the republic
no inequality of social power?
no, we want the best people in charge. the problem is just how to determine who they are. that's where all are problems come from.
no, the problem is the there's no such thing as the best.
you must believe in the best if you believe the statement you just made is true.
on the contrary, i don't claim my statements are true, just that there's a best.
these views amount to the same thing. it is because we can't know what's best that there is no best. the'best' is just a construction of intellect.
but there is a best, a healthiest, a homeostasis, a harmony.
everyone has a different ear.
but there's consensus; many of us share the same loves.
that's just probability: there's a relatively small number of available options, and most of them are lost every year, leaving us only the canon. plus people just like whatever everyone else does.
maybe 'the best' doesn't have to be an imaginary arbitrary standard -- but it is. the problem with inequality is not inequality per se but its historical consequences, which may be contingent. inequality of political power need not result in inequality of freedom and welfare.
welfare, by the way, IS freedom, but freedom in the true sense, which is power. power over oneself for everyone. that is the end.
what would that look like?
what gets in the way?
what can we do about it?
