The Four Institutions

[EloquentBohemian]

The way I see it, within just about any society there exists four institutions which fight for the political power. These are the church, the state, the market, and the sciences.

The church is the religious organizations within the society. They are the moral authority within the society. They can span from a shaman in a primitive tribe to a giant bureaucracy like the Roman Catholic Church of modern society. The church views individuals in terms of virtue and sin.

The state is the legal authority within the society. They can span from a chief in a primitive tribe to a Constitutional Republic of modern society. The state views individuals in terms of being just or criminal.

The market is the financial authority within society. It can span from the traders of primitive tribes to Wall Street Banks of modern society. The market views individuals in terms of being fair or deceptive.

The sciences are the institutions of learning and advancement. They are the medicinal authority in society. They can span from the herbalists of primitive tribes to the evolutionary biologists of modern society. The sciences views individuals in terms of being healthy and sick.

My question for you is which of these institutions should have the most political power over society? Which should have the least? And why do you feel that way?

First I would say that State and political power are one in the same as the State is the abstract embodiment of the political power no matter which faction of society is ruling it at any given time.
Consider nations which have religious institutions as their governing bodies, which countries such as Yemen, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan seem to be heading toward. The Church (...implying any organized religion, no matter its origins) creates and enforces the laws which govern the people within its borders and therefore is the State.
Second, there is one institution left out, and that is the Military. In some countries, such as Libya, the Military is the State and therefore the political power.
Third, what of ideologies which fall under none of the above, such as Communism? I could see where Communism could possibly fall under Market, but it is a philosophy which goes beyond mere market structure. In fact, there would be no State nor political power under pure Communism as it is classless and stateless with each individual having equal say in every decision making process.

Politics is definitely not my strong point, so these are merely observations, not criticisms.

As far as a choice is concerned, being a head-in-the-clouds Romantic Idealist at heart, I would choose none of them for the first reason tovlo stated, in that no faction should hold sway.
Personally, I think Poets, Artists and Mimes should rule.

 

[Shai Gar]

None of them.

 

[Shai Gar]

Actually no. Religion. Mine.

 

[Satya]

First I would say that State and political power are one in the same as the State is the abstract embodiment of the political power no matter which faction of society is ruling it at any given time.

For the sake of this thread, I defined the state as the legal authority. Political power differs significantly from legal authority.

Consider nations which have religious institutions as their governing bodies, which countries such as Yemen, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan seem to be heading toward. The Church (...implying any organized religion, no matter its origins) creates and enforces the laws which govern the people within its borders and therefore is the State.

Yes, the church can act as a state.

Second, there is one institution left out, and that is the Military. In some countries, such as Libya, the Military is the State and therefore the political power.

The military and police would fall under the state.

Third, what of ideologies which fall under none of the above, such as Communism? I could see where Communism could possibly fall under Market, but it is a philosophy which goes beyond mere market structure. In fact, there would be no State nor political power under pure Communism as it is classless and stateless with each individual having equal say in every decision making process.

There are no ideologies presented in the OP of this thread. If you were to argue communism, then you would be advocating for a maximized state and a minimized market.

Politics is definitely not my strong point, so these are merely observations, not criticisms.

It's okay. Mayflow made more or less the same observations. Most people are programmed to think ideologically, not institutionally, and so when confronted with the question of which institution should have the most political power, they have to reflect upon their ideologies and subsequent value systems. That was the underlying purpose of this thread.

Interestingly, it revealed that some members are even incapable of thinking outside of ideology, and I find that disturbing.

As far as a choice is concerned, being a head-in-the-clouds Romantic Idealist at heart, I would choose none of them for the first reason tovlo stated, in that no faction should hold sway.
Personally, I think Poets, Artists and Mimes should rule.

That is actually probably the most realistic answer.

 

[just me]

I must ask if there is actually governments run by market or science. Would they be in charge, then, of the M&P? I ponder how they would react to specific situations in the world. Who would their diplomats be? Their heads of state? How would they fare in the real world out there. Had to wonder aloud with no hidden intent.

 

[Satya]

I must ask if there is actually governments run by market or science. Would they be in charge, then, of the M&P? I ponder how they would react to specific situations in the world. Who would their diplomats be? Their heads of state? How would they fare in the real world out there. Had to wonder aloud with no hidden intent.

There you go....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)

 

[Zero Angel]

I'd say:

5% Church

If anything, representatives from various faiths should sit on an advisory council with hopes to influence decisions or provide rationale from their point of view. If faiths are seen as generally equal then it could provide useful input into the functionings of a government.

10% State

The state would handle adminstrative tasks such as the maintainance of public works as well as law and order. The government would be kept small, but large enough to maintain a leash upon the economic system as advised by the science based government.

