Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Who should rule? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Who should rule?
    Whoever gets the most votes
    3
    33.33%
    The person that is most skilled at their job, regardless of votes
    6
    66.67%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I covered this in one of my modules at university this year, but I was wondering what you all think? And to think of it, it concerns a lot of the things that are happening today!

    So pretend there is 10 positions up for grabs to rule the country. One for education, health etc. basically what we have today.

    Should the person that receives the most votes be placed in charge, like the democratic voting we have today, even though the public may not be in the best position to do so?

    or

    Should the person that has been verified by other 'smart' people be placed in charge, because they are the best for that job?

    (I suppose this is essentially Democracy vs Dictatorship)

    Another question for you: Is it acceptable for the public to be lied to, if it is in the interest of national security?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Me of course, I'd make an excellent ruler. All the female politicians will flock to me.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    I'm not really a big fan of democracy. It's like Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

    Aristotle suggested the idea that the best flutes should go to the best flute players, or in this case, the top jobs to the people most capable of doing them. That makes perfect sense to me - the only thing is we don't have any means of measuring who makes the best decisions. I mean, if we knew what the best decisions were, then by definition we'd be just as capable ourselves. Plato also suggested we should be ruled by 'philosopher kings' in a benevolent dictatorship, but the question is where to find them.

    How to choose a leader is a very difficult problem. It's testament to that that the best means of selecting a leader we have is by design only able to achieve average decision-making capability. With that being the best we can do, I think we can only really expect hit and miss results with our leaders.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I'm not really a big fan of democracy. It's like Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

    Aristotle suggested the idea that the best flutes should go to the best flute players, or in this case, the top jobs to the people most capable of doing them. That makes perfect sense to me - the only thing is we don't have any means of measuring who makes the best decisions. I mean, if we knew what the best decisions were, then by definition we'd be just as capable ourselves. Plato also suggested we should be ruled by 'philosopher kings' in a benevolent dictatorship, but the question is where to find them.

    How to choose a leader is a very difficult problem. It's testament to that that the best means of selecting a leader we have is by design only able to achieve average decision-making capability. With that being the best we can do, I think we can only really expect hit and miss results with our leaders.
    This is essentially what I learnt in my module Glad to see someone knows what I was going on about, I could of explained it a bit better admittedly!

    I learnt about it in a Philosophy and Politics in the Middle East module and they followed the teachings of Aristotle and Plato to some extent. But they believed that instead of the King being at the top, it was the Prophet. But obviously you have the problem of there only being one prophet after Muhammad.

    Was very interesting, but for a first timer in Philosophy it was a bit of a headache!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Generally, people base their vote on whether or not the person is skilled as well as what policies they have, what political party they are in, if the politician is reliable or not. This then leads to whether or not the politician gets the most amount of votes for them to then become PM.

    I think it should be a mix of both, possibly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    Generally, people base their vote on whether or not the person is skilled as well as what policies they have, what political party they are in, if the politician is reliable or not. This then leads to whether or not the politician gets the most amount of votes for them to then become PM.

    I think it should be a mix of both, possibly.
    Yeah that's a good answer. It's probably quite hard to apply something like this to modern politics.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PugDevil)
    Yeah that's a good answer. It's probably quite hard to apply something like this to modern politics.
    Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps? He's very experienced as he was in parliament since 1983(during Maggy T's era) and people generally young people love him because they see him following traditional Labour principles which automatically think he will be the change of the Labour party and politics overall.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Defraction)
    Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps? He's very experienced as he was in parliament since 1983(during Maggy T's era) and people generally young people love him because they see him following traditional Labour principles which automatically think he will be the change of the Labour party and politics overall.
    It could work, maybe when the party isn't so divisive and if he manages to emerge from the leadership battle, we could see him become Prime Minister. We shall see!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PugDevil)
    I covered this in one of my modules at university this year, but I was wondering what you all think? And to think of it, it concerns a lot of the things that are happening today!

    So pretend there is 10 positions up for grabs to rule the country. One for education, health etc. basically what we have today.

    Should the person that receives the most votes be placed in charge, like the democratic voting we have today, even though the public may not be in the best position to do so?

    or

    Should the person that has been verified by other 'smart' people be placed in charge, because they are the best for that job?

    (I suppose this is essentially Democracy vs Dictatorship)

    Another question for you: Is it acceptable for the public to be lied to, if it is in the interest of national security?
    Out of the two options you've given, I would pick the second one. People in my country (of origin) have an uncanny knack of voting in corrupt individuals again and again. So I don't really care about who gets the most votes

    I don't have an answer for your second question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PugDevil)
    I covered this in one of my modules at university this year, but I was wondering what you all think? And to think of it, it concerns a lot of the things that are happening today!

    So pretend there is 10 positions up for grabs to rule the country. One for education, health etc. basically what we have today.

    Should the person that receives the most votes be placed in charge, like the democratic voting we have today, even though the public may not be in the best position to do so?

    or

    Should the person that has been verified by other 'smart' people be placed in charge, because they are the best for that job?

    (I suppose this is essentially Democracy vs Dictatorship)

    Another question for you: Is it acceptable for the public to be lied to, if it is in the interest of national security?
    Democracy should be tempered with Meritocracy else you will end up with the blind leading the blind.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by PugDevil)
    This is essentially what I learnt in my module Glad to see someone knows what I was going on about, I could of explained it a bit better admittedly!

    I learnt about it in a Philosophy and Politics in the Middle East module and they followed the teachings of Aristotle and Plato to some extent. But they believed that instead of the King being at the top, it was the Prophet. But obviously you have the problem of there only being one prophet after Muhammad.

    Was very interesting, but for a first timer in Philosophy it was a bit of a headache!
    Sounds like it got you thinking.

    I don't expect we'll come up with any better answers to these questions before the advent of artificial superintelligence, at which point I expect societies will begin to leverage that to determine good policy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    2nd one. Only the person who is qualify to run should rule. That's just me, though.
    Depends what the lie is...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.