The presentation will be divided into four parts.
The first part looks at monarchy and aristocracy. It contrasts the ancient views with the modern views.
The second part describes how the advent of democracy complicated the picture. I will entertain the audience with a parable from the Book of Judges
The third part delves into two issues. First it compares a government of laws with a government of men. Second it looks at the concept of representative government.
I'd rather not say much about the fourth part. It's kind of snooty.
To begin, we will contrast the ancient view of aristocracy with the modern view.
This can be something of a minefield
"Aristocracy" and "oligarchy" get used interchangably.
The ambiguity can be quite confusing.
Up until the beginning of the eighteenth century aristocracy was presented as an alternative to monarchy.
Aristocracy was regarded as the ideal form of government.
The nobles of England forced their aristocratic ideals on King John when they made him sign the Magna Carta.
In modern times aristocracy is on the other end of the scale.
Monarchy and aristocracy have become points of historical interest. They are concepts with a past but no future.
Aristocracy no longer measures democracy. It is measured by democracy.
This change accounts for one ambiguity with the word "aristocracy."
In the past, "aristocracy" was used to designate a form of government.
Currently, it is used to designate a special social class, separated from the masses by distinctions of birth, talent, property, power, or leisure.
We speak of "aristocracy" as we do of "the elite" and the "four hundred."
For Marx and Engels the aristocracy and the bourgeoise alike represent propertied classes, but they differ in the manner in which they came by their property and power.
The landed gentry and the feudal nobility got theirs largely by inheritance; the bourgeoise by industry and trade.
Today we call a man an aristocrat if he claims a right to certain social distinctions or privileges.
We do not use it to denote a man who deserves such privileges, but we do use it to describe a proponent of government which is based on inequality.
Although ancient conceptions of aristocracy differed from modern ones, there is one element that does not change with the times.
Aristocracy is what Plato called a "government of the few."
This is in contrast to monarchy, which is "government of one" and democracy, which is "government of the many."
John Locke used the word "oligarchy" to name what others called "aristocracy."
Locke defines three forms of government.
When the majority themselves exercise the whole power of the community, Locke says, "the form of the government is perfect democracy."
When they put "the power of making laws into the hands of a few select men . . .then it is an oligarchy; or else into the hands of one man, and it is a monarchy.
As a parenthetical note, I would like to add that Samuel Adams went to Harvard University, where he studied the writings of John Locke.
There were seventeen students in his graduating class.
After graduaing, Adams formed the Committees of Correspondence, the eighteenth century equivalent of an irc chatroom.
The Committees of Correspondence culminated in the First Continental Congress, which was held in Fanueil Hall in Philadelphia.
It took place in September, 1774
Kant claimed that the three types of government were autocratic, aristocratic, and democratic.
Hegel claimed "purely quantitative distinctions like these are only superficial and do not afford the concept of the thing."
The criterion of number fails to distinguish monarchy from tyrrany and despotism.
It also fails to distinguish aristocracy from oligarchy.
There are two issues to consider in distinguishing aristocracy from oligarchy.
In The Statesman Plato adds to the characteristics of number "the criterion of law and the absence of law."
"To go against the laws, which are based upon long experience, and the wisdom of the counsellors who have graciously recommended them and persuaded the multitude to pass them would be," the Eleatic Stranger declares in The Statesman, "a far greater and more ruinous error than any adherence to written law."
Taking the division of governments and according to numbers, "the principle of law and the absence of law will bisect them all."
Monarchy divides into "royalty and tyrrany" depending on whether "an individual rules according to law . . . or governs neither by law nor by custom, but . . . pretends that he can only act for the best by violating the laws, while in reality appetite and ignorance are the motives."
By the same criterion, the rule of the few divides "into aristocracy, which has an auspicious name, and oligarchy."
While democracy is subject to the same division, Plato makes the same name apply to both its good and bad forms.
The second way that aristocracy differs from oligarchy is also brought out in The Statesman.
Since "the science of government," according to Plato, is "among the greatest of all sciences and most difficult to acquire . . . any true form of government can only be supposed to be the government of one, two, or at any rate, of a few . . . really found to possess science."
Because of this demand for "science," which presupposes virtue and competence in ruling, monarchy and aristocracy came to be defined as government by the single best man or by the few best men in the community.
Oligarchy is commonly defined as "government by the rich."
Aristocracy is called aristocracy, writes Aristotle, "either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and the citizens."
When Plato wrote The Statesman, he claimed that monarchy was the best form of government (because it was most efficient).
Aristocracy was ranked second best, and democracy was ranked last.
Aristotle, on the other hand, ranked aristocracy above monarchy.
"If we call the rule of many men, who are all of them good, aristocracy, and the rule of man royalty," he writes
Which would be better for an irc channel? Rule by the channel manager or rule by 400-level ops?
We have discussed how the concepts of monarchy and aristocracy interrelate.
In this next section, we will cover how democracy complicates the picture.
I will also tell a parable from the Book of Judges.
For those of you who raised with the politicized curriculum, the Book of Judges is from the Old Testament.
The Ancient Persians were annoyed by the Ancient Greeks for many reasons.
