Artificial intelligence has arrived. In the online world it is already a part of everyday life, sitting invisibly behind a wide range of search engines and online commerce sites. It offers huge potential to enable more efficient and effective business and government but the use of artificial intelligence brings with it important questions about governance, accountability and ethics. Realising the full potential of artificial intelligence and avoiding possible adverse consequences requires societies to find satisfactory answers to these questions. This (...) report sets out some possible approaches, and describes some of the ways government is already engaging with these issues. (shrink)

Calls to hold artificial intelligence to account are intensifying. Activists and researchers alike warn of an “accountability gap” or even a “crisis of accountability” in AI. Meanwhile, several prominent scholars maintain that accountability holds the key to governing AI. But usage of the term varies widely in discussions of AI ethics and governance. This chapter begins by disambiguating some different senses and dimensions of accountability, distinguishing it from neighboring concepts, and identifying sources of confusion. It proceeds to explore the (...) idea that AI operates within an accountability gap arising from technical features of AI as well as the social context in which it is deployed. The chapter also evaluates various proposals for closing this gap. I conclude that the role of accountability in AI ethics and governance is vital but also more limited than some suggest. Accountability’s primary job description is to verify compliance with substantive normative principles—once those principles are settled. Theories of accountability cannot ultimately tell us what substantive standards to account for, especially when norms are contested or still emerging. Nonetheless, formal mechanisms of accountability provide a way of diagnosing and discouraging egregious wrongdoing even in the absence of normative agreement. Providing accounts can also be an important first step toward the development of more comprehensive regulatory standards for AI. (shrink)

Government transparency and accountability during Covid 19: The data underpinning decisions.

Accountability is a cornerstone of the governance of artificial intelligence (AI). However, it is often defined too imprecisely because its multifaceted nature and the sociotechnical structure of AI systems imply a variety of values, practices, and measures to which accountability in AI can refer. We address this lack of clarity by defining accountability in terms of answerability, identifying three conditions of possibility (authority recognition, interrogation, and limitation of power), and an architecture of seven features (context, range, agent, forum, standards, (...) process, and implications). We analyse this architecture through four accountability goals (compliance, report, oversight, and enforcement). We argue that these goals are often complementary and that policy-makers emphasise or prioritise some over others depending on the proactive or reactive use of accountability and the missions of AI governance. (shrink)

This paper argues that attempts to apply Alasdair MacIntyre’s positive moral theory to business ethics are problematic, due to the cognitive closure of MacIntyre’s concept of a practice. I begin by outlining the notion of a practice, before turning to Moore’s attempt to provide a MacIntyrean account of corporate governance. I argue that Moore’s attempt is mismatched with MacIntyre’s account of moral education. Because the notion of practices resists general application I go on to argue that a negative application, (...) which focuses on regulation, is more plausible. Large-scale regulation, usually thought antithetical to MacIntyre’s advocacy of small-scale politics, has the potential to facilitate practice-based work and reveals that MacIntyre’s own work can be used against his pessimism about the modern order. Furthermore, the conception of regulation I defend can show us how management is more amenable to ethical understanding than MacIntyre’s work is often taken to imply. (shrink)

I provide a new account of what it is for the laws of nature to govern the evolution of events. I locate the source of governance in the content of law propositions. As such, I do not appeal to primitive notions of ground, essence, or production to characterize governance. After introducing the account, I use it to outline previously unrecognized varieties of governance. I also specify that laws must govern to have two theoretical virtues: explanatory power as (...) well as a theoretical virtue I call expansiveness. A theory is expansive, roughly, when it can do more with less. (shrink)

Laws of nature are sometimes said to govern their instances. Spelling out what governance is, however, is an important task that has only recently received sustained philosophical attention. In the first part of this paper, I argue against the two prominent reductive views of governance—modal views and grounding views. Ruling out the promising candidates for reduction supports the claim that governance is sui generis. In the second part of this paper, I argue that governance is subject (...) to a contingency requirement. Laws govern their instances only if those instances are metaphysically contingent. I end by defending the resulting account of governance from two potential objections. (shrink)

In her paper, “The Non-Governing Conception of Laws,” Helen Beebee argues that it is not a conceptual truth that laws of nature govern, and thus that one need not insist on a metaphysical account of laws that makes sense of their governing role. I agree with the first point but not the second. Although it is not a conceptual truth, the fact that laws govern follows straightforwardly from an important (though under-appreciated) principle of scientific theory choice combined with a highly (...) plausible claim about the connection between scientific theory choice and theory choice in metaphysics. I present and defend this argument and then show how the resulting understanding of governance gives rise to an especially strong version of recent explanatory circularity arguments against Humeanism about laws of nature. Finally, I present three options for a further understanding of the governance relation that are compatible with my argument. (shrink)

Autonomous AI agents present transformative opportunities and significant governance challenges. Existing frameworks, such as the EU AI Act and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, fall short of addressing the complexities of these agents, which are capable of independent decision-making, learning, and adaptation. To bridge these gaps, we propose the ETHOS (Ethical Technology and Holistic Oversight System) framework—a decentralized governance (DeGov) model leveraging Web3 technologies, including blockchain, smart contracts, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). ETHOS establishes a global registry (...) for AI agents, enabling dynamic risk classification, proportional oversight, and automated compliance monitoring through tools like soulbound tokens and zero-knowledge proofs. Furthermore, the framework incorporates decentralized justice systems for transparent dispute resolution and introduces AI-specific legal entities to manage limited liability, supported by mandatory insurance to ensure financial accountability and incentivize ethical design. By integrating philosophical principles of rationality, ethical grounding, and goal alignment, ETHOS aims to create a robust research agenda for promoting trust, transparency, and participatory governance. This innovative framework offers a scalable and inclusive strategy for regulating AI agents, balancing innovation with ethical responsibility to meet the demands of an AI-driven future. (shrink)

