What's Wrong With Enlightened Autocracy?

[Raptorsin7]

What are the downsides of having the wisest person in humanity at the head of an autocratic government? Do you think this system would be superior to our current democratic forms of government?

I was just watching a video where a Canadian MP was talking about the negative impact that corporate investors have had on the affordability of homes for average Canadians, and I was thinking if this guy had authority over housing then that seems like we would have a positive evolution our politics. But this can applied to a broad range issues, there seem to be wise and conscious decisions that would have net positive benefits for most people, at the expense special interest groups with disproportionate power and influence.

Let's take Leo as an example. We can all agree he is more conscious than most of society, and so when it comes to something like housing I would bet he would can identify a conscious approach to affordability of housing in Canada. Assuming someone like Leo would accept the responsibility, how is this form of governance not superior to having every citizen vote, when most people don't have the wisdom to understand what there vote means, and how those elected will influence their lives.

[Carl-Richard]

Should people be allowed to do addictive drugs?

[Raptorsin7]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Should people be allowed to do addictive drugs?

Should people be allowed to murder?

[Yarco]

Corruption, lack of checks and balances or limits on power.

Wisest person in humanity decides they want to make themselves a dictator and they hold all the power to do it, what then? What if this wise person had a secret prejudice against a certain group and decides the best thing for society overall might be to wipe them out? Might be the wisest decision for the world but not the smartest.

How do you determine wisdom? I don't think people would accept IQ, although personally I'd be fine with Chris Langan being world dictator I think.

If we are going for the smartest and wisest, then why not AI instead of a human at all? It can make decisions better and faster, taking more into account, do more calculations, and doesn't let emotions factor in.

 

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Should people be allowed to murder?

Answer the question lol. Does your autocratic state allow people some freedoms that are potentially harmful?

[Raptorsin7]

14 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Answer the question lol. Does your autocratic state allow people some freedoms that are potentially harmful?

Lol

Don't answer my thread with tangential bull shit. And then demand answers

Edited May 13, 2022 by Raptorsin7

[Carl-Richard]

26 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Lol

Don't answer my thread with tangential bull shit. And then demand answers

Fast forward to the point: if you want to allow the people some freedoms, you would let them have a say, because freedom is about what people want, hence it's no longer autocratic.

[Raptorsin7]

6 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Fast forward to the point: if you want to allow the people some freedoms, you would let them have a say, because freedom is about what people want, hence it's no longer autocratic.

You can give people an outlet to voice their concerns and maintain an autocracy. The autocrat would choose how much say and control the average person has

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Raptorsin7 said:

You can give people an outlet to voice their concerns and maintain an autocracy. The autocrat would choose how much say and control the average person has

An autocrat ruled by democratic impulses?

[Raptorsin7]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

An autocrat ruled by democratic impulses?

No it would autocratic rule by truthful and conscious impulse. Sometimes the people's will can implement and sometimes it won't be.

It's the will of murderers and rapists to be allowed to murder and rape but everyone agrees curtailing their will makes sense. The same can apply to demographic of people.

[thisintegrated]

It's the future.  We will be government by AI soon enough.

There are no downsides.

We just need people to be smart enough to willingly choose this kind of rule.  

 

An enlightened human leader would be an improvement too, but that comes with problems.  Can't guarantee he's enlightened, and can't guarantee he'll stay a good leader forever.  Xi Jinping, for the most part, rules China much better than any US president rules the US.  He can plan 10, 20, 50 years into the future, and can carry out his plans with no obstructions or bureaucracy.  US presidents plan up to 4 years into the future, and the next president reverses whatever the previous did.  It's fucking retarded, to put it bluntly.  China, as evil as it is, deserves to overtake the US for this, and likely will.

Eventually, the US will realize this, and the public will eventually realize that no human can be a better president than a 10000 IQ AI that can personally interact with every person in the country on their phone, and hear every voice.  It's inevitable.  Power should be held by systems, not people.  But until we have a leader we can fully trust, like an incorruptible AI, autocracy's too risky.  Perhaps once the average person is Yellow this will be different, but for now the Blues won't elect an enlightened leader, and won't allow any radical changes to the election system.

 

Americans really hate whenever I point out the benefits of autocracy??

Edited May 14, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Raze]

10 hours ago, Raptorsin7 said:

What are the downsides of having the wisest person in humanity at the head of an autocratic government? Do you think this system would be superior to our current democratic forms of government?

