Valid but counter point, popular vote is always easily influenceable, leading to counter productive results, and sometimes leads to psuedodemocracy which is authoritarian in all but name.
There is no good autocracy and no perfect democracy, but you cannot discredit both.
Short bursts of autocracy when necessary and done right(altruistic leader with accountability who steps down) leads to a lasting democracy
altruistic leader with accountability who steps down
That is traditional leadership, and leadership is one thing and authoritarianism is quite another.
A leader does not have to be authoritarian. A leader works best when they delegates functions and distributes power horizontally. The leader is not the one who knows more but the one who is more focused.
In authoritarianism, the despot is “the alpha and the omega”, the top of the pyramid and the highest authority, regardless of the scope. He is the one who has the last word, even if what he says is bullshit. There is no form of authoritarianism that is mild or “altruistic”.
I grant you that the population is easy to manipulate, but that is precisely because of the dependence on authority figures, people trust more in what their “leader” tells them than in their own judgment.
The solution is to educate the population so that it is less prone to manipulation, not to continue doing the same as always.
I partially disagreed in the first and strongly disagreed in the second.
The first can be resolved with education.
The second…
The funny thing is that both points are related in a horrid way:
Let’s say there is a despot who has a doctorate, it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be in quantum physics, which has nothing to do with politics, but it is enough to say that the guy is smart. The despot proposes something based on what you say: that those who are not “properly prepared intellectually” can not vote, this translates into those who do not have a university degree can not vote, as 40% of the population at best. Then this becomes that you have to have a Master’s degree to vote, then a doctorate, then only if you have a doctorate in a specific field, and so on…
On the one hand, we should not limit the exercise of democracy of the population, on the contrary. The population does not know how to read? Teach them, they don’t know arithmetic? Teach them. The vast majority do not have a university degree? Make university access more accessible, in an intelligent transforming way.
On the other hand, don’t give unlimited power to ANYONE. There is no individual being capable of providing a whole society with what it needs, because this individual will act according to his limited vision of the world and this will lead to the misfortune of the groups that escape his worldview. And that is only assuming that the despot really wants to “do what is best for all”, which is not at all the case in reality. The despots from the beginning choose a side (“Us”, the Aryans, etc) and an enemy (“Them”, the Jews, the blacks, the Latinos, the non-Aryan whites, etc), and openly act to harm “them” and only benefit “us”. And this is how genocides and so on happen…
Can, could, would, should… fact is if they don’t understand the subject then they don’t understand the subject. We aren’t going to put off the vote on the new dam till everybody gets their civil engineering degree. So no.
The funny thing is that both points are related in a horrid way:
They are literally the same situation from 2 different sides.
On the other hand, don’t give unlimited power…
But we do. We give power to a hundred specialists. They know their subject, we don’t, so we trust them to do the right thing. Every day we do that. Running our society seems like more of the same.
We are not going to postpone the vote on the new dam until everyone gets their civil engineering degree.
If the specialist cannot explain to the common population in a concise way the implications of carrying out a project of that size so that they can make a sensible choice in a vote, then the problem lies with the specialist, not the population. Giving that kind of explanation is education.
We empower a hundred specialists.
That is not at all the same as giving absolute authority to a despot. A specialist is not necessarily an authority, just as in most cases authorities are not specialists.
You could say that a doctor has the power over who lives and who dies, but what if the hospital director fires the doctor? Or demands that he give priority to some patients over others? And hospital directors are not necessarily Doctors of Medicine. Sure, ideally, the specialists in a field should be the aurities in that field, but that is an ideal and not a reality. The authority of the Hospital is not the doctor, but the Hospital Director. The authority that decides whether or not to build a dam is not the Engineer, it is the owner of the construction company.
Besides, the fact that we have been giving too much power to individuals for years does not mean that it is the right thing to do! For some reason we are on the verge of a new rebirth of fascism.
The ability to explain the subject to the uneducated is not something we generally expect in our engineers. What we do is trust their judgment. That’s how we do it when building dams, bridges, houses etc.
Gotta disagree on the authoritarianisms. Millionaires have consistently been shit at running countries. All of them run the country like a business, where citizens are workers that can’t be fired and very few are able to quit. They also always play the cards to favour their “friends”, dragging the society towards kleptocracy.
A dentist has no authority over you. If you choose not to brush your teeth they can’t force you to, they can’t do dental work unless you willingly seek them put and consent.
A plumber has not authority to enter your home or mess with your plumbing unless you invite them in.
You’re misusing the word “authority” and applying it out of context.
We don’t confer power to them. I am the authority and I consent to the dentist cleaning my teeth but the second I say “no” their ability to operate is taken away.
Your dentist does not have the ability, to force you to do anything. They are an “authority” in the sense they know a lot about teeth so we willingly ask them for help.
That is clearly not the same type of authority being discussed in authoritarianism.
Democracy is always good except if what is put to a vote is whether human beings deserve rights or not. Human rights are unappealable, period.
Authoritarianism, on the other hand, is never good, and anyone who says otherwise is a bootlicker, a privileged class or an authoritarian leader.
Valid but counter point, popular vote is always easily influenceable, leading to counter productive results, and sometimes leads to psuedodemocracy which is authoritarian in all but name.
There is no good autocracy and no perfect democracy, but you cannot discredit both.