Why Governments Become Corrupt: The Role of Power, Education, and Moral Values -/- Corruption is one of the most persistent problems in governance, affecting societies across different political and economic systems. It undermines democracy, weakens institutions, and diverts resources meant for public welfare into private hands. While corruption is often associated with greed and abuse of power, its roots go much deeper, extending to failures in the educational system and the erosion of family moral values. This essay explores the (...) reasons behind government corruption and how systemic failures in education and morality contribute to its persistence. -/- 1. Power Without Accountability -/- One of the primary reasons governments become corrupt is the unchecked power held by officials. When political leaders and bureaucrats operate without sufficient oversight, they are more likely to misuse public funds, manipulate policies, and engage in bribery or favoritism. In many countries, weak democratic institutions fail to impose consequences on corrupt individuals, allowing them to act with impunity. The absence of transparency in decision-making processes further enables corruption to thrive, as citizens are kept in the dark about how their governments operate. -/- 2. Weak Legal and Political Institutions -/- Corruption flourishes in environments where legal frameworks exist but are not enforced. Many countries have anti-corruption laws, yet enforcement is selective or non-existent. This failure is often due to political interference in the judiciary, where corrupt leaders appoint judges who will protect them from prosecution. Furthermore, when law enforcement agencies themselves are corrupt, they fail to investigate and punish those in power. This creates a vicious cycle where corruption becomes the norm rather than the exception. -/- 3. The Role of Greed and Self-Interest -/- Human nature, particularly the pursuit of wealth and status, plays a significant role in government corruption. Many officials prioritize their personal and political interests over the welfare of the people they serve. Bribery, embezzlement, and fraud become tempting options for those seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of society. Additionally, political patronage—where politicians use their power to reward loyal supporters with government positions or contracts—further entrenches corruption. -/- 4. The Failure of the Educational System -/- One of the overlooked causes of corruption is the failure of the educational system to instill ethical values and critical thinking. Education is supposed to shape responsible citizens, but in many countries, the system is focused on rote learning rather than teaching morality, civic responsibility, and ethical leadership. Schools and universities often do not provide students with the tools to question authority, recognize corruption, or demand transparency from their leaders. -/- Moreover, when the education system itself is corrupt—through bribery in admissions, fake diplomas, or unqualified teachers—it sets a dangerous precedent. Students grow up believing that success can be achieved through dishonest means, reinforcing the idea that corruption is an acceptable part of life. Without a strong moral foundation in education, future generations are more likely to participate in or tolerate corrupt practices. -/- 5. The Decline of Family Moral Values -/- Family plays a crucial role in shaping an individual’s ethical beliefs and behaviors. However, in many societies, traditional moral values that emphasize honesty, integrity, and accountability are declining. Parents, preoccupied with economic survival, may fail to teach their children the importance of moral principles. In some cases, families themselves engage in corrupt behaviors—such as paying bribes to secure jobs or influencing government officials for personal gain—sending the message that corruption is a necessary survival strategy. -/- Religious and cultural institutions, which once played a significant role in promoting ethical behavior, have also lost influence in many societies. As materialism and individualism grow stronger, the collective responsibility for upholding moral values weakens. When individuals lack strong moral guidance from their families and communities, they are more likely to justify corrupt actions when they gain positions of power. -/- 6. Economic Pressures and Low Salaries -/- Economic hardship can also drive corruption, especially in developing nations where government employees are underpaid. When officials struggle to meet their basic needs, they may resort to accepting bribes, embezzling funds, or engaging in illicit activities to supplement their income. In such environments, corruption becomes a survival mechanism rather than just a moral failure. -/- 7. Corporate Influence and Political Lobbying -/- The influence of powerful corporations over government policies is another major driver of corruption. Large businesses often fund political campaigns, expecting favorable policies in return. This results in leaders prioritizing corporate interests over public welfare. When governments are captured by private interests, policies that should benefit the majority are distorted to serve a wealthy elite. -/- 8. The Lack of Civic Engagement and Public Awareness -/- When citizens do not actively participate in governance or demand accountability, corrupt leaders face little resistance. A disengaged population allows corruption to thrive because there is no pressure for change. In many cases, people feel powerless or fear retaliation for speaking out against corrupt officials. Strengthening civic awareness through education, media, and public activism is essential in the fight against corruption. -/- Solutions: Restoring Integrity Through Education and Morality -/- To combat corruption effectively, reforms must address not only political and legal structures but also educational and moral foundations: -/- Strengthening the Educational System: Schools must incorporate ethics, civic responsibility, and critical thinking into their curriculum. Teachers should emphasize honesty and accountability, ensuring that students understand the long-term consequences of corruption. -/- Rebuilding Family Moral Values: Families must take a more active role in teaching children about integrity and social responsibility. Parents should set examples by refusing to participate in corrupt practices. -/- Enforcing Strong Anti-Corruption Laws: Governments must ensure that laws against corruption are applied equally, regardless of political or economic status. Independent judicial bodies should oversee investigations and prosecutions. -/- Improving Transparency in Governance: Public access to government transactions and decision-making processes must be expanded to reduce opportunities for corruption. Digital tools, such as open data platforms, can help track government spending and prevent misuse of funds. -/- Encouraging Citizen Participation: People must be empowered to hold their leaders accountable. This includes supporting investigative journalism, encouraging whistleblowers, and engaging in peaceful protests or advocacy movements. -/- Conclusion -/- Government corruption is a complex issue rooted in systemic failures, economic pressures, and ethical erosion. While power, greed, and weak institutions contribute to corruption, the failure of the educational system and the decline of moral values play an equally significant role. Addressing corruption requires a multi-faceted approach that not only strengthens laws and institutions but also reforms education and restores ethical foundations within families. Only through a collective effort to instill integrity at all levels of society can corruption be effectively minimized, paving the way for just and accountable governance. -/- . (shrink)

According to the governing conception of the laws of nature, laws, in some sense, determine concrete goings-on. Just how to understand the sort of determination at play in governance is, however, a substantial question. One potential answer to this question, which has recently received some attention, is that laws govern by grounding what happens in the concrete world. If this account succeeded, it would show that governance can be understood in terms of an independently motivated and widely accepted (...) notion. Thus far, though, the grounding conception of governance has not been developed or evaluated in detail. In this paper, I fill this gap by mapping out and evaluating various possible ways of developing this conception of governance. My main conclusion is that the grounding conception runs into serious difficulties in trying to capture the key idea that governing laws determine the distribution of fundamental property instances. (shrink)

Governance encompasses the processes by which organizations are directed, controlled and held to account. It includes the authority, accountability, leadership, direction, and control exercised in an organization. Greatness can be achieved when good governance principles and practices are applied throughout the whole organization. Ethical Governance requires that public officials adhere to high moral standards while serving others. Authentic Governance entails the systematic process of continuous, gradual, and routine personal/corporate improvement, steering, and learning that lead to sustainable (...) high personal/corporate performance and excellence. Thus authentic governance represents the ability to discern right from wrong and the commitment to do what is right, good, and proper. Benevolent governance is perceived to be for benefit of the population as a whole. Sikhism, a panentheistic religion, originated in the Punjab province of the Indian subcontinent, during the 15th century. It is one of the youngest and fifth major world religions, founded by Guru Nanak. The fundamental beliefs of Sikhism have been enshrined in the sacred scripture, Sri Guru Granth Sahib [1-3]. These beliefs include faith in one universal creator, unity of all humankind, engaging in selfless service, striving for social justice for all, honest livelihood and ethical conduct while living a householder's life. Sri Guru Grant Sahib provides very useful insights for governance through religious or secular organizations, that address human rights, education, or diplomacy to end all forms of disparity/discrimination among people [4-5]. In this article, an attempt is made to understand how the doctrines of Sikhism encourage us for better governance and by which means. Whether these doctrines align with the above-mentioned forms of governance or conflict with these. It is pointed out the most of the attributes of good, ethical, authentic and benevolent governance are genuinely supported by the Sikh doctrines. The adherence to democratic and republican organizations, for providing high-quality governance, is encouraged in Sikh principles and practices. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore how theorists might navigate a course between the twin dangers of piety and excess cynicism when thinking critically about state apologies, by focusing on two government apologies to indigenous peoples: namely, those made by the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers in 2008. Both apologies are notable for several reasons: they were both issued by heads of government, and spoken on record within the space of government: the national parliaments of both countries. Furthermore, in each case, (...) the object of the apology – that which was apologized for – comes closer to disrupting the idea both countries have of themselves, and their image in the global political community, than any previous apologies made by either government. Perhaps as a result, both apologies were surrounded by celebration and controversy alike, and tracing their consequences – even in the short term – is a difficult business. We avoid excessive piety or cynicism, I argue, when we take several things into account. First, apologies have multiple functions: they narrate particular histories of wrongdoing, they express disavowal of that wrongdoing, and they commit to appropriate forms of repair or renewal. Second, the significance and the success of each function must be assessed contextually. Third, when turning to official political apologies, in particular, appropriate assessment of their capacity to disavow or to commit requires that consider apologies both as performance and as political action. While there remain significant questions regarding the practice of political apology – in particular, its relationship to practices of reparation, forgiveness and reconciliation – this approach can provide a framework with which to best consider them. (shrink)

THE CASE FOR GOVERNMENT BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. Tired of election madness? The rhetoric of politicians? Their unreliable promises? And less than good government? -/- Until recently, it hasn’t been hard for people to give up control to computers. Not very many people miss the effort and time required to do calculations by hand, to keep track of their finances, or to complete their tax returns manually. But relinquishing direct human control to self-driving cars is expected to be more of a (...) challenge, despite the predicted decrease in vehicle accidents thanks to artificial intelligence that isn’t subject to human distractions and errors of judgment. -/- If turning vehicle control over to artificial intelligence is a challenge, it is a very mild one compared with the idea that we might one day recognize and want to implement the advantages of human government by AI. But, like autonomous vehicle control, government by AI is likely to offer decided benefits. -/- In other publications, the author has studied a variety of widespread human limitations that, throughout human history, have led to much human suffering as well as ecological destruction. For the first time, these psychological and cognitive human shortcomings are taken into account in an essay that makes the case for government by artificial intelligence. (shrink)

Civil society participation in international and European governance is often promoted as a remedy to its much-lamented democratic deficit. We argue in this paper that this claim needs refinement because civil society participation may serve two quite different purposes: it may either enhance the democratic accountability of intergovernmental organisations and regimes, or the epistemic quality of rules and decisions made within them. (...).

