In re-reading Book 1 of Plato’s Republic, while preparing my discussion notes, I was struck by the following assertion, “[A] if there should be a city of good men only, immunity from office-holding would be as eagerly contended for as office is now, and there it would be made plain that in very truth
I'm going to argue against Madison, with the analogy of a football team. On Madison's view, the only reason the team needs a captain is because some of its members might not be team players, preferring to put their own glory ahead of that of the team. But that's wrong. The team needs to pursue a coherent strategy, and the optimal choice isn't self-evident, so members are likely to disagree. The best way to do resolve this problem is to select a captain (or maybe a coach) who will choose the strategy, and who will keep their position as long as their choices are approved of in retrospect.
Technocracy is the idea that all/most of government is like this, getting the wisest experts to pick the optimal choices. But even if that's only partly right, you still need experts
Though that part of the story is contingent on the type of decision being made. If information is widely dispersed, or if people have cognitive limitations, an assembly/committee can do better than an individual. What matters is that everyone agrees to be bound by the decision, which is what makes it a government
I'm going to argue against Madison, with the analogy of a football team. On Madison's view, the only reason the team needs a captain is because some of its members might not be team players, preferring to put their own glory ahead of that of the team. But that's wrong. The team needs to pursue a coherent strategy, and the optimal choice isn't self-evident, so members are likely to disagree. The best way to do resolve this problem is to select a captain (or maybe a coach) who will choose the strategy, and who will keep their position as long as their choices are approved of in retrospect.
Technocracy is the idea that all/most of government is like this, getting the wisest experts to pick the optimal choices. But even if that's only partly right, you still need experts
This is very close to Hobbes' argument for monarchy against representative assembly.
Though that part of the story is contingent on the type of decision being made. If information is widely dispersed, or if people have cognitive limitations, an assembly/committee can do better than an individual. What matters is that everyone agrees to be bound by the decision, which is what makes it a government