@@> On Apr-25-98 Day Brown wrote to David Martorana
 @@> on  "Political Philosophies" [Stoic-Libertarianism]
 
 Not sure how "Stoic Libertarianism" is co-related in the 20th
 century mind, but if I read your signals right, you draw these
 two political concepts into a single working GOAL of government.
 
 DM>> Since you would vote LP, My inquiry would be "what is the
 DM>> Libertarian philosophy" that invites you to walk between
 DM>> state responsibilities and personal freedom...
 
 DB> Plato operated under the assumption that there would be so much
 DB> grunt work, and that such work could only be done by slaves, it
 DB> would be unrealistic to expect them to partake in government.
 
     The only attempts to construct a "Plato like" government (with
     slaves) failed because men-will-be-men! Plato's seventh letter
     mentions a (possible?) three attempts at philosopher-king
     experiments before and during his stays in the independent
     Greek colony of Syracuse on the East coast of Sicily where he
     may have spent more than 10 years over two visits.
 
 DB> I see the advance of automated production replacing the grunts.
 
     We might also see it replacing everyone else! A mechanical
     or cloned population could be very "stoic"....
 
 DB> The Libertarian ideal assumes a literate, rational, electorate.
 DB> Plato assured this with his limits on the franchise; this was a
 DB> reasonable response, given his experiences with the demogoguery
 DB> that lead to the Syracuse war and the ruin of Athens.  To avoid
 DB> demagoguery, we need to limit the franchise to those who choose
 DB> to educate themselves.  We might test voters on knowlege of the
 DB> US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Machiavelli, & Plato.  Any
 DB> additions to this curricula?
 
   I'm not so heavy in the *SMARTS* department; don't really trust
   Stoics or Libertarians any more than I do Conservatives or Liberals
   (though I am by nature a liberal). I believe political-brain-cell
   for political-brain-cell, the English had the better genes of history.
   Derived or driven, their pollen produced some of the most magical blooms
   ever to grace a garden ....Canada, Australia, the USA and in somewhat
   lessor moments an India and South Africa ++++ .....and a language to
   carry planet earth (big time) for some long term. Essentially a kingdom
   with some clever advisor minds it was workable. Some in addition to the
   normal greed/power recipe, was a rare spark and perhaps a touch of
   historical luck. I don't see Stoic or Libertarian notions overly
   evident in the British model, but there probably were some, as little
   of human nature is ever distilled to purity!
 
 DB> ............................................ given that the new
 DB> global economy, and repercussions of resource extraction, is an
 DB> evolving complex system, I doubt that voter judgement as it has
 DB> been applied, is up to dealing with it appropriately.  Plato is
 DB> right, you need vision and foresight to run a sustainable state
 DB> for the benefit of all.  Oligarchy based on wisdom, not wealth,
 DB> has never been tried.
 
   Wisdom and wealth are not mutually exclusive- and when Plato
   mentioned "Oligarchies" (letter) it was not in a positive sense.
 
 Who's measuring stick do we flash about to measure "wisdom" and
 "wealth" and even if just a perfect mix, how long can you trust
 anything human AND FREE to stay the same?  Stoic today, tyrant
 tomorrow!
 
 DB> Large populations are irrationally religious, and could not be
 DB> rationally convinced of anything.
 
     Egypt, with some bumps n warts along the way, had the longest
     (+/- 4000 years) _seemingly_ successful style of government
     having a God leader (stretching from heaven to political &
     all else). Whether the Pharaohs could be considered stoic is
     "a stretch", their obsession with an afterlife apparent.
 
 DB> I choose Stoicism after having read the Bible, Koran, Qumran, and
 DB> the various eastern- Upshanishads, Bagavad Gita, Watts & other of
 DB> the Zen writers, all which are worthy- but: the former meets well
 DB> with findings of sociology and psychology.  Perhaps because both,
 DB> Stoicism, and the sciences, owe so much to Aristotle.
 
  At this point, your life search and conclusions are things for
  me to think on. ANY imagination of options CAN be circumstantially
  possible .....and yours, well researched and seriously thought
  through, certainly deserve thought.
 
 DB> Stoicism, unlike all the religions, precludes the power structure
 DB> the latter use to promote their dogma.  There is no heirarchy for
 DB> ambitious men to use to promote themselves, while promulagating a
 DB> faith for all others.  However: since you see this, you also see,
 DB> a new way to promote a point of view that does not require such a
 DB> power structure.
 
     The "power structure" is as old as the "Egyptian model" mentioned
     above and may well serve as a practical "ease-of-order". Also,
     the Stoic style you support has a distinct "sense" of obsessive
     purity, a most~most~most difficult state to preserve.
 
 DB> You refer to this as a 'disciplined style of thought'.  But, what
 DB> Stoicism tries to do, is just be rational.
 
     All systems *CLAIM* rationality. I see no overwhelming reason
     to trust anymore a "stoic" version of it.
 
 DB> The typical catechism of adolescents into a faith takes a year
 DB> of study; give that same year to Aristotle, Epictetus, Plato, and
 DB> Seneca, and you will see Stoic philosophy, as it was when our
 DB> founding fathers studied it, (as schoolboys) put into *practice*
 DB> and spirit, if not in name.
 
 DB> In the global technocracy, the scientists will find in Stoicism a
 DB> cosmology not in conflict with the reports of science news, nor
 DB> a religious heirarchy, but a sense of collegiality in the attitudes
 DB> of the ancient authors as well as modern readers, who are willing
 DB> to submit ideas to peer review- not something religions do well.
 
 DB> The measure of the homo sapiens is, as it's name implies, a power
 DB> to be *rational*, Stoicism seeks to maximize that power.  It may,
 DB> religions claim, be that reason is inadequate to reach the truth.
 DB> It remains to be seen if reason can be improved; I mean to try.
 
  Stoicism might limit the possibility of going beyond the appearance
  of rational as it suggests a willingness to live within one's means,
  mental and physical?   The human imagination can suggest a MORE of
  it........a nature of wagering......some reaching regardless of
  measured thought.
 
 Though I appreciate your sharing some of your Stoic-Libertarian views,
 I am not yet well enough read or reasoned to see them as curative of
 our world's warty behaviors.  It is hard to imagine a "one size fits
 all" way of seeing best-of-governments. Much of your brief outline sounds
 some like the older Roman Republic (pretty damn good in its time). I
 would think that Stoicism in order to prevail itself on today's planet,
 would require some initial forced efforts ..then sooner or later it would
 likely fail as sooner or later all governments do (as also peoples).
 
                           @@>--- Dave
 
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------