Stupidity - the single reason why democracies never work

[Cronos Impera]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

The greatest danger of allowing stupid people to express an option is that the stupid are easily masturbated by speeches and beauty. They actually feel good when a guy in a monkey suit tells them how important they are to him, how free they are and how much they deserve. Nowadays a politician can win an election by simply masturbating his audience with fiery speeches about how they built the future and how human rights must be preserved. Anyone who doesn't tackle issues like : "the war on terror", "global warming", "human rights in State X", "freedom of X" or "gunbortion" isn't cool enough to be given office though he might actually have real solutions for agriculture, industry, budgets and healthcare. Instead of having people actually working for a particular goal, you have endless rants about terrorism, human rights and so on without feeling any real change in your personal life.

Therefore I propose we discard the outdated term "democracy" in favor of a more realistic term "kalocracy" meaning "power of beauty". Anything that' not beautiful or nice enough never gets a chance despite the obvious qualities of that proposal.

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

Save yourself. Vote only ugly and repulsive people in office. After all this isn't like asking them on a date.

[HoreTore]

Oh come on, you want ugly state leaders? I present Merkel, Brown, Chirac. Our very own Brundtland, "the statemother", wasn't exactly a looker either.

I'll turn your argument around; a people's stupidity is the greatest strength of democracy. Why? Because those with brains have every incentive to educate their lesser brothers, because when it comes to the election day, we all have the same power. In a dictatorship, there is no reason to educate people, as the dumb ones don't matter at all. In a democracy, they do. And it's your responsibility to educate them.

Also; corruption. Power corrupts. Democracy is the single form of government that keeps corruption under control, because the system is transparent and people are prosecuted and/or judged by the people. In a dictatorship, that won't happen. That's the reason every single dictatorship will fail. Forget about "benevolent dictators", they're a myth. A dictator won't ever be an improvement over a democracy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll give you Clinton and Reagan, but not Nixon or Bush. They are not pretty or charming.

So.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama's not on your list?


Anyway, democracy is the worst. Except for all those others.

(Everyone should know who said that)

Seriously, we shouldn't allow people who get more in benefits from the federal government than they pay in taxes to vote.

CR

[Vladimir]

Obama's not on your list?


Anyway, democracy is the worst. Except for all those others.

(Everyone should know who said that)

Seriously, we shouldn't allow people who get more in benefits from the federal government than they pay in taxes to vote.

CR

Obama's not a president. He's the second coming.

And why does some guy from Romania have to go across the Atlantic for his examples? Are there no democracies in Europe? No doubt those are the only the presidents who were around during his short lifetime. Okay, maybe he heard about Regan on TV.

[Meneldil]

And why does some guy from Romania have to go across the Atlantic for his examples? Are there no democracies in Europe? No doubt those are the only the presidents who were around during his short lifetime. Okay, maybe he heard about Regan on TV.

Do you know of any Romanian leader? Had Cronos Impera decided to use an European example (other than Berlusconi, Prodi, Chirac, Sarkozy, Blair, Brown and the few other well-know leaders), everyone would wondering who the hell is that guy.

Now, I kind of agree that democracies are flawed and largely became mere public opinion contests. Education systems aim for the lowest common denominator (ie. It's okay if the guy somewhat knows how to read and write by the end of high school). Our media are mostly of terrible quality, putting the emphasis over mindless and pointless sensational news rather than trying to educate their readers (as Michael Jackson's death proved).
But then, most democracies never advocated that all citizens should be enlightened. This idea appeared with the development of new ideologies such as socialism. Voltaire (and even Rousseau, in a way), advocated that the uneducated masses shouldn't have a say in political matters. The founding fathers were also quite an elitist bunch. Liberalism (which was the dominant ideology in early democracies) was an elitist ideology, closely tied to the bourgeoisie and other upper classes. For those, the 'people' was completely unable to rule, and should let the benevolent elites do all the stuff.

