Response to "Collectivism V. Individualism"

Joshua posted this question in his blog: "What does the world need for it to better itself a philosopher-king or a sage?"

My answer is neither. This whole "ideal" person as a ruler thing probably wouldn't work in our world. I think that sages are too moral to function well in politics and philosopher-kings would probably just look down on everyone. Some would say that if we made reforms in politics so that it was less manipulative then we could have a sage as a leader. I say that while this seems like a great idea, it's probably a bit too Utopian to actually work. I think the only way to better ourselves is to realize that we're all human, and that by definition we are all imperfect beings. We don't need someone who has already transcended their own humanity to lead us. I think that we need a leader very much aware of their own flaws that it willing to work toward being better with the people of society. Working together is the only way that we're ever going to make any progress. If you take the head of society out of that equation it makes it more difficult to foster national or global connectivity, thus eventually pitting us against one another and undermining the process entirely. Perhaps once we reach moral perfection or supreme intelligence as a whole we can have a sage or a philosopher king as a ruler, but then being a sage or a philosopher-king would be pointless because everyone would be. Essentially, I believe that the best way to be governed is by someone who is at least somewhat our equal.

Money doesn't buy happiness?

I couldn't resist. Fast forward to 1:35.

"Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains."

In our review of what Plato thought of the Utopian society a comment was raised regarding whether or not democracy places power in the wrong hands. Plato thinks that democracy absolutely places power in the wrong hands. He would argue that common people, most of whom are only moderately educated at best, cannot know what is best for society. My first reaction as an American is to say NO! I absolutely want a say in my government! Then that leads me to question what determines if we fall under the "common" umbrella or not. For the most part, when we think of common America we think of the middle class. This is a monetary measure of commonness. Of course, money and social standing effect the ways in which we think and act, like it or not. There are exceptions to that rule, but for the sake of keeping this blog fairly short I'll leave those out. So, in assuming that the middle class is the only criteria for the "common" people, it must be noted that the middle class offers a wide range of educated people. Can this diverse group make decisions that impact everyone in society? In my opinion, they are the only people that can effectively make decisions for society.
To answer the question, I do not think that democracy, at least not representative democracy, places power in the wrong hands. If we handed power to an educated elite, it may be difficult for them to understand the plights of the middle and lower classes, thus hindering their ability to rule. On the other side of the argument, if power were placed in the hands of the lower classes it may be impossible to pass more intricate laws. It is arguable that if power were in the hands of the lower classes that there would be more equality, as I'm sure Marx would agree. But we have seen, with the fall of the Soviet Union and with communist China now looking beyond Marx's theory, that complete equality comes at a heavy price. It sounds like a terrible thing to say, but a well functioning state appears to have need of some inequality to effectively function. In my opinion, the best way to ensure some equality and the efficiency of the state is to place power in the hands of the middle classes, the way that representative democracy often does.


Question: Based on your personal view of human nature, will it ever be possible to have complete equality in a state? Why or why not?