There is a long-running debate as to whether privacy is a matter of control or access. This has become more important following revelations made by Edward Snowden in 2013 regarding the collection of vast swathes of data from the Internet by signals intelligence agencies such as NSA and GCHQ. The nature of this collection is such that if the control account is correct then there has been a significant invasion of people's privacy. If, though, the access account is correct then (...) there has not been an invasion of privacy on the scale suggested by the control account. I argue that the control account of privacy is mistaken. However, the consequences of this are not that the seizing control of personal information is unproblematic. I argue that the control account, while mistaken, seems plausible for two reasons. The first is that a loss of control over my information entails harm to the rights and interests that privacy protects. The second is that a loss of control over my information increases the risk that my information will be accessed and that my privacy will be violated. Seizing control of another's information is therefore harmful, even though it may not entail a violation of privacy. Indeed, seizing control of another's information may be more harmful than actually violating their privacy. (shrink)

Everyone agrees that not all norms that govern belief and assertion are epistemic. But not enough attention has been paid to distinguishing epistemic norms from others. Norms in general differ from merely evaluative standards in virtue of the fact that it is fitting to hold subjects accountable for violating them, provided they lack an excuse. Different kinds of norm are most readily distinguished by their distinctive mode of accountability. My thesis is roughly that a norm is epistemic if and (...) only if its violation makes it fitting to reduce epistemic trust in the subject, even if there is no doubt about their sincerity, honesty, or other moral virtues. That is, violations of epistemic norms don’t merit resentment or other forms of blame, but rather deduction of credibility points in internal scorekeeping and related attitudinal and behavioral changes. As Fricker’s work on epistemic injustice shows, such distrust is undesirable from the point of view of an epistemic agent. Consequently, when one manifests epistemic distrust towards a subject in suitable circumstances, it amounts a way of holding her accountable. Since this form of accountability involves no opprobrium, there is good reason to think it is not linked to voluntary control in the same way as moral accountability. Finally, I make use of this account of what makes epistemic norms distinctive to point out some faulty diagnostics in debates about norms of assertion. My aim is not to defend any substantive view, however, but only to offer tools for identifying the right kind of evidence for epistemic norms. (shrink)

Pogge and Wenar have recently argued that we are responsible for the persistence of the so-called ‘resource curse’. But their analyses are limited in important ways. I trace these limitations to their undue focus on the ways in which the international rules governing resource transactions undermine government accountability. To overcome the shortcomings of Pogge’s and Wenar’s analyses, I propose a normative framework organized around the social value of government responsiveness and discuss the implications of adopting this framework for future normative (...) assessment of the resource curse and our relationships to it. (shrink)

Abstract: As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies rapidly evolve and permeate various aspects of society, the need for effective regulation and governance has become increasingly critical. This paper explores the current landscape of AI regulation, examining existing frameworks and their efficacy in addressing the unique challenges posed by AI. Key issues such as ensuring compliance, mitigating biases, and maintaining transparency are analyzed. The paper also delves into ethical considerations surrounding AI governance, emphasizing the importance of fairness and accountability. Through (...) case studies of different regulatory approaches and their outcomes, the paper highlights both successes and areas for improvement. Finally, it offers insights into future directions for AI regulation, advocating for innovative policies and enhanced international cooperation to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed responsibly. This comprehensive analysis aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on creating robust regulatory mechanisms that can keep pace with the rapid advancement of AI. (shrink)

This paper identifies, develops, and argues for an interpretation of Mary Astell’s understanding of self-government. On this interpretation, what is essential to self-government, according to Astell, is an agent’s responsiveness to her own reasoning. The paper identifies two aspects of her theory of self-government: an ‘authenticity’ criterion of what makes our motives our own and an account of the capacities required for responsiveness to our own reasoning. The authenticity criterion states that when our motives arise from some external source without (...) validation by our own understanding of the reasons supporting them, then they are not our own. The capacities requisite for responsiveness to our own reasoning are those of examining and evaluating our own motives and of resisting the social pressure to conform to others’ opinions. An upshot of this interpretation of Astell’s theory of self-government is that it reveals her insights into the ways ‘custom’ can undermine an individual’s ability to govern oneself. (shrink)

Non-Humean accounts of the metaphysics of nature posit either laws or powers in order to account for natural necessity and world-order. We argue that such monistic views face fundamental problems. On the one hand, neo-Aristotelians cannot give unproblematic power-based accounts of the functional laws among quantities offered by physical theories, as well as of the place of conservation laws and symmetries in a lawless ontology; in order to capture these characteristics, commitment to governing laws is indispensable. On the other hand, (...) ontologies that entirely exclude some kind of power ascription to worldly entities face what we call the Governing Problem: such ontologies do not have the resources to give an adequate account of how laws play their governing role. We propose a novel dualist model, which, we argue, has the resources to solve the difficulties encountered by its two dominant competitors, without inheriting the problems of either view. According to the dualist model, both laws and powers are equally fundamental and irreducible to each other, and both are needed in order to give a satisfactory account of the nomological structure of the world. The dualist model constitutes thus a promising alternative to current monistic views in the metaphysics of science. (shrink)

Can stable regularities be explained without appealing to governing laws or any other modal notion? In this paper, I consider what I will call a ‘Humean system’—a generic dynamical system without guiding laws—and assess whether it could display stable regularities. First, I present what can be interpreted as an account of the rise of stable regularities, following from Strevens [2003], which has been applied to explain the patterns of complex systems (such as those from meteorology and statistical mechanics). Second, since (...) this account presupposes that the underlying dynamics displays deterministic chaos, I assess whether it can be adapted to cases where the underlying dynamics is not chaotic but truly random—that is, cases where there is no dynamics guiding the time evolution of the system. If this is so, the resulting stable, apparently non-accidental regularities are the fruit of what can be called statistical necessity rather than of a primitive physical necessity. (shrink)

Since the Enlightenment, there have been advocates for the rationalizing efficiency of enlightened sovereigns, bureaucrats, and technocrats. Today these enthusiasms are joined by calls for replacing or augmenting government with algorithms and artificial intelligence, a process already substantially under way. Bureaucracies are in effect algorithms created by technocrats that systematize governance, and their automation simply removes bureaucrats and paper. The growth of algorithmic governance can already be seen in the automation of social services, regulatory oversight, policing, the justice (...) system, and the military. However, there have also always been justified democratic and economic criticisms of autocracy, bureaucracy, technocracy, and algorithmic governance. Bureaucrats, technocrats, and algorithms embody biases that tend to serve the interests of elites, and all require transparency and democratic accountability, oversight individual citizens are ill equipped to exercise. As state apparatuses are increasingly automated, mechanisms for collective action and democratic oversight also need to be automated. Algorithms and cyborg citizenry will enable a posthuman democracy. Democratically accountable algorithmic governance, enabled by artificial intelligence and human enhancement, can automate bottom-up citizen surveillance, inform debate, aggregate decision making, and ensure the efficient working of the gradually withering state. As paid work disappears and we transition to a postcapitalist economy with a universal basic income, market mechanisms can be replaced with democratic planning. Indeed, only algorithmic governance can secure our future against accelerating threats from technological innovation. (shrink)

The paper develops two objections to Michael Bratman’s self-governance approach to the normativity of rational requirements. Bratman, drawing upon work by Harry Frankfurt, argues that having a place where one stands is a necessary, constitutive element of self-governance, and that violations of the consistency and coherence requirements on intentions make one lack a place where one stands. This allows for reasons of self-governance to ground reasons to comply with these rational requirements, thereby vindicating the normativity of rationality. (...) The first objection is that the account under-generates reasons, since not all cases of incoherence will involve a failure to have a place where one stands. The second objection is that the account over-generates reasons: we would have strong reasons to avoid both incoherence and ambivalence. However, if we follow Frankfurt in thinking that ambivalence is a “disease of the will” that is as irrational as having contradictory beliefs, this second objection doesn’t get off the ground. Thus, the first part of the paper is devoted to explaining why Frankfurt’s argument for the irrationality of ambivalence fails. (shrink)

