the limits of fascism

[Immanuel Can]

Democracy isn't even potentially a good idea. The average person knows nothing about how to vote well, even if the voting system wasn't already captured.

Wow. That's quite a confession.

So you're an autocrat? Or just an aristocrat?

[Belinda]

By never sponsoring Socialism, whether "national" or "international."

It is an unfortunate fact about communism that it fosters social inequality. Relativity is not confined to nuclear physics but affects also human relationships.

By contrast with communism, democratic socialism restrains both right wing and left wing dictatorial tendencies. The leading Western democracy must remain democratic.

Democracy isn't even potentially a good idea. The average person knows nothing about how to vote well, even if the voting system wasn't already captured.

True, usually. However the average person en masse is the best judge of justice because there are so many average persons compared with elite persons.This is not to say the utilitarian ethic is free from risk in politics, but it is better than dictatorship of some elite.

[henry quirk]

The Guardian newspaper, a free publication.

who funds the guardian?

[Immanuel Can]

...dictatorship of some elite.

...is the alternative to democracy. It's like Winston Churchill said: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government.

[Advocate]

[quote=Belinda post_id=488684 time=1610206859 user_id=12709]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488681 time=1610203956 user_id=15238]
[quote=Belinda post_id=488652 time=1610185751 user_id=12709]

It is an unfortunate fact about communism that it fosters social inequality. Relativity is not confined to nuclear physics but affects also human relationships.

By contrast with communism, democratic socialism restrains both right wing and left wing dictatorial tendencies. The leading Western democracy must remain democratic.
[/quote]

Democracy isn't even potentially a good idea. The average person knows nothing about how to vote well, even if the voting system wasn't already captured.
[/quote]
True, usually. However the average person en masse is the best judge of justice because there are so many average persons compared with elite persons.This is not to say the utilitarian ethic is free from risk in politics, but it is better than dictatorship of some elite.
[/quote]

We should be trying to have actual experts in charge, not the wealthy, and not the common man.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=488697 time=1610209617 user_id=9431]
[quote=Belinda post_id=488684 time=1610206859 user_id=12709]
...dictatorship of some elite.
[/quote]
...is the alternative to democracy. It's like Winston Churchill said: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form of government.
[/quote]

Choosing a lesser evil still means you're choosing evil. Democracy is not good enough.

[henry quirk]

We should be trying to have actual experts in charge, not the wealthy, and not the common man.

again with the professionals, the technocrats, the finer clay

go be good lil eloi, leave all the thinkin' to the morlocks

[Immanuel Can]

Choosing a lesser evil still means you're choosing evil. Democracy is not good enough.

What is "good enough"? An aristocracy? A monarchy?

[Immanuel Can]

again with the professionals, the technocrats, the finer clay

I believe it's a hard rule that somebody who thinks they're "finer clay" always isn't.

[Advocate]

If you believe there aren't people made of finer clay with a better REASON to be in charge, then by all means, we should have a democracy. But you'd be completely and utterly wrong. How to vet them is an entirely different question.

[Immanuel Can]

If you believe there aren't people made of finer clay...

I'll say again: anybody who thinks he's "finer clay" should never be in charge of anything.

[henry quirk]

If you believe there aren't people made of finer clay with a better REASON to be in charge, then by all means, we should have a democracy. But you'd be completely and utterly wrong. How to vet them is an entirely different question.

so, how do we vet them?

finer clay to assess finer clay?

and who assesses the assessors?

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=488721 time=1610212529 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488719 time=1610212404 user_id=15238]
If you believe there aren't people made of finer clay...
[/quote]
I'll say again: anybody who thinks he's "finer clay" should never be in charge of anything.
[/quote]

You've just ruled out the best leaders because you won't allow them to have an accurate view of their own abilities. You're fired.

I call that the Cult of Openmindedness. Nothing is ever better/more true than anything else, or at least nobody is allowed to admit it. It shows you to be a epistemological philosophy villain and a woo-woo postmodern hero.

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=488723 time=1610212819 user_id=472]
[quote=Advocate post_id=488719 time=1610212404 user_id=15238]
If you believe there aren't people made of finer clay with a better REASON to be in charge, then by all means, we should have a democracy. But you'd be completely and utterly wrong. How to vet them is an entirely different question.
[/quote]

so, how [i]do[/i] we vet them?

[i]finer clay[/i] to assess [i]finer clay[/i]?

and who assesses the assessors?
[/quote]

A bootstrapping process is required. Start with IQ. That's the baseline capacity to understand, much less manipulate, information better than other people, particularly with regard to complexity and scale. Add knowledge, relevant to the position in question. And finally conscientiousness, which ought to be a primary requirement of any version of citizenship.

Whatever the difficulties of testing for these things, ATM there is no such attempt, and those are prerequisite minimums! Specifically, without them you can only get a good leader by accident. No overwhelming amount of any two of these is sufficient to overcome the problems with lacking the third.

[Immanuel Can]

If you believe there aren't people made of finer clay...

I'll say again: anybody who thinks he's "finer clay" should never be in charge of anything.

You've just ruled out the best leaders...

No, just the arrogant.

No less a philosopher than Plato thought any real "philosopher-king" would necessarily have to be pressed into duty, and that nobody who was seeking it themselves was trustworthy. He was right.

There is but one "clay," and it's human. The alleged "best" of us needs to be kept from becoming the worst, and term-limits, checks and balances are the way to do it.