Could there ever be a benevolent dictator?

The nice thing about the anti-aristocrat crowd is that they cured the whole downside to ruling. Like how they 'fixed schools'. They took prayer out of school, and they fix bullying in school, and they fix that in school. Then you come up and say, "Your new school is ranked bottom on the planet. You have four times more kids dropping out than we did before. Do you feel bad? accountable? wrong? They answer, no. Accountable? They laugh. They can always blame someone else. That is the difference. A professional ruler measures the results of a decision. The Marxist 'I'm a peasant I can do it' would never get within a hundred kilometers of looking at their results. Example? How is America doing right this second under peasant rule? Well, if you ask them, it is going AWESOME! How is it going? Total disaster. Schools collapsed. Everything collapsed. Start more wars than ever. Kill more women and kids in God knows where. But as I said, blessed are the democratic peasants. No matter how bad you do, no matter how badly you utterly fail and ruin everything, you neither care nor notice. Just hurl some insults at that guy who mentioned your failure (insulting them instantly defeats everything they said) then dance right on like nothing happened. Principles are NOT better than results. The ends DO justify the means just as total failure does not justify your methods. That is like saying killing all your patients makes you a great doctor, if your treatments are politically correct and lacking in hate. For me, hate me and heal me, not love me to death with failure. Like, I would use tazers in school if it increased test scores by 70%? Would I have 100 annual tazer deaths in school to raise test scores by 70%. I love this example. This example really grasps the peasant ruling crowd, because they would say they would rather everyone flunked out of school than anyone have to bleed for success. I would tazer them into vegetables for a score improvement of 70%.

Aren't parents just that? Benevolent dictators?

Yes, democracy is doing so badly that in every measure of standard of living out there, from per capita income, to the HDI, to magazine surveys finds that every top performing country is a democracy. Really, which non-democracies are doing really well out there, Singapore maybe, but they rely on the economies of democratic trading partners. China does well for a developing country, certainly growing quickly, but most of its people still live in extreme poverty. And it is also dependent on a trade relationship with democratic nations, and it's political system actually involves a form of democratic law making and an internal democracy within the CCP.

Jam your tendency for bizarre hyperbolic strawmen is tiring.

@Sche, but of course the parent model is the same one used by 17th century political philosophers to justify monarchical rule, like Robert Filmer's Patriarcha. However, I don't think the analogy is appropriate. After all, we recognize that children need to be lead by parents because they lack the ability to be autonomous and to make rational decisions. I guess some might think, a la Old Testament, that children should obey by the magical authority of having been parented in the first place, but that's silly. Would we extend the same arguments we use to justify limiting the rights of children to limiting the rights of adults?

Also, would any of us actually go so far as to say children have no right to a say in how their life is lead. At some point, children obviously have their own developed individuality and sense of purpose. The law recognizes, perhaps also out of democratic principle, that parents do not have absolute authority over their children. They can not use them as slave labour after all.

Once again, I'd say return to the principle of responsibility, democracy is more than just voting, it is the principle of authority deriving from the approval of those who one rules over. Would we say a parent always has legitimate authority when they overrule completely the desires of a child, to the point that the child is deprived of individuality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

