Plato was right Timocracy vs. Tyranny / Democracy

[curiousphoton]

It light of the recent worldwide uprisings (Egypt, Iran, Bahrain, Madison - Wisconsin, to name a few), our 'democratic' world is proving it is indeed in dire need of directional change.

Let us investigate 'Republic' by Plato. 'Republic' ranks four forms of government. In the ranking, democracy is 3 out of 4, only ahead of tyranny. Western civilization (and today this includes all those influenced by Western civilization) has fluctuated between democracy and tyranny throughout history. This fluctuation was predicted perfectly in 'Republic'.

Ranked 1 of 4 was a system named 'Timocracy', where the most honorable and knowledgeable, rather than successful and popular, hold power. Timocracy seems to make great sense and with some thought and modification, would seem to work leaps and bounds better than Democracy-Tyranny, again as Plato predicted.

Do you think Western society will ever break free of the forever oscillating democracy-tyranny sinusoidal wave?

 

[apeiron]

Do you think Western society will ever break free of the forever oscillating democracy-tyranny sinusoidal wave?

Very amusing question. Should we prefer the tyranny of the few, or the tyranny of the many?

Seriously, I would argue that the best political option is the one that spreads wisdom hierarchically and evenly over all scales.

Timocracy would be trying to do that in rough way - power hierarchically allotted according to wealth and class - but clearly as brains and worth have a large genetic component, this does not really work.

Democracy should allow decision-making and wise choices to be made over all scales of a society, if all the tiers of responsibility are in place. So the multiple rungs of appropriate boundary-setting from neighbourhood to national to international. And it is founded on the sound principle that anything which is not collectively forbidden, you are individually free to do. (Sound because this maximises the creativity and resilience of a society).

 

[Pythagorean]

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I have no idea how to vote and I often disagree with the more popular Christian motivations of US-based policies. So I'm not well represented by the majority making democracy useless to me.

If I were brought up by politicians, I would certainly be playing the game and know exactly who to vote for (or rather, convince 100 others to vote for) but I was raised by fishers.

 

[JoeDawg]

Timocracy seems to make great sense and with some thought and modification, would seem to work leaps and bounds better than Democracy-Tyranny, again as Plato predicted.

And who decides who is "the most honorable and knowledgeable"?

Should we vote on it?

 

[alt]

Any political system is rarely anything other than a plutocracy IMO, no matter the guise.

Timocracy ..

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Timocracy

1. a form of government in which love of honor is the dominant motive of the rulers.
2. a form of government in which a certain amount of property is requisite as a qualification for office.

Timocracy - from the Greek, obviously, meaning 'τιμή' (timi) - honour ..

But the identical word, 'τιμή' also means price;

Note, google translate;

You have no honour - Δεν έχετε την τιμή

What is the price - Ποια είναι η τιμή

See ? Plutocracy after all ..

 

[ThomasT]

Any political system is rarely anything other than a plutocracy IMO, no matter the guise.

Maybe a combination of plutocracy and oligarchy -- plutarchy?

Iron Law of Oligarchy

 

[alt]

Maybe a combination of plutocracy and oligarchy -- plutarchy?

Iron Law of Oligarchy

But is a combination of wealth (plutos) and few (oligos) reflected in your new word ?

Maybe it is. The oligarchs are never going to be the poor, after all. So it is implicit in 'plutos'. But why do you substitute 'archy' for 'cracy' ?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Any political system is rarely anything other than a plutocracy IMO, no matter the guise.

Timocracy .. But the identical word, 'τιμή' also means price;

Business corporations might be thought of as timocracies on the theory that those most capable of governing rise to the top levels of power. In the Adam Smith model at least, corporations that are not well governed simply do not survive; so a Darwinian process selects the best governed.

I personally don't think this should apply to states. States should be governed for the benefit of its citizens. I disagree with Plato and agree with Churchill. Democracy may be a "lousy" form of government, but it's better than all the rest.

 

[alt]

Business corporations might be thought of as timocracies if you take it mean the most capable of governing rise to the top levels of power. In the Adam Smith model at least, corporations that are not well governed simply do not survive; so a Darwinian selection process selects the best governed.

