Re: Anarchotopia (Was: Re: Justice and Punishment)

den Otter (
Sun, 5 Apr 1998 02:32:35 +0200

> From: Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <>

> > From: "den Otter" <>
> > > From: Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <>
> >
> > > A perfect social or political system, in all systems I have examined,
> > > requires perfect people in some quantity -- dictatorship being the
> > > best in this regard because it requires the fewest perfect people,
> > > and anarchy among the worst because it requires that the overwhelming
> > > majority -- possibly everyone -- be perfect. In this part of the
> > > world, perfect people are a rather scarce item, and what I read in
> > > the newspapers doesn't tell me that this is a strictly local
> > > shortage.
> > >
> > > Imperfect anarchy is unstable, and seems likely to quickly collapse
> > > into tribal warlordism, and then later into dictatorship or
> > > hereditary monarchy.
> >
> > Yes, exactly! I couldn't agree more. From a purely rational point of view
> > a "dictatorship" or oligargy based on enlightened principles (as discussed
> > earlier) would be the most preferable form of government. There is a
> > reasonable possibility to pick the right people to rule a country (there
> > have been benevolent emperors in the past, I belief for ex. the Romans had
> > a few),
> The first four or five Roman emperors were childless. They each took
> the same approach to choosing a successor, which was:
> (1) appoint apparently-good people to be provincial governors
> (2) any who proved incompetent, fire and give somebody else a chance
> (3) after a while, bring home the best provincial governor and adopt
> him.
> The first Emperor was apparently a good one, along with all who were
> chosen by this method.
> Eventually they got an Emperor who had kids. His eldest son was his
> successor and was more than a bit of a jerk. This set the tradition:
> almost every Emperor who inherited the throne from his biological
> father was worse than his predecessor; almost every Emperor who did
> *not* was *better* than his predecessor; almost every chosen-Emperor
> who chosen by a chosen-Emperor was pretty decent.
> The catch is that the dictator, by definition, has the right to
> either change the rules of succession, or choose
> anyone he likes; and, if he's at all a decent father, will want to
> provide well for his kids. This means...

...that we need immortal emperors without a childwish(*)? Or a system
where the emperor may change all laws except certain fundamental
ones (a sort of constitutional monarchy?) including the the law that
forbids emperors from having children. Who checks? A supreme court
maybe, or some other institution of special guardians with security
forces to back them up. Preferably three or more of such institutions to
provide a balance. Or the emperor would have to have his nads removed
before being allowed into office :-)

Oh yes, now I happen to think of it: any system would only have to last
about a hundred years or so, 'cause by then things will be changed
beyond recognition anyway, for better or for worse. So I guess the emperor
system could work quite well since you'll need only 3 or so, maybe even
less with life extension and all.

(*)Or the emperor would have to have his nads removed before being allowed
into office :-)