[Bon Ventri]

Heap in a pile here the shortcomings of democracy, and set them ablaze.

Authoritarians, why do you reject the rule of the people?

[Fasces]

Rejecting democracy is not synonymous with rejecting the will of the people. Rather, it is a rejection of a political system that rewards charisma over competence, and short-term pandering over long-term development. If the people can show themselves to be responsible voters by putting the collective national interest ahead of their own agenda, if they possess the quality that John Adam's described as 'republican virtue', and if enfranchisement is restricted to those who have demonstrated a willingness to serve the nation, then I have no personal objection to democratic systems, even if they may vote against me.

[Corinth]

Rejecting democracy is not synonymous with rejecting the will of the people. Rather, it is a rejection of a political system that rewards charisma over competence, and short-term pandering over long-term development.

My democracy is so perfect, the people have no need for elections.
~Attributed to Huey P. Long, Governor and Senator for the State of Louisiana

[Bon Ventri]

Rejecting democracy is not synonymous with rejecting the will of the people.

I said 'rule', not will. And yes it is, literally, by Greek translation.

What you said leads me to believe that you reject the shortcomings of the system, not the system itself. I'm quite sure any supporter of democracy would agree with your statement.

[starman2003]

Rejecting democracy is not synonymous with rejecting the will of the people.

I'm afraid to a considerable degree it is. Basically, the problem with democracy is that, by empowering the masses, priorities and policies tend to favor the individual, not the State or some higher cause. Naturally the masses resist sacrifices intended to strengthen the State, like guns before butter, conscription and higher taxes. They want industry to produce more cars and bubble gum for themselves, not tanks or space ships to further the State's objectives. Oh sure, no regime can come to power, or last, without substantial support. But not enough to win a democratic election. That is precisely why the soviet and other authoritarian regimes didn't dare risk losing their power by allowing real elections. The "will of the people" is diametrically opposed to that of any activist, serious State.

If the people can show themselves to be responsible voters by putting the collective national interest ahead of their own agenda..

That'll be the day. A poll just out shows that twice as many Americans think keeping entitlements is more important than ending the deficit. Why waste time with this kind of futile talk; the system has proved a fiscal (etc) failure for decades already.

[Figlio di Moros]

Plato explained this in some detail; democracy encourages the individual will, rather than the collective, which encourages degeneration and special interests. Basically, people choose what's in their interest, and successively choose more degenerate options. Unity disbands as one groups personal interests conflict with another, and their "interests" are every so more base and less necessary. Moreso, with a disparity in intelligence, the will of the majority isn't even capable of being the most intelligent path.

[Tribbles]

I reject democracy because the power-struggle between parties seem somewhat vulgar and primitive. Also, I think it makes people depressed.

And: Democracy fails to be radical enough on environmentalism. Which is why we need some sort of eco-corporativism.

[starman2003]

I reject democracy because the power-struggle between parties seem somewhat vulgar and primitive.

What do you expect of a system designed to pander to the masses? Of course, even worse than campaign rhetoric are dopey policies and impotence.

Also, I think it makes people depressed.

Intelligent and perceptive ones certainly....

And: Democracy fails to be radical enough on environmentalism. Which is why we need some sort of eco-corporativism.

We definitely need authoritarianism strong enough to end environmental degradation.

[Section Leader]

Democracy is the greatest swindle in modern history, I am not opposed to elections, referenda and the like on principle, but I believe there should be a limited franchise and voices that will harm the state and the nation must be silenced. In a democracy the people won't vote for what is good for them, they will vote to satisfy their personal selfish desires and to hell with everyone else. Democracy also has a tendancy to narrow in on some imagined centre and all parties fight for that centre because they're interested soley in their own power and prestige. Democracy, certainly liberal democracy, is a very inefficient and all but useless way of carrying out the will of the people, because democracy only ever appeals to the baser qualities in men, never their higher qualities.

[starman2003]

Democracy is the greatest swindle in modern history, I am not opposed to elections, referenda and the like on principle, but I believe there should be a limited franchise...