I was just watching a video where a Canadian MP was talking about the negative impact that corporate investors have had on the affordability of homes for average Canadians, and I was thinking if this guy had authority over housing then that seems like we would have a positive evolution our politics. But this can applied to a broad range issues, there seem to be wise and conscious decisions that would have net positive benefits for most people, at the expense special interest groups with disproportionate power and influence.

Let's take Leo as an example. We can all agree he is more conscious than most of society, and so when it comes to something like housing I would bet he would can identify a conscious approach to affordability of housing in Canada. Assuming someone like Leo would accept the responsibility, how is this form of governance not superior to having every citizen vote, when most people don't have the wisdom to understand what there vote means, and how those elected will influence their lives.

1. Consciousness does not directly translate to being better at specific policy.

2. Who decides who is the wisest person and what power they will get?

3. Even if the wisest person is chosen and it works, corruption can still occur or a bad person can be chosen, and now you have a large amount of power in the hands of a dangerous person.

[Leo Gura]

How would this wisest person gain power? He cannot be elected because the electors are not wise and selfless enough to elect someone wise. Which means he has to seize power through strongarming and/or manipulation, which a wise person would never lower himself to do.

And even if he somehow magically got power and ruled perfectly for 50 years. What happens after he's dead? Where does the next wisest come from and who will agree to it?

The problem is that foolish people think that fools are wise, and elect accordingly. And a wise person cannot lead fools who see him as a fool.

The wisest thing is to let fools govern themselves and suffer their own karma.

[Reciprocality]

Well, despite what others have stated in this thread, an autocracy is not defined by a government under which freedom is absent. Only their lack of  governmental freedom at primarily its highest rule.

Anyway, yes autocracy can be a great thing, it can even be liberating. And when a highly conscious figure is of such power then it is a test of his character how little he gets corrupted, "power corrupts" won't cut it in a substantial argument, that would be to confuse the assertion for its category.

 

Yet power do corrupt, give it fifty years as Leo said and now the chances are minuscule that the integrity remains, by the off chance one were once lucky. Democracy, for all its flaws and inefficiency, circumvents the problem of blind chance.

 

Consider instead Technocracy, and its manifold variations, which country of western Europe would be the closest to harness the potential of such a revolutionary governmental philosophy? And is it at all in our nature to respect a position of authority the metric of which is dynamical, as opposed to static? Does it not confuse our very means of identification to be objective in our considerations, which surely is a prerequisite for the dynamical technocracy, as I would argue such a system though with regard to its implementations is non-democratic non the less survives on the good-will of its population.

This indirect good-will, does it not require integral journalism more than anything for the objectivity to be held in it, by means of which the positions of authority in the system can grow in accordance to the very utility that is provided by the one operating it?

Edited May 14, 2022 by Reciprocality

[UnbornTao]

@Reciprocality I love that Hegel quote, btw 

[Thought Art]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

How would this wisest person gain power? He cannot be elected because the electors are not wise and selfless enough to elect someone wise. Which means he has to seize power through strongarming and/or manipulation, which a wise person would never lower himself to do.

And even if he somehow magically got power and ruled perfectly for 50 years. What happens after he's dead? Where does the next wisest come from and who will agree to it?

The problem is that foolish people think that fools are wise, and elect accordingly. And a wise person cannot lead fools who see him as a fool.

The wisest thing is to let fools govern themselves and suffer their own karma.

 

[AtheisticNonduality]

16 hours ago, Yarco said:

doesn't let emotions factor in.

Human morality is based on emotions, and the people programming the functions of the AI would have emotions.

[lostingenosmaze]

@Thought Art ???

[Reciprocality]

@UnbornTao At least something he and Arthur agreed on.

[zurew]

 

21 hours ago, Yarco said:

if we are going for the smartest and wisest, then why not AI instead of a human at all? It can make decisions better and faster, taking more into account, do more calculations, and doesn't let emotions factor in.

I think that letting an AI being a leader would be really bad. Especially, because of the constant set of values.

As humanity evolves, our values are evolving and changing, being stuck at a certain stage wouldn't be good. Also there are an infinite number of factors that you wouldn't think of, where having a constant valuesystem would be bad.  How would that even look like? What valuesystem would you program into an AI? Valueing what over what?

Or if you say that you would make it such a way, where the AI can evolve its own morality, then thats even more scary. 

 

 Using an AI to inform our choices is okay in my opinion, but having an AI to make important choices instead of us, wouldn't be wise.