The nice thing about the anti-aristocrat crowd is that they cured the whole downside to ruling. Like how they 'fixed schools'. They took prayer out of school, and they fix bullying in school, and they fix that in school. Then you come up and say, "Your new school is ranked bottom on the planet. You have four times more kids dropping out than we did before. Do you feel bad? accountable? wrong? They answer, no. Accountable? They laugh. They can always blame someone else. That is the difference. A professional ruler measures the results of a decision. The Marxist 'I'm a peasant I can do it' would never get within a hundred kilometers of looking at their results. Example? How is America doing right this second under peasant rule? Well, if you ask them, it is going AWESOME! How is it going? Total disaster. Schools collapsed. Everything collapsed. Start more wars than ever. Kill more women and kids in God knows where. But as I said, blessed are the democratic peasants. No matter how bad you do, no matter how badly you utterly fail and ruin everything, you neither care nor notice. Just hurl some insults at that guy who mentioned your failure (insulting them instantly defeats everything they said) then dance right on like nothing happened. Principles are NOT better than results. The ends DO justify the means just as total failure does not justify your methods. That is like saying killing all your patients makes you a great doctor, if your treatments are politically correct and lacking in hate. For me, hate me and heal me, not love me to death with failure. Like, I would use tazers in school if it increased test scores by 70%? Would I have 100 annual tazer deaths in school to raise test scores by 70%. I love this example. This example really grasps the peasant ruling crowd, because they would say they would rather everyone flunked out of school than anyone have to bleed for success. I would tazer them into vegetables for a score improvement of 70%.

---

I did not "hurl" insults. I made some very valid well-reasoned points. A ruling aristocracy is a bogus concept these days for the plain and simple fact that peasants like me have access to education and can therefore rival and often surpass "aristocrats" in accomplishments related to intellect and ability.

And about prayer in schools....wow that was pretty random. I just think how many doctors and lawyers came out of my small country school where God was never at all in my 5 years there mentioned.

I had just written a 2 page answer and then something stange happned and it got cancelled. I could kill my computer right now. Anyways many of you misunderstood what i meant by a meritocratic aristocracy, that was my fault the term aristocracy is loaded with various connotations. I shall try and re-write my reply.

But I will make a few quick points, first darcy you assumed that by ignorant masses i would include you fellows on this site, all of you are individuals of a certain level of culture and intelligence and i do not consider you amongst the ignorant masses. By ignorant masses i was talking about that large and influential segment of the population that is able to name more big brother contestants than members of parlimant or senators or the equvalent in you various countries.

Ok i will try to defend my position:

Orphan pip, on principle I agree with you compleatly, (to continoue with the doctor patient analogy) the patient should have full right to pick the surgeon so instead of picking the charlatan he can pick the stellar one. The ideolgy of democacy like the ideolgy of comunism is a beautifull one, but we must be realists and understand that while on paper certain things are perfect in practise not so much. It is logical that the patient if given the ability to choose would pick the best doctor, but isitlikethin in practise? Did not the american population choose G.W Bush junior not once but twice? Did not the Italian public choose to keep Berlusconi in office for a total of almost two decades? In 1932 did not the German public elect a certain Adolf Hitler with the greatest majority the reichstag had ever seen?

What if the publc has proven to be easily manipulated, so that it does not pick the best surgeon but rather the best actor, even though he may be the charlatan aand the stellar surgeon may never even recive a vote becuase he is unable or ethicaly against the cheap manipulation if the masses to get into office.

Now i would talk about how even when the stellar doctor is chosen, such as with Obama, he has no real power to change anything because there is a cirporate ogligarchy which can dominate a Demcracy because in a Democracy the only absolute power is money, but due to forum rules I shall not expand upon this point.

In italy elecric and gas power is in the controll of a state monopoly which most if the prifits end up in various politititians pockets. In italy we have brought the question of weather to implement nuclear power to public referendum only twice. The first time was 1 month after the chernobyl explosion. The second time was more recently, a mere 3 weeks after the Fukoshima disaster. Do i need to state the results of the public referendum? Isthis the meritocracy and democracy which you value, or is that but a unachievable ideal and dream? What is modern democracy in practise if not a game were the best manipulator and actor wins the great roleof biwning diwn to the knees of corporate ogligarchies and Banks.


