Welcome to Gaia! ::

Perfectly fine.
Most people are idiots and have know idea about what would be best for themselves.

Philosophers are the seekers of truth about everything.
Aren't the people who know or are at least trying to know everything the best people to rule?

If you don't know the truth about something how can you make a good judgement about it?

Well, let me be the first to disagree.

An elite group of people (be they Philosopher-Kings or not) does not have the moral right to make decisions for others. Neither does a majority of citizens in a democracy.

The only just government is one that is strictly limited to protecting the natural rights of its citizens, who have delegated their right of self-defense to the government in order to facilitate a society based on the rule of objective law.

I'm having trouble seeing how that applies. Do you mean direct democracy is a bad idea? I would agree.



Well, I suppose you'd have to define "govern" and "infrastructure." As far as infrastructure goes, I tend to take that to mean things like roads and utility networks, both of which are capable of being built without government.



That's a good ethical principle, but not one that I would codify into law. The functions of government that I deem justifiable are: a military, to protect us from foreign aggressors; police, to protect us from domestic criminals; courts, to resolve disputes objectively. Anything else, in my opinion, is better accomplished through the private sector.



Working to support people who one values is not living for their sake. It's not a sacrifice to feed your kids (unless there's something seriously wrong with you). Acting to uphold one's values is living for one's own sake.

The government, in my opinion, does exist to serve the people -- but the only service that it should provide is that of protecting our rights by placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control.

Wow, really? That's a discussion for another thread for sure. If you want to create a public vs. private sector thread, I'll be more than happy to debate those points with you, but for now I'll just say that I emphatically disagree with your conclusion. I think that all of the things you mentioned are accomplished (morally and practically) better by the private sector right now than they are by government.




Well, there isn't really a theory of Objectivist law. That principle is contained in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, which is an oath people must swear to enter "Galt's Gulch."

It's an ethical principle, and while politics should be based on ethics, I don't think using the force of law to compel people to be rationally selfish is a good thing to do. Neither would any self-respecting Objectivist, Rand included.




In the context of "objective law," I mean something like this: In a state of nature (i.e., anarchy), people deal with rights violators by vigilante justice. Unfortunately, someone who has been wronged may have an inaccurate picture of who did the wronging (in the case of someone whose home has been burglarized while they were away, for example). Even if they do know, they may get carried away in exacting retribution. You can see, I'm sure, a million different ways how the subjectivity of vigilante justice could be a bad thing.

One of government's functions is to be a sort of objective referee -- the police investigate crimes, grand juries are convened to decide whether or not there's enough evidence for a particular person or persons to be prosecuted, the district attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of 12 people that the person/persons accused of the crime are guilty for them to convict, the judge is responsible for determining what evidence is admissable and what sort of sentence to mete out in the case of a guilty verdict, within guidelines set out by the legislature.

This is what I mean by placing the use of retaliatory force under objective control.



No non sequitur there; you mentioned it first. blaugh

Anyway, parents like to complain. The fact remains that a good parent values their child enough to take them to hockey practice or band lessons or what have you. It's not a sacrifice if you gain a value from it, like your kid's well-rounded development, or social development, or happiness. Of course, parents can't do everything for their child's happiness (that would create a spoiled child). Anyway, this part of the conversation would probably be better in another thread.

Ok, time to defend my favorite old elitist bat. The theory of the philosopher king is a great idea, but for somereason people don't understand the point of Plato's the republic. It was never meant to be put into action. It is a Eutopian theory. Eutopias, as opposed to utopias, are never meant to be put into action because the author knows that corruption would ensue.

To answer the question neither theory is great, scientific socialism (if plausable) would be the best theory. But the best pragmatic form of government is a close tie between a constitutional monarchy, and a democratic republic. So for the sake of the question I'm all for mixing Mills, Plato, and Marx into a nice blender, hit puree and then bake at 350 for 300 years.

I have found something to refute my own saying! Aristotle said that they who wear the shoe feel best where it pinches. Which is an excellent point, if I do say so myself! whee

Are they? It seems to me to be otherwise; in the USA, at least, anyone can be trained for any job. I know in some places a student takes a test, and, depending on their score, they go to college or learn a trade. I don't know if that is what you mean, but the only educational system that I know (and therefore can talk about), the American educational system, seems to run contrary to Plato's beliefs.