Bon Ventri wrote: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.
The enemy numbered 600-including women and children-we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States. Mark Twain