Then, some people claimed that the lower-class should have a say aswell. They decided that democracies should strive to educate their citizens, turn them into enlightened and rational persons. Thing is, as you say, educating citizens causes a few issues. First, it is my opinion that many citizens don't want to be educated. Though they dislike their own state, they simply are too dumb and lazy to even try. They also distrust the educated elites, the intelligentsia, considered responsible for all their demises. Anti-intellectualism is very strong in western societies, and not only among the american right.
Then, as you pointed out, having educated citizens is tedious. They ask for stuff, they're unhappy, they want to have more weight in political matters than the rulers are willing to offer them. They disagree with eachothers, they argue, and so on. Having a bunch of voters who never read a book in their life and spend their time watching reality TV is much more convenient.

Now, obviously, that doesn't mean democracies don't work. They have a lot of issues (such as the ones pointed out by Louis: criminality, lack of order), but most democratic countries offer pretty good standards of living to their citizens. I don't buy the whole 'liberalism = democracy = wealth' theory, but so far, most democracies are doing quite a decent job when it comes to taking care of their citizens.
Some people still try to educate their fellow countrymates. Some people still try to make humanity better. Some people still care about politics. Things have been going like that for a while. While I can see how the situation is in some way getting worse, I also see that democracies have always been public opinion contests.

[Cronos Impera]

Oh come on, you want ugly state leaders? I present Merkel, Brown, Chirac. Our very own Brundtland, "the statemother", wasn't exactly a looker either.

I'll turn your argument around; a people's stupidity is the greatest strength of democracy. Why? Because those with brains have every incentive to educate their lesser brothers, because when it comes to the election day, we all have the same power. In a dictatorship, there is no reason to educate people, as the dumb ones don't matter at all. In a democracy, they do. And it's your responsibility to educate them.

Also; corruption. Power corrupts. Democracy is the single form of government that keeps corruption under control, because the system is transparent and people are prosecuted and/or judged by the people. In a dictatorship, that won't happen. That's the reason every single dictatorship will fail. Forget about "benevolent dictators", they're a myth. A dictator won't ever be an improvement over a democracy.

You don't need to educate the people to get elected. An educated mass will always move towards anarchy and never to a heirarchical society like a democracy is. Natural weakness or dumbness cannot be overcome through education. Just like a circus lion runs amock and kills his handler if the latter makes the wrong move, for a dumb mass learning isn't more than just a social activity and an inconvenient one. Despite cheap prints and free public libraries, few young people ever read a book.
The dumb will never read a book that would really improve their health, intelect or strength. They will always choose TV or cheesy computer games, despite having hundreds of quality books to read. And they will always be like that because they are weak and know their place.

The dumb masses are always inert. They're just like an audience. They can complain about the performance on stage all they can but if you place them in front of an Ibanez they will run away like hell or tear it apart.The dumb masses are always the bowling ball.They will sacrifice their lives, risk their wealth and honor just to get a few applauses.

Just like debates. It doesn't matter if the facts are right or not, if the debator was skilled his words are always true. The dumb masses never judge an event in a reasonable way, to them passion is everything.
The only true political system for humans is Oligosoc. In animal societies that dumb mass we call the people would have been long eradicated by predators, disease or starvation but thanks to our species's place in the food chain, those weaklings survive and thrive. In the absence of natural enemies who would eat us, we have developed a two-tire order...part bee hive, part lion pride.
Oligosoc relies on the brainless masses to build cities and gather food and also on a small elite to evolve them. The only thing that's changable is the way the top interacts with the bottom and the rethoric of the regimes + some minor differences in terms of mercy and intolerance. But the heirarchy itself is always present and inequality though emphasised or diminuished in the rethoric of the rulers is always present.
Oligosoc means a few struggle for power and use the weak in the same way a boxer uses gloves in a match. Why?