10% Market

Since the market is designed to distribute supplies throughout the nation and world it would be given a certain amount of freedom to continue to do so -- however would still be subservient to the institutions of state as well as science (anticompetitive practices would not be tolerated since they reduce innovation and long term growth)

75% Science/Philosophy

As the aim of the scientific sector is to achieve advancement and knowledge the government would be centered around this field. The modus operandi of the scientific institution would be adaptable to whatever is generally understood to either (1) Advance the state of the human race (technology), and (2) Increase the overall happiness of the human race (philosophy) based on statistics gathered from sociological data.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The way I see it, within just about any society there exists four institutions which fight for the political power. These are the church, the state, the market, and the sciences.

The church is the religious organizations within the society. They are the moral authority within the society. They can span from a shaman in a primitive tribe to a giant bureaucracy like the Roman Catholic Church of modern society. The church views individuals in terms of virtue and sin.

The state is the legal authority within the society. They can span from a chief in a primitive tribe to a Constitutional Republic of modern society. The state views individuals in terms of being just or criminal.

So, if such a distinction is possible, I think that neither of the four categories should have more power, but that all the power should be exercised personally by on person who is guided/formed/informed by the four institutions.

The market is the financial authority within society. It can span from the traders of primitive tribes to Wall Street Banks of modern society. The market views individuals in terms of being fair or deceptive.

The sciences are the institutions of learning and advancement. They are the medicinal authority in society. They can span from the herbalists of primitive tribes to the evolutionary biologists of modern society. The sciences views individuals in terms of being healthy and sick.

My question for you is which of these institutions should have the most political power over society? Which should have the least? And why do you feel that way?

A monarch or dictator should have the most power. However, this individual should be personally subject to a moral code/religion, so that he/she does not become corrupt or abuse his/her powers. He/she should also have advisors from the finance and science sectors, with reports from governors concerning the needs/wants of the citizens.

Democratically elected leaders tend to be governed by opion/popularity rather than what is right/wrong, or what is finacially viable/unviable, or what is sustainable/unsustainable etc.

 

[Zero Angel]

A monarch or dictator should have the most power. However, this individual should be personally subject to a moral code/religion, so that he/she does not become corrupt or abuse his/her powers. He/she should also have advisors from the finance and science sectors, with reports from governors concerning the needs/wants of the citizens.

Democratically elected leaders tend to be governed by opion/popularity rather than what is right/wrong, or what is finacially viable/unviable, or what is sustainable/unsustainable etc.

I do not understand the need for a person to be subject to a religion, i'm athiestic and yet still moral -- however my morality is individualistic.

Yes what you are proposing is essentially a monarchy. And I believe that a lot of people don't know what is best for them -- they are too easily swayed by charm and promises.

Going along with this idea as an exercise:

I believe that the head of state should appoint an advisor for each major governmental arm (science advisor, resources advisor, ethics advisor, etc) and each advisor should chair a committee which is comprised of people who then chair their own committees specific to their trade (the science grand committee would be comprised of members from varying science fields such as technology, pure sciences, scientific education, biological sustainability, environmental science, etc -- the resources grand committee would have specialists from forestry and natural resources, manufacturing, resource allocation, macroeconomics, etc -- the ethics committee would be comprised of individuals from differing philosophical backgrounds).

Each committee member would be selected from the population based on their occupation and merits, and given the opportunity to accept their position.

The head of state would be selected from the committees, so that the head of state has the ability to select his advisors (out of the grand committees) -- and yet the grand committees would also have a right to appoint (by means of vote) a head of state. If the head of state acts against the best interest of the state then a new one is appointed.

 

[alcyone]

I'd say 25% across the board.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I do not understand the need for a person to be subject to a religion, i'm athiestic and yet still moral -- however my morality is individualistic.

Yes what you are proposing is essentially a monarchy. And I believe that a lot of people don't know what is best for them -- they are too easily swayed by charm and promises.

Going along with this idea as an exercise:

I believe that the head of state should appoint an advisor for each major governmental arm (science advisor, resources advisor, ethics advisor, etc) and each advisor should chair a committee which is comprised of people who then chair their own committees specific to their trade (the science grand committee would be comprised of members from varying science fields such as technology, pure sciences, scientific education, biological sustainability, environmental science, etc -- the resources grand committee would have specialists from forestry and natural resources, manufacturing, resource allocation, macroeconomics, etc -- the ethics committee would be comprised of individuals from differing philosophical backgrounds).

Each committee member would be selected from the population based on their occupation and merits, and given the opportunity to accept their position.

The head of state would be selected from the committees, so that the head of state has the ability to select his advisors (out of the grand committees) -- and yet the grand committees would also have a right to appoint (by means of vote) a head of state. If the head of state acts against the best interest of the state then a new one is appointed.

Two observations.

First. Religion is necessary for the functioning of the state, because ldoking at history, every culture at every time has had religion - ie. it is probably in the nature of man to be religious. Where there is no religion (no organised religion, that is) superstition and appointment of a god-figure usually occurs. In a monarchy, it would be dangerous for the monarch to take on a god-like role. So the monarch should be religious, so that he/she still acts as a citizen, subject to a higher power - otherwise, if regarded as the ultimate power, such a monarch could easily become a tyrant.