I have much moreto say on the subject of demcracy and what Imeant by a new system of aristocratic meritocracy, but I am late fora dinner, so I shall continoue tonight tomorow. Iknow thatmy views are unorthodox especialy to people who for 200 years have known nothing but Democracy, so much so that it has become a synonom for freedom and justice, much like to a religous man whos fmily have been deeply religious for many generations his religion is just and free amd good and to question his religion is to question his freedom and notion of lufe itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

The nice thing about the anti-aristocrat crowd is that they cured the whole downside to ruling. Like how they 'fixed schools'. They took prayer out of school, and they fix bullying in school, and they fix that in school. Then you come up and say, "Your new school is ranked bottom on the planet. You have four times more kids dropping out than we did before. Do you feel bad? accountable? wrong? They answer, no. Accountable? They laugh. They can always blame someone else. That is the difference. A professional ruler measures the results of a decision. The Marxist 'I'm a peasant I can do it' would never get within a hundred kilometers of looking at their results. Example? How is America doing right this second under peasant rule? Well, if you ask them, it is going AWESOME! How is it going? Total disaster. Schools collapsed. Everything collapsed. Start more wars than ever. Kill more women and kids in God knows where. But as I said, blessed are the democratic peasants. No matter how bad you do, no matter how badly you utterly fail and ruin everything, you neither care nor notice. Just hurl some insults at that guy who mentioned your failure (insulting them instantly defeats everything they said) then dance right on like nothing happened. Principles are NOT better than results. The ends DO justify the means just as total failure does not justify your methods. That is like saying killing all your patients makes you a great doctor, if your treatments are politically correct and lacking in hate. For me, hate me and heal me, not love me to death with failure. Like, I would use tazers in school if it increased test scores by 70%? Would I have 100 annual tazer deaths in school to raise test scores by 70%. I love this example. This example really grasps the peasant ruling crowd, because they would say they would rather everyone flunked out of school than anyone have to bleed for success. I would tazer them into vegetables for a score improvement of 70%.

---

While i agreed with your previous post , i cannot say i agree to much with this one or rather i do not understand it to well. Myself as a person of noble birth realize that a political sytem were a mans entire life is defined by the circumstance of his birth is not only unjust but a great waste of human potential. Howere neither do i believe that everyone simply beacuse he is birn deserves full political right, rather much like respect i belive political vote should be earned and only given to people who have shown to be cultured and experianced enough to hold a creditable opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Yes, democracy is doing so badly that in every measure of standard of living out there, from per capita income, to the HDI, to magazine surveys finds that every top performing country is a democracy. Really, which non-democracies are doing really well out there, Singapore maybe, but they rely on the economies of democratic trading partners. China does well for a developing country, certainly growing quickly, but most of its people still live in extreme poverty. And it is also dependent on a trade relationship with democratic nations, and it's political system actually involves a form of democratic law making and an internal democracy within the CCP.

---

Yet you fail to mention that for hundreds of years while the west was monarchies and empires we colonized the rest of the world and plundered all their resources and due to strict racial segregation kept the majority of conquered nations under stromg opression, you fail to mention that the foundations of the great wealth of 20th century western democraies was stolen and pillaged by early modern western monarchies and empires from the restof the world which was bled dry and is still suffering from the effects.

"behinde every fact is a great bias" i forget who said it but it rings very true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Yet you fail to mention that for hundreds of years while the west was monarchies and empires we colonized the rest of the world and plundered all their resources and due to strict racial segregation kept the majority of conquered nations under stromg opression, you fail to mention that the foundations of the great wealth of 20th century western democraies was stolen and pillaged by early modern western monarchies and empires from the restof the world which was bled dry and is still suffering from the effects.

"behinde every fact is a great bias" i forget who said it but it rings very true.

---

And yet Athens spanked Persia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Yet you fail to mention that for hundreds of years while the west was monarchies and empires we colonized the rest of the world and plundered all their resources and due to strict racial segregation kept the majority of conquered nations under stromg opression, you fail to mention that the foundations of the great wealth of 20th century western democraies was stolen and pillaged by early modern western monarchies and empires from the restof the world which was bled dry and is still suffering from the effects.

"behinde every fact is a great bias" i forget who said it but it rings very true.