The agentic web refers to a vision of the internet where AI agents play a central role in facilitating interactions, automating tasks, and enhancing user experiences. Realizing this vision requires us to rethink how we govern the internet. Within the agentic web, the promise of AI systems becoming more decentralized and autonomous represents unique challenges and opportunities for governance, necessitating innovative approaches to ensure responsible integration into society. Toward this end, we propose the Know Your Agent framework, designed to (...) manage Decentralized AI agents through identity verification, behavioral monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. Our approach integrates protocol science and legal engineering, utilizing blockchain technology to support these efforts. (shrink)

This paper explicates the influential Confucian view that “people” and not “institutional rules” are the proper sources of good governance and social order, as well as some notable Confucian objections to this position. It takes Xunzi 荀子, Hu Hong 胡宏, and Zhu Xi 朱熹 as the primary representatives of the “virtue-centered” position, which holds that people’s good character and not institutional rules bear primary credit for successful governance. And it takes Huang Zongxi 黃宗羲 as a major advocate for (...) the “institutionalist” position, which holds that institutional rules have some power to effect success independently of improvements in character. Historians have often called attention to this debate but left the major arguments and positions relatively unspecified. As I show, the Confucian virtue-centered view is best captured in two theses: first, that reforming people is far more demanding than reforming institutional rules; second, that once the rules have reached a certain threshold of viability, further improvements in those rules are unlikely to be effective on their own. Once we specify the theses in this way, we can catalogue the different respects and degrees to which the more virtue-centered political thinkers endorse virtue-centrism in governance. Zhu Xi, for example, turns out to endorse a stronger version of virtue-centrism than Hu Hong. I also use this account of the major theses to show that Huang Zongxi, who is sometimes regarded as historical Confucianism’s foremost institutionalist, has more complicated and mixed views about the power of institutional reform than scholars usually assume. (shrink)

We are agents: we can deliberate about what to do, and then act on the basis of that deliberation. We are also capable of normative self-governance: we can identify and respond to reasons as reasons. Many theorists believe that these two capacities are intimately connected. On the basis of this connection they conclude that practical reasoning must be carried out under the guise of a justification. This paper explores two strategies for avoiding that conclusion. The first, which just denies (...) the connection between agency and normative self-governance, is rejected as too costly, since it leaves the normative significance of agency unexplained. The second, which suggests that we can respond to a consideration as a reason without representing it as a reason, seems more promising, but it requires a reductive account of reasons for action. The upshot is that metaethics and action theory are entwined in ways that few have recognized. (shrink)

Cécile Laborde has argued that the freedom we think of as ‘freedom of religion’ should be understood as a bundle of separate and relatively independent freedoms. I criticise that approach by pointing out that it is insufficiently sensitive to facts about the sorts of entities that liberal states are. I argue that states have good reasons to mould phenomena such as religion into easily governable monoliths. If this is a problem from the normative point of view, it is not due (...) to descriptively inadequate accounts of religion, but a problem with a lack of realism about the sort of institutions states are. My conclusion is a three-way disjunction: either one must reckon with liberal states’ historically determined limitations in the management of changing social phenomena, or one should direct one’s frustration at the marriage of liberalism and the state, or the very existence of states is normatively problematic. (shrink)

This paper introduces the Spider Vision Framework, a biomimetic approach to AI governance inspired by the dual visual systems of spiders. By integrating focused oversight (technical detail) with systemic awareness (societal context) and grounding both in virtue ethics—particularly prudence, justice, and adaptability—the framework addresses immediate technical risks while accounting for long-term societal implications. Comparative analyses with consequentialist and deontological models underscore virtue ethics’ emphasis on moral character, and the paper proposes pilot studies for empirical validation in healthcare AI and (...) autonomous vehicles. This integrated approach aims to foster an adaptive, ethically robust governance model, balancing precision and breadth to better align AI with the common good. Initial findings suggest a significant improvement in ethical compliance and stakeholder engagement when dual-focus oversight is integrated into existing AI systems. The framework recommends targeted pilot implementations across diverse regulatory environments to ensure robust, context-specific outcomes. (shrink)

How Propaganda Became Public Relations pulls back the curtain on propaganda: how it was born, how it works, and how it has masked the bulk of its operations by rebranding itself as public relations. Cory Wimberly uses archival materials and wide variety of sources — Foucault’s work on governmentality, political economy, liberalism, mass psychology, and history — to mount a genealogical challenge to two commonplaces about propaganda. First, modern propaganda did not originate in the state and was never primarily located (...) in the state; instead, it began and flourished as a for-profit service for businesses. Further, propaganda is not focused on public beliefs and does not operate mainly through lies and deceit; propaganda is an apparatus of government that aims to create the publics that will freely undertake the conduct its clients’ desire. Businesses have used propaganda since the early twentieth century to construct the laboring, consuming, and voting publics that they needed to secure and grow their operations. Over that time, corporations have become the most numerous and well-funded apparatuses of government in the West, operating privately and without democratic accountability. Wimberly explains why liberal strategies of resistance have failed and a new focus on creating mass subjectivity through democratic means is essential to countering propaganda. This book offers a sophisticated analysis that will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working in social and political philosophy, Continental philosophy, political communication, the history of capitalism, and the history of public relations. (shrink)

I distinguish between two different ways in which the wavefunction might play a role in explaining the behavior of quantum systems and argue that a satisfactory account of quantum ontology will make it possible for the wavefunction to explain the behavior of quantum systems in both of these way. I then show how this constraint has the potential to impact two quite different accounts of quantum ontology.

Surveillance programs supporting the management of One Health issues such as antibiotic resistance are complex systems in themselves. Designing ethical surveillance systems is thus a complex task (retroactive and iterative), yet one that is also complicated to implement and evaluate (e.g., sharing, collaboration, and governance). The governance of health surveillance requires attention to ethical concerns about data and knowledge (e.g., performance, trust, accountability, and transparency) and empowerment ethics, also referred to as a form of responsible self-governance. Ethics (...) in reflexive governance operates as a systematic critical-thinking procedure that aims to define its value: What are the “right” criteria to justify how to govern “good” actions for a “better” future? The objective is to lay the foundations for a methodological framework in empirical bioethics, the rudiments of which have been applied to a case study to building reflexive governance in One Health. This ongoing critical thinking process involves “mapping, framing, and shaping” the dynamics of interests and perspectives that could jeopardize a “better” future. This paper proposes to hybridize methods to combine insights from collective deliberation and expert evaluation through a reflexive governance functioning as a community-based action-ethics methodology. The intention is to empower individuals and associations in a dialogue with society, which operation is carried out using a case study approach on data sharing systems. We based our reasoning on a feasibility study conducted in Québec, Canada (2018–2021), envisioning an antibiotic use surveillance program in animal health for 2023. Using the adaptive cycle and governance techniques and perspectives, we synthesize an alternative governance model rooted in the value of empowerment. The framework, depicted as a new “research and design (R&D)” practice, is linking operation and innovation by bridging the gap between Reflexive, Evaluative, and Deliberative reasonings and by intellectualizing the management of democratizing critical thinking locally (collective ethics) by recognizing its context (social ethics). Drawing on the literature in One Health and sustainable development studies, this article describes how a communitarian and pragmatic approach can broaden the vision of feasibility studies to ease collaboration through public-private-academic partnerships. The result is a process that “reassembles” the One Health paradigm under the perspective of global bioethics to create bridges between the person and the ecosystem through pragmatic ethics. (shrink)

Biodiversity science is in a pivotal period when diverse groups of actors—including researchers, businesses, national governments, and Indigenous Peoples—are negotiating wide-ranging norms for governing and managing biodiversity data in digital repositories. These repositories, often called biodiversity data portals, are a type of organization for which governance can address or perpetuate the colonial history of biodiversity science and current inequities. Researchers and Indigenous Peoples are developing and implementing new strategies to examine and change assumptions about which agents should count as (...) salient participants in scientific projects, especially in projects that build and manage large digital data portals. Two notable efforts are the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority, Responsibility, Ethics) Principles for scientific data management and governance. To characterize how these principles influence the governance of biodiversity data portals, we develop an account of fit-for-use data that makes explicit its social as well as technical conditions in relation to agents and purposes. The FAIR Principles, already widely adopted by biodiversity researchers, prioritize machine agents and efficient computation, while the CARE Principles prioritize Indigenous Peoples and their data sovereignty. Both illustrate the potency of an emerging general strategy by which groups of actors craft and implement governance principles for data fitness-of-use to change assumptions about who are salient participants in data science. (shrink)

