The modern state of affairs

[Shakyamuni]

My interpretation of the big picture follows. Please discuss.

Democracy requires a smart population in order to function efficiently, which I will refer to as the ideal democratic population. Modern day western culture is drifting away from the ideal democratic population. Many Asians that I personally know, as well as the older generation of Europeans tend to characterize The West as a lazy, financially indebted party culture that emphasizes instant gratification over long term benefit. The West is known to have low voter turnout, voter apathy, and a lack of political awareness. On the other hand, governments are characterized by extreme partisanship, being too influenced by lobbyists, and most dangerously of all pursuing populist policies. Why is this the case? Why is the west drifting down the wrong path? I would argue it has to do with our greatest creation, the naturally balanced economic system called capitalism.

Capitalism itself is not an inherently bad thing. In my opinion it is a man-made system that works on an inherent principle of natural balance to distribute wealth accordingly. This is not to say I think it distributes wealth equally, just that the system responds to stimulus just like "living systems"... see environment. The problem is that advertisers have perverted the system through the use of mass media, creating a culture of instant gratification in order to better sell their products by creating "false" demand. Basically advertising is able to create unjustified demand which throws a wrench into the capitalist system. Advertising has also had a spill over effect in terms of how our populace now thinks, changing us from creatures of long term thought to creatures of short term benefit, rash decisions, and impulse buying. This has led to the rise of populist policies/politics, where governments simply pursue whatever is "hip" with the electorate, regardless of the merit, or common sense of the proposal. When people fail to use their mental capabilities to forsee consequences (think long term), populism results. Populism=impulses=not thinking=evil.

Because of the way the electorate now thinks and behaves, I believe that people are beginning to forfeit the right to self-government. The American constitution grants people equal right to express their opinions, throws in ideals about being born free etc and something about being *born* with rights. (Sorry I'm too intuitive, I couldn't be bothered to go through the actual text). As for those of us who are advocates of democracy, while you may have the right to express your opinion, and while your opinion may be what the majority view as correct, this is by no means a validation of that opinion. It simply means that most people believe "xyz". While we all should be allowed to be heard, it doesn't mean that what we are all saying is of equal value.

As a Buddhist I think that we are not all equal. Far from it, some of us are stupid idiotic morons. Nonetheless, those same stupid idiotic morons have the potential to be "equal". By this I mean they have the potential to live a fulfilling life, and should be treated with the due respect that all humans deserve. BUT! this does not mean that we should take the opinions of stupid idiotic morons into account when running the whole country, especially if its the majority view. Because the majority of society has turned sour, and is no longer capable of acting in a rational manner, the majority view and its associated "democratic checks and balances" are no longer functioning.

So what is the dilemma? If a democratic population is driven by base impulses it will elect governments that pander to those impulses. There will be no desire to change or move forward on the part of politicians, because in order to get elected all they need do is take a poll, and act accordingly, without any foresight, and regardless of what is good for the country. In Canada the problems of populism have been clearly seen since 2006. Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish political parties in Canada because they are all considered "the same". Why are they the same? Because they all follow whatever will get them elected, regardless of political leaning, which is populism. I would then ask under what circumstances a population would elect a government with foresight? I can't see how.

So, what is the solution? I see two possible ways out, but would be interested to know what other people think. How does one repair a society by instilling long term values and foresight in place of short term instant gratification? I see two ways out.

1.) Society changes gradually to hold governments to task. The only plausibly impetus I can envision would be if it becomes "cool" to be intelligent, and more common sensical. This may very well happen as a result of the environmental movement. Who knows? It is now "cool" to be green, so then by virtue of the nature of environmental stewardship, perhaps it will have a spill over effect in terms of how people think.

2.) Dictatorship. Basically just read about the fall of the roman republic and you will see the parallel between the rise of populism then, and now. Ultimately it ended up with dictatorship, which worked quite well at times, and failed miserably at other times. Nonetheless, dictatorship after the end of the republic helped to restore Rome, and bring about the subsequent golden era of the roman empire under efficient administrators such as the Antonnines. (However it all went to hell after Marcus Aurelius).

Ultimately both forms of government are legitimate and useful. It all depends on the time and the place. In Iraq democracy is currently a debacle, and no one can deny that Saddam, acting as "the strong man" kept the region comparatively more stable than it is today. Likewise, perhaps the west is forfeiting its right to self-government and needs a bout of dictatorship to turn things around.

So, what do you people think of my view of the big picture? I'll add more when people point out flaws.

[Monte314]

An interesting and insightful post.