---

Certainly, but my point wasn't that democracy was solely responsible for the prosperity of the West, but that it was silly to suggest that democracies were anarchistic hell holes, when they are the most prosperous nations internationally.

Political philosophers often make a distinction between the societal attitudes in old and new democracies. Old democracies like the USA or Britain have developed a cultural understanding which shields them from a breakdown of democratic values. New democracies are often incredibly unstable, which we see with the Weimar Republic, where the institutions of democracy never got a chance to be so entrenched that no one would dare bring up the possibility of removing them. Besides, it most democracies there are limits on what an elected official is allowed to do anyway, and those limits are taken more seriously than any single politician is.

There are other benefits to democracy as well, such as Democratic Peace Theory. There are only a handful of cases in history of a democracy declaring war on another democracy. Democracy in the West also goes hand in hand with the rise of Liberal economics, Adam Smith and the capitalist who followed him were all basing their economic models on the principles of Liberalism. It is more than an idealogical argument that supports Liberalism, it is the belief that debate, constant accountability, and freedom choice genuinely will produce better results in most cases.

Of course, there are issues with democracy as put in action, and it could always be improved. I personally think political campaigns should be funded by public taxes so that every candidate is playing on an even level economically. Corporate donations are illegal in Canada, which helps mediate the disproportionate influence a corporate entity can have in politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

...debate, constant accountability, and freedom choice genuinely will produce better results in most cases.

---

In a nutshell, this completely sums up my own beliefs on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

And yet Athens spanked Persia.

---

Come now your not stupid, then why use stupid examples, we both know that in the modern sense of the word democracy, athensa was clearly not one, firstly in athens to have a vote you needed to be a citizen. To be a citizen meant that you were part of a landowning cultural elite who rareley had to work as they lived of of estates tened by slaves, slaves and merchants a large segment of the population were not considered citezens. The democracy of athens is very simllar in nature to my view of a better system, rather than the current one.

Now you may mention that many athenias such as socrates complained of their financial hardships, yes they were poor, but only in contrast the the other landowning citizens. Much like how chateabriand constantly complaigned of his poverty, yes he was poor but only in contrast to the rest of the nobility, he was still by the eefenition of a middle class merchant a rich man, abd by the defenition of a peasant a super rich man.

Also pip i never said that democracy was anarchic or hoorible, my belief and that of many of my young contempories at university is that it is founded upon an idealistic belief that much like comunism when put to practise s very deathed from how the ideal should be. My believe rests in the notion that tge power of vote should be earned not be a right of birth.

Also i dont get the thing about democrasies not declaring war upon other dmocrasies. Considering that the whole west is democratic, does that not merley show that we are uncomfortable bombing white people but brown and black people boms away!

The fact that you geoive that democracy is the best system is fine, i can respect that, te thing which deeply annoys me is that supercilious attitude that some take wereby anyone who questions democracy is automaticaly a fool and an idiot, have i not in my previous post provided valid points for discussion, and yet while everyone was quite easily able to mock my aristocratic prposal before no one has yet deigned to even offer a reply to any of the points which i think i calmly stated.

Look nothing would please me more than to have an actual debate on this subject, but as can be seen from my last post i do not simply spout out propaganda, nor do I state my belifs whith the same conviction of a mediaval pope defendind the divine right of kings. So it does not seem unreasonable that i ask of you guys to do the same. In my previous post i explained to you various reasons on which have caused me and many of my university companions to loose faith in democracy. If anyone could adress those as a start that would bea good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

In a nutshell, this completely sums up my own beliefs on the subject.

---

These sum up my beliefs too, only i vove the people debating should ge cultured and have proven to hold a valuable opinion, i think it unfair that a truck driver who has ever read a book in his life has as much political power as a man who has spent his entire life studying politics. I am not an egalitarian, we are not all eqall, some of us are stronger and some of us are smarter.