For the most part I agree, but I very much doubt we'll see "a limited franchise." For one thing, you can't bring it about as long as present democracy is intact. Imagine someone running on a platform of limiting the franchise ("vote for me and I'll take away your voting rights, dummies--trust me, it's for your own good." ) The principle of nonequality should be carried to its logical extreme. Those who have no brains or sense of responsibility should have no vote. As for those who do, what they need is not a silly vote but the right to comprise the decision making class themselves--i.e. meritocracy, not limited franchise. Lastly, once democracy screws up and cracks, the basic idea will lose enough credibility to be disposed of in practice. It's naive to expect the leaders of a future coup to revert to the system that brought itself to a breaking point.

[Tup]

Heap in a pile here the shortcomings of democracy, and set them ablaze.

Authoritarians, why do you reject the rule of the people?

I think it is pretty meaningless to think in terms of "rule of the people". But as far as democracy is concerned, I wrote a post a long while back called "13 reasons to not support democracy" you can see it here. If I were to compile the list today I would change items 5 and 7 considerably, or scrap them.

Counter to popular understanding, democracy effectively places a ceiling on the popularity of government.

Probably the most popular government ever was that of National Socialist Germany, which was authoritarian. Democrats usually love to associate all non-democracy with Nazi Germany. Except of course in cases such as this which paint authoritarianism in a positive light.

Democracy promotes division as per Duverger's law. Democracy also results in the inordinate influence of special interests and cheap salesman tactics. This leads to cynicism, disillusionment, and apathy.

Democracy is incompatible with a single-party state apparatus. Such an apparatus allows for pro-government propaganda to be disseminated in the schools and media, thereby increasing the popularity of the government, promoting idealism and enthusiasm. People get the "we're all in this together" mentality. People feel that there is purpose to their lives and that they truly belong to society.

Oh sure, no regime can come to power, or last, without substantial support. But not enough to win a democratic election. That is precisely why the soviet and other authoritarian regimes didn't dare risk losing their power by allowing real elections. The "will of the people" is diametrically opposed to that of any activist, serious State.

I wholeheartedly disagree with starman on this point. As I explained above, I think authoritarianism is actually more conducive than democracy as far as inspiring support among the masses is concerned. I also think that is a strong point of authoritarianism, quite the opposite of starman's supposition that the point of authoritarianism is to implement unpopular policies against the will of the people.

Democracy is the greatest swindle in modern history, I am not opposed to elections, referenda and the like on principle, but I believe there should be a limited franchise and voices that will harm the state and the nation must be silenced.

I am opposed to elections, referenda and the like on principle. Many of the same problems that apply with unlimited franchise also apply in the limited case.

I don't think that voices that will harm the state or the nation should be silenced. Rather, I think they should be marginalized, much in the same way that racialist views are currently marginalized, except that I would have the government employ logically and factually convincing arguments (unlike the anti-racialists).

The principle of nonequality should be carried to its logical extreme. Those who have no brains or sense of responsibility should have no vote. As for those who do, what they need is not a silly vote but the right to comprise the decision making class themselves--i.e. meritocracy, not limited franchise.

Exactly.

[starman2003]

Probably the most popular government ever was that of National Socialist Germany, which was authoritarian.

Certainly the nazis had many enthusiastic supporters. But I think the impression of "most popular ever" is incorrect and stems from nazi propaganda films. It should be noted that the nazis didn't win in a landslide in 1932; rising to power was tough and owed much to the fortuitous depression, which forced many Germans toward them.

Democracy is incompatible with a single-party state apparatus. Such an apparatus allows for pro-government propaganda to be disseminated in the schools and media, thereby increasing the popularity of the government, promoting idealism and enthusiasm. People get the "we're all in this together" mentality. People feel that there is purpose to their lives and that they truly belong to society.

Oh sure, but note there's no great pressure currently to change democracy. The average joe does have a "purpose"--getting high and getting laid--and democracy is his great natural ally....

I wholeheartedly disagree with starman on this point. As I explained above, I think authoritarianism is actually more conducive than democracy as far as inspiring support among the masses is concerned. I also think that is a strong point of authoritarianism, quite the opposite of starman's supposition that the point of authoritarianism is to implement unpopular policies against the will of the people.

Unfortunately, while authoritarian regimes certainly have the means to indoctrinate and mobilize, they're up against human nature--at least that of the general run of humanity. Why do you think regimes oriented toward some great common cause, or whole--as opposed to satisfying individual desires--have been authoritarian? Because coercion is essential to ensure the right policies i.e. such policies are basically unpopular. Coercion, which implies unpopularity, is the raisen d'etre of authoritarianism.

