Political Philosophy and Legitimacy

Political Philosophy can be understood as a response to the rule of Force--it is an attempt to legitimize specified Ruler-Ruled social arrangements. For Aristotle, that legitimization is the Teleology of Reason, i. e. the natural tendency towards governance by Reason, a thesis revived and variously revised centuries later by especially Kant and Hegel. Medieval Theocracy derives its authority from Divine sources. Hobbes argues that certain Political arrangements are a necessary corrective to natural deadly social antagonism. While Theocracy and Hobbesianism continue to have their advocates, more so than Rationalism, probably the predominant Modern Political Philosophy is Locke's, in which Government serves to facilitate and regulate natural, mutually benefical associations, as exemplified by Economic contracts. The essence of most subsequent Political debate has been regarding the degree of Government intervention necessary--from none at all (Anarchism), to minimal (Conservatism), to frequent and ongoing (Progessive Liberalism), to a complete overhaul (Marxism). The Phronetocratic analysis likewise takes Economic phenomena as a point of departure, but for entirely different purposes. What is significant to this perspective is the complexity of Contemporary Economics--e. g. a few localized foreclosures can lead to an International recession, as has been seen recently. Such complexity is, first of all, a reminder that Economic relations are only dimension of the complexity of all social relations. Secondly, any such complexity entails differences in the degree of comprehension of understanding it. So, since, as has been previously shown, inter-Individual association is natural and beneficial, the distinction between Leaders and Followers, based on their relative degrees of comprehension of the situation, in such associations, is also natural and beneficial to all concerned. Hence, a Phronetocracy, the Leadership of the Wisest, is legitimate.