The Importance of Holistically Empowering All Levels of Government Leadership for National Development -/- A nation’s progress is deeply rooted in the quality of its leadership at all levels of government. Effective governance requires more than just political authority—it demands informed decision-making, ethical governance, and strategic planning to achieve sustainable development. Holistically empowering all levels of government leadership is crucial to ensuring that policies are implemented effectively, economic stability is maintained, and the country remains resilient against global and (...) local challenges. Without well-trained and knowledgeable leaders, a nation risks falling into cycles of corruption, inefficiency, and instability. -/- This essay explores the importance of empowering all levels of government leadership, emphasizing how this approach strengthens governance, improves policy implementation, stabilizes the economy, and promotes sustainable national development. -/- Strategic and Balanced Decision-Making -/- When all levels of government leadership—from local officials to national policymakers—are holistically educated and empowered, decision-making becomes more strategic and well-balanced. Informed leaders understand the long-term consequences of their actions and avoid making impulsive or politically motivated choices that could destabilize the country. This ensures that governance is driven by rational planning rather than personal or short-term interests. -/- For example, countries with strong leadership development programs, such as Singapore, have demonstrated how well-informed leaders can create policies that prioritize long-term economic stability and social welfare over immediate political gains. By empowering leaders with knowledge of sustainable development, a nation ensures that progress is not only rapid but also lasting. -/- Strengthening Governance and Accountability -/- Weak leadership structures are often the root cause of corruption and inefficiency. When government leaders lack proper education in governance, economics, and ethics, they become more susceptible to corrupt practices or poor decision-making. Holistically empowering leaders through continuous education, training, and ethical reinforcement ensures a transparent and accountable government. -/- A good example is Scandinavian countries, where leadership development programs emphasize ethics, social responsibility, and economic sustainability. As a result, these countries have some of the lowest corruption levels in the world, proving that well-educated leaders are less likely to engage in corrupt activities. -/- Effective Policy Implementation -/- Even the best policies will fail if they are not implemented properly. Many developing nations struggle with policy execution due to gaps in leadership competency at different government levels. When national leaders create policies without ensuring that local leaders understand and support them, the implementation becomes weak or inconsistent. -/- By empowering leadership across all government levels, policies can be efficiently translated into real-world progress. For example, China’s rapid development was achieved not only through national-level planning but also by ensuring that local government officials were highly trained in economic management, urban planning, and infrastructure development. -/- Economic and Social Stability -/- A country’s economic health depends on leadership that understands economic sustainability. Leaders who rely solely on continuous economic growth without balancing resource management and population control risk creating long-term economic instability. -/- For instance, excessive reliance on resource extraction without reinvesting in sustainable industries has led to economic collapse in countries like Venezuela. In contrast, nations such as Germany have maintained economic stability by ensuring that government leaders at all levels are educated in economic sustainability and long-term planning. -/- Holistic leadership education should emphasize the balance between economic growth, environmental sustainability, and population regulation. Leaders must understand that wealth creation should serve the long-term needs of the people rather than short-term financial gains. -/- Resilience Against Global and Local Challenges -/- Every country faces challenges, whether from climate change, economic recessions, or political crises. A government with empowered leaders at all levels can respond effectively to these challenges. -/- For example, Japan’s efficient response to natural disasters is a result of well-trained leaders at every level of governance, from local mayors to national emergency coordinators. These leaders are educated in crisis management, ensuring that the country can adapt and recover quickly from disasters. -/- Without holistic leadership training, many nations struggle to respond to crises, leading to unnecessary loss of life, economic damage, and political instability. -/- Encouraging Grassroots Development -/- Sustainable development does not only happen at the national level—it must also be driven from the grassroots. Local government leaders play a crucial role in addressing the needs of their communities. When they are empowered with the right knowledge and skills, they can implement national policies effectively while addressing specific local challenges. -/- A good example is how decentralized governance in Switzerland has allowed local leaders to make independent decisions tailored to their communities’ needs while still aligning with national policies. This has led to high-quality public services and economic development at all levels. -/- Reducing Political Polarization and Populism -/- One of the biggest threats to democracy and governance today is political polarization fueled by misinformation and populism. Leaders who lack a holistic education in governance, economics, and social balance are more likely to manipulate public opinion for personal gain. This leads to societal divisions and weak governance. -/- When leaders are trained to understand the principles of balanced decision-making, they can guide the public towards rational, evidence-based solutions rather than emotional or ideological extremes. Countries that invest in political leadership education, such as Canada, have more stable governments with less political conflict. -/- Enhancing International Relations and Competitiveness -/- A country’s ability to engage in diplomacy, attract foreign investment, and maintain strong trade relations depends on the competency of its leaders. Well-educated and empowered government officials can negotiate better trade agreements, establish beneficial international partnerships, and improve the country’s global reputation. -/- For instance, Singapore has become one of the world’s most competitive economies due to its well-trained leaders who understand global trade dynamics, technology, and economic planning. Without a strong leadership framework, countries struggle to remain competitive in an increasingly interconnected world. -/- Solution: A Holistic Leadership Education System -/- To achieve holistic empowerment of government leadership, a structured and continuous leadership education system must be implemented. This system should include: -/- 1. Integration of Leadership Training in Education – Basic education should include subjects that develop critical thinking, governance principles, and ethical decision-making. -/- 2. Specialized Leadership Training for Government Officials – Ongoing training programs should be provided for government officials at all levels to improve their skills in policy-making, economics, and governance. -/- 3. Application of the Universal Law of Balance in Governance – Leaders should be educated on how to apply balance in decision-making to avoid extreme policies that harm economic and social stability. -/- 4. Transparency and Public Accountability Programs – Public officials should be trained in ethical governance, with strict accountability mechanisms in place. -/- Conclusion -/- Holistically empowering all levels of government leadership is the key to a nation’s sustainable development. When leaders are well-trained, accountable, and knowledgeable about governance, economics, and social balance, they can make informed decisions that benefit the country in the long run. -/- A nation that Invests in its leadership structure strengthens governance, improves policy implementation, stabilizes the economy, and builds resilience against crises. By ensuring that leadership education is integrated into all levels of governance, a country can achieve long-term progress and avoid the pitfalls of corruption, political instability, and economic collapse. -/- A true path to national development lies not just in economic policies but in the empowerment of those who lead the nation. -/- . (shrink)

Promising new solutions or risking unprecedented harms, science and its technological affordances are increasingly portrayed as matters of global concern, requiring in-kind responses. In a wide range of recent discourses and global initiatives, from the International Summits on Human Gene Editing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, experts and policymakers routinely invoke cosmopolitan aims. The common rhetoric of a shared human future or of one humanity, however, does not always correspond to practice. Global inequality and a lack of accountability (...) within most institutional contexts of international governance render these cosmopolitan proclamations of ‘one human community’ incoherent and even harmful. More generally, there exists no shared normative standard for the cosmopolitan governance of science, with which such global initiatives could be evaluated. Taking a broadly philosophical perspective, the present paper aims to better understand this problem situation, identifying three high-level challenges global governance of technoscience: problematic ideals of technology and science, the unjust formation of “global” concerns, and the limitations of cosmopolitan theory. By holistically engaging these jointly empirical and normative sites of inquiry, scholars can better support humanity’s re-imagination of technoscientific practices within and beyond the nation-state. (shrink)

Shortened and moderately revised version of an essay that initially appeared in Murove (ed.) African Ethics (2009). This chapter is a work of applied ethics that aims to provide a convincing comprehensive account of how a government official in a post-independence sub-Saharan country should make decisions about how to allocate goods such as civil service jobs and contracts with private firms. Should such a person refrain from considering any particulars about potential recipients, or might it be appropriate to consider, for (...) example, family membership, party affiliation, race, or revolutionary stature as reasons to benefit certain individuals at some cost to the public? Which of these factors should be considered an unjust or corrupt basis on which to allocate state goods and which should not? Drawing on an African ethic, this chapter answers these questions with what it calls a “moderate partialism,” according to which a government agent may rightly favor at some cost to the public veterans and victims of state injustices, but not those in her family or party. This chapter seeks to provide a new, unified explanation of why characteristically sub-Saharan values permit some forms of partiality, such as the preferential hiring of those who suffered from or struggled against colonialism, but forbid other, nepotist or prebendalist forms of partiality. (shrink)