Yes, I can't argue with that.

I personally don't think this should apply to states. States should be governed for the benefit of its citizens. I disagree with Plato and agree with Churchill. Democracy may be a "lousy" form of government, but it's better than all the rest.

But really, has there ever been a true and persistent democracy ? Anywhere ? Sure, states should be governed for the benefit of it's citizens - I agree. But always, so far as I can see, the benefit of the plutocratia comes first.

And most corporations would be declared insolvent - bust - were they to approach the debt levels, mismanagement, and wastage of some states.

 

[ThomasT]

... why do you substitute 'archy' for 'cracy' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarchy

 

[SW VandeCarr]

But really, has there ever been a true and persistent democracy ? Anywhere ? Sure, states should be governed for the benefit of it's citizens - I agree. But always, so far as I can see, the benefit of the plutocratia comes first.

And most corporations would be declared insolvent - bust - were they to approach the debt levels, mismanagement, and wastage of some states.

Well the USA is in its third century and there are lot more democracies in the world today than there were in 1787. It's far from perfect, and it will never be perfect; but it certainly has improved since the 1787 constitution said slaves count as 5/8ths of a person. Ultimately the fate of a democracy is in the hands of its citizens. The plutocrats have just one vote each; the same as the homeless person.

 

[alt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarchy

Ah ! Thanks. There seems to be a subtle difference between 'archy' (archigos- leader) and 'cracy' (kratos - to hold power), although they seem similar and interchangable.

I must confess, I've rarely seen the word 'plutarchy' used. Even the wiki article you linked used it once only, then reverted to plotocracy.

 

[alt]

Well the USA is in its third century and there are lot more democracies in the world today than there were in 1787. It's far from perfect, and it will never be perfect; but it certainly has improved since the 1787 constitution said slaves count as 5/8ths of a person.

I'm not arguing with that at all, and it seems to be the best we've got, warts and all.

Ultimately the fate of a democracy is in the hands of its citizens. The plutocrats have just one vote each; the same as the homeless person.

Yes, but surely you'd understand that the plutocrat has the millions to contibute to the installation of HIS representative (how much does a presidential campaign cost in the USA ?) while the homeless person can whistle.

Even so, it's a Darwinian process IMO - a process which you said earlier applies only to corporations. I reckon it goes all the way up. I have no real beef with it mind you - unless it approaches Lord Actons "absolute power corrupts absolutely" ..

 

[ThomasT]

Ah ! Thanks. There seems to be a subtle difference between 'archy' (archigos- leader) and 'cracy' (kratos - to hold power), although they seem similar and interchangable.

I must confess, I've rarely seen the word 'plutarchy' used. Even the wiki article you linked used it once only, then reverted to plotocracy.

How about plutoligarchcracy? Anyway, I agree with your take on it.

 

[curiousphoton]

And who decides who is "the most honorable and knowledgeable"?

Should we vote on it?

No. Please read Plato's Republic for answer.

 

[curiousphoton]

Very amusing question. Should we prefer the tyranny of the few, or the tyranny of the many?

And that is the million dollar question I think the argument is stronger for the tyranny of the few, as long as the few are honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving. Plato's Timocracy included a method of selection that ensured only the honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable gained positions of power.

Today's democracy is governed not by this type. It is governed by the vote of the majority and the majority base their voting on commercials and colors (blue or red), not whether the candidate has proven he is honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving.

Seriously, I would argue that the best political option is the one that spreads wisdom hierarchically and evenly over all scales.

Agreed. I just don't think democracy accomplishes this (for reasons above).

 

[curiousphoton]

Business corporations might be thought of as timocracies on the theory that those most capable of governing rise to the top levels of power. In the Adam Smith model at least, corporations that are not well governed simply do not survive; so a Darwinian process selects the best governed.

You're idea of Timocracy is incorrect. Timocracy does not select the most capable of governing. Timocracy selects the most honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving of a society and allows them to govern.

This is completely different than a business corporation where yes the most capable of governing rise to to the top. But what does 'the most capable of governing' mean to a business corporation? It means 'the most capable of ensuring the highest profit for that business corporation'! This is not comparable to running a society that ensures the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You're idea of Timocracy is incorrect. Timocracy does not select the most capable of governing. Timocracy selects the most honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving of a society and allows them to govern.

