatherless chicken
>>80512551
We that's not possible because autonomous decision can impact other people's life significantly.
I believe in personal autonomy but we need governance to protect the commons; land, air, sea, good.
>>80512551
the best possible world is a given
see the path of least resistence