That sounds like one of those systems that would be really nice in theory, but either impossible to carry out or completely corrupt in practice. For example, how would we be able to decide who's smart enough to vote? Who would have the power to decide? Do we judge it by who has a university degree? If so, wouldn't that discriminate against autodidacts and low-income people? We can't even decide a proper measure of intelligence, how are we going to use intelligence as a measure to decide who gets a vote? Also, it would be so easy to use a system like that to push a political agenda (many people argue that universities already push a political agenda) or suppress opposition. It sounds nice, I've met a lot of stupid people who really shouldn't breed let alone vote (you have no idea, I work in a redneck town beside a bar), but it's just not feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Come now your not stupid, then why use stupid examples, we both know that in the modern sense of the word democracy, athensa was clearly not one, firstly in athens to have a vote you needed to be a citizen. To be a citizen meant that you were part of a landowning cultural elite who rareley had to work as they lived of of estates tened by slaves, slaves and merchants a large segment of the population were not considered citezens. The democracy of athens is very simllar in nature to my view of a better system, rather than the current one.

Now you may mention that many athenias such as socrates complained of their financial hardships, yes they were poor, but only in contrast the the other landowning citizens. Much like how chateabriand constantly complaigned of his poverty, yes he was poor but only in contrast to the rest of the nobility, he was still by the eefenition of a middle class merchant a rich man, abd by the defenition of a peasant a super rich man.

Also pip i never said that democracy was anarchic or hoorible, my belief and that of many of my young contempories at university is that it is founded upon an idealistic belief that much like comunism when put to practise s very deathed from how the ideal should be. My believe rests in the notion that tge power of vote should be earned not be a right of birth.

Also i dont get the thing about democrasies not declaring war upon other dmocrasies. Considering that the whole west is democratic, does that not merley show that we are uncomfortable bombing white people but brown and black people boms away!

The fact that you geoive that democracy is the best system is fine, i can respect that, te thing which deeply annoys me is that supercilious attitude that some take wereby anyone who questions democracy is automaticaly a fool and an idiot, have i not in my previous post provided valid points for discussion, and yet while everyone was quite easily able to mock my aristocratic prposal before no one has yet deigned to even offer a reply to any of the points which i think i calmly stated.

Look nothing would please me more than to have an actual debate on this subject, but as can be seen from my last post i do not simply spout out propaganda, nor do I state my belifs whith the same conviction of a mediaval pope defendind the divine right of kings. So it does not seem unreasonable that i ask of you guys to do the same. In my previous post i explained to you various reasons on which have caused me and many of my university companions to loose faith in democracy. If anyone could adress those as a start that would bea good start.



These sum up my beliefs too, only i vove the people debating should ge cultured and have proven to hold a valuable opinion, i think it unfair that a truck driver who has ever read a book in his life has as much political power as a man who has spent his entire life studying politics. I am not an egalitarian, we are not all eqall, some of us are stronger and some of us are smarter.

---

Its still simple arrogance for any one to think along these lines. I don't see much here that would lead one to make a surer better choice than those made by the simple partisan instincts of half the plaid and trucker hat wearing half-wits I see drinking themelves silly at the bar here every busy night I go. My mother is not an intellectual person but she is a moral person and her morality guides clearly and certainly her decisions inside the polling booth.

And by the way - Athens was still more democratic than any modern democracy today is. What we call democracy nowadays is not true democracy. The oligarchs saturate the common man with deceitful ads in order to elect a soulless ideological minion President or Prime Minister every four years. That's all we have. People don't actually make real meaningful political choices very often. Leaders almost invariably govern otherwise than they campaigned. Making a meaningless decision every four years is not more democratic than ten percent of a city's citizenry chosen at random actually voting as a body on measures up or down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

That sounds like one of those systems that would be really nice in theory, but either impossible to carry out or completely corrupt in practice. For example, how would we be able to decide who's smart enough to vote? Who would have the power to decide? Do we judge it by who has a university degree? If so, wouldn't that discriminate against autodidacts and low-income people? We can't even decide a proper measure of intelligence, how are we going to use intelligence as a measure to decide who gets a vote? Also, it would be so easy to use a system like that to push a political agenda (many people argue that universities already push a political agenda) or suppress opposition. It sounds nice, I've met a lot of stupid people who really shouldn't breed let alone vote (you have no idea, I work in a redneck town beside a bar), but it's just not feasible.