Because the strong can always be self-aware and identify themselves as themselves without fear or cowardice and the weak always need a group identity for safety, the powerbase will always be small.
The people are ever a powerbase, they are a means to achieve power.

That Oligosoc has many flavours and some are nastier to some and that some prefear diferent flavours is a different matter.
In a dictatorship the dictator wields limited powers: WITHOUT HIS OLIGARCHY HE'S DOOMED.

Just like USSR couldn't run without the KGB and how the KGB changed Hruschiev for Brezjnev, or how Loius XV was Richelieu's pawn is another matter.

[Cronos Impera]

And to hooahguy:
You gotta love the charming face or W.Bush, that Texan face, that sexy Southern accent and al.
Richard Nixon - could play in a Frank Coppola production with that face
Ronald Reagan - he was Hollywood material, looked great on camera when making announcements
Bill Clinton - blue eyes, golden hair and a baby face

They're all cute and handsome.If I ware gay, I'd marry one of them.

[Centurion1]

Nixon was a good looking guy. As was Reagan (but he was pretty old when elected), George W. isn't hot..... but he is in pretty good shape. clinton, is just a little too slimy for me. Now that i feel remotley gay......

Democracy is the best of the worst. While i may personally believe a benevolent dictatorship under my reign would be best, Democracy is the most viable option.

[a completely inoffensive name]

While i may personally believe a benevolent dictatorship under my reign would be best, Democracy is the most viable option.

What a great guy.

[HoreTore]

*snip*

Way to misunderstand what I said.

First things first though; democracies work. Look around you, it's plainly obvious. Whatever you may believe, we do not live in crappy countries. We live in great countries. All of us living in democracies. We have peace. We have work. We have plenty of food. We can say what we want, when we want to. We are protected from criminals. We have very few worries, most of them are of our own doing. Most of our population is able and educated. This is because we live in democracies, we simply would not be in this shape if we live under a dictatorship, and yes, that includes your fancy version of fascism.

Speaking of fascism... Because you do realize that is the system you're proposing, right? Alright, let's have a looky at the fascist countries of the past. Oh yes, they're of the past, simply because they proved unsustainable. Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain - they were all ruled by the few strong. And that proved a complete disaster. It was Nazi Germany's "strong" men who spelled their own doom by launching a half-arsed invasion of Russia. The invasion was planned and directed by Germany's strongest and most educated. And it failed completely because of them. Why? Because they eliminated the sobering effect of opposition. When you gather a clique of the strongest, you will lose the most important aspect of government, oppositional thought. It doesn't matter if the opposition is smart or idiotic, all that matters is that they're there. Why? Because it makes the powers that be think harder. Simple, really. Those in power will propose something. Whether good or bad, the opposition will voice their concern. Those in power will then recheck their proposal. Without an opposition, nobody will bother doing that.

Now for what you misunderstood:

I wasn't talking about those up for election needing to educate people. I was talking about you needing to educate people. It's simple really; the village idiot has the exact same power as you do. Therefore, it's in your interest to make sure said idiot is as smart as possible. And so you should see to that.

And please tell me you're not under the impression that it's the idiots doing all the voting. The idiots don't care, they stay at home. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to vote. So our democracies are indeed ruled by the smartest and most educated. Whether you like it or not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Rabbit made the golden answer already: democracy is the worst form of government. Save for all the others.
As a variation, Papewaio (or was it Ser Clegane?) made the famous remark that 'democracy does not make the best decisions. It avoids the worst'.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Excellent points, HoreTore.

Two comments:
- We do not all live in democracies. There are many systems that call themselves democratic, but really aren't. (Think, for example, all those communist countries with the name 'Democratic').
And, more worryingly, since more prevalent of late, there are lots of countries that bear a faint resemblance to democracy but miss the finer points of it.

Examples:
'Winner takes all democracies'. Here, it is assumed that democracy means majority rule. It doesn't. Democracy is not 'most votes count'. Democracy means that every vote counts. It is not about establishing majorities, it is about protecting minorites.