I don't really understand politics all tht well, but I, like you, am concerned about what has happened to the electorate in recent years. I attribute this, not to a decline in intelligence, but to a decline in character.

As you point out, a self-absorbed, short-sighted electorate is unlikely to make choices that are wise from a long-term perspective. It has been said that "democracy will end as soon as citizens discover they can vote for themselves money from the public coffers."

The engineering of the electorate which has been the agenda of the liberal educational establishment since Dewey is taking its toll. No nation has ever survived the loss of two consecutive generations... and I fear we are already losing the second.

[Homini Lupus]

I think the rise of a dictatorship may have two advantages
1) it cleans up the system (by changing it heavily)
2) it can more easily pursue unpopular objectives

Some drawbacks of dictatorsip are obvious. Others, like the usual spread of corruption are less. I think that long-run detrimental effects of dictatorship overwhelm short run benefits.

In Europe a way to justify unpopular decision has become accounting them to the EU needs and institutions. The cost of this is anti-europeism

[thod]

The problem is that you dont get a better solution by having 20 million thinking about an issue than 10 million. If the samples are representative you should get the same outcome. In moving to the larger number you double the costs in terms of man hours spent thinking about an issue, thus the smaller sample is preferred. What you need is a large enough sample to represent all views in proportion.

I dont believe the common man is in a position to judge some of the esoteric issues involved in say economics. What we are hoping is that he will vote randomly and the proportion of informed voters will swing it.

There are problems though. Those who genuinely understand an issue are likely to be those who have a stake in the outcome. Thus they will vote with self interest in mind.

[Homini Lupus]

If I remember well common political theories state that a man decides who to vote for one out of three reasons:

1) Belonging: I feel I belong to a party or I think that, even if I don't totally agree with some of the current issues, my goal is the same than theirs so I vote them.

2) Interest: I vote them because I want a specific policy to be undertaken

3) Personal Interest: I vote them in order to get a place in parliament or in any public place

[Shakyamuni]

I don't really understand politics all tht well, but I, like you, am concerned about what has happened to the electorate in recent years. I attribute this, not to a decline in intelligence, but to a decline in character.

Its really not just the electorate but I think the entire society as a whole.

Dictatorship obviously has its problems, but what if there was a plausible way to limit the terms of dictatorship, to say, five year terms every half century in order to make the necessary changes that are required. Obviously the position would be highly coveted, but if there are sufficient checks and balances on the selection (not election) of a dictator, do you think this would be a possible solution?

[demaugustus]

I'm all for the political philosophy to the book "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein. Not the movie, however, which might as well be a comedy sketch of the book.

Like the book, I believe social responsibility requires individual sacrifice. The right to vote or hold office should be earned through Civil Service, via the military or public works. The opportunity to earn your citizenship should be available to all races, sexes, and religions. The book even allows the handicap the right to earn their citizenship.

I don't believe all people are created equal. Some people are good at math, while others can hardly understand algebra. Some people are good looking, while others are ugly. Some people can bake a great pie, while some are restricted to microwave dinners. The Declaration of Independence guarantees "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - no one can stop anyone from pursuing happiness, but life and liberty can exist only if they are deliberately sought and paid for. Only some people are capable of understanding the value of life and liberty, while others are too stupid to see its true value, which is why the right to be a citizen should be earned by blood and sweat by those willing to prove they understand the value.

It is important to note that incomplete citizens in Starship Troopers have the same rights as everyone else, only they can't run for office or vote.

No one in the military, or earning their citizenship through other means, is allowed to vote in Starship Troopers because they haven't completely fulfilled their service. Even career officers are not allowed to vote.

The government is a representative democracy in the book. The only difference is that you have to earn your citizenship. The society is by no means a utopia either and the culture is very conservative to.

I think the military needs to be reorganized like in Starship Troopers, as well. In our current system you can bypass the enlisted ranks and become an officer. In the book everyone starts out as enlisted. I think this is better because in order to be a good leader you must understand the people you lead before leading them and the people following you may just have more respect for you because you've been through the same shit as them.

Don't buy into a lot of critics of the book who claim it promotes fascism or dictatorship. There is no racism in the book, for crying out loud, because Jaun Rico, the main character, is Brazilian. All kinds of religions are represented in the book and there is a separation of church and state. There is no sexism either. There is a whole section devoted to why women make better pilots then men.

Read the book for yourself to truly grasp what I'm saying.

[ArchonAlarion]

We are all organisms made up of complex chemical processes. We are atoms and molecules.

There is no "purpose" to existence. There is no cosmic, moral scoreboard.

You can choose either nihilistic oppurtunism or benevolent self-interest.

Those who choose the former will rape, steal, lie, and kill. They are malevolent and do not care.

The latter constitutes being rational and self-interested, but respectful of others' persons and property. Even helping others often makes people feel happy themselves.

Neither choice is "right," because there is no good and evil.

Those who choose the latter now look and figure out in what way can we best allow everyone to seek their own happiness while not destroying the happiness of others.

With all that said, I take the latter stance.

Democracy is mob rule. If 10 men go up to a women, say something to her, she yells, they all raise their hands, say I, and rape her, people will ask what went on. The rapists casually tell the witnesses that they had voted whether to rape her. It was a 10:1 vote. The majority makes the rules.

Democracy is a terrible system and dictatorship is a horrible alternative. The problem isn't how its organized, the problem is what they are doing in the first place. They are all rulers: Pharohs, emperors, chieftains, kings, lords, presidents, senators, knights, police, governors, pirates, chancellors, mayors, kidnappers and rapists.

When people realize that we don't need them, we will be free in our pursuit of happiness

[Homini Lupus]

You are forgetting that most systems have rigid, written constitutions to avoid democracy becoming a real rule of the mob. In some systems you cannot change legally political system (republic to monarchy etc.) or other parts of the constitution. But, even if less evident, there's a violent background idea in democracies: the idea that, in a civil war, the man who won the elections would win, having more partisans.

If you erase the state the society picks up the job and you have a harsher mob rule. Just imagine if your neighbours had the right to judge your actions.

Constitutional democracies are a terrible systems. But I'm still waiting for a better one and I'll defend current system until real alternatives come.

[Marcus]

We are all organisms made up of complex chemical processes. We are atoms and molecules.

There is no "purpose" to existence.

You're suggesting here that if the parts of a system do not show a property then neither a system made of parts can show that property. I.e. atoms and molecules have no purpose -> anything built from atoms cannot have purpose. This is not necessarily true.

Here is an example:
Elementary particles have no colour; it is only when they are arranged in atoms that they absorb or emit specific wavelengths of light and can thus be said to have a colour.
See more here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Also, all of our atoms supposedly get replaced in every 7 years. Still we do not become a completely different person in every 7 years. We are not just atoms and molecules but atoms and molecules arranged so specifically that we can even follow a purpose.





Marcus added to this post, 55 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Democracy requires a smart population in order to function efficiently,
Why is it not enough to have smart leadership?

which I will refer to as the ideal democratic population. Modern day western culture is drifting away from the ideal democratic population.
When do you think was there an ideal democratic population?

Many Asians that I personally know, as well as the older generation of Europeans tend to characterize The West as a lazy, financially indebted party culture that emphasizes instant gratification over long term benefit.
There are people who are like this.

The West is known to have low voter turnout, voter apathy, and a lack of political awareness.
Not always. See the last election in France, for example. If a tension is created then the voter turnout gets increased.

On the other hand, governments are characterized by extreme partisanship, being too influenced by lobbyists, and most dangerously of all pursuing populist policies.
The situation in my country is like this but I don't have a broader overview.

Why is this the case? Why is the west drifting down the wrong path? I would argue it has to do with our greatest creation, the naturally balanced economic system called capitalism.

Capitalism itself is not an inherently bad thing. In my opinion it is a man-made system that works on an inherent principle of natural balance to distribute wealth accordingly. This is not to say I think it distributes wealth equally, just that the system responds to stimulus just like "living systems"... see environment. The problem is that advertisers have perverted the system through the use of mass media, creating a culture of instant gratification in order to better sell their products by creating "false" demand. Basically advertising is able to create unjustified demand which throws a wrench into the capitalist system. Advertising has also had a spill over effect in terms of how our populace now thinks, changing us from creatures of long term thought to creatures of short term benefit, rash decisions, and impulse buying.
I don't know if it's capitalism. It's rather consumerism.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


This has led to the rise of populist policies/politics, where governments simply pursue whatever is "hip" with the electorate, regardless of the merit, or common sense of the proposal. When people fail to use their mental capabilities to foresee consequences (think long term), populism results. Populism=impulses=not thinking=evil.
I think you rather referring here to demagogy than to populism.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Because of the way the electorate now thinks and behaves, I believe that people are beginning to forfeit the right to self-government. The American constitution grants people equal right to express their opinions, throws in ideals about being born free etc and something about being *born* with rights. (Sorry I'm too intuitive, I couldn't be bothered to go through the actual text). As for those of us who are advocates of democracy, while you may have the right to express your opinion, and while your opinion may be what the majority view as correct, this is by no means a validation of that opinion. It simply means that most people believe "xyz". While we all should be allowed to be heard, it doesn't mean that what we are all saying is of equal value.
Moreover we are not equally heard. The media decides who is heard and who is not.

As a Buddhist I think that we are not all equal. Far from it, some of us are stupid idiotic morons. Nonetheless, those same stupid idiotic morons have the potential to be "equal". By this I mean they have the potential to live a fulfilling life, and should be treated with the due respect that all humans deserve.
I don't know Buddhism profoundly, but I have doubts that you could derive this from Buddhism.

BUT! this does not mean that we should take the opinions of stupid idiotic morons into account when running the whole country, especially if its the majority view. Because the majority of society has turned sour, and is no longer capable of acting in a rational manner, the majority view and its associated "democratic checks and balances" are no longer functioning.
I would rather say that it is even hard for experts to foresee the exact consequences of a political program. The layman has no chance to do this. So you cannot offer a rational choice to 99% of the public, whether moron or not. You don't need voters to choose the right solution. You need voters to punish bad programs at the next election. Also you need voters to form a public opinion about a policy during its execution giving feedback to politicians who fear of the outcome of the next election.

So what is the dilemma? If a democratic population is driven by base impulses it will elect governments that pander to those impulses. There will be no desire to change or move forward on the part of politicians, because in order to get elected all they need do is take a poll, and act accordingly, without any foresight, and regardless of what is good for the country.
They have to think about the next election. I would say that the problem is the lack of incentive for long term planning.

In Canada the problems of populism have been clearly seen since 2006. Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish political parties in Canada because they are all considered "the same". Why are they the same? Because they all follow whatever will get them elected, regardless of political leaning, which is populism.

I would then ask under what circumstances a population would elect a government with foresight? I can't see how.
Good question.

So, what is the solution? I see two possible ways out, but would be interested to know what other people think. How does one repair a society by instilling long term values and foresight in place of short term instant gratification? I see two ways out.

1.) Society changes gradually to hold governments to task. The only plausibly impetus I can envision would be if it becomes "cool" to be intelligent, and more common sensical. This may very well happen as a result of the environmental movement. Who knows? It is now "cool" to be green, so then by virtue of the nature of environmental stewardship, perhaps it will have a spill over effect in terms of how people think.

2.) Dictatorship. Basically just read about the fall of the roman republic and you will see the parallel between the rise of populism then, and now. Ultimately it ended up with dictatorship, which worked quite well at times, and failed miserably at other times. Nonetheless, dictatorship after the end of the republic helped to restore Rome, and bring about the subsequent golden era of the roman empire under efficient administrators such as the Antonnines. (However it all went to hell after Marcus Aurelius).
I don't know if you can draw a parallel between ancient Rome and let's say actual Canada. The Republic of Rome was tailored to govern a city state, not an empire, this was probably the main reason for its fall. Also dictatorships do not imply more foresight. There is even less control on the ruling elite than in a democracy.

Ultimately both forms of government are legitimate and useful. It all depends on the time and the place. In Iraq democracy is currently a debacle, and no one can deny that Saddam, acting as "the strong man" kept the region comparatively more stable than it is today. Likewise, perhaps the west is forfeiting its right to self-government and needs a bout of dictatorship to turn things around.
Saddam's dictatorship did not provide solutions to problems, just suppressed them. Such a stability can also mean stagnation.

I'm optimistic that a new generation of politicians would rise to replace the demagogue (populist) ones. People should see the consequences of short term thinking after a couple of less successful governments.

[SirJac]

I think the key to how the electorate votes is the concept of the alpha user (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._Users). It is key in viral marketing, and probably has played the same role in elections for much longer. Since most people arn't actually informed about the issues themselves and really don't have any basis to decide who to vote for on their own, I suspect that they are highly influenced by social networks. If an alpha user can influence the social networks they are connected to even moderately, then their voices alone can easily determine a large number of votes. But alpha users are people too and likely can be influenced quite easily as well if the advertising is targetted properly. If viral marketing can be successful in using alpha users to influence a large number of people through their social networks about a simple product, I would expect viral marketing to be much more influential in politics where people tend to react stronger.