One minor reason was that the Greek capital (Athens) had a plural name.One minor reason was that the Greek capital (Athens) had a plural name.
This was because the Greeks were ruled by the many, while the Persians were ruled by one man.
The Persians claimed that rule by the many was not always the best form of rule.
Not only are the many usually the poor, but they are also seldom considered pre-eminent in virtue and competence.
Aristocracy is based on inequality in terms of status, power, and privilege.
Rousseau (no, not Tim) claimed that there are "three kinds of aristocracy-natural, elective, and hereditary.
Natural aristoctacy, according to Rousseau, is based on that inequality among men which which is due primarily to age and is found among simple people where "the young bowed without question to the authority of experience."
Elective aristocracy arose "in proportion as artificial inequality produced by institutions became predominant over natural inequality and riches or power were put before age.
The second form, in Rousseau's opinion is "the best and is aristocracy, so-called."
The third, which is characterized as "the worst of all governments," came about when "the transmission of the father's power along with his goods to his children, by creating patrician families, made government hereditary.
While inequality is the hallmark of aristoctacy, equality is the hallmark of democracy (disregarding slaves, of course.)
As "the principle of an aristocracy is virtue," Aristotle writes, so wealth is the principle of "an oligarchy, and freedom of a democracy."
The democratic critic of aristocracy usually calls attention to the way in which oligarchy tries to wear the mask of aristocracy.
However different the two are in definition, the critic claims that they tend to become identical in practice.
This brings to mind George Wallace's phrase "not a dime's worth of difference."
Machiavelli assumes it to be a generally accepted fact that "the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people . . . and give vent to their ambitions."
Montesquieu, although more optimistic about the possibility of a truly virtuous aristocracy, recognizes its tendency to profit at the expense of the people.
To overcome this he would have the laws make it "an essential point . . . that the nobles themselves should not levy the taxes . . . and should likewise forbid the nobles all kinds of commerce . . . and abolish the right or primogeniture among the nobles, to the end that, by a continual division of their inheritances, their fortunes may be always upon a level.
The strongest attack on aristocracy in the Great Books is made by Mill in his Representative Government.
He admits that "the governments which have been remarkable in history for sustained mental ability and vigor in the conduct of affairs have generally been aristocracies."
But, he claims, whatever their abilities, such governments were "essentially bureaucracies," and the "dignity and estimation" of their ruling members were "quite different from the prosperity or happiness of the general body of citizens, and were often wholly incompatible with it.
When their actions are dictated by "sinister interests," as frequently happens, the aristocratec class "assumes to themselves an endless variety of unjust privileges, sometimes benefiting their pockets at the expense of the people, sometimes merely tending to exalt themsleves above others, or, what is the same thing in different words, to degrade others below themselves."
In spite of its shortcomings, aristocracy gets used as a model for ideal government.
Even if it is sound in principle, there is one more difficulty in the way of putting principle into practice.
It is the reluctance of the best men to assume the burden of public office.
One criticism of modern politics is that it weeds the best men out, leaving the worst ones to float to the top.
Although the parable from the Book of Judges is concerned mainly withmonarchy, the principle illustrated could apply to aristocracy as well.
(beginning of parable)
The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Rein thou over us.
But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by methey honor God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.
But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good
fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.
And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth you anoint me kind over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.
(end of parable)
Socrates thought he had a solution to this problem.
In The Republic he proposed a way to induce good men to rule
Since "money and honor have no attraction for them," necessity, Socrates says, "must be laid upon them, and they must be induced to serve from fear of punishment . . .Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself."
"And the fear of this, as I conceive induces the good to take office . . . not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling anyone who is better than themselves or at least as good."
In a similar vein, I once heard an interesting argument in favor of the draft.
If people are not induced, against their will, to serve in the military, then the only ones making life-and-death combat decisions will be lifers.
A chilling thought.
In the next part we will cover two subjects.
First we will contrast a government of laws with a government of men. Next wewill look at the idea of representative government.
Mention has been made of Plato's views on respect for law.
In The Statesman he goes further than this.
He proposes that "the best thing of all is not that the law should rule, but that a man should rule, supposing him to have wisdom and royal power."
The imperfections of law could then be avoided, because one or a few men of almost superhuman wisdom could govern their inferiors even as thegods could direct the affairs of men without the aid of established laws.
Plato then concedes that, if no man is a god in relation to other men, it is better for laws or customs to be supreme.
Aristotle makes a distinction between royal government and political government.
This parallels the modern distinction between absolute or despotic government on one hand and limited constitutional government on the other hand.
Aristotle is ambivalent on this issue.
In some places, he claims that despotic government is appropriate when a few exceed the masses in virtue.
In other places, he claims that despotic government is appropriate for a family or primitive tribe, but not for a state.
Most defenses of aristocracy take two directions.
One line of argument claims that people are unequal with respect to wisdom or virtue. This justifies absolute rule by the superior faction.
The other line of argument is followed by Hobbes.
Hobbes claims that sovereignty is absolute, indivisible, and unlimited.
The difference between kinds of government, says Hobbes, "consisteth not in the difference of power, but in the difference of Convenience or Aptitude to produce the Peace and Security of the people."
