14

Internal Archives of the Star Tribunal 045678tuy

Subject: Council of Shapers

begin file

History: The Star Tribunal is a committee of concerned individual citizens who have convened to consider the future of civilization. The chief appointed architect of civilization, has, at this point, been reduced to one person that has been designated a Shaper. We feel that no matter how great the character of this Shaper is, it is simply too much responsibility for one person to hold.

As the philosopher Hegel pointed out long ago, most statements that are considered fact are actually dialectics that contain their own refutation. Upon asserting the sky is blue, the simultaneous assertion is being made that it is not any other color. Suppose someone else was then to suppose the sky was some other color. Two points would arise--one would be that the sky is blue--the other would be that it is not. The resulting dialog that would take place would see one claim attain a dominant position over the other. This position would, through the purposes of this dialectic convention, be seen as factual, whereas the other contrary statement would be seen as non-factual. Without the background dialectical discussion, however, either situation may lay claim to be factual. Without a reference point in the form of a dialectical discussion and consequently annihilation of one side of the dialectical duality, fact cannot be ascertained.

Hegel concerned himself with the formation of the state, and so too do we. We feel that it is impossible for a dialectical annihilation to take place with only one Shaper present. Perhaps the Shaper in question is one of dialectic skill and argues with themselves quite well, but we feel that without other people with other perceptions, the task that has been required of them will be impossible.

Findings: The advantage of having one Shaper is that they are not bogged down by other considerations, but so too is this the disadvantage. We dissent with Hegel in that we feel that a monarchy is not the best form of government, but rather a limited, representative democracy. With more Shapers involved, it becomes possible to have more divergent perceptions evolve in the discussion. The dialectic that we propose above cannot help but take place unless of course, all Shapers become corrupt. If this happens, then there is no form of government that can help anyone as the main purpose of government in such a situation has been lost. If the service of the government becomes to itself rather than the people, that government eventually fails. If the Shapers do not take their task seriously enough to consider all that is involved, they will have doomed civilization.

It is our belief then that a council of Shapers needs to exist as opposed to an independent Shaper that is tantamount to a monarch.

Implementation: The question naturally arises as to how one should best select a Shaper. Our present Shaper was selected because of some unique characteristics. We do not debate that these characteristics make for an excellent Shaper, but that there are others with similar complementary characteristics. The chief necessary characteristic is the ability to see the likeliest probabilities of a given implementation. Plato suggested the best form of government would likely come from a philosopher-king. Minus the king part, we are inclined to agree with him. Hence, there should be a general election for the Shaper council every so often consisting of those people who fit the definition of what it means to be a Shaper. Since over time people begin to confuse the appearance for the substance, potential Shapers ought to pass a test that relies on the recognition of wisdom as opposed to intelligence. This test must permute as wisdom permutes. Those who pass should be considered for candidacy.

Limitations: Obviously the biggest limitations to our suggestion concern the variables involved. The two safeguards are points of failure. The first safeguard is the test. If the test becomes something standardized and easily sought as opposed to a tool designed to weed out those who should not be Shapers, our first safeguard is circumvented. The second safeguard is the election. If people are taken in by appearance without substance, then the second safeguard is circumvented. They have a chance to remedy any mistakes with the election taking place on whatever regular basis is decided upon, but the risk becomes that elections become rolling spectacles with no one qualified to hold the position of Shaper and instead have a lust for the power of the position Shaper endows. If society becomes corrupt to this point, no safeguard will protect it.

Conclusion: It is earnestly hoped that having a council with a number of Shapers on it will prevent society from corruption. At the very least, as long as one Shaper holds out uncorrupted, there is a check on the power of others. Even though this system is not perfect, it is the best we can think of and consider it far superior to having a single Shaper. After all, our current Shaper will not always be able to hold the position now occupied. It is far better to have some plan in place for his eventual departure than it is to assume another equally qualified candidate will replace him.

end file