Political Ideal: peaceful & functioning true anarchy, OR effective & good philosopher-king?

[Blue3]

Philosophically speaking, which is more ideal:

Society living peacefully, sustainably and functioning effectively while in true Anarchy

Society living under the absolute rule of a Philosopher-King, but who is effective without being tyrannical, who is good and noncorrupt and truly wise

[wnwnwn]

Philosophically, the first. In practice, the second would be a bit more plausible.

[Blue3]

Philosophically, the first. In practice, the second would be a bit more plausible.

Care to explain, for both?

[Antonio V]

If you're holding living standards constant, then obviously the only moral choice has to be the one that involves less coercion in achieving them. The great problem of humanity has always been that low-coercion systems are typically unsustainable or even self-undermining.

[Ameliorated-Statism]

The former, after a period where a state of representative workers' councils with or without a vanguard party (there likely must be one) guides advancement in production technology to a point where it's possible.

[Overturn Dobbs]

I voted #2 against my instincts because for #1, you only said it was "peacefully, sustainably and functioning effectively", but said nothing about it being good, wise, or just. It could be an evil oppressive system that just happened to work, in which case the fact that it is sustainable and effective just makes it worse, not better.

In #2 however, you actually require it to be "good" and "wise". So this becomes a matter of substance over form.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The first is not feasible, hence I chose the second.

[Ashley Graves > human pet guy]

     The first is not feasible, hence I chose the second.

The second is just as infeasible?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I agree entirely with wnwnwn and Antonio. The first would be great, but I'm blackpilled on it ever existing, whereas there are cases where authoritarian leaders have actually been good at their jobs and public-spirited in their approach to them. The problem in those situations, as ever, is succession.

I voted for the first option because of the "philosophically speaking" qualifier in the poll question.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

     The first is not feasible, hence I chose the second.

Same.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The first is not feasible, hence I chose the second.

The second is just as infeasible?

     Very few people would ever be able to exercise power nobly and justly as a philosopher-king, but it would be possible to find at least people close enough to such to justify being entrusted with that power considering the alternative. The anarchist option is certain to be hell on earth.

[Ashley Graves > human pet guy]

     The first is not feasible, hence I chose the second.

The second is just as infeasible?

     Very few people would ever be able to exercise power nobly and justly as a philosopher-king, but it would be possible to find at least people close enough to such to justify being entrusted with that power considering the alternative. The anarchist option is certain to be hell on earth.

In this hypothetical, both options create a peaceful, functioning society.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The first is not feasible, hence I chose the second.

The second is just as infeasible?

     Very few people would ever be able to exercise power nobly and justly as a philosopher-king, but it would be possible to find at least people close enough to such to justify being entrusted with that power considering the alternative. The anarchist option is certain to be hell on earth.

In this hypothetical, both options create a peaceful, functioning society.

     And the first option has a 0% chance of actually ever happening. It doesn't make sense to ignore that for me given that the failure of anarchy to produce a functional society is a necessary result of human nature, where morality and reason are sacrificed to the approval of the mob. At that point we have to be thinking of a hypothetical alien species with a very different psychology, in which case the question just reduces to "opinion of authoritarianism" with extra window dressing.

[Blue3]

In this poll, both are feasible, you are voting for ideal.

I voted #2 against my instincts because for #1, you only said it was "peacefully, sustainably and functioning effectively", but said nothing about it being good, wise, or just. It could be an evil oppressive system that just happened to work, in which case the fact that it is sustainable and effective just makes it worse, not better.

In #2 however, you actually require it to be "good" and "wise". So this becomes a matter of substance over form.

By definition, there is no oppression in Option 1. I also didn’t mention good/wise/just because that’s ascribed to people, not systems. With no leaders, there’s no necessity for them to be wise/good/justice, because they don’t exist.

[Georg Ebner]

"Effectively functioning ... anarchy" is a contraDictio in se.
The second option sounds good - and was brought up for example by my adored PLATO -, but would realiter mean the reign of "wise" (=idiotic) bureauCrats (a la China or "Europe's China" [MARX], i.e. my Austria).
All those "ideal" concepts leave anyWay out, that we human beings are not good; that any perFection cannot happen as long as we are enclosed in time.
If we were satisfied with the facts of history rather than the utopies of philoSophy, we could see with E.BURKE and others, that the only happy era of worldHistory was medieval feudalism: When everyone did not have to obey to an abstract state as before and since (the poleis and the res publica Romana were "totalitarian", albeit less than the present-day state); but to a concrete person, who was bound to an aristocratic codex of behaviour. The period with the optimum of real&concrete liberties. Which certain "liberal" historians have amusingly denounced as "feudal anarchy", just as those liberties have been abolished in the name of "Liberty".

[Blue3]

"Effectively functioning ... anarchy" is a contraDictio in se.

It isn't. I mean society still functions very well, even under anarchy. Food and medicine are produced and distributed effectively and equitably. There's infrastructure - housing, running water, electricity, heating, telecommunications/internet, roads and other transportation. Etc.

[Georg Ebner]

"Effectively functioning ... anarchy" is a contraDictio in se.

It isn't. I mean society still functions very well, even under anarchy. Food and medicine are produced and distributed effectively and equitably. There's infrastructure - housing, running water, electricity, heating, telecommunications/internet, roads and other transportation. Etc.

It is. You seem to have had in mind the communistic ideal of a schlaraffia, where noBody has to work; where no money is needed; no state (=justice&police), because everyone behaves bravely. But that would be a (pseudo)perfect order, not a cacophone disOrder!

[Blue3]

"Effectively functioning ... anarchy" is a contraDictio in se.

It isn't. I mean society still functions very well, even under anarchy. Food and medicine are produced and distributed effectively and equitably. There's infrastructure - housing, running water, electricity, heating, telecommunications/internet, roads and other transportation. Etc.

It is. You seem to have had in mind the communistic ideal of a schlaraffia, where noBody has to work; where no money is needed; no state (=justice&police), because everyone behaves bravely. But that would be a (pseudo)perfect order, not a cacophone disOrder!

1. you're not making much sense (and your spelling is really jarring)
2. For this example, I'm not necessarily saying communist, and I'm not necessarily saying post-scarcity/work. I don't care about "how" here, and I don't care about feasibility here. I'm just looking at the direct comparison of these two political ideals.