52

I think that Frank Herbert's points were these: Everyone is different, with different varying abilities. You might be good at math, I might not be. I might learn by doing, you might learn by reading. When people try to force people to meet a one size fits all standard so that everyone will be equal, it ends up creating injustices. Example: I'm not ...


44

I would say it resembles a meritocracy of a consultative nature. The more reputation you have (the more merit), the more influence. A new user with 1 rep can neither vote nor comment. All they can do is ask and answer questions, so they have no decision influence whatsoever. As reputation increases (ultimately as decided by the community), users get more ...


31

I think you are right that it is just a buzzword. Back in classical Greece, philosophers attempted a systematic study of forms of government and came up with the distinction of monarchy (one good ruler), tyranny (one bad ruler), aristocracy (few good rulers), oligarchy (few bad rulers), democracy (many good rulers) and ochlocracy (many bad rulers). ...


21

Certainly not democracy! It's some kind of voluntarism (anarchy), because you are not enforced to become StackExchange member. You become a member and accept rules on contract. If it was a democracy or any other form of non-voluntary government you would be involuntary member from the day of your birth. So, despite some good observations it seems that ...


17

Let me make something incredibly clear up front: While I come across as rather angry, I'm not. I'm very happy with the way the SE network is run, and while I disagree with SE on many things, we've agreed to bury the hatchet because the bickering is not productive if it goes on for months at a time. As a friend of mine just pointed out, it's technically a ...


17

Or is it just a buzzword without a deep meaning? It is just a buzzword without a deep meaning. It's just a fancy way of saying that the politicians in charge of the country are incompetent. There is no deep theory behind it.


16

O.m. is partially correct. There is a 17th century term (in actual Greek) that roughly is synonymous: Over the last fifteen years or so, commentators in Australia and abroad have coined a range of derogatory 'ocracies' to voice their disquiet at the white-anting of democracy. In 2011 Jeffrey Sachs wrote that America was being run by the 'corporatocracy', ...


15

In the early US in order to qualify to vote one was required to own land (as well as be white). The precept being that only those people who owned land had a real investment in country and thus deserved to have a say in how the country was governed. This was a very simple merit test and certainly not one that was scaled upon merit. It was a simply yes you ...


15

To answer your three points in sequence I will rely upon the Freedom House Index to measure both 'democracy' and human rights, the Human Development Index to measure 'Technology & education,' nominal GDP per capita for wealth, the Gini coefficient for wealth disposition and equality. It is worth noting that petro-microstates (i.e. small countries that ...


15

Who gets to ask? In the Stack Exchange (SE) system, the person asking determines the accepted answer. That's not a big problem if one person is the clear beneficiary. But what about systems where multiple people benefit? Who asks would determine who gets to accept an answer. Subject to corruption There are regular concerns about people banding ...


14

Not really. Institutional arrangement aren't irrelevant and cause parallel political struggles to play out differently. For example, the story of abortion law in the U.S. has been one of legislatures imposing limits and courts striking down those limits, while in much of Europe it has been one of legislatures legalizing abortion and of courts imposing ...


13

It's a mixed / hybrid goverment, integrating elements from almost every one of the basic forms of government. At the heart of Stack Exchange communities there is a token economy, the reputation system, which allows for a certain degree of self governing, a trait that points to meritocracy and timocracy. It's also a trait that, if left unchecked, may (and ...


13

The confusion might stem from the fact that monarchy, theocracy and dictatorship are all sub-categories of a much broader government category: autocracy. An autocratic form of government is any government where all power is held by one person. The different flavors of autocracy mostly differ by how the power of the autocrat is legitimized. Monarchs are ...


12

With direct democracy, decisions are made by the people. Now, legislation passed by parliament is typically extremely complex. Most people don't have the time nor the inclination to read a 50 page bill, so they'll just go off what other people tell them. Even if the issue is stated in only a sentence or two, most people aren't going to bother to read up ...


11

In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability." Caveat: my answer's main point is pretty similar to @TheLeopard's ...


11

TLDR: This assumes that the party you are looking at is already socialist or communist and you are trying to decide which: left-of-center and keen on taxes, regulation and wealth-redistribution => Socialist. Typically, a mainstream party that is the national alternative to its right or center-right opponent. Can be called Social Democrat, depending on ...


10

From the historical-materialist perspective, states are tools of class rule. What will prevent the emergence of states is the dissolution of class in full communism. Without a differential form of productive relationship, classes necessarily cannot form, and any hierarchical relationship amongst people in full communism would necessarily not be a state. ...


10

Much like other forms of historical governments today, existing theocracies are much watered compared to their historical variants (similar to modern monarchies - these are not countries where the monarch rules). Vatican City, where the head of the Catholic church is ex officio the head of state with (de iure) quite absolutist powers and the country is run ...


9

I'm surprised you didn't consider the types of government in the Civilization video game series. Here is the list for Civilization II (The most popular one, although my favourite was Civ 3): Anarchy. While this existed as a specific transition between government types in the game, it is rooted in history. Both the Reign of Terror in the French revolution ...


9

In the generalities, a political system ruled by a few persons is an oligarchy: Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command') is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. After that, there are a number of specific categorization ...


8

I think the USSR can be considered to an extent depending on your definitions. This is because people with significant achievements were more or less automatically nominated to a seat in the Supreme Council or in the councils at the republican level. These included: Laureates of the USSR state prizes, and prizes of the constituent republics. Academicians of ...


8

The ancap answer from Robert Murphy. Summarized, the argument is that anarchy can't guarantee that society won't devolve into civil war between warlords. A society of warlike people will behave as warlike people with or without government. Likewise for peaceful people. The argument is that government never helps. Government only centralizes and empowers the ...


8

The only ideology I know where the original founders explicitly state that it is based on scientific principles and adheres to scientific standards, is Marxism. From Wikipedia: "Scientific socialism is the term first used by Friedrich Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered by Karl Marx. The purported reason why this form of ...


8

A political philosophy that is based only upon science is impossible because politics necessarily involves value-based judgements that are not falsifiable or empirical in nature You can run experiments to determine if a particular policy works as intended at achieving its goals. Just treat the particular policy as if it is a falsifiable hypothesis, e.g. ...


8

The two states of affair are a result of history, so I'm not sure your question can be answered as is. On the French side, the historical process has been to centralize ever more power in Paris. Initially it was about growing the royal domain and keeping French vassals in check. Power concentration in Paris continued for all practical intents and purposes ...


8

It's not an interesting quote politically or otherwise, because it's obvious. SF writers of Herbert's generation were prone to issuing frank and chronic updates of their educational misadventures. Herbert meant that his earlier too literal reading of a certain Jeffersonian premise eventually led him to a somewhat less over-literal interpretation. (Herbert'...


8

The bit concerning you seems to be humans do not have equal ability. That is manifestly true though. Some people are strong, some are fast, some are smarter, some more intuitive. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and some are strong in many areas, others are weak in many. For example a special forces soldier has to be strong, fast, ...


8

Communism is a society where the social production is not owned, where people give what they can and take what they need, where decisions about doing things together are made together. Socialism is either: Capitalism (that is a wage labour society with a small group of people dictating how things are made) with significant public or government ownership ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible