I'm no big fan of democracy, and I am not afraid to say that. This is due to several reasons, biggest of which is that I do not believe people are equal. After all, there are people that are more educated, more virtuous, more talented, more charitable, and more good-hearted than others; and these are the people that must lead the nation and state, and not the masses, and the incapable and incompetent and ignorant. Socrates and Plato would agree with me. Democracy assumes that people are equal, though I say nonsense to that. And as people are not equal, how can they be given equal authority? The matter of the future of society is not a light one, and it should therefore be treated with care and caution. How can we allow all to vote? Why should the masses rule? The masses are ignorant and one could say that they don't know what is best for them. How can rulers rule when they must be tied down and burdened by the petty interests of the masses? That is not to say that the interests of the masses are petty, but rather that some of the interests of the masses are petty and these tie rulers and leaders down. Democracy further creates great division within society in allowing dangerous ideas to spread; thus a rational state will not tolerate ideas contrary to its aims (and the aims of the betterment of society), and yet democracy forces society to accept these blows. Democracy... how is it civilized? First, people are not equal and thus it is nonsense to say that they must have equal say; and secondly, democracy immediately reduces all politics to matters of pretty graphics and politicians treating policies like games. I often feel that sometimes people argue just for the sake of arguing! Bah, it is nonsense. Let the state set an authority and let that authority do its job. Instead of democracy, meritocracy. Meritocracy is about the idea of appointing leaders based on their merit and talent and ability and valor, as opposed to popularity (and its silly to base the leadership of a state on popularity, something so unstable and superficial). Let us cultivate the next generation of leaders, from birth, and educate them in the matters of ruling; as Socrates said, let "philosophers be Kings". There are, at any given time, only a select few fit to rule...so let them rule. Democracy might have a nice ring to it, when you say it, but when you analyze it, it is flawed as it rests on false assumptions.
If the masses are ignorant, how are they supposed to pick a benevolent leader? How do they recognize talent? Who is supposed to cultivate these leaders?
That is the responsibility, not of the masses, but of the select few exceptional individuals to take the initiative.
Then it not an idea to try to spread around, just give it a shot, Norsefire. You seem to be taking a democratic approach to reach totalitarian goals.
Um, so the "select few individuals" would be "us"? Or do you mean that the "us" say "Okay guys, pick yourselves and start educating our future leaders"? Wouldn't that, er, potentially, lead to something other than a meritocracy? I've decided I'm qualified to educate future leaders, and, since it's my responsibility, I'll educate so that they only what they need to know to keep me in the position I'm about to become accustomed to do it right.
Congratulations - you've just shown yourself to be unfit to live in America. In fact, you need to move to China immediately! The governmental leaders there are absolutely meritorious because they've used their brains and ability to rise to power over the masses. It certainly has *nothing* to do with popularity or any quality other than being smart and underhanded. So you should really enjoy living there! (As long as you don't dare open your mouth.)
Norse Regardless of the system of government that is how it works out in practice. The American people are offered a choice of a few candidates selected by media and gradually allowed to choose between one of two fairly identical options. There is no overall change in policy except by the machinations of vested interest groups. You can substitute self appointed dictators or a communist regime and it will still be money that talks. The media is an effective tool for moulding public opinion and is used to portray to the people the system of government they think they have.
The masses are ignorant and do not know what is best for them, thus their objection is irrelevant. If they object, and that is against the law, then they are criminals and will be dealt with accordingly. Giving all men equal authority is foolish; give the best, the most authority. Let the rulers be only the fittest. That makes more sense. The same principle of equal voting rights applies.
It has been relevent so far to every totalitarian regime. And in the US we have the most heavily armed masses ever. Most countries would have trouble fighting our masses. And these masses have family members in the police and military, intelligence services, etc. I think, dear boy, you had better take the masses seriously before they notice you and take you seriously. You've been advocating this for a while. Do you consider yourself one of the fittest? Why haven't you taken over yet?
You can't rule without the consent of the governed. That's not just a philosophical position, they will rise up and take matters into their own hands. It is they who decide what constitutes criminality. They grant authority.
With a monarchy, sometimes you get good kings, sometimes you get bad kings. With democracy, the system is set-up to have the most corrupt person rise to the top. The biggest argument against Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. I agree, most people do not know what's best for them, and more importantly, what's best for the nation, or even the world. But, I'm always cautious a bit....what if those in power deem me and those who agree with me straight up wrong? What if a Theocracy establishes itself in power, or on the other hand, religions become outlawed? What if the extremely powerful, extremely established government...I dunno, becomes corrupt? I do believe that voting should be earned, not granted freely. I'm thinking: public service, higher education, whatever.
I don't know; but all I do know is that I want to earn the privilege of ruling, and if I cannot, then I do not deserve that privilege. The governed need only recognize your authority; to obtain this recognition, there are plenty of methods. The governed need to be educated and taught that the wise government is there for their own good, and as such over time they will come to accept this. And the best of the best, those with merit and valor, will govern. Democracy, however, is nonsensical and is uncivilized and is a sort of mob barbarism. If we're going to have voting, we need weighted votes, where some peoples' votes count more than other peoples'.
this: has nothing to do with this: you seem to be misunderstanding the sense in which "equal" is intended.
How so? If people are not equal, then democracy's base has been collapsed; if you mean only 'equal before the law', then that is an inadequate context, because voting requires an exercise of authority, and it is foolish to say that all men are equally capable of exercising authority and handling power; and as they are not, it is foolish to give all men equal authority, and equal voting rights.
"equal before the law." that is the only sense in which it is intended. if you are arguing as regards "equality" in another sense, then "democracy" does not presume such--you do not define the context. no one does "say" this. and you are going to have to be more persuasive than this: "it is foolish to say that men are...," because "they are not."
Would you take any man to be your physician, or one that is proven to be qualified to practice medicine? You would not say all men have equal ability and skill in the practice of medicine, would you? Therefore you select the actual physician to practice medicine and not just anybody. If all men are not equal, and they are not (in ability), then giving all men equal authority is not a defendable position. Being equal before the law in the sense of having all subject to the law, is only common sense; however, giving all men equal political authority is as baseless as choosing anybody to be your doctor, even those that are not qualified Therefore, only the exceptionally qualified must rule.
and can you name one single instance, historically--by which i mean a state--in which "all men" have been accorded "equal authority"? moreover, by which process would one go about for establishing who is and who is not "exceptionally qualified"? and finally, not that this is even pertinent, but how do you conclude that socrates would agree with this: ???
