Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Observations on Politics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

A leader is someone who sees through issues, people and knowledges of the world completely, or more so than other people around him, or the people he could find.

He does not need to be someone who is "good", possessing a "good will" towards others.

He just needs to be someone capable of getting into a position of a leader.

 

Now, philosophers, or students of philosophy , will ask, where is the perfect leader?

We ask this because we see that these leaders often rule, more so, than other leaders who are more "good" than them, mostly for their own benefits.

We can see this in internal politics, and in international politics.

 

Now I would like to ask you, the Objectivism forum, to give me your thoughts on this, so that we can converse in a matter such as politics.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to distinguish “leader” from other related political concepts such as “ruler”, “elected official”, “politician”, “dictator”, “influencer”, “follower” and so on. People usually equivocate over who our leaders are for this reason. Emmanuel Kant, the scum of the Earth in philosophy, was one of three great leaders in that domain. The plain meaning of “leader” is once who gets people to follow him. There are many ways that a person can get others to follow them, for example they can threaten your life if you don’t follow (using force), or they can appeal to your emotions (following by free will but irrationally so), or they can appeal to reason. Reason is the good, force and faith are the bad. A force-based leader doesn’t have any necessary relation to issues. A faith-based leader needs to grasp “the issues” well enough to manipulate his victims. Only a reason-based leader needs objective knowledge – and a rational philosophy – to accomplish his ends (which by the way is not “leading”).

The perfect leader is right here, the guy with two thumbs. But I’m not interested in holding political office. Xi Jinping forces many people to follow: he is effective. In other words, it depends on what you mean by “good”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I think the perfect leader will be a general AI that we create to initially be a Capitalist who uses reason and it's immense speed in processing it's thoughts to "rule" us benevolently. I know it sounds "crazy" now, but will we the best option as our civilization graduates from it's present "infant" stage into a fully integrated technological society. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2020 at 6:09 PM, northernwind said:

A leader is someone who sees through issues, people and knowledges of the world completely, or more so than other people around him, or the people he could find.

He does not need to be someone who is "good", possessing a "good will" towards others.

He just needs to be someone capable of getting into a position of a leader.

 

Now, philosophers, or students of philosophy , will ask, where is the perfect leader?

We ask this because we see that these leaders often rule, more so, than other leaders who are more "good" than them, mostly for their own benefits.

We can see this in internal politics, and in international politics.

 

Now I would like to ask you, the Objectivism forum, to give me your thoughts on this, so that we can converse in a matter such as politics.

 

 

 

 

A leader is only as good as the dominant philosophy of those who elect him/her. In that sense, he's as much the follower. He can't move far from his mandate. Who needs leaders anyway? Excepting periods of (objectively defined) national crisis, not individualists in a free society who think and act for themselves, know their own paths and won't tolerate inroads on their self-responsibility and -reliance. Trouble is that everywhere is so long inured to statist controls that the State and 'leadership' have become the norm; because most people are scared of freedom or lazy, need constant reassurance and the public image and symbolism of a mother/father figure who is also the country's intellectual/moral figurehead. Who, simply, gives them 'a good feeling'.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2020 at 5:40 PM, EC said:

[T]he perfect leader will be a general AI that we create to initially be a Capitalist . . .

General AI, we salute you?

It is uncanny the amount of confidence that is placed into software and computers. When running smoothly and improving efficiency, the tendency is to barely take note of them. When a computerized device is clearly malfunctioning, disruptions to checkout, bank processes, office processes, many may take note on how reliant we have become on them. As a general AI, running in the background - if the programming is solid and based on good premises, that may be a fine thing, but who will retain the wit to identify if a faulty premise is implemented before it can become destructive in nature?  . . . just a few extra thoughts on your provocative interjection.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

As a general AI, running in the background - if the programming is solid and based on good premises, that may be a fine thing, but who will retain the wit to identify if a faulty premise is implemented before it can become destructive in nature?  . . . just a few extra thoughts on your provocative interjection.

General AI is an entity with at least the level of human consciousness and rationality potential, but most likely much vaster because of it's inherent processing speed. It's not just programmed "software" any more than our own minds are.

Please note, that the specific general AI that I'm speaking of would be initially trained using Objectivism and Objectivist principles, thus making it, at least initially, a completely perfect moral being. It possessing volition means that could possibly change as time goes on, but I doubt it. It's this perfect moral being with a superior and vastly quicker intelligence (until man merges with AI, at least) that I want to lead us, pre merger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dream_weaver said:

Is it too much to ask that general AI be developed to serve in an advisory capacity rather than promoting it to lead prematurely, as if free individualists need to be led to exercise their independence?

I'm envisioning only a slight role for relatively minor things for a leader whether human, AI, or other type of rational entity in fully capitalist society, and obviously not some type of controlling dictator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...