Secondly. I think the commitees you mention are a good idea, except I think that their positions should be filled by heads of fields, such as sitting professors at universities, ceo's of banks etc. Otherwise, popularity and not expertise will be represented.

Think of the school you went/go to.... would like to be subject to those who were most popular, or those who knew what they were on about?

 

[PoetOfDreams]

I'd say 25% across the board.

I'll second that.

 

[acd]

The sciences as long as they remain objective, should be dominant. The other ones will either cease to influence or function more efficiently.

 

[Duty]

I'd say 25% across the board.

Why?

 

[mayflow]

The sciences as long as they remain objective, should be dominant. The other ones will either cease to influence or function more efficiently.

The topic starter has stated a premise of 4 institutions, and their perspective roles in societies and cultures. In this respect, i think it is not a pre or sub Domitive role that any should play, but that they all work together interactively for the common welfare of all.

 

[Duty]

Two observations.

First. Religion is necessary for the functioning of the state, because ldoking at history, every culture at every time has had religion - ie. it is probably in the nature of man to be religious.

And every society has failed or is currently messed up. Coincidence?

Where there is no religion (no organised religion, that is) superstition and appointment of a god-figure usually occurs.

Religion IS superstition...

In a monarchy, it would be dangerous for the monarch to take on a god-like role. So the monarch should be religious, so that he/she still acts as a citizen, subject to a higher power - otherwise, if regarded as the ultimate power, such a monarch could easily become a tyrant.

So we need religion for our heads of state to not be corrupt? From the precedences of history, religion is exploited by the corrupt, it does not make them not corrupt.

 

[acd]

The topic starter has stated a premise of 4 institutions, and their perspective roles in societies an cultures. In this respect, i think it is not a pre or sub Domitive role that any should play, butt hat they all work together interactively for the comm welfare of all.

What if I think some of them are unnecessary? Which is what I think. What if one is dominant, and whatever findings or progressions are made help to eliminate the less efficient ones? Kinda like Ocam's razor? Seems that a few of the four insititutions listed exist in a rather rickety fashion that is not entirely efficient. That was my meaning. Rebuttal.

 

[mayflow]

What if I think some of them are unnecessary? Which is what I think. What if one is dominant, and whatever findings or progressions are made help to eliminate the less efficient ones? Kinda like Ocam's razor? Seems that a few of the four insititutions listed exist in a rather rickety fashion that is not entirely efficient. That was my meaning. Rebuttal.

I can't rebute the idea that some of the premises are unnecessary, and in fact it was my first point that these are just premises created by the topic starter, but his rebuttal was that the premises are actually the framework of the discussion. You are INFP like me and we tend to quickly want to get rid of all the rules and just wing it freely, but I guess it is arguable that all these 4 institutions exist and can work together for all our common benefits and freedoms, just like the various MTBI types within us can.

 

[the]

The way I see it, within just about any society there exists four institutions which fight for the political power. These are the church, the state, the market, and the sciences.

The church is the religious organizations within the society. They are the moral authority within the society. They can span from a shaman in a primitive tribe to a giant bureaucracy like the Roman Catholic Church of modern society. The church views individuals in terms of virtue and sin.

The state is the legal authority within the society. They can span from a chief in a primitive tribe to a Constitutional Republic of modern society. The state views individuals in terms of being just or criminal.

The market is the financial authority within society. It can span from the traders of primitive tribes to Wall Street Banks of modern society. The market views individuals in terms of being fair or deceptive.

The sciences are the institutions of learning and advancement. They are the medicinal authority in society. They can span from the herbalists of primitive tribes to the evolutionary biologists of modern society. The sciences views individuals in terms of being healthy and sick.

My question for you is which of these institutions should have the most political power over society? Which should have the least? And why do you feel that way?

The state, or more preferably a monarchy should have the most power over society. I would throw out the sciences as having political power unless we would define the sciences as schools. The market would have as much power as the monarchy would give and the church would not need to have political power except to preserve tradition or cultural norms.

 

[acd]

I can't rebute the idea that some of the premises are unnecessary, and in fact it was my first point that these are just premises created by the topic starter, but his rebuttal was that the premises are actually the framework of the discussion. You are INFP like me and we tend to quickly want to get rid of all the rules and just wing it freely, but I guess it is arguable that all these 4 institutions exist and can work together for all our common benefits and freedoms, just like the various MTBI types within us can.

Personally, I find that laws based on morality derrived from religion are irresponsible as they are based on something unprovable. I think that research from the social sciences taken more seriously would be adequete enough for proposed legislation. If a person wants to follow a religion, they should do so on their own accord without legislating their values onto others. For example, I'm thinking about abortion. If you are against abortion, don't have one--but don't tell anyone else what to do with their body. I suppose this framework will work for the others as well. I just don't think that all four of the institutions work together for all our common benefits and freedoms. It's not necessarily that I want to throw out all rules. I just find that most of them are unnecessary.