This seems like a result of the same simple strategy in different environments. The strategy is: “try to get as much power as you can, and reduce the power others have”. The environment includes technology and other people. As the humankind develops (technologically, intelectually, socially), different tactics become possible, sometimes small changes can lead to big results. (For other species, the tactics remain rather constant for millenia.)
How difficult is it for the most powerful individual to retain power? How difficult is it for the powerful groups to keep the most powerful individual in check? How difficult is it for masses to keep the powerful groups in check? Answer these, and you will see whether some variant of “monarchy”, “aristocracy” or “democracy” will be the most “natural” form of government.
It depends on technology. Cheap weapons, such as sticks or stones, give more power to large groups (a group of weaker humans can stone one strong individual, distributing the risks of counterattack). Expensive weapons, such as nukes or battle droids, give more power to rich groups = the groups currently in power. Centralized media, such as radio or TV, give more power to their rich owners. Distributed media, such as internet, give more power to masses.
None of this is an absolute advantage; for many forms of power there is a defense that weakens it partially. A physically strong person will be also good at sword-fighting. A large group of people, containing very skilled individuals, could steal nukes or hack battle droids. A large group of people could occupy a TV station. A rich organization can pay people to defend their interests on internet. A government can censor internet communication, and punish those who break the rules. Etc.
It also depends on culture, religion, education, fashion, surrounding countries, economical situation, etc. After including many factors, sometimes the strongest individual wins, sometimes the strongest group wins, and sometimes the power is distributed widely.
If you want, you can try to fit these data into a trend (usually by filtering the evidence), or into a “spiral” (which is just a form of saying “sometimes this, sometimes that”, while pretending deeper understanding).
What will happen in the future? It will depend on specific inventions and other changes, which is hard to predict, especially if something “completely new” happens. I think that some individuals will always keep trying to concentrate power in their own hands; other people will keep fighting for power as groups; and those unsuccessful will keep hating them.
If I had to make my bet now, I would bet on aristocracy. The world is too complex to be ruled by an individual, and most people are too ignorant for a real democracy. Of course the ruling class may choose a person to represent them, thus creating a nominal monarchy; or allow free election about unimportant topics, thus creating a nominal democracy. Actually I think this has already happened; except unlike old aristocracies the current one does not have exact definition and strict boundaries, so it can be joined by people who have enough skills and luck.
I agree that technology is a key factor here, but it isn’t clear that weapons are especially important—not in a context of institutional evolution where national defense is taken for granted and relied upon as part of a smoothly-functioning economy. Ability to coordinate on complex goals is probably more important: at present, large number of folks cannot easily coordinate to affect public policy except in relatively crude ways (such as through ideologically-driven organizations). Hence, our current institutions in the West are effectively a mixture of “oligarchy” and “democracy”: large groups of folks can effectively ensure that policymaking does not make them too badly off, but special interest groups can get their way on lots of individual issues if they spend enough resources to promote their cause.
It remains to be seen how this could change in the future, especially when one considers that Internet-based open politics may be a possibility. My guess is that there is some scope for further shifts in the “democracy-like” direction, particularly if actions to “raise the sanity waterline” are successful. However, the inherent difficulty of cooperation will mean that ‘oligarchical’ tendencies will exist for the foreseeable future.
The situation can be influenced on too many levels. In a dictatorship, weapons win. In a liberal democracy in theory weapons should not be relevant, because they are only used against criminals and external enemies; the conflicts should be decided by votes. However in real-life democracies the people with power can sometimes use police and secret service to harm their opponents; they just can’t do it too openly. Maybe espionage is even better that weapons; if you have access to plans of your opponents and if you know about their internal conflicts, you have big advantage. If cryptography can give them security, you can make cryptography illegal. Etc. The existing power can be in many ways used to protect the status quo. Also education, or deciding which projects will be financially supported by state and which will get administrative barriers.
Besides using violence, the critical abilities are to coordinate and influence others.
It remains to be seen how this could change in the future, especially when one considers that Internet-based open politics may be a possibility.
Even with internet-based politics, money can give you huge advantage. Find smart people who agree with your cause, and give them money, so they don’t have to work, and can spend all day online, advocating your cause; while your opponents must spend 8 hours a day in work. Find stupid people and pay them to follow your smart opponents online, and fill discussions in their blogs by stupidity and hate, post false accusations, create artificial controversies. Simply, create a feeling that majority of smart people agree with your cause, and that there is something fishy about your opponents.
Raising the sanity waterline is a noble goal, but as soon as it will visibly harm someone’s political agenda, there will be problems. Just like creationists are able to make a museum with dinosaurs to support their cause, I expect that if “sanity waterline” activities will become popular, copycat “alternative sanity waterline” activities will appear soon. And it is easy even for an x-rationalist to shoot themselves in the foot, especially if someone will help them to aim.