The first case of COVID-19 in Iran was officially reported by the Iranian Government in February 19, 2020. In order to control and prevent the infection, the Government closed all the universities and requested the people to stay at home. Consequently, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS), like other universities, cancelled all the face-to-face classes in different Schools, and since the exact date for the resolution of this calamity could not be determined, TUMS decided to proceed the education flow through (...) the available Learning Management System (LMS). As one of the departments of the university, TUMS Department of Foreign Languages devised a plan and prepared itself for the new situation. This paper is a narrative account of the transition. Through reading this narration as a case of educational solution in the preset particular situation, language professors can adopt and implement efficient strategies and approaches in their educational settings. (shrink)

Over four decades, research and policy have created layers of understandings in the quest for "good" corporate governance. The corporate excesses of the 1970s sparked a search for market mechanisms and disclosure to empower shareholders. The UK-focused problems of the 1990s prompted board-centric, structural approaches, while the fall of Enron and many other companies in the early 2000s heightened emphasis on director independence and professionalism. With the financial crisis of 2007–09, however, came a turn in some policy approaches and (...) in academic literature seeking a different way forward. This paper explores those four phases and the discourse each develops and then links each to assumptions about accountability and cognition. After the financial crisis came pointers in policy and practice away from narrow, rationalist prescriptions and toward what the philosopher Stephen Toulmin calls "reasonableness". Acknowledging that heightens awareness of complexity and interdependence in corporate governance practice. The paper then articulates a research agenda concerning what "reasonably" good corporate governance might entail. (shrink)

Well-being can be promoted in two ways. Firstly, by affecting the quantity, quality and allocation of bundles of consumption (the Resource Approach), and secondly, by influencing how people benefit from their goods (the Taste Approach). Whereas the former is considered an ingredient of economic analysis, the latter has conventionally not been included in that field. By identifying the gain the Taste Approach might yield, the article questions whether this asymmetry is justified. If successfully exercised, the Taste Approach might not only (...) enable people to raise their wellbeing, but also provide solutions to a number of issues such as sustainable development and global justice. The author argues that recently developed accounts such as Happiness Economics (HE) and Libertarian Paternalism (LP) both can be considered specifications of the Taste Approach. Furthermore a third specification is identified: Inexpensive Preference Formation (IPF). Whereas LP suggests that choice architecture should be exercised when rationality fails, IPF holds that governance in certain instances should improve choices also in absence of no such failure. (shrink)

With 163 authoritative entries providing definitive explanations and critiques of the fundamental principles and practices of corporate governance, this timely Encyclopedia is a comprehensive overview of the economic, political, social, legal and environmental impacts of corporations across the globe. Bringing together almost 100 leading experts, the Encyclopedia addresses the meaning and purpose of corporate governance and how this term has evolved over time. Philosophical perspectives on corporate governance, as well as its origins and history are laid out, (...) alongside critical theories and methodologies on governance. The Encyclopedia then examines different aspects of governance related to governance regimes, neoliberalism, finance, accounting and corporate reporting, law and regulation, strategy and forms of governance. Board processes and performance, leadership in the boardroom, board directors and board diversity are explained. Focus is drawn to emerging societal problems and crises related to corporate governance and how these have been addressed by different institutions, such as digital era governance, corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability and regeneration of the natural world. The Elgar Encyclopedia of Corporate Governance is an essential reference source for academics, researchers and students of business and management, economics and finance and environmental studies. Professionals and policymakers working in the sectors of corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, management and sustainability and strategic management will also find this to be an indispensable reference work. Key Features: 163 distinct entries structured by theme Combines empirical findings with real-world examples Adopts a comparative global analysis from leading academics Accessible explanations of fundamental concepts and principles. (shrink)

What are we to make of the fact that world leaders, such as Canada’s Justin Trudeau, have, within the last few decades, offered official apologies for a whole host of past injustices? Scholars have largely dealt with this phenomenon as a moral question, seeing in these expressions of contrition a radical disruption of contemporary neoliberal individualism, a promise of a more humane world. Focusing on Canadian apology politics, this essay instead proposes a nonideal approach to state apologies, sidestepping questions of (...) what they ought to do and focusing instead on their actual functioning as political acts. Through a sociologically informed speech act theory and Foucault’s work on power, apology is conceptualized as a speech act with an essentially relational nature. The state, through apologizing, reaffirms the norms governing its relationship to its subjects at a moment when a past transgression threatens to destabilize this relation. From a Foucauldian point of view, the state’s power inheres in the very stability of the state–citizen relation, and we should therefore see apologies as defensive moves to protect state hegemony. In the context of Western liberal democracies, such as Canada, apologies embody, rather than challenge, the logic of neoliberal governmentality by suggesting that everything, including resentment against the state, can be managed within the current status quo. Nevertheless, total cynicism about apology politics is not warranted. In many indigenous apology campaigners’ demands for contrition we see another side of apologies: their potential to bring about change by enacting counterhegemonic relations to the state. (shrink)

Contemporary Information Systems management incorporates the need to make explicit the links between semiotics, meaning-making and the digital age. This focus addresses, at its core, pure rationality, that is, the capacity of human interpretation and of human inscription upon reality. Creating the new real, that is the motto. Humans are intrinsically semiotic creatures. Consequently, semiotics is not a choice or an option but something that works like a second skin, establishing limits and permeable linkages between: human thought and human's infinite (...) world of imagination; and human action, with its correspondent infinite world of intentionality, of desire and of unexplored possibilities. Two instances are contrasted as two reading lenses of current business reality: IS governance and industry 4.0. These phenomena correspond to the need to take accountability, transparency and responsibility into account, when designing IS and when using such systems through the ecology of connectivity, Big Data and the Internet of Things. Political, social and cultural dimensions are brought into the equation, when addressing the question of the relevance and adequateness of IS theory and practice to respond to contemporary challenges. The message is that what has already been achieved is but a shadow, a pale vision, of what might be achieved in the age of the new Renaissance. (shrink)

The move from outright denialism by the fossil fuel and related industries to ‘soft denial’ urges reassessing the mechanisms and networks of actors involved in anti-environmentalism. One high-level tactic which harnesses evolutionary psychology and organizational self-protective tendencies to willfully overlook negative outcomes involves compartmentalization. Segmented judgment applies to multiple domains, including highlighting commitments, declarations, and philanthropy as a mask for continuing unsustainability. Selective accounting gives the impression that states and companies are doing enough on climate, that things are not as (...) bad as they seem, and that much-touted sustainable actions compensate for continuing environmental harms–in effect reducing the impetus for responsible action and diverting attention from climate change’s primary drivers. This bait-and-switch strategy fragments climate accounting by avoiding including both sustainable and unsustainable initiatives in the same ledger. This study categorizes strategies of compartmentalization according to sectoral, narrative, political, behavioral, and structural perspectives, with examples among agrochemical, fossil, and mining industries. Each of these facets is evaluated through examples of actions undertaken by corporations and public agents, often exploiting Global North-South dynamics. In spite of these aspects having different spheres of influence, acts of compartmentalization are interconnected and represent a core background frame enabling the climate denial machine. (shrink)

The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has ushered in a new era of opportunities and challenges, prompting nations to grapple with the concept of AI sovereignty. This article delves into the definition and implications of AI sovereignty, drawing parallels to the well-established notion of cyber sovereignty. By exploring the connotations of AI sovereignty, including control over AI development, data sovereignty, economic impacts, national security considerations, and ethical and cultural dimensions, the article provides a comprehensive understanding of this emerging (...) paradigm. The potential controversies surrounding AI sovereignty, such as the tension between national interests and global cooperation, technological protectionism, human rights and privacy issues, and the risk of exacerbating global inequalities, are critically examined. To navigate these complexities and facilitate responsible AI governance, the article proposes a multifaceted international governance framework. Key recommendations include fostering multilateral cooperation and standards-setting, implementing transparency and accountability measures, establishing ethical guidelines and human rights protections, developing mechanisms for technology transfer and capacity building, and instituting robust dispute resolution and enforcement protocols. Ultimately, this article underscores the need for a balanced and collaborative approach to AI governance that aligns technological advancement with ethical integrity and global solidarity. (shrink)