This is completely different than a business corporation where yes the most capable of governing rise to to the top. But what does 'the most capable of governing' mean to a business corporation? It means 'the most capable of ensuring the highest profit for that business corporation'! This is not comparable to running a society that ensures the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

I was responding to Alt's alternative translation of timocracy as "price", whatever that might mean. I was really getting at the idea of a "meritocracy". I clearly stated I disagreed with this idea in the second paragraph which you did not quote.

If a timocracy allows all citizens to participate in the choosing of a leader, and the leader is subject to the continued support of the citizenry to remain in power, then I don't see how this is different from democracy.

My understanding is that Plato thought rule by a self-sustaining landed aristocracy or secondly, a military "timocracy" were the best forms of government; the idea of a caste based "philosopher king"
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/timocracy

 

[JoeDawg]

No. Please read Plato's Republic for answer.

Been there, done that, oligarchy's are by their nature tyrannical. Sounds like Plato is just playing semantics and ignoring human reality.

 

[alt]

You're idea of Timocracy is incorrect. Timocracy does not select the most capable of governing. Timocracy selects the most honorable, courageous, passionate, knowledgeable, and giving of a society and allows them to govern.

But you speak here (and in your OP) as though those traits of honor, courage, passion, knowledge, etc, are absolute. They are not - they are quite relative. And many dictators and despots have been possessed of them. Alexander The Great was honorable and courageous. Hitler was passionate. Lenin was knowledgeable .. etc.

This is completely different than a business corporation where yes the most capable of governing rise to to the top. But what does 'the most capable of governing' mean to a business corporation? It means 'the most capable of ensuring the highest profit for that business corporation

Yes, and in the case of the largest corporations, it's many thousands of shareholders. This is no bad model for a competent government.

spelling edit

 

[Pattonias]

The problem with our current system is the idea that a career can be made in politics. The honor that should be seen should be the willingness to make a decision that you foresee as the best solution in the long run, even if its not the one that will keep you in office.

Our current leaders are motivated by remaining popular and staying in office. A truly honorable leadership would be chosen of those with the willingness to make a tough yet necessary decision at the cost of their own popularity. The fact of the matter is that in a democracy those willing to make tough decisions never make it above your local aldermen.

A girlfriend once told me that the ideal government would be composed of those leaders who are willing to have all their possessions and property stripped of them while they were in leadership so they would have no personal conflicts while leading. At the time I thought that would be crazy, but you have to think about the impact that would have.

 

[Cinitiator]

How do you define forms of government as being good or bad? We need to know what we actually want before picking up something which merely sounds good and even seems so after some unsophisticated thinking.
For example, to know whether decisions are good or bad, we need to be able to explain all variations in the opinions which formed those decisions. Once we can explain absolutely all variation, we need to have a sample of population with varied qualities to test the decision approval rate on. The better the qualities attributed with the decision are for each deviation of qualities (which would contain some people each), the less variation of opinions there should be. We then should predict whether variation will completely disappear or not - if it won't, we need to make more qualities enter this test.
Those qualities are also subjective, just like all opinions, so there would be many group supporting different qualities entering this test.
This would allow the humanity to have more unified and centralized values, opinions and beliefs as well. If we won't use or fail to use this system, each would fight for his/her own values, making sure to fulfill the most benefit possible in relation to the values the person in question has - rational people would use proper reason to determine this. Many would probably develop mathematical methods to quickly determine this.

 

[curiousphoton]

How do you define forms of government as being good or bad? .

Logic. Reason. Argumentation. Hypothesis. Trial and Error.

All pillars of any great science or philosophical breakthrough. All parts of Plato's Republic, which started this thread.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

How do you define forms of government as being good or bad?

Logic. Reason. Argumentation. Hypothesis. Trial and Error.
All pillars of any great science or philosophical breakthrough. All parts of Plato's Republic, which started this thread.

How about effectiveness in promoting the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

or if that's too vague:

Effectiveness in establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing liberty and basic human rights for the population governed. (paraphrased from the preamble of the US Constitution.)

EDIT: Note that's the standard government should aspire to. I'm not making any statement about how any government actually performs.

 

[curiousphoton]

How about effectiveness in promoting the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

or if that's too vague:

Effectiveness in establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing liberty and basic human rights for the population governed. (paraphrased from the preamble of the US Constitution.)

EDIT: Note that's the standard government should aspire to. I'm not making any statement about how any government actually performs.

Ok that does not help anything.

'Effectiveness in establishing'. That is what we are after. How do you effectively establish everything you mentioned? That is the reason for this thread.

Let's stay on point.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Ok that does not help anything.

'Effectiveness in establishing'. That is what we are after. How do you effectively establish everything you mentioned? That is the reason for this thread.

Let's stay on point.

I think I'm very much on point. The issue is democracy vs other forms of government. Plato rated them from best to worst: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. By Plato's own definition democracy is only better than tyranny, but inferior to three other non-democratic forms.

I'm arguing that democracy is better than any non-democratic form, for no other reason than it puts power into the hands of the governed. In every other case, one can only hope for a benevolent despot. This may be the most efficient form of government, but how do you assure benevolence? How do you assure the qualities of honour, reason, or even competence?

Do you know of any society that put Plato's vision into practice? The question I was answering is how do you know how good a government is? Obviously one has to consider how effective it is in meeting whatever goals it sets for itself.

 

[stevenb]

Democracy works the best provided there are geat people that rise in times of urgent need, and most people decide to be smart enough to follow the lead. A mass of mediocre people without good direction is doomed.

Also, don't be worried by a little uprising now and again. Silence is the sound of a dying democrocy. Anger and violence mark its birth and rebirth.

 

[curiousphoton]

I think I'm very much on point. The issue is democracy vs other forms of government. Plato rated them from best to worst: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. By Plato's own definition democracy is only better than tyranny, but inferior to three other non-democratic forms.

I'm arguing that democracy is better than any other non democratic form, for no other reason than it puts power into the hands of the governed. ?

And what if the heads of the governed have been brainwashed, are ignorant, or just plain unintelligent? Do you want this group making the decisions that determine the way you live your one life? I sure do not.

In every other case, one can only hope for a benevolent despot. This may be the most efficient form of government, but how do you assure benevolence? How do you assure the qualities of honour, reason, or even competence?

Your Question: How do you ensure benevolence?

Answer: Again, read 'Republic' it clearly states the process. Because you do not know the process, I'm assuming you Wikipedia'd 'Plato Republic'.

Do you know of any society that put Plato's vision into practice? The question I was answering is how do you know how good a government its? Obviously one has consider how effective it is in meeting whatever goals it sets for itself.

No I don't know any society that has put Plato's vision into practice. I'm not saying it is perfect either.

Reread the post that started this thread. There is a worldwide uprising in 'democratic' societies - clearly democracy is not working.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Democracy works the best provided there are geat people that rise in times of urgent need, and all people decide to be smart enough to follow the lead. A mass of mediocre people without good direction is doomed.

Also, don't be worried by a little uprising now and again. Silence is the sound of a dying democrocy. Anger and violence mark its birth and rebirth.

Now that's a different issue, but relevant. Democracy puts power into the hands of the governed. How well the public handles this power is something else. Many posts here refer to a trend toward a plutocracy. If the people want to be governed by the rich, they have to the ability to put the rich into power and to vote them out. I don't accept the idea that the rich can buy power. No one is standing by the voting booth with a club (or shouldn't be anyway). A rich person who goes into public service is not necessarily a bad thing. They can bring skills and usually a certain level of knowledge and education.

I do think that influence peddling and catering to lobbyists by elected officials must be curtailed. In a democracy, the people have the means to push for laws limiting this activity and to throw out those who do not act in the public interest. When you give up democracy, with its implicit freedoms (speech, media), and place power in an oligarchy or dictator, you lose any non-violent means of dealing with corruption.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Reread the post that started this thread. There is a worldwide uprising in 'democratic' societies - clearly democracy is not working.

Seriously? The recent uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are examples in "democratic" societies? What democratic societies are you talking about?