This is why high profile support has such a huge influence in politics. They are in effect alpha users sending a message to every social network they they are attached to even if they don't realise it. Take Oprah for example, she is probably the most powerful alpha user on the planet with very powerful connections to social networks all over the world. If an endorsement from Oprah can make a book a national best seller, what do you think it did for Obama? Of course this has been utilized for as long as their has been social networks, but with the advent of the internet and digital communication, viral advertising through social networks is probably going to be the primary deciding force of any election from now on. How it will affect democracy in the future, I'm not sure. I have a feeling that it won't be positive though. With the ever increasing ability to identify alpha users and refining of viral marketing techniques, it will become increasingly easier for small groups to influence and manipulate huge sections of society.

As INTJs, we won't be as easily influenced by these techniques due to our nature. But we are a tiny minority and our voices of rational thought and debate will continue to be drowned out by the roar of persuation through viral marketing. Needless to say I'm not optimistic with the outlook on western democracy.

[Shakyamuni]

I appreciate your insightful critique Marcus. Its nice to actually have someone analyze your ideas instead of simply go "mhm". It drives me insane that people don't think or care. I will try to respond to the flaws.

Why is it not enough to have smart leadership?
Who elects the leadership in the first place? The electorate has to be smart enough to vote in decent leadership.

When do you think was there an ideal democratic population?
Never. Its just theoretical what societies should be attempting to achieve. That being said, early US democracy would have been much closer to what I consider an ideal democratic electorate/society.

Not always. See the last election in France, for example. If a tension is created then the voter turnout gets increased.
Not always, but most often. France is the exception to the rule, same with Obama. For the most part people couldn't really care less.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't know if it's capitalism. It's rather consumerism.
I think you rather referring here to demagogy than to populism.
Semantics. I think most know what I meant. Consumerism only exists because of a capitalist system. Demagogy is not representative of the situation in Canada. That being said I misused the term populism. Nevertheless I hope most people understand.

I don't know Buddhism profoundly, but I have doubts that you could derive this from Buddhism.
If you don't agree with this I should direct you to the website to clear up your confusion. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Not all forms of Buddhism are about respecting insects and living on some windswept mountaintop in Tibet. In my branch of Buddhism one should understand two fundamental concepts.

1.) Buddhism is a self-empowering practice.
2.) Buddhism emphasizes appreciation/gratitude very highly as everything is interconnected.

From this I apply to everyday life the following:

1.) You are in the drivers seat. If you aren't driving that's pathetic.
2.) Empathy and compassion towards those who aren't driving should be a priority. Teach them how to drive.

By teaching people to drive you automatically assume that people aren't equal. Some need to be led, others lead.

You don't need voters to choose the right solution. You need voters to punish bad programs at the next election.
Hence we end up with mediocrity, not the right solution. *Sighs* Exactly my point.

I don't know if you can draw a parallel between ancient Rome and let's say actual Canada. The Republic of Rome was tailored to govern a city state, not an empire, this was probably the main reason for its fall. Also dictatorships do not imply more foresight. There is even less control on the ruling elite than in a democracy.
Why did the republic end? Read Rubicon for starters by Tom Holland. It relates to the reader the increasing power of politicians such as the Gracchi, Pompey and Caesar who used their popularity with the plebs (mob rule, populism?) to increase their power. For example, Caesar I believe extended his pro-consulship in Gaul from a single year to an unprecedented five year term. Basically, according to the book, one of the important reasons for the end of the republic was that politicians began to prey on the whims of an uneducated population, while becoming increasingly competitive and covetous of the power. I was just drawing on the uneducated electorate bit. there are many differences.

While dictatorship does not imply foresight there is certainly historical precedent: Peter the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Catherine the Great, Ataturk, etc. Theoretically, the ideal benevolent dictator would have a greater impetus to plan ahead because they are not at the constant five/four year whims of the electorate.

Better the rule of One, whom all obey, than to let clamorous demagogues betray our freedom with the kiss of anarchy. Oscar Wilde

So hopefully that will be sufficient.

[jesse]

The first post of the thread does highlight and bring about many of the problems I also see and constantly hear about in society, in particular with this so-called drooling for democracy. In the end, democracy boils down the numbers and achieving the minimum, usually 51%, to pass whatever piece of legislation or referendum is proposed by the government apparatus. Of course it helps those in power to have a weak, uneducated and unaware populace because this way they can control them via what I call fear tactics.

The inherent problem in democracy is the assumption that those who vote know what they are voting for and have justifications and have contemplated the possible outcomes, basically a competent voter. These days every piece of legislation is written in exceedingly complicated language and have become a sandbox for only the initiated, ie lawyers and the rest of the gang in any inner sanctum of power. Looking from another perspective, there's also the voters to blame. They want instant or at least swift gratification and they do not want to pay for it. Better yet, they are god-given privileges because they are free and deserving.

