[see-are]

I want an elite group of intellectuals running the country with no interest in gaining votes just of running the country as well as possible. Like maybe 100 of the most intelligent and able people who answer only to the UN

Democracy isn't used in most situations. We accept it then. E.g in private businesses.
We have been indoctrinated into thinking democracy is the best way of going about things but I'm starting to doubt that.

[placeboeffect]

I lost you at 'elite'.

[lucaf]

because when you let a group of people run the country unquestioned, it always seems to end in death camps. democracy is far from perfect, but it is better than dictators. if the rulers do not answer to the public, then what will keep them acting in our interests?

[TheHansa]

(Original post by lucaf)
because when you let a group of people run the country unquestioned, it always seems to end in death camps. democracy is far from perfect, but it is better than dictators. if the rulers do not answer to the public, then what will keep them acting in our interests?

The government doesn't run the country.I'm not advocating dictatorship but imagine if instead of being in danger of losing an election and going on to makes £100,000 of pounds writing books and giving speeches they were in danger of being held accountable for what they do, like for example the monarchs of France who did actually run the country. Democracy protects the political elite perhaps more than it does the people.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by see-are)
I want an elite group of intellectuals running the country with no interest in gaining votes just of running the country as well as possible. Like maybe 100 of the most intelligent and able people who answer only to the UN.

Define 'as well as possible' (define 'intelligent' as well, but that's a lesser issue). It's subjective, which is what democracy is for.

Democracy isn't used in most situations. We accept it then. E.g in private businesses.

Actually, I don't think we should accept it there either, and I think that the lack of democracy in the economy is a cause of a lot of problems with society.

We have been indoctrinated into thinking democracy is the best way of going about things but I'm starting to doubt that.

Not really. What we've been indoctrinated into thinking is that 'democracy' means getting to put a tick in a box to choose which of two sets of bastards we hate least once every five years.

[arra]

I also want that and, ideally, that is precisely what democracy is.

The problem is who chooses the intellectuals that "run" the country. If it was self-chosen then you have two problems: how does the system begin, and how do you prevent the intellectual force from corrupting itself with power.

In fact, what you suggested is similar to how many modern democracies began; best example, America. Although the American revolution was certainly a "popular" one, it was largely an intellectual compulsion. In fact, the very idea of a strong Senate (and President) comes from this -- the idea that people don't know how to rule themselves, but an elite hand of about 500 people (the top branches of the government) can and do - and they are trading their liberty for not just security as defined by Locke, but also perhaps for a more abstract peace of mind, knowing that they have a "parent".

Indeed, one of the founding fathers' biggest fears was the "tyranny of the majority", which can largely be understood as an intellectual vindication, as it is protective of a group of people against the minority. In many ways, the ideal democracy is precisely what you describe.

However, human nature lends does not lend itself to such a direct thinking. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This ideal system is hindered by the need for a popular, nonintellectual, control mechanism on that intellectual force, i.e. popular election.

Furthermore, your comparison with private business is terrible. Private business, a truism given the name, is... well... private. Your government, and your country, are not private and it undermines the very purpose of government to privatize it. To even make that comparison is inane.

[TGH1]

Maybe a PG. Especially when Prescott's about.

[Alexandra's Box]

What's the alternative? Fascism? Dictatorships? Communism thrown in too?
"The best of a bad bunch" springs to mind - rather like when choosing who to vote for.

[see-are]

(Original post by arra)

Furthermore, your comparison with private business is terrible. Private business, a truism given the name, is... well... private. Your government, and your country, are not private and it undermines the very purpose of government to privatize it. To even make that comparison is inane.

