Infected Mushroom wrote:Iridencia wrote:
The point of democracy is to:
A) Have the people whose lives are actually effected by the decisions of a leader to be able to choose a leader instead of just putting up with whoever is handed to them, and
B) To maintain a safety net of power over said decisions for the times when the leader inevitably fucks up because they're not perfect.
If you're really the best of the best, you should have no trouble demonstrating it to the rest of us and earning your authority in a fair measure of merit. You sure as hell are not going to just be given the benefit of the doubt or have us take some vague On High's word for it that you know what you're doing, which is what authoritarianism is. You want power? Prove to us, the ones who stand to gain or lose, that you know how to use it. If you do good, you keep it. If you fuck up, you lose it. As this is our livelihood at stake here, we will be the judge of whether or not you failed or succeeded, not some indistinct Superman who thinks he's special enough to speak on behalf of everyone.
Otherwise, who is the one saying that you're "naturally better" at being a ruler? Who decides that? Furthermore, why should you care when no one can displace you?
No one decides if you're the best ruler or not. You either are, or aren't. That's the inherent fallacy with democracy (that the majority can actually decide who is the best leader).
You don't vote on who is the best mathematician or the best chemist, the best simply is the best.
The problem is they simply aren't comparable.
To be the best mathematician, you have to be smart and good at math. To be the best chemist, you have to be smart and good at chemistry. I'm simplifying, but you get the point. Those are matters of skill.
Ruling isn't the same.
The fact is, we don't even agree on what makes a good ruler. No one exactly agrees. Let's go with a definition that they "serve the common good," however. Now, what the hell is the common good exactly? Is it everybody being happy? Is it everyone having their needs fulfilled? Is it people getting what they want? Is it freedom? Is it authority? Is it equality? Is it everyone being in their rightful place in the social hierarchy?
And what is "skill" in ruling, anyway? Ability to maintain power? To achieve the common good? To look nice as you sit upon your throne?
I should also note that mathematics and chemistry aren't democratic because math and chemistry aren't exactly institutions which have control over people's lives. They don't exercise power.
There are also structural problems with authoritarian regimes, regardless of the person in charge. The problem isn't even whether democracy makes for better rulers. Democracy distributes power, authoritarian regimes concentrate it. Guess what? Concentrated power tends to mean inefficiency--the famous anti-central planning argument of the local knowledge problem applies to the political realm, too--corruption--there is only one interest which the ruler(s) are accountable to (themselves), rather than the interests of the whole people (a full democracy, by contrast, provides a way for people to punish rulers which do not represent their interests)--and instability--when the people dislike a ruler in an authoritarian regime, really the only way to oust them is by violence. In a democracy, you can vote them out. \