Authoritarian states with elections and other democratic elements as a thinly veiled façade.

Functioning democracies that lack rule of law, minority rights, human rights, soberness and moderation in public conduct etcetera.

These examples are a reason why democracy is so misstrusted in many formerly undemocratic states. The name of the system has changed, the same crooks are still in power.


-I've forgotten what was to be my second comment.

No wait, I remember. I predict serious competition for democracies by East Asian authoritarian systems. They do provide a standard of living, law and order, public peace, that is on par with Western democracies.
Not so much China, which is clearly dictatorial (but to a large extent isn't), but more Singapore. I can not simply dismiss the argument that 'In Singapore the police will cane you for littering chewing gum, but the streets are clean and women can walk home at three o'clock at night. In a miniskirt.'

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

[Dîn-Heru]

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

To give another example, arriving at Changhi (Sp?) airport from Heathrow was like going from hell to heaven.

Just one example:
While the toilets I found at Heathrow were sometimes unflushed, stained with feces and toiletpaper on the floor ( Though there was one guy going around picking it up). The experience at Changi was one of clean and self-flushing toilets.

[Crazed Rabbit]

-I've forgotten what was to be my second comment.

No wait, I remember. I predict serious competition for democracies by East Asian authoritarian systems. They do provide a standard of living, law and order, public peace, that is on par with Western democracies.
Not so much China, which is clearly dictatorial (but to a large extent isn't), but more Singapore. I can not simply dismiss the argument that 'In Singapore the police will cane you for littering chewing gum, but the streets are clean and women can walk home at three o'clock at night. In a miniskirt.'

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

I must disagree, simply because our western governments could not implement such a thing correctly. Both our countries already have violent, abusive cops who seem to think they are the law. They would be mentally unable to apply the violence as Singapore does - ie as punishment for some infraction and not simply because they like hitting people. Instead of strict discipline, it'd simply be letting hooligans with badges roam the streets.

You'd have better luck getting rid of the welfare state, I think.

CR

[Reverend Joe]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

The greatest danger of allowing stupid people to express an option is that the stupid are easily masturbated by speeches and beauty. They actually feel good when a guy in a monkey suit tells them how important they are to him, how free they are and how much they deserve. Nowadays a politician can win an election by simply masturbating his audience with fiery speeches about how they built the future and how human rights must be preserved. Anyone who doesn't tackle issues like : "the war on terror", "global warming", "human rights in State X", "freedom of X" or "gunbortion" isn't cool enough to be given office though he might actually have real solutions for agriculture, industry, budgets and healthcare. Instead of having people actually working for a particular goal, you have endless rants about terrorism, human rights and so on without feeling any real change in your personal life.

Therefore I propose we discard the outdated term "democracy" in favor of a more realistic term "kalocracy" meaning "power of beauty". Anything that' not beautiful or nice enough never gets a chance despite the obvious qualities of that proposal.

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

Save yourself. Vote only ugly and repulsive people in office. After all this isn't like asking them on a date.

If you remove democracy you either get oligarchy, where the guy who panders to the elite the most gets elected, or dictatorship, where anything goes. Any way you turn, you're going to get a lot of bad apples. The idea behind democracy is that it's harder to be dictatorial or incompetent because you'll get voted out of office faster.

[Hooahguy]

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

you think theyre gorgeous?

making me wonder what you think "gorgeous" means.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because it is plainly obvious that today's democracies are just not working, while all the despotic governments are doing great.

[miotas]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

That's why you need a democratic system where the popularly elected official isn't actually the head of state. Plus look at the ugly annoying, that we elected. Clearly Australia is doing something right

[Divinus Arma]

Stupidity is exactly why democracy works. It gives everyone a chance to be president. Even alcoholic spider monkeys with Down's Syndrome. They even get re-elected.

In all seriousness, the perception of control by the masses is exactly why democracy works. People don't clamour for freedom when they already think they are free.