Why Aren't the Best People in Charge?

By Tom Kando

Aristocracy: (ar/I stokrə sē): Rule by the best. From the Greek aristos (αριστος) : the best, and krátos (κρατος): force, or power.

Ancient Greek philosophers advocated that society should be governed by the best people. These philosophers included Aristotle, Socrates and especially Plato, whose “Republic” is an attempt to actually describe such an effort, and who even went to Syracuse in the hope of founding the ideal society.

So who are the best?

Plato and some others felt that they are the philosophers, who therefore should be in charge. Philosophy’s claim to the throne is that philosophy can be defined as the search for the truth. Philosophers have a better chance of knowing the truth than other people do. They are wiser. On that basis, they should rule.


Twenty-two centuries later, Auguste Comte (1798-1857), the founder of Sociology, argued that society should be ruled by sociologists. In the 19th century, Sociology was not very different from philosophy, so what Comte was saying wasn’t very different from Plato.

However, the thing about philosophy (and 19th century sociology) is that they are DEDUCTIVE. They believe that the truth can be discovered through logic, through THINKING. For a long time, philosophy was by far our best hope to discover the truth (as opposed, for example, to “faith”).

But a couple of hundred years ago, a more advanced method to discover the truth arose: Science. Science added INDUCTION to what philosophy had been doing. It said that in addition to thinking, we also need to OBSERVE. It added empiricism. This one-two punch greatly improved our chance of discovering the truth.

Deductive reasoning is very nice, but it can also lead to trouble, as demonstrated by some of the nonsense produced by medieval scholasticism, even brilliant men such as Thomas Aquinas.

For example, take one of Aquinas’ five ways to prove God’s existence - his “argument from design:” We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligent. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Of course, this is basically the “intelligent design” argument, to which millions of people still subscribe today. However, Darwinian science clearly refutes this argument.

So, whereas until the 19th century - from Socrates to Nietzsche - my vote would have gone to Plato, I now feel that the people in charge should not be philosophers, but SCIENTISTS.

In other words, I feel that society should be ruled by university professors. For example, I am very happy that we elected professor Barack Obama. We need scientific minds to be in charge, people like Albert Einstein and science officer Spock. Actually, President Obama reminds me of Spock (even his ears). And don’t forget nerds! Bill Gates also has my vote.

* * * * *

The expression is “Brain vs. Brawn.” Ideally, brain should triumph over brawn. But in reality, it hasn’t. Historically, society has NOT been ruled by the best.

Take gender: On balance, women are probably better than men. They are less violent, less destructive, less murderous, less suicidal. They are built better, they live longer, have less testosterone. They are more moral, more nurturing, more cooperative. They would seem to possess greater survival characteristics. Women are Prius, or Honda, or Volkswagen. Men are Chevrolet Camaro (I know, Chevrolet recently made an impressive come-back as a quality car. But I’m talking about the stereotypical Chevrolet, one of the worst cars over the past 50 years).

Women could probably be better scientists, better artists, better leaders than men. But they haven’t been permitted to do so.

Another example: In ancient Rome and elsewhere, many of the smartest, most educated, most sophisticated people were slaves (many of them were Greeks). Their masters were brutes - rich brutes, military brutes. People like Crassus. Filthy rich generals.

Or take Jews: Their contribution to art, science and knowledge is so disproportionate that it is difficult not to think of them as simply superior to the rest of us. Yet, they have been the victims of oppression and genocide more than any other group.

So it’s brawn which has been mostly in power, not brain.

Today? Are the members of the capitalist ruling class smarter and more talented than those over whom they rule? Of course not. Aristocracy does not exist. leave comment here