 

[slider123456]

Who decides exactly who is the most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc. or what acts correspond to the definition of those traits? Plato suggests there is some objective measure of these qualities, though he cannot describe it, but there has been no proof to support this assertion in the last 2390 years. The subjectivity of individual views when deciding which acts correspond to the definition of these traits directly precludes the ability to objectively pick philosopher kings. I guess you could rely on consensus but then you are basically back to a democracy except with the constraint that you tell the voters of the consensus that they are voting on which actions correspond to which traits to setup an objective framework. This does not seem to be a viable idea in the real world even though it works in a philosophical mind construct. Plato's idea of taking children from their parents and eugenic breeding programs is just as divorced from reality because it does not take human nature and evolutionary behavior into account. These ideas would all likely end in revolt similar to the ones that prompted you to start this thread.
Platos' timocracy is based on subjective views squeezed into the assumption of the objectivity of traits which has not been shown to exist. One person could view a conscientious objector as possessing all the traits of a philosopher king while another individual could have an exact polar opposite view of the conscientious objector. Those two people may also have polar opposite beliefs about a war hero who killed many enemies. So the question is who decides what actions correspond to the traits mentioned and even further who decides who the people are that will decide which traits correspond to which acts or even what framework to use. It has to begin with either a few people therefore being akin to tyranny or it has to be decided by the masses and therefore essentially democratic but whichever one of those systems is used it is surely going to change the outcome making it an important distinction that undermines the entire idea of Platos' timocracy.

 

[jduster]

There needs to be a balance between power of the government and power of the people; too much power of either party can be harmful to a society. But mainly, whether a government is good or bad depends on the society of people. The government is merely a reflection of society.

Though, I would disagree with Plato's belief in a government ran by an intellectual elite of philosopher kings. Even though mundane knowledge is scattered in individually unimpressive fragments among the masses, a mass of people have more total knowledge than a handful of intellectuals. There is a lot that intellectuals do not know, and intellectuals are just as capable of making disastrous decisions as anybody else.

 

[curiousphoton]

Who decides exactly who is the most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc. or what acts correspond to the definition of those traits? Plato suggests there is some objective measure of these qualities, though he cannot describe it, but there has been no proof to support this assertion in the last 2390 years. The subjectivity of individual views when deciding which acts correspond to the definition of these traits directly precludes the ability to objectively pick philosopher kings. I guess you could rely on consensus but then you are basically back to a democracy except with the constraint that you tell the voters of the consensus that they are voting on which actions correspond to which traits to setup an objective framework. This does not seem to be a viable idea in the real world even though it works in a philosophical mind construct. Plato's idea of taking children from their parents and eugenic breeding programs is just as divorced from reality because it does not take human nature and evolutionary behavior into account. These ideas would all likely end in revolt similar to the ones that prompted you to start this thread.
Platos' timocracy is based on subjective views squeezed into the assumption of the objectivity of traits which has not been shown to exist. One person could view a conscientious objector as possessing all the traits of a philosopher king while another individual could have an exact polar opposite view of the conscientious objector. Those two people may also have polar opposite beliefs about a war hero who killed many enemies. So the question is who decides what actions correspond to the traits mentioned and even further who decides who the people are that will decide which traits correspond to which acts or even what framework to use. It has to begin with either a few people therefore being akin to tyranny or it has to be decided by the masses and therefore essentially democratic but whichever one of those systems is used it is surely going to change the outcome making it an important distinction that undermines the entire idea of Platos' timocracy.

Yes you have read Republic! Good to know.

I do not agree with your viewpoint on 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity'. I am a scientist and engineer by profession and when you break an observation down far enough, nothing is truly 'objective'.

Now there would be plenty of ways to determine whom is the 'most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc.' within a society. To make the idea more simple, imagine a group of (20) first graders and call this your society. Follow those (20) first graders until they are 40 years old, and pick (3) or (4) to be the leaders of this society. How would you do this? Through trial and error using a plethora of different exams. Exams would include:

A. Normal subjects (math, science, language, history, etc...)
B. Physical
C. Situational (varioius stressful situations all are placed in. who stayed calm and composed? who led the group out of the troublesome situation? etc...)
D. Leadership Ability (public speaking ability...do people relate to the leader? came he speak a commonperson's language)

So so you have a system implemented for 30 years and whala! You evaluate the results and you choose a few leaders.

