Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Anon S's avatar

I would contrast the modern idea of extreme power sharing with the founder's version of land holding men only. Aristocratic republics like Venice can thrive much longer.

But how did Venice keep power sharing limited for longer, while America expanded the vote and removed senators appointed by states? In other words, how did they maintain a disciplined oligarchy?

Sortition. Or rule by random chance.

The more predictable a system, the easier for it to capture its inputs over time. Random chance curbs attempts at capture and keeps more players honest for longer.

But nothing is more disgusting to the modern mind than using chance when experts could be used. But even barebones religions evolved methods to use random chance to take away decision making from people (and their corruptibility). Its how Christians decided on who to replace Judas.

Expand full comment
Jesse Dustin's avatar

At some point I feel like any of these utopian -isms are bound to fail if the people adopting the -ism are bad people. Libertarianism, Capitalism, Marxism, Socialism only work if the people that practice them are acting in good faith and are just awesome honest upstanding moral people. The instance you toss a bunch of brain dead immoral actors into the mix, all of these Utopian-isms fall apart. This statement on its face is perhaps the strongest case for moderation or centrism, but in reality it is just an indication that we need people to be awesome and moral if we want any sort of society to function properly.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts