The Masonic Philosophical Society recently posted a poll on Facebook, asking whether direct-democracy or philosopher kings were preferable. The results, when I saw them last, were about 60/40 with philosopher kings in the lead. Plato had famously posed philosopher kings as an alternative to direct-democracy, after direct-democracy had killed his teacher, Socrates.
Of course, these are not the only options out there. Other options include complete dissociation, representative democracy, non-philosopher monarchs, and consensus decision-making. But direct-democracy and philosopher kings show us the furthest bounds of possibility: the rule of the majority and the rule of the minority.
Minority-rule, by a benevolent philosopher king, is very expedient and conceptually fair, if such a philosopher rules with a level hand. The problem is, the ideal philosopher king, who is wise to every possibility, is non-existent. All-too-often potential philosopher kings degrade into tyrants. This is so often the case as to be the rule, rather than the exception. And even when they do not degrade into tyrants, and give their best effort to rule benevolently, ignorance and calculation problems prevent this from perfectly occurring.
Majority-rule, by way of direct-democracy, is less expedient but conceptually more fair. However, direct-democracies are only as good as their population, and all too often devolve into ochlocracy, the rule of the ignorant majority. Unfortunately, it is too often the case that a majority is not informed as to the best course of action. Majority-rule also provides a means by which to repress minorities.
What of the alternatives?
Complete dissociation is not feasible for anyone who wishes to be more than a hunter-gatherer. We will not entertain the notion further.
Representative democracy represents something of a middle ground between philosopher kings and direct-democracy. In representative democracy—often referred to as a republic—one directly chooses one’s philosopher king. Representative democracy comes with problems from both sides. However, because these problems are often well-balanced in republican organization, they tend to be less vicious. Majorities keep tyrants in check with their elective power, and minorities keep majorities in check when they are elected by way of the level-handed application of law and order. Because of its ability to balance the extremes of both minority- and majority-rule, representative democracy has been particularly successful.
Like representative democracy, consensus decision-making represents something of a balance between majority- and minority-rule. In consensus, both the majority and the minority must be satisfied with a decision for it to be made in the name of the group. Unlike the other methods of making decisions, consensus does not allow the majority to press its will on the minority or the minority to press its will on the majority. Rather, consensus focuses on generalized consent, and moderation in decisions (however, consensus can be used to establish majoritarian or minoritarian sub-decisions). It does not leave out the majority or the minority, but includes both direct-democracy and philosopher kings. Like representative democracy, consensus functions best alongside personal property rights with a federal relationship, which allows for more decentralization and autonomy in the decision-making process. However, unlike representative democracy, elements of tyranny and ochlocracy are avoided.