NOTE: Each category carries the same weight...ie the person with the highest iq (best scoring in A.) may score poorly in C. and D. Therefore they might not be the best fit to lead, rather more fit for research and a PHD...

 

[slider123456]

Yes you have read Republic! Good to know.

I do not agree with your viewpoint on 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity'. I am a scientist and engineer by profession and when you break an observation down far enough, nothing is truly 'objective'.

Now there would be plenty of ways to determine whom is the 'most honorable, knowledgeable, courageous, passionate, etc.' within a society. To make the idea more simple, imagine a group of (20) first graders and call this your society. Follow those (20) first graders until they are 40 years old, and pick (3) or (4) to be the leaders of this society. How would you do this? Through trial and error using a plethora of different exams. Exams would include:

A. Normal subjects (math, science, language, history, etc...)
B. Physical
C. Situational (varioius stressful situations all are placed in. who stayed calm and composed? who led the group out of the troublesome situation? etc...)
D. Leadership Ability (public speaking ability...do people relate to the leader? came he speak a commonperson's language)

So so you have a system implemented for 30 years and whala! You evaluate the results and you choose a few leaders.

NOTE: Each category carries the same weight...ie the person with the highest iq (best scoring in A.) may score poorly in C. and D. Therefore they might not be the best fit to lead, rather more fit for research and a PHD...

There is still going to be observer influence though based on nothing else but the subjective views of the observers. Two different sets of observers could come to radically different viewpoints of who has the best traits of leadership etc because those value judgments are based on their own views and experiences. So the question is who observes the first graders and who chooses who those people should be that observe the first graders or what the metrics for choosing leaders should be. This could go on ad-infinitum. Even setting up a framework has the same problems.

Also their is nothing that really says those traits would translate from one situation to another. Government officials probably show all those traits when they are in a family unit but a completely different outcome emerges when they have positions of leadership in Government due too different motivations and enviroment.

"I do not agree with your viewpoint on 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity'. I am a scientist and engineer by profession and when you break an observation down far enough, nothing is truly 'objective'."

I completely agree with this point that there is really nothing that is truly objective. The closest we can get to that is some type of consensus and even that is problematic because it does not equate with objectivity but with a group sharing subjective views, beliefs and assumptions. That is the problem.

As the post after my previous post points out the marketplace of ideas is what governance and society has increasingly evolved towards since Platos time and going to a Timocracy would be a step backwards not forwards. A society that creates ideas from within the masses who then attempt to choose the best idea offers the best chance, through experimentation, of creating the most ideal solutions. Letting a small group of people have absolute control is the same rational inherent in communism. The problem is a small group of people does not have the same information and intelligence as a very large group of rational people acting on their own behalf does.

If Plato wrote "The Republic" today it would likely be vastly different than what he wrote millennia ago. He was likely constrained by the Government of the time and what was considered possible and acceptable along with the widespread acceptance of ideas such as slavery and the absence of widespread education. Also relative to Platos time the prosperity of todays world would be unimaginable to Plato. A poor person in a developed country has a better quality of life than the nobility of his time. Their was nothing in Plato's world or history that would indicate that this would be the case because at the time things were approximately the same as they had always been in recorded history. The philosophies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle likely changed the course of human history while setting up the foundations of modern philosophy and were therefore important but they are archaic compared to current understanding and in the context of the changes that have taken place since then. The idea of widespread freedom is also much more cherished now then it was then.

To switch to a Timocracy based on subjective "traits" seems like a step backwards not forward because as I wrote before it would need to be imposed by a few people (tyrannical) choosing which individuals have the best "traits" or some sort of democratic framework (democracy). Then there is the problem of who would decide which of those two systems to use. Changing anyone of those variables will change the entire outcome as would choosing what traits correspond to what actions. So the question is who decides these things or even how would we be able to choose who chooses? Does the current Government pick the philosopher kings or choose those who will? A democratic vote? Philosohy majors with the best grades? Whatever is chosen will change the result though and at its roots it will still be either democratic or tyrannical.