---

Not to mention the issue of personal interest. Who is more likely to speak for the interest of a trucker? What about the issue of divergent regional interests? These are issues that even our current models of democracy have problems dealing with. The Americans deal with regionalism through their senate. Canada deals with it by having largely autonomous provincial governments and a limited federal authority. Minority interests are protected by the judiciary and the constitutional framework, to a minimum extent at least. Holland deals with the issue of silenced minority votes by having a proportional system of representation.

The problem with limiting franchise is that it was tried in the past and it failed, because people don't tolerate it, they get angry and burn things when they don't get their fair say. In the US they tried to exclude blacks from voting in the south by having certain literacy requirements to vote. Women were denied the vote by being considered unfit to vote.

Of course, we're not above this problem ourselves, certain people remain excluded. Children are the most obvious category. In the US they exclude those guilty of a federal crime. Different nations will settle on different acceptable boundaries of franchise.

However, it is unlikely that any rational adult, even if you think they happen to be an idiot, does not have the capacity and the right to make decisions on issues that effect them, they pay taxes and they contribute to the society, thus they have a say in that society. In practice, rights should always be expanded rather than constrained.

The best way to deal with the issue of keeping a population informed is to increase the power of lower levels of government. Municipal and sub-federal governments are able to present more specific issues to their electorate. The UK has increasingly decentralized its government over the last few decades, in part because of this reason and to deal with regional nationalism.

Although, this is all coming from Canada where the federal election debates usually involve detailed publications of budgets and expected cuts and program expenditures. We're, for whatever reason, an accounting obsessed nation when it comes to federal elections.

Just so you know - when you've figured out the theoretical aspects of the thing, I'm willing to give the job a practical shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

Well put, if i were to develop a cancer I would go for advice to a doctor who has studied medeicine for many years and devoted his life to his proffession, i would not go around my neigbourhood asking the old ladies and young men for advice. Yet it appears that modern common sense amongst the previous generation would demand the latter option, luckily the new generation is tired of askng round the neigbourhood and watching the cancr grow bigger and biger.

---

The world economy is in the hands of economy experts with PhDs from Harvard and Chicago, and we're all staring in the abyss right now. Austerity measures sweeping Europe are only widening the problem, and yet these experts continue to put their complete faith on measures and doctrines that have failed every time they were put to practice, in South America, Asia and former Eastern Bloc countries. And although the economically-ignorant masses understand this is not the way to go, and they protest daily against the measures, the experts remain adamant, and the world continues to sink deeper into another crisis.

I'll take the dumb masses who, on miserable wages, manage to make incredible mathematical gymnastics to stretch their meager budget for the whole of the month, and so prove that they actually understand money and economics, than so-called experts who think that firing people, over-taxing them even more, and privatising resources for the price of peanuts, is going to save the economy. More insane is to think that these men, who work in the world of the stock markets, are actually impartial and that their actions serve no hidden interests for the companies they work for.

Democracy is simple. People should live in very small societies, perhaps of about 20 people, and everyone gets to have an equal say in running the society. Mass societies must employ so called 'indirect democracy' which is liable to be appropriated by elites. But going back to the twenty people are all of them going to be interested in having a say? Will it be left to the few who can be bothered? Of those will someone who conveys 'authority' in, say, a charismatic sense effectively take over? A pure idea of equality breaks down because actually we are not all the same. Going back to mass society which is what the world is largely stuck with, while 'democracy' may stink I can't help thinking the world would smell a lot worse without it. I m a reactionary socialist who believes in the democratic process.