Most attacks on aristocracy are based on the argument that it violates the basic equality of men.
Moderation is considered the driving principle of aristoctracy, while equality is considered the driving principle of democracy.
A constitutional government is often an attempt to fuse the freedom of the poor with the wealth of the rich.
Aristotle calls this a "polity."
The word "politics" comes from "polis," the Greek word for "city-state."
The different city-states tried different blends of aristoctacy and polity, with different degrees of success.
Thomas Jefferson is said to have read The Athenian Constitution in the original Greek.
As representative government arose in the 18th century, discussion of aristocracy took a different thrust.
Rather than discussing aristocracy as a distinct form of government, people discussed the role that aristocratic principles played in developing republican institutions.
Hamilton, Jay, and Madison wrote The Federalist Papers.
These papers were originally published as a series of newspaper articles.
The articles were an attempt to persuade the American public to ratify the Constitution.
They appealed to a lot of principles that were aristocratic in nature.
In giving their own meanings to the terms "republic" and "pure democracy"-that is, government by elected representatives on the one hand, and by direct participation of the whole people on the other-the Federalists give an aristocratic bent to the notion of representation.
They seemed to share the opinion of Montesquieu that "as most citizens have sufficient ability to choose, though unqualified to be chosen, so the people, though capable of calling others to account for their administration, are incapable of conducting administrations themselves."
Madison praises "the delegation of the government . . . to a small number of citizens elected by the rest" as tending "to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whos wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country."
He further points out that "it may will happen that the public voice, pronounced by representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for that purpose."
The people's representatives are supposed to be, not their minions, but their betters. They make independent decisions for the common good, rather than doing the people's bidding.
Hamilton, Madison, and Jay considered this aristocratic principle to be a necessary safeguard of popular government.
The senate, for instance, is not only to provide elder statesmen, but it is also to serve as "a salutory check on the government . . . [which] doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption would otherwise be sufficient.
The electoral college aims directly at placing the immediate election of the president in the hands of "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adopted to the station . . . under circumstances favorable to deliberation."
In addition it may serve as an "obstacle . . . opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption, which are the "most deadly adversaries of republican government."
The unamended American constitution was clearly in the interests of the established families at the time.
Whether their intentions were aristocratic or oligarchic is a matter for history to decide.
Now we come to the snooty part of the presentation.
Those of you who have a problem with authority or a problem with channel ops should leave now.
John Stuart Mill was more democratic in his beliefs than the Framers of the Constitution.
In spite of this, he wanted representative government to employ certain aristocratic elements.
According to Mill, two grave dangers confront a democracy: "Danger of a low grade of intelligence in the representative body, and in the popular opinion which controls it; and danger of class legislation on the part of the numerical majority."
Claiming that much of the blame for both dangers lies in the rule of the majority, Mill looks for means to overcome the situation in which "the numerical majoricy . . .alone possess practically any voice in the State.
His major remedy was a system of proportional representation.
This would supposedly constitute a democratic improvement by securing representation for "every minority in the whole nation . . . on principles of equal justice."
But it may also serve to increase an aristocratic element, since it "affords the best security for the intellectual qualifications desirable in the representatives."
This would be brought about by making possible the election of "hundreds of able men of independent thought, who would have no chance whatever of being chosen by the majority," with the result that Parliament would contain the very Žlite of the country.
(I cringed when I first read this. This is the first time I ever saw the word "elite" with a "resumŽ marking.")
Mill proposed a plurality of the votes for the educated and an upper house of the legislature based on special qualifications.
Mill's model of government was designed to prevent a government based on a majority of "manual laboureres" with the consequent danger of "too low a standard of political intelligence."
The issues raised by aristocracy vs. democracy are pretty much the same for all ages.
Pure aristoctracy as well as pure democracy are both unpalatable extremes.
This brings up a double truth.
The notion that all men are equal does not mean that they have equal abilities. Nor does it mean they put their abilities into practice equally.
Does distributive justice require that the best men hold office?
Plato and Aristotle took the aristocratic view that the best men have the right to govern.
In The Republic, Socrates raises an interesting question: "Who is more fit to be the captain of a ship-one who excels at fistfighting or one who excels at celestial navigation?"
Their opponents claim that the equality of men is self-evident.
That certain individuals have superior aptitude for the exercise of political authority does not automatically confer that authority upon them.
The selection of the best men for political office is based on expediency rather than justice.
Another issue concerns the opinion of the majority versus the opinions of experts.
Thucydides claimed "Ordinary men usually manage their affairs better than their more gifted fellows," because "the latter are always wanting to appear wiser than the laws."
Herodotus observes "it seems easier to deceive the multitude than the one."
Hamilton claims that, while people can make mistakes, they commonly intend the public good.
Another issue deals with education
Should education be as universal as the franchise?
Should vocational education be given to the many and liberal education to the few?
Jefferson had this in mind when he wrote a letter to Adams in 1813.
He wrote, "There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents . . . "
"There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class."
"The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, the government of society . . . "
"The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy."
Source: Philosophy-irc.org