No.
The comparison stands as: yes, one is private and the other public (and well done for pointing that out) but this is not the point.
Fundamentally, they are both bodies that a) have leaders and b) make decisions for the good of the organisation.
In business as I'm sure you are aware the leader is either the founder or whoever he/she appoints or whoever he/she's appointed leader then appoints etc etc. The difference here is of course in government the electorate decides who will be leader with the result of a vote.
The decisions made in businesses are often made by individuals whereas in government they are debated and voted upon.
So, all in all, the comparison is not "inane" at all, it actually serves my purpose quite well in showing the differences in style of organisation and how I would prefer to see the country run. You were thoroughly wrong and I want a written apology.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Democracy is a pretty fun system. Sure other ways would maybe end up with more economic growth and what not, but I don't think that's worth removing the rule of the people for.

[see-are]

(Original post by Alexandra's Box)
What's the alternative? Fascism? Dictatorships? Communism thrown in too?
"The best of a bad bunch" springs to mind - rather like when choosing who to vote for.

A 'good' dictatorship is the alternative. If that is possible is another question but I'd like to see it attempted with safety measures put in

[Steevee]

Eh, democracy is far from perfect, but as soon as you remove it you are relying on those in power to do what is best for the country, and not what is best for themselves or their chosen group.

Personally I would like to see an end to universal suffrage, I think there should be a test you have to pass before you can vote, I think there are people who should be barred from voting and I'd like to see and end to populist politics.

[ClassQuick]

If you actually believe we live in a democracy you are deluded anyway. 1 million plus marched against the Iraq war, 1 million marched against the health and safety bill and thousands of students marched against tuition fees.

Did it change anything?

[see-are]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Define 'as well as possible' (define 'intelligent' as well, but that's a lesser issue). It's subjective, which is what democracy is for.



Actually, I don't think we should accept it there either, and I think that the lack of democracy in the economy is a cause of a lot of problems with society.



Not really. What we've been indoctrinated into thinking is that 'democracy' means getting to put a tick in a box to choose which of two sets of bastards we hate least once every five years.

Firstly, I think its interesting/amusing that you are commenting on here to defend democracy with your username.

By 'as well as possible' I mean in the interests of the population as a whole as far as possible. I think this is largely hindered by the need to gain popular support as it prevents 'tough decisions'.

By intelligence I don't really mean one attribute just the 'best minds' in whatever form they come in so some logicians, creatives etc etc - balance would be key in running a country as diverse as the UK

I think we should accept it in businesses as it is the owners business and he can run it how he likes (I believe in civil liberties)

[see-are]

(Original post by ClassQuick)
If you actually believe we live in a democracy you are deluded anyway. 1 million plus marched against the Iraq war, 1 million marched against the health and safety bill and thousands of students marched against tuition fees.

Did it change anything?

Exactly, it's broken.

[Arekkusu]

The most intelligent people are also the most manipulative.

Unless you want to promote universities and academics to government. Which would be disastrous as they're all lefties.

And then power-hungry dickcheese type people would just apply to university.

[Zeffy]

I agree and I have said the exact same thing before.

A democratic system where two idiots can outvote a genius does not work.

[see-are]

(Original post by Arekkusu)
The most intelligent people are also the most manipulative.

Unless you want to promote universities and academics to government. Which would be disastrous as they're all lefties.

And then power-hungry dickcheese type people would just apply to university.

Huge, unsupported and incorrect assertion there that the most intelligent are the most manipulative. Wow.

It wouldn't promote universities to government status.

And left wing politics is superior so sort your life out.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

Ha, democracy. That's a good joke.

Democracy is a slightly more covert form of control.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by see-are)
Huge, unsupported and incorrect assertion there that the most intelligent are the most manipulative. Wow.

It wouldn't promote universities to government status.

And left wing politics is superior so sort your life out.

Huge, unsupported and incorrect assetion there, that the most intelligent aren't the most manipulative. Derp.

It would promote universities to government status.

And left wing politics isn't supeior so sort you're life out.

What you are suggesting isn't leftism at all, its some sort of quasi-utopian technocracy that would probably descend into a totalitarian dictatorship, if the elite have pre-conceived prejudices, then it could turn into fascism.