Short bursts of autocracy when necessary and done right(altruistic leader with accountability who steps down) leads to a lasting democracy
That is traditional leadership, and leadership is one thing and authoritarianism is quite another.
A leader does not have to be authoritarian. A leader works best when they delegates functions and distributes power horizontally. The leader is not the one who knows more but the one who is more focused.
In authoritarianism, the despot is “the alpha and the omega”, the top of the pyramid and the highest authority, regardless of the scope. He is the one who has the last word, even if what he says is bullshit. There is no form of authoritarianism that is mild or “altruistic”.
I grant you that the population is easy to manipulate, but that is precisely because of the dependence on authority figures, people trust more in what their “leader” tells them than in their own judgment.
The solution is to educate the population so that it is less prone to manipulation, not to continue doing the same as always.
Ok. Just for conversation’s sake, here are 2 exceptions. Respectively :
Democracy is bad when addressing uncommon subjects. Because if you don’t know the subject then you shouldn’t vote on it.
Authoritarianism is good when the authority knows better than the populace.
I partially disagreed in the first and strongly disagreed in the second.
The first can be resolved with education.
The second…
The funny thing is that both points are related in a horrid way:
Let’s say there is a despot who has a doctorate, it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be in quantum physics, which has nothing to do with politics, but it is enough to say that the guy is smart. The despot proposes something based on what you say: that those who are not “properly prepared intellectually” can not vote, this translates into those who do not have a university degree can not vote, as 40% of the population at best. Then this becomes that you have to have a Master’s degree to vote, then a doctorate, then only if you have a doctorate in a specific field, and so on…
On the one hand, we should not limit the exercise of democracy of the population, on the contrary. The population does not know how to read? Teach them, they don’t know arithmetic? Teach them. The vast majority do not have a university degree? Make university access more accessible, in an intelligent transforming way.
On the other hand, don’t give unlimited power to ANYONE. There is no individual being capable of providing a whole society with what it needs, because this individual will act according to his limited vision of the world and this will lead to the misfortune of the groups that escape his worldview. And that is only assuming that the despot really wants to “do what is best for all”, which is not at all the case in reality. The despots from the beginning choose a side (“Us”, the Aryans, etc) and an enemy (“Them”, the Jews, the blacks, the Latinos, the non-Aryan whites, etc), and openly act to harm “them” and only benefit “us”. And this is how genocides and so on happen…
Can, could, would, should… fact is if they don’t understand the subject then they don’t understand the subject. We aren’t going to put off the vote on the new dam till everybody gets their civil engineering degree. So no.
They are literally the same situation from 2 different sides.
But we do. We give power to a hundred specialists. They know their subject, we don’t, so we trust them to do the right thing. Every day we do that. Running our society seems like more of the same.
If the specialist cannot explain to the common population in a concise way the implications of carrying out a project of that size so that they can make a sensible choice in a vote, then the problem lies with the specialist, not the population. Giving that kind of explanation is education.
That is not at all the same as giving absolute authority to a despot. A specialist is not necessarily an authority, just as in most cases authorities are not specialists.
You could say that a doctor has the power over who lives and who dies, but what if the hospital director fires the doctor? Or demands that he give priority to some patients over others? And hospital directors are not necessarily Doctors of Medicine. Sure, ideally, the specialists in a field should be the aurities in that field, but that is an ideal and not a reality. The authority of the Hospital is not the doctor, but the Hospital Director. The authority that decides whether or not to build a dam is not the Engineer, it is the owner of the construction company.
Besides, the fact that we have been giving too much power to individuals for years does not mean that it is the right thing to do! For some reason we are on the verge of a new rebirth of fascism.
The ability to explain the subject to the uneducated is not something we generally expect in our engineers. What we do is trust their judgment. That’s how we do it when building dams, bridges, houses etc.
Oh now it’s a question of right.
Like talking to a puddle of squishy goo.
Gotta disagree on the authoritarianisms. Millionaires have consistently been shit at running countries. All of them run the country like a business, where citizens are workers that can’t be fired and very few are able to quit. They also always play the cards to favour their “friends”, dragging the society towards kleptocracy.
I’d guess that they’re looking to change that in the USA.
A dentist is a pretty good authority. So’s a plumber. There are a hundred more examples we could cite.
Are we saying that running the country is an exceptional case?
A dentist has no authority over you. If you choose not to brush your teeth they can’t force you to, they can’t do dental work unless you willingly seek them put and consent.
A plumber has not authority to enter your home or mess with your plumbing unless you invite them in.
You’re misusing the word “authority” and applying it out of context.
We confer power to the dentist and the plumber because the dentist and the plumber are experts in their fields.
We confer power to our other authorities, political and otherwise, for similar reasons.
That’s how authority works.
What? Take the discussion seriously.
We don’t confer power to them. I am the authority and I consent to the dentist cleaning my teeth but the second I say “no” their ability to operate is taken away.
Try telling “no” to a cop trying to arrest you.
Not serious? Well argue with yourself then.
Yea not serious.
Authority means force.
Your dentist does not have the ability, to force you to do anything. They are an “authority” in the sense they know a lot about teeth so we willingly ask them for help.
That is clearly not the same type of authority being discussed in authoritarianism.
Stop comparing Hitler to your dentist.