Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Law & Tech, Robot Rights
There are many types of government, many types of State. Countries can be governed by the strong. They can be governed by the weak. Perhaps leadership is for the many or the few. By Divine Right, conquest and election, humanity has developed numerous ways to select its leaders. In Ancient Athens, the people would assemble to debate essential issues on mass. The Florentines invited an impartial foreigner to control matters of State. Mongolia was once a bloodbath. See, mankind has never managed to master the art of pacifying the baying crowds. Somebody always thinks they know the best way to live. Somebody always rebels.
Hopefully, you know the story of how Socrates died. The man was famed across Greece for his annoying habit of intervening where he wasn't wanted. Never a man of solutions, Socrates would wander into an argument, show how both sides were wrong and then leave again, without even suggesting a possible solution. He was like that friend who disagrees with anything you want to do, but that can never come up with anything themselves. Just as every group eventually finds that friend too irritating to bear, Socrates irritated the population so much that they killed him. Accounts vary, but the version of the story I was always told was that the poor philosopher was forced off a cliff.
Why do I mention Socrates? Anybody familiar with western philosophy will probably tell you the idea of the 'philosopher king' originates from Plato's Republic. Now, Plato's basic premise was that a perfect city required an ideal government. To prevent poverty, strife and all other manner of unpleasantness, everything in the perfect city had to be in equilibrium. There are a perfect number of tanner's, butchers and cobblers, a perfect number of farmers working in the fields. From birth, children are tested to find their perfect occupation. And apparently, the perfect leaders are philosophers, individuals so well versed in rhetoric and higher thinking that they can act to promote the collective good. Maybe the unfortunate manner of his master's death meant Plato wanted to paint philosopher's as the saviours of mankind— Socrates was his mentor and a close friend after all. Whatever his motive, though, Plato's idea of philosopher-kings has been studied for millennia. It is this concept that I'm going to talk about today.
Let's start with why, after all this time, no country has implemented this utopian form of government. Why, in two thousand years, have there never been any philosopher kings? For the answer, I look to a slightly more modern thinker, Thomas Hobbes. If Hobbes is right, homo sapiens are innately greedy, selfish beings. A glance at contemporary politics might lead you to believe that the man was not too far from the truth. To be fair, the same was said at every other time in history, so nobody can tell us millennials we're just crying wolf. The schism between Rome and the Church of England happened because Henry the eighth wanted a divorce. American independence began because the wealthy founding fathers wished to pay fewer taxes. Queen Victoria was named Empress of Egypt to prevent her own sister from outranking her. Time and time again, leaders of every nation on the planet have shown how self-centred they can really be.
I'll admit, immediately dismissing Plato as describing a mere fantasy, some flight of fiction to entertain children, is a tiny bit unfair. Assume for the moment that, against all odds, we have managed to find the one incorruptible person on the planet, a person who just so happens to be the greatest philosopher the world has ever seen. Would giving this person total control solve all our problems. Well no. See, our leaders aren't the only ones tainted with greed. Each one of us is out for number one. My observation isn't necessarily a criticism— anarchists argue embracing our individualistic nature is a good thing. My point is that, even with the perfect leader, human beings are not the perfect subjects. Say to curb the use of internet shopping, a trend which is putting millions out of work, the philosopher-king decides to put a tax on internet usage. Having done all the research, our king knows that the scheme will cut the deficit in half, help retail stores reopen and curb antisocial behaviour. Would humanity honestly lie down and let the change happen, trusting that the benevolent ruler is acting in our best interest? Probably not. After all, people were protesting face masks in what continues to be a deadly pandemic. Yes, they only reduce the risk by a negligible amount, but every little helps.
External threats to our way of life, like the disease we are all currently facing, best demonstrate why a system of philosopher monarchs would never work. Many people don't actually care who is best for the job. We are always inclined to think we know best. If we can't do the job, it should go to someone like us, somebody who dresses and feels like us. That is tribalism at its finest. People will always find flaws with the perfect leader. They will imagine biases and favouritism where there is none. A European leader will obviously favour the Europeans. A Christian leader must be giving the Christians special treatment. After all, if you or I were in power, we'd ensure that our friends, our families were looked after— we'd look out for our own.
Human nature is a sceptical nature. Trust is a commodity hard to come by. A few bad apples have spoiled the human race. We are told that Julius Caesar stabbed Mark Anthony in the back to take total control of Rome. The Third Reich broke the Molotow-Ribbentrop-Pact. The fact the Soviets had tanks on the border anyway, in preparation of their own invasion, only solidifies my point. Outsiders are death— trust them at your peril.
What's the solution? Is there a way humanity can benefit from the wisdom of a philosopher-king? Can we overcome the scepticism society has drilled into us from birth?
My solution is Relatively straightforward. Have a leader who is like no other, a leader without race, religion or nationality. We need a leader like nobody else. I know I've harped on and on about giving robots rights before, but for once I'm all for making a machine which is not a person. No matter their real intentions, anybody who attempts to run the system from within will always be accused of corruption. I've already mentioned that the leader of Florence was selected from abroad— that's why. A foreigner was not part of the existing status quo, meaning they were perceived to be less biased. I suggest we embrace a similar system, only on a global scale.
Combining Plato's idea of a philosopher-king with the unique method of government in Renaissance Florence, it may be possible to create the perfect State. I objected to any form of philosopher monarch because human nature makes us ill-suited to the task— greedy will always get in the way: machines, more specifically the right machine, lack this selfish nature. Program a superintelligent machine, untempered by emotions but somehow dependent on the success of the human race to survive. Once all the kinks have been ironed out through extensive testing, we have our new leader. Yes, my suggestion sounds like it could be the plot of a science fiction book; think about it for a second. We're working on robotic surgeons, accountants and lawyers. These jobs all require analytical skills comparable to what is desirable in a politician. What. Are our leaders somehow immune from the revolution of automation which will someday displace the rest of us?
How the Florentine's method for selecting a ruler applies is actually stupidly simple. We don't give whatever machine governs us rights: no personhood, no social security, nothing. According to the law, this machine will not exist. The leader will be outside the system it oversees. Say raising corporate tax rates is the best way to pay off the deficit. Most politicians own assets that would be adversely affected by such a move. Add that to corporate lobbying and the revolving door system prevalent in most, if not all, democracies, and you begin to see why the change hasn't been made. Equally, the political right could be right. Perhaps the free market may well be the best method to distribute resources. In which case, welfare systems only get in the way. Taking away the safety net would infuriate many voters, voters the politician depends on to get elected, so the change is not made.
A robotic philosopher king, a philosopher machine, would have no ties to society. That's what makes it perfect for the job. No worries about re-election or campaign funds or anything else that may impair its judgment. Just data and a programmed desire to ensure humanity flourishes. Politics would undoubtedly become a lot simpler.
Yesterday, the world was choked in corruption and strife. Tomorrow, we will take our steps towards utopia. For today, we build our philosopher kings.