This seems like a result of the same simple strategy in different environments. The strategy is: “try to get as much power as you can, and reduce the power others have”. The environment includes technology and other people. As the humankind develops (technologically, intelectually, socially), different tactics become possible, sometimes small changes can lead to big results. (For other species, the tactics remain rather constant for millenia.)
How difficult is it for the most powerful individual to retain power? How difficult is it for the powerful groups to keep the most powerful individual in check? How difficult is it for masses to keep the powerful groups in check? Answer these, and you will see whether some variant of “monarchy”, “aristocracy” or “democracy” will be the most “natural” form of government.
It depends on technology. Cheap weapons, such as sticks or stones, give more power to large groups (a group of weaker humans can stone one strong individual, distributing the risks of counterattack). Expensive weapons, such as nukes or battle droids, give more power to rich groups = the groups currently in power. Centralized media, such as radio or TV, give more power to their rich owners. Distributed media, such as internet, give more power to masses.
None of this is an absolute advantage; for many forms of power there is a defense that weakens it partially. A physically strong person will be also good at sword-fighting. A large group of people, containing very skilled individuals, could steal nukes or hack battle droids. A large group of people could occupy a TV station. A rich organization can pay people to defend their interests on internet. A government can censor internet communication, and punish those who break the rules. Etc.
It also depends on culture, religion, education, fashion, surrounding countries, economical situation, etc. After including many factors, sometimes the strongest individual wins, sometimes the strongest group wins, and sometimes the power is distributed widely.
If you want, you can try to fit these data into a trend (usually by filtering the evidence), or into a “spiral” (which is just a form of saying “sometimes this, sometimes that”, while pretending deeper understanding).
What will happen in the future? It will depend on specific inventions and other changes, which is hard to predict, especially if something “completely new” happens. I think that some individuals will always keep trying to concentrate power in their own hands; other people will keep fighting for power as groups; and those unsuccessful will keep hating them.
If I had to make my bet now, I would bet on aristocracy. The world is too complex to be ruled by an individual, and most people are too ignorant for a real democracy. Of course the ruling class may choose a person to represent them, thus creating a nominal monarchy; or allow free election about unimportant topics, thus creating a nominal democracy. Actually I think this has already happened; except unlike old aristocracies the current one does not have exact definition and strict boundaries, so it can be joined by people who have enough skills and luck.
I agree that technology is a key factor here, but it isn’t clear that weapons are especially important—not in a context of institutional evolution where national defense is taken for granted and relied upon as part of a smoothly-functioning economy. Ability to coordinate on complex goals is probably more important: at present, large number of folks cannot easily coordinate to affect public policy except in relatively crude ways (such as through ideologically-driven organizations). Hence, our current institutions in the West are effectively a mixture of “oligarchy” and “democracy”: large groups of folks can effectively ensure that policymaking does not make them too badly off, but special interest groups can get their way on lots of individual issues if they spend enough resources to promote their cause.
It remains to be seen how this could change in the future, especially when one considers that Internet-based open politics may be a possibility. My guess is that there is some scope for further shifts in the “democracy-like” direction, particularly if actions to “raise the sanity waterline” are successful. However, the inherent difficulty of cooperation will mean that ‘oligarchical’ tendencies will exist for the foreseeable future.
The situation can be influenced on too many levels. In a dictatorship, weapons win. In a liberal democracy in theory weapons should not be relevant, because they are only used against criminals and external enemies; the conflicts should be decided by votes. However in real-life democracies the people with power can sometimes use police and secret service to harm their opponents; they just can’t do it too openly. Maybe espionage is even better that weapons; if you have access to plans of your opponents and if you know about their internal conflicts, you have big advantage. If cryptography can give them security, you can make cryptography illegal. Etc. The existing power can be in many ways used to protect the status quo. Also education, or deciding which projects will be financially supported by state and which will get administrative barriers.
Besides using violence, the critical abilities are to coordinate and influence others.
Even with internet-based politics, money can give you huge advantage. Find smart people who agree with your cause, and give them money, so they don’t have to work, and can spend all day online, advocating your cause; while your opponents must spend 8 hours a day in work. Find stupid people and pay them to follow your smart opponents online, and fill discussions in their blogs by stupidity and hate, post false accusations, create artificial controversies. Simply, create a feeling that majority of smart people agree with your cause, and that there is something fishy about your opponents.
Raising the sanity waterline is a noble goal, but as soon as it will visibly harm someone’s political agenda, there will be problems. Just like creationists are able to make a museum with dinosaurs to support their cause, I expect that if “sanity waterline” activities will become popular, copycat “alternative sanity waterline” activities will appear soon. And it is easy even for an x-rationalist to shoot themselves in the foot, especially if someone will help them to aim.