The problem with modern democracy today is every idiot is allowed to vote. I actually believe that democratic systems of government will be severely restricted or abolished in the west in the future because the average citizen are getting more and more stupid.
This is a large topic in political science which I have studied and my conclusion is that for the system to come to wise decisions there must be a difference in voting power based on the wealth of participants or else you get to many idiots, resembling modern mass democracy where a professor is equal to a bum.
So you studied PolSci, and your conclusion is what this bloody planet has been fighting for equal rights for everyone, by mistaken ideas?
You should be able to distinguish feudalism when you see it, based on your studies mate.
A democracy is by definition the egalitarian system that ALLOWS a bum to have an equal say with a professor on subjects that would interfere with both their lives.
You are trying to tell us that a professor should
always have more power than a bum?
Or are you trying to say that a professor
in the classroom should have more power than a bum?
I will try to keep this civil, honestly do you know what feudalism means? This kind of thinking that any political system outside the one we have today is fascist or feudalism is really not a nuanced view. The democratic system has changed over time as well as our cultural values. In my view the west is commiting suicide because of democracy not in spite of it. The problem with democratic systems is that everyone has an equal vote while their abilities are unequal. I would rather the professor have more say than the bum because the professor has more knowledge, a more meritocratic system would suit me. One step to a more meritocratic system is to have votes based on wealth and to have that wealth residing in the country, therefore one cares about what happens to the country. Today we don't have democracy it is more about the media funded by the banks manipulating the people to vote for whoever they want. The people will always be manipulated. I myself am drawn to the idea of an enlightened philosoper king ala platos ideas on the polity. The problem here is how do we get rid of a bad ruler? Well if we had proper mechanisms in place we could have a sort of board of directors having oversight. And if the ruler did a bad job than someone else would take his place. Bitcoin is in essence an anti-elitist project, but the masses will always have an elite anyways.
You should read moldbug, most of the people here are libertarians or anarchists I imagine, they should have a more realistic view of mans nature and be more like neoreactionaries.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.no/2007/12/why-i-am-not-libertarian.htmlThe advantage of libertarianism, from a practical political perspective, is that it has deep roots in the American value system, and it is hypothetically possible to persuade American voters to return to the values that their ancestors held in the 18th century. If they do this, they will become libertarians, vote for Ron Paul, return us to the gold standard, etc.
The disadvantage of libertarianism is (if I am right) that it is unsound as a principle of political engineering, that its historical roots are largely mythical and fantastic, and that there is no reason to think it is easy to change anyone's value system, let alone resurrect values held by distant ancestors.
The disadvantage of neocameralism is that it is completely alien to American voters, that it has no connection at all to any American value system, that no one has even heard of it at all, that it represents a complete rejection of the sacred American principle of democracy, and that it could be described, not utterly without grain of truth, as "corporate fascism" or some such similar epithet.
The advantage of neocameralism is (if I am right) that, unless you have a very perverse ethical system that glorifies violence, it can be justified logically in a few pages of text without reference to any Humean ought. It can be tested empirically, and arguably it already has been. In other words, neocameralism has no advantage except that it is a value-free proposition which is consistent with reality. Often, historically, this has been sufficient.
One way to illustrate neocameralism is to outline a strategy for restructuring Washcorp as an efficient, shareholder-owned operation. I am aware that I have promised an answer to this question before. However, this post is far too long already. Perhaps next week.