Elected Positions vs. Government Jobs: Understanding the Difference and the Role of Absolute Term Limits -/- Government institutions consist of individuals serving in various roles, either as elected officials or career civil servants. However, there is often confusion about whether political positions, such as the presidency, should be considered jobs in the same way as private-sector employment. Additionally, many individuals are drawn to politics rather than private-sector careers due to its influence, benefits, and long-term security. This essay explores the differences (...) between elected positions and traditional government jobs, the reasons politicians receive salaries despite not having traditional employment, the importance of absolute term limits in preventing lifetime political careers, and why many people prefer politics over private-sector jobs. -/- The Nature of the Presidency: Public Service, Not a Job -/- A presidency, or any other elected position, is not a job in the traditional sense. In private companies, jobs involve applying, being hired based on qualifications, and working under an employer for a salary. In contrast, a president is chosen through an election, not a hiring process. The position has a fixed term (e.g., four or six years), and re-election is required to continue in office. Unlike a private job, which can be long-term or even lifelong, an absolute term limit ensures that a president cannot serve indefinitely. -/- One of the most common questions is why presidents receive a salary if their role is not considered a job. The answer lies in the nature of public service. Presidents are given a salary to compensate for full-time responsibilities, prevent corruption, and ensure that the position is accessible to individuals from all backgrounds. However, this salary does not make the role a job—it remains an elected duty to serve the country rather than a career path. -/- Elected vs. Hired Positions in Government -/- Beyond the presidency, various government positions exist, which can generally be divided into elected positions and hired government jobs. -/- 1. Elected Positions (Public Office) -/- Includes roles like President, Vice President, Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and Mayors. -/- Individuals in these positions are not hired but instead chosen through elections by the people. -/- Their tenure is limited by law, and they must either be re-elected or step down after their term. -/- Their primary duty is to create and implement policies, pass laws, and lead government functions. -/- Absolute term limits prevent them from staying in power for extended periods, ensuring leadership rotation. -/- 2. Hired Government Jobs (Civil Service) -/- Includes teachers, police officers, clerks, engineers, government doctors, and other public servants. -/- Individuals in these roles are hired through a formal process based on qualifications, exams, and experience. -/- They work under civil service rules and are subject to government employment laws. -/- They have job security, benefits, and the possibility of career advancement. -/- Unlike elected officials, these government employees can stay in their positions long-term as long as they meet performance standards. -/- The key difference is that elected officials serve for a limited time and must leave office, while hired government employees can build lifelong careers in public service. -/- The Importance of Absolute Term Limits in Political Positions -/- A crucial factor that differentiates political positions from private-sector jobs is absolute term limits, which completely prevent politicians from holding the same position indefinitely. This contrasts sharply with private jobs, where employees can remain in a company for decades or even a lifetime. The importance of absolute term limits includes: -/- 1. Eliminating Lifetime Political Careers – In the private sector, individuals can build long-term careers and continue working as long as they are productive. However, in politics, absolute term limits prevent individuals from staying in power for extended periods, ensuring leadership change. -/- 2. Preventing the Accumulation of Too Much Power – When politicians remain in office for too long, they gain excessive control, leading to authoritarianism. Absolute term limits ensure that no single leader or party dominates indefinitely. -/- 3. Encouraging New Leadership and Innovation – Unlike private companies that allow employees to grow within the organization, political leadership must constantly evolve. Absolute term limits ensure that fresh leaders with new ideas and perspectives regularly take over. -/- 4. Reducing Corruption and Political Entitlement – In private companies, performance determines job security. In politics, however, long-serving officials often manipulate power structures to stay in office. Absolute term limits reduce this risk by ensuring they cannot stay beyond their term. -/- 5. Ensuring Fair Political Competition – In the private sector, individuals can work their way up over time. In contrast, politics must remain open to new candidates. Absolute term limits prevent one person from monopolizing opportunities, allowing others to compete fairly. -/- 6. Aligning with Democratic Principles – Democracy is based on fair elections and leadership change. While private companies focus on stability and expertise, politics thrives on rotation of leaders to reflect the will of the people. -/- Absolute term limits prevent politics from functioning like private companies, where employees can build lifelong careers. Instead, they ensure that political power remains temporary, maintaining accountability and preventing individuals from treating political office as permanent employment. -/- Why Many People Choose Politics Over Private Jobs -/- Despite term limits, many individuals still prefer politics over private jobs due to the influence, prestige, and financial benefits it offers. Some key reasons include: -/- 1. Power and Influence – Politics provides decision-making authority over national and international matters, unlike private jobs, where influence is limited to business operations. -/- 2. Financial and Social Benefits – While private-sector jobs offer salaries, political positions often come with privileges, retirement benefits, and lifelong recognition. -/- 3. Networking and Connections – Politics grants access to high-level business, political, and international connections, leading to long-term opportunities even after leaving office. -/- 4. Opportunity for Leadership and Legacy – Unlike corporate jobs, where employees work under executives, politicians have a chance to become national leaders and leave a lasting impact. -/- 5. Less Performance-Based Pressure – In private companies, employees must meet performance targets. In politics, public image and alliances often matter more than measurable results. -/- 6. Access to Power Without Special Skills – Unlike private-sector jobs that require technical skills and expertise, political success depends more on charisma, public appeal, and strategic alliances. -/- Why the Distinction Matters -/- Understanding the difference between elected positions and traditional employment is essential for maintaining democratic systems. In private companies, long-term careers are encouraged to build expertise and stability. However, in politics, absolute term limits ensure that no one stays in power indefinitely, preventing dictatorship and keeping leadership accountable. -/- Conclusion -/- While all government positions contribute to the functioning of a country, elected officials and government employees belong to different categories. Elected officials serve temporarily with absolute term limits, preventing them from staying in office indefinitely, unlike private-sector employees who can build lifelong careers in a company. -/- Despite these term limits, many people are drawn to politics because of power, influence, financial benefits, and leadership opportunities. However, absolute term limits remain crucial in preventing politics from becoming a permanent career path. They protect democracy, ensure leadership rotation, and prevent the concentration of power, ensuring that political service remains a temporary duty rather than a lifetime position. -/- . (shrink)

