Dear Friends,
It seems to me, nature appears to have given us four choices… all political, economic and coercive power in the hands of one, a very few, or distributed among all the people. Each system has its benefits and costs. Aristotle said, in his Nicomachean Ethics, that there are three right forms of government. Monarchy, aristocracy and polity. In monarchy all power is invested in one person. In aristocracy power is given to a cadre of elites. Finally, in polity, power is distributed to all the people. He went on to say that there are three wrong forms, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. “Wrong” because those with power use it to serve themselves. He said the ideal is a republic. Blending the three right forms. A pragmatic look at the results of each, will give us an idea what we should seek, for us and our posterity.
Under kings there was little economic, intellectual or technological growth. Someone born in Bronze age Mesopotamia who was transported to 1400 AD, would have little culture shock. Since there was almost no innovation in that 2000 years. Iron would be amazing but was on the horizon in his time. Grain mills may or may not be an innovation to him. Otherwise, horses would still be the primary source of transportation, houses would be roofed with thatch, looms would still be hand powered and ceramics would be a primary form of cookware. While individual kings may have delivered a relatively high standard of living. History shows that monarchy, let alone tyranny, delivered stagnation at best and collapse at worse. Exposing the weakness of monarchy and tyranny as forms of government.
Rule by philosopher kings has been a ideal since Plato wrote his Republic. Today that ideal is being addressed by the expert managerial class. They consider themselves to be the philosopher kings Socrates was so enamored with. Bureaucrats, NGOs and think tanks are our aristocrats… or oligarchy. Depending on what they do. The history of rule by an elite class isn’t as rosy as that of monarchy. Every incarnation of elitist rule has resulted in disaster. Delivering human suffering on an industrial scale. Which is quite impressive. The French Revolution brought rivers of blood, Bolsheviks greased their politics with the inwards of Mensheviks, as the CCP starved tens of millions. The suffering goes on today in North Korea and Islamist countries. Idealists make the best oligarchs.
Polity is non existent and hasn’t really ever existed. Democracy is the closest thing to it. Rule of the majority over the minority. As a system democracy hasn’t done that great a job. Since the minority is oppressed. While democracy has brought in atrocities, it hasn’t fostered innovation, technology or moral enlightenment. Socrates was executed because it was the unjust will of the majority. Democracy then is mob rule. Then there’s a republic. Blending of monarchy, aristocracy and polity into a self correcting form of government. The Enlightenment saw the innovation of constitutions. A means to legalize and control the rule of men over men. Since then, while there have been a myriad of governments that failed, innovation, science and technology have flourished.
The improvements in the lot of Man since the Enlightenment have been nothing but astonishing. Take a woman from 1400, move her to today, and she would be shell shocked. So much has changed. From indoor bathrooms, to central heating, our way of living isn’t even imaginable to her. Because of the rapid innovation that came with limitation, legalization and self correcting government. Each republic failed due to the elite falling away from the societal myth and exceeding their constitutional authority. They became idealists who thought their constitution a burden on their plans to improve the lot of Man. Foisted on us by force if necessary. Which suggests that limited republics a blending of monarchy, aristocracy and polity, and limited by constitution, though not perfect… give us the best results.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
