Democracy as a form of government

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

If you do not have authoritarianism then you don't have a functioning society.

Sure you do. See: almost the entire West.

The government having authority isn't authoritarianism.

Taken literally, authoritarianism does in fact mean "the government having authority", just like liberty means "the government not having authority". They have different connotations, but the literal definition is quite clear.

[Ifreann]

Sure you do. See: almost the entire West.

The government having authority isn't authoritarianism.

Taken literally, authoritarianism does in fact mean "the government having authority", just like liberty means "the government not having authority". They have different connotations, but the literal definition is quite clear.

Neither word, taken purely literally, has anything to do with governments.

[Luziyca]

As someone who supports a constitutional monarchy, despite all the flaws that democracy has, it is better than the alternative... unless the alternative involves me ruling with absolute power.

[Ghost Land]

I'm all for autocracy, personally.
People are stupid. [Even Autocrats.] Democracy isn't a way forward it's a way of hapazardly stumbling forward often repeatly shoving short term 'popular' solutions to long term problems.
Not to mention the insane waste of resources on trying to get elected, which often dissolves into outright lying, or at the very least misrepresentation.

All I need to figure out is a system of chosing the autocrat, and a reliable kerb on their ability to change the system.
Some ideas include autocrat by election for life - One popular referendum per lifetime of leader.
Autocrat for ten years, then nominate a successor then the previous autocrat is executed.
Autocrats whom are provided a living wage of exactly the lowest level in the country.
Autocrats whom have their powers restricted [and thus arn't really autocrats anymore] by a council of advisors drawn from the heads of various competing insitutions. [I'm not sure this one would work.]

There's various other ideas but I am flat out against democracy. The US is an excellent example of a nation who has been demonstrating 'democracy' for a long time, and as a result is destroying itself, capable of destroying the world, and contributing considerably to incidental destroying of the world through massive climate change related issues, none of which it's going to stop doing as a democracy because it wouldn't be 'popular'.

Protip - The right thing to do is rarely the popular thing to do and only making popular decisions is a surefire way to fuck up. Ask anyone whose ever run any organisation, a club, a charity, a small business, a shop, or a Corporation.

I agree with your general pro-autocracy sentiment, but don't you think executing the leader at the end of his term is at least a little extreme? It would also create a massive disincentive against people wanting to become the autocrat (unless they could just say the word and get rid of that restriction), and I could see a disgruntled guy picking his worst enemy as his successor just so he can guarantee that his worst enemy has ten years left to live, best case scenario.

[Soviet Technocracy6]

...Generally speaking the autocrats, if good, aren't the problem in an autocratic country, the trend toward absolutism was positive in Europe for centralizing and developing the state and to some extent combating the feudal lords. This trend is exemplified in China, which could easily be considered the most developed country up until the industrial revolution (though the mongol invasion, it's insularity and minimalism didn't help).

[Arctrucia]

Meritocratic monarchy is the way to go.

Foit meh.

[The Halseyist Faction]

I'm all for autocracy, personally.
People are stupid. [Even Autocrats.] Democracy isn't a way forward it's a way of hapazardly stumbling forward often repeatly shoving short term 'popular' solutions to long term problems.
Not to mention the insane waste of resources on trying to get elected, which often dissolves into outright lying, or at the very least misrepresentation.

All I need to figure out is a system of chosing the autocrat, and a reliable kerb on their ability to change the system.
Some ideas include autocrat by election for life - One popular referendum per lifetime of leader.
Autocrat for ten years, then nominate a successor then the previous autocrat is executed.
Autocrats whom are provided a living wage of exactly the lowest level in the country.
Autocrats whom have their powers restricted [and thus arn't really autocrats anymore] by a council of advisors drawn from the heads of various competing insitutions. [I'm not sure this one would work.]

There's various other ideas but I am flat out against democracy. The US is an excellent example of a nation who has been demonstrating 'democracy' for a long time, and as a result is destroying itself, capable of destroying the world, and contributing considerably to incidental destroying of the world through massive climate change related issues, none of which it's going to stop doing as a democracy because it wouldn't be 'popular'.

Protip - The right thing to do is rarely the popular thing to do and only making popular decisions is a surefire way to fuck up. Ask anyone whose ever run any organisation, a club, a charity, a small business, a shop, or a Corporation.

I agree with your general pro-autocracy sentiment, but don't you think executing the leader at the end of his term is at least a little extreme? It would also create a massive disincentive against people wanting to become the autocrat (unless they could just say the word and get rid of that restriction), and I could see a disgruntled guy picking his worst enemy as his successor just so he can guarantee that his worst enemy has ten years left to live, best case scenario.

It's an attempt to ensure the motivations of the person at the top are to actually do the job.

And I mean, if the worst punishment you gave your arch enemy is to give them the power of life and death over a nation for ten years I have to question your judgement. I don't know about you but my worst enemies are not the ones I'd want in charge of an authoritian police force.

But for autocracy to work, the leader has to be in it for the nation, not themselves. Reducing their quality of life and lifespan are attempts to diswade people from wanting the job for selfish aims.

[Soviet Technocracy6]

But for autocracy to work, the leader has to be in it for the nation, not themselves.

The Chinese believed in the philosophy of wu-wei, or non action, that the ruler should do very little. Details should be handled by ministers. Ministers should be appointed and handled by protocols. Protocols should be determined by testing them against reality.

Ideally a ruler should be a sage but the actual running of a country depends upon the legal-administrative framework.