The Best Form of Government for Power Transitions -/- Throughout history, the transition of power has been a defining factor in the stability or collapse of governments. While some governments manage peaceful and stable transitions, others experience violent overthrows, civil wars, or political chaos. The key to a successful power transition lies in strong institutions, clear succession rules, and public trust in the system. Based on historical evidence, liberal democracies with strong institutions are the most effective at ensuring smooth transitions. (...) However, other forms of government can also maintain stability if they have well-defined mechanisms for succession. This essay examines various government types and their effectiveness in power transitions. -/- The Importance of Stable Power Transitions -/- The process of transferring power is one of the most vulnerable moments for any political system. The ability to ensure smooth leadership changes is crucial for long-term stability. Governments that fail in this aspect often face coups, revolutions, or national disintegration. The most effective power transitions depend on: -/- 1. Legitimacy – Leaders must be chosen through a process accepted by the people and elites. -/- 2. Strong Institutions – Independent branches of government ensure continuity regardless of leadership changes. -/- 3. Elite Consensus – Political elites should agree on a leader’s succession to prevent internal power struggles. -/- 4. Public Support – If the population believes in the process, transitions are peaceful. -/- 5. Military Neutrality – The armed forces should not interfere in leadership changes. -/- Different forms of government approach power transitions in distinct ways. Below, we analyze their effectiveness. -/- 1. Liberal Democracy: The Best Model for Peaceful Transitions -/- Definition: -/- Liberal democracies are systems where leaders are chosen through free and fair elections, with checks and balances to prevent authoritarian rule. -/- Why It Ensures Smooth Transitions: -/- ✔ Elections Provide Legitimacy – Power changes peacefully through regular elections. ✔ Strong Institutions – Courts, legislatures, and the media help uphold the rule of law. ✔ Public Accountability – Leaders who lose elections step down without conflict. -/- Examples of Successful Power Transitions: -/- ✅ United States – Since 1789, despite crises like the Civil War and Great Depression, power transitions have remained constitutional. ✅ United Kingdom – The parliamentary system allows for smooth leadership changes without national instability. ✅ Germany (Post-WWII) – After democratic reforms, Germany has had peaceful transitions of power. -/- Challenges: -/- ❌ Election Disputes Can Create Instability – Example: The U.S. Capitol Riot (2021) after a contested election. ❌ Weak Institutions in Young Democracies – Example: Kenya’s 2007 election disputes led to violence. -/- Best Democratic Model: -/- ✔ Parliamentary Democracies (e.g., UK, Canada, Germany) tend to have smoother transitions than presidential systems because: -/- Leadership changes occur within political parties, reducing external conflicts. -/- Votes of no confidence can remove leaders without revolutions or coups. -/- 2. Constitutional Monarchy: Stable If Institutions Are Strong -/- Definition: -/- A constitutional monarchy is a system where a king or queen serves as a symbolic head of state, while an elected government runs the country. -/- Why It Ensures Smooth Transitions: -/- ✔ Monarchy Provides Stability – Kings and queens remain constant, reducing uncertainty. ✔ Elections Determine Political Leaders – The prime minister and parliament handle governance. ✔ Symbolic Unity – Monarchs can unify the country during crises. -/- Examples of Stable Monarchies: -/- ✅ United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Netherlands – Power transitions occur through democratic elections, while the monarchy remains a stabilizing force. -/- Challenges: -/- ❌ If the Monarch Becomes Politically Active, It Can Cause Crisis – Example: Thailand (2020s protests against the monarchy’s influence). ❌ If a Monarch Dies Unexpectedly, It Can Create Uncertainty – Example: Spain’s transition after Franco’s dictatorship (1975) depended on King Juan Carlos I to restore democracy. -/- Best Model for Monarchies: -/- ✔ Monarchies that Stay Neutral in Politics (e.g., UK, Sweden) prevent power struggles. -/- 3. One-Party States: Stable but Risky if a Leader Dies Unexpectedly -/- Definition: -/- One-party states are systems where only one political party governs, often without free elections. -/- Why It Can Have Stable Transitions: -/- ✔ Predictable Leadership Changes (if well-structured) – Leaders are often pre-selected within the ruling party. ✔ Less Election Conflict – No multi-party competition reduces disputes. ✔ Long-Term Policies – The government can plan policies without election cycles. -/- Examples of One-Party States with Stable Transitions: -/- ✅ China (Communist Party Rule) – Leaders were replaced every 10 years before Xi Jinping extended his rule. ✅ Vietnam (Communist Party) – The ruling party ensures orderly successions. -/- Challenges: -/- ❌ If a Leader Dies Suddenly, It Can Create Chaos – Example: North Korea after Kim Jong-il’s death (2011). ❌ If There’s No Clear Successor, Infighting Can Occur – Example: Soviet Union’s power struggles after Stalin’s death (1953). -/- Best Model for One-Party States: -/- ✔ China’s Model (Before 2018) – Leaders were pre-selected within the Communist Party, preventing instability. -/- 4. Absolute Monarchies and Dictatorships: The Most Unstable in Transitions -/- Definition: -/- A system where power is concentrated in one ruler or a small elite group, without elections. -/- Why Transitions Are Unstable: -/- ❌ No Clear Rules for Succession – Leaders often die or are overthrown, causing power struggles. ❌ Military Often Decides the Next Leader – Coups and instability occur frequently. ❌ If a Leader Becomes Too Powerful, No One Can Challenge Them – This leads to violent transitions. -/- Examples of Failed Transitions in Dictatorships: -/- ❌ Libya (Gaddafi Overthrown, 2011) – No clear succession plan led to a failed state. ❌ Soviet Union (After Stalin’s Death, 1953) – Power struggles created instability. ❌ Iraq (After Saddam Hussein, 2003) – No clear transition led to civil war. -/- Best Model for Dictatorships: -/- ✔ If a Dictatorship Must Exist, It Should Have a Clear Succession Plan – Example: Saudi Arabia has a royal succession council to avoid uncertainty. -/- Conclusion: Which Government Type is Best for Transitions? -/- 1️⃣ Best for Smooth Transitions: Liberal Democracies with Strong Institutions -/- Best Example: Parliamentary Systems (UK, Canada, Germany) – Leaders change peacefully without major conflicts. -/- 2️⃣ Good for Stability but Less Flexible: Constitutional Monarchies -/- Best Example: Japan, UK, Netherlands – Monarchs provide continuity, while governments change through elections. -/- 3️⃣ Stable but Risky: One-Party States -/- Best Example: China (Before 2018) – Internal party succession prevented chaos, but risk of dictatorship remains. -/- 4️⃣ Most Unstable: Dictatorships and Absolute Monarchies -/- Worst Example: Libya, Iraq, North Korea – Transitions are violent and unpredictable. -/- Ultimately, liberal democracies with strong institutions (especially parliamentary systems) are the best for stable power transitions. Dictatorships and absolute monarchies, on the other hand, often collapse violently when leaders die or are overthrown. By ensuring strong institutions, clear succession rules, and public trust, governments can create a system where leadership changes occur peacefully, securing long-term stability. -/- . (shrink)

Political short-termism costs the global economy hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars annually, and leads to many millions of deaths from disasters and suboptimal spending. In this paper, I propose a futures assembly explicitly incentivised to promote the interests of future generations as a promising strategy to ameliorate short-termism. The assembly I propose is governed by citizens randomly selected from among the populace, who are rewarded in the future to the extent that they successfully promote the welfare of future (...) generations. The most initially promising such retrospective accountability mechanism is an iterated mechanism, in which each generation of policymakers rewards the previous generation for their policy choices and for their own evaluation of the previous generation. Such an assembly, supplemented with the duties, powers, and tools that I describe, and with appropriate support from archivists and experts, may manage to represent generations many years into the future. (shrink)

Fred Dretske, Michael Tooley, and David Armstrong accept a theory of governing laws of nature according to which laws are atomic states of affairs that necessitate corresponding natural regularities. Some philosophers object to the Dretske/Tooley/Armstrong theory on the grounds that there is no illuminating account of the necessary connection between governing law and natural regularity. In response, Michael Tooley has provided a reductive account of this necessary connection in his book Causation (1987). In this essay, I discuss an improved version (...) of his account and argue that it fails. First, the account cannot be extended to explain the necessary connection between certain sorts of laws—namely, probabilistic laws and laws relating structural universals—and their corresponding regularities. Second, Tooley’s account succeeds only by (very subtly) incorporating primitive necessity elsewhere, so the problem of avoiding primitive necessity is merely relocated. (shrink)

This argument explores the transformative potential of AI-driven legislative simulations for creating inclusive, equitable, and globally adaptable laws. By using predictive modeling and adaptive frameworks, these simulations can account for diverse cultural, social, and economic contexts. The argument emphasizes the need for universal ethical safeguards, trust-building measures, and phased implementation strategies. Case studies of successful applications in governance and conflict resolution demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of this approach. The conclusion highlights AI’s role in democratizing governance and ensuring (...) laws are more equitable and culturally sensitive. (shrink)

This work stresses the importance of AI accountability to citizens and explores how a fourth independent government branch/institutions could be endowed to ensure that algorithms in today´s democracies convene to the principles of Constitutions. The purpose of this fourth branch of government in modern democracies could be to enshrine accountability of artificial intelligence development, including software-enabled technologies, and the implementation of policies based on big data within a wider democratic regime context. The work draws on Philosophy of Science, Political Theory (...) (Ethics and Ideas), as well as concepts derived from the study of democracy (responsibility and accountability) to make a theoretical analysis of what artificial intelligence (AI) means for the governance of society and what are the limitations of such type of AI governance. The discussion shows that human ideas, as cement of societies, make it problematic to enshrine governance of artificial intelligence into the world of devices. In ethical grounds, the work stresses an existing trade off between greater and faster advancement of technology, or innovation on the one hand, and human well being on the oher, where the later is not automatically guaranteed by default. This trade off is yet unresolved. The work contends that features of AI offer an opportunity to revise government priorities from a multilevel perspective, from the local to the upper levels. artificial intelligence, accountability, democracy, regulation, philosophy of science, ethics, political theory . (shrink)