[Mircea]

Heap in a pile here the shortcomings of democracy, and set them ablaze.

Authoritarians, why do you reject the rule of the people?

I'm not authoritarian per se. Authoritative would be more accurate. When difficult choices have to be made, democracy always fails. The majority simply do not have the self-discipline, knowledge, intestinal fortitude or inclination to make the correct choices, or the best choices. They will always act in their own selfish interest based on emotion, and even that wouldn't be so bad, except they are always quick to lay blame on others for their own short-sightedness, short-comings and errors. The difference between opinion and belief is gross, not subtle. Opinon is a conclusion drawn from facts, and the majority of the electorate, at least in the US is totally ignorant about everything so as not to be able to form an opinion. They can only espouse their beliefs which are always based on emotion.

I never really understood that until I became a troop leader in the military. You cannot lead a military unit at any level democratically. It just won't work. The things that need to be done, whether in peace or war, never get done. You adopt an authoritative outlook on things, seeking input from your junior leaders, but in the end, you make the decision for everyone. For some countries to survive, they will need to shift to a more authoritative, or perhaps even a more authoritarian rule.

The other thing I discovered is that people are basically "not good." It isn't that people are bad, it's just that only a handful of people will do the right thing all the time, and those handful will do so regardless of the consequences, meaning at the risk of losing their job, their wealth, their family, their friends, and even their freedom (because they would be incarcerated or lose their life in the process). Slightly more people will do the right thing when there are no consequences to be suffered. However, the vast majority will only do the right thing when they stand to gain or profit from it in some way.

And no matter what decision you make, there will always be at least one who is unhappy with the decision. You just cannot please all of the people, all of the time. That's impossible, which is another reason democracy fails. Diversity of opinion or viewpoint is valid only to the extent that you can develop or create a consensus. When you reach the point where no consensus can every be reached, democracy breaks down, and you often you see this as grid-lock in legislatures.

The US arrived at that point years ago. The country is basically divided into two camps. I would say armed camps, but they aren't armed (at least not yet) and that is creating problems and will continue to create problems, as it is not possible to reach a consensus on any number of issues related to domestic or foreign policies.

Some decry China for being authoritarian, but could you imagine the diversity in opinion and viewpoint in a country with a population of 1.6 Billion? The US has 308 Million and can't decide what to do about anything. It would be worse by at least 5-fold in China.

I think the time has come for Constitutional Dictatorship.

[starman2003]

I never really understood that until I became a troop leader in the military. You cannot lead a military unit at any level democratically. It just won't work. The things that need to be done, whether in peace or war, never get done. You adopt an authoritative outlook on things, seeking input from your junior leaders, but in the end, you make the decision for everyone. For some countries to survive, they will need to shift to a more authoritative, or perhaps even a more authoritarian rule.

The US military is often extolled as an effective "guardian of our freedom." People fail to realize that if the military is great and effective, it is precisely because it is not free, and that society as a whole can only be set straight by adopting the same values of hierarchy and discipline--the utter antithesis of what it's fighting for.

The US arrived at that point years ago. The country is basically divided into two camps. I would say armed camps, but they aren't armed (at least not yet) and that is creating problems and will continue to create problems,

Assuming you're referring to liberals and conservatives, it's bad enough disagreement paralyzes government. Worse, neither "camp" has the solution. Liberals want activist government--fine in principle--but their kind would squander half the national wealth on people who are retarded or half dead. Conservatives want no government, and cater to religious neanderthals.

....as it is not possible to reach a consensus on any number of issues related to domestic or foreign policies.

Oh but there's a notable exception; both camps are dominated by the pro-Israel lobby, which doesn't care about the US. An agent of a foreign power dictates our policy, ensuring Israeli interests are primary and ours at best secondary.

Some decry China for being authoritarian, but could you imagine the diversity in opinion and viewpoint in a country with a population of 1.6 Billion? The US has 308 Million and can't decide what to do about anything. It would be worse by at least 5-fold in China.

I don't think diversity would be the worst of it; the country is after all, a lot more homogeneous culturally and ethnically than the US. Your point about human ignorance and selfishness applies here. The huge population necessitates limits on family size, which is no way to win elections....

I think the time has come for Constitutional Dictatorship.

Dictatorship, yes. But that sounds a bit oxymoronic.