Authoritarianism and outright dictatorship do have the ability to push through much needed change, and of course, opposition is not going to be tolerated. To complicate matters, there is a systematic "say no to dictatorship at all costs" mentality being pushed into residents of so-called democratic nations. Dictatorship is not bad by itself, especially not if the ruler can be classed as an enlightened, benevolent dictator. This class of leadership knows how to keep order, and there is little need to use force, the country moves forward as needed instead of running around in circles because the ruler becomes spoiled. The key is to know when the ruler has to be replaced and problems tend to show up when a ruler clings to power for too long after showing a consistant streak of incompetence and other folly.

Shakyamuni
Because of the way the electorate now thinks and behaves, I believe that people are beginning to forfeit the right to self-government.

It is difficult to say you deserve autonomy in your own matters with a straight face these days. Seems people are more than willing to piss their freedoms and privileges away when there is a perceived threat, in exchange for perceived security and stability. Someone is going to get the short end of the bargain when you'll say "screw the constitution, give me safety".

In Iraq democracy is currently a debacle, and no one can deny that Saddam, acting as "the strong man" kept the region comparatively more stable than it is today. Likewise, perhaps the west is forfeiting its right to self-government and needs a bout of dictatorship to turn things around.

Democracy in Iraq was rushed in callously and at an inappropriate time. You simply cannot transplant your own cultural view of how government should be formed and what its functions are. Islamic culture in the middle east has a rather different approach to equality and egalitarianism compared to the west. For instance they view leadership as something which should be strong and respected in most cases. They are not bothered by large power distance between those who rule and those who are ruled.

Returning to the previous point where democracy was callously transplanted and forced in via gun point so-to-say, it does not work because the basic necessities of people are not met first. Secondly, the culture for democracy is simply not there and it is unreasonable to expect an overnight revolution in habits and thinking. Whether or not the entire objective was to instill democracy in Iraq is a big question mark in itself, but this is a topic for a different discussion.

Saddam Hussein might have kept the region a bit more stable, but it was done through force, rape and organized violence and fear. It certainly did not help that the country was isolated and pushed against the wall. I doubt Saddam Hussein and his gang was affected much by it, though.

[Marcus]

Who elects the leadership in the first place? The electorate has to be smart enough to vote in decent leadership.
In my experience a more educated electorate produces better leadership because they accept less bullshit. It doesn't really matter where they put their vote, thought.

Never. Its just theoretical what societies should be attempting to achieve. That being said, early US democracy would have been much closer to what I consider an ideal democratic electorate/society.
Maybe they just valued their freshly gained freedom more.

Not always, but most often. France is the exception to the rule, same with Obama. For the most part people couldn't really care less.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I rather see the beginning of a new trend than just exceptions.


Semantics. I think most know what I meant. Consumerism only exists because of a capitalist system.
But the root of the problem is not necessarily capitalism.

Demagogy is not representative of the situation in Canada. That being said I misused the term populism. Nevertheless I hope most people understand.
I understood that you had been referring to the problem of short/long term benefits.

(...)
2.) Buddhism emphasizes appreciation/gratitude very highly as everything is interconnected.
(...)
2.) Empathy and compassion towards those who aren't driving should be a priority. Teach them how to drive.
(...)
By teaching people to drive you automatically assume that people aren't equal. Some need to be led, others lead.

This is where I see the contradiction. You're supposed to show them how to drive, not to take the lead in their stead.

Basically, according to the book, one of the important reasons for the end of the republic was that politicians began to prey on the whims of an uneducated population, while becoming increasingly competitive and covetous of the power.
But if you zoom out then you can see that the republic was in crisis for a long time:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Actually populism was aimed at solving the problems of the masses.

While dictatorship does not imply foresight there is certainly historical precedent: Peter the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Catherine the Great, Ataturk, etc.
And you could make a list of bad dictators, and good democratic leaders, as well. I think democracy is better in the long run.

Theoretically, the ideal benevolent dictator would have a greater impetus to plan ahead because they are not at the constant five/four year whims of the electorate.
So the question is whether you have greater chance for a good/bad political leader in a democracy or in a dictatorship.

BTW, there are people who think that Russia is better off with a Putin style half-democracy/half-dictatorship than with a full democracy. I have doubts that Canada would benefit from a dictatorship.