thoughts on elites

[Eric the Green]

(07-01-2016, 12:35 PM)TnT Wrote: Another thought to challenge "us liberals!"

Someone once said something like, "The summation of individual ignorance does not lead to collective wisdom."

And there it is: Phenomena like the Trump revolution suggests that democracy itself suffers from a terrible weakness. That weakness is that without a fair amount of discipline on the part of a democratic society to make sure that its citizens are well-educated, it can devolve into this simplistic, boorish braying of bumper-stickers that is taken by a very large and very dangerous fraction of the society to be "wisdom." Or "common sense" as they call it.

There is no democracy unless it's assumed that the people are smart and must be well-educated. The problem with democracy, is that it depends on the people to make it work. These days, our system is so spat upon that this has become difficult. Also, the reason why Trump can almost poll evenly with Clinton is that our society is polarized. Republicans and their voters can say, well, Trump will appoint a conservative justice. That will keep gays in their place, abortion illegal, business able to do its will without interference, etc. Trump will keep guns legal and available and "protect the 2nd amendment." He will lower my taxes and regulations. He will fight the enemies of America and keep the fereners out. He will even promise to keep them from taking my job. So, for these members of the red tribe, it doesn't matter if Trump is not ideal, or if he's an incompetent, hypocritical, egotistic fool. He is their guy this time around, so, he gets their vote. Simple as that.

And simple as that for their leaders:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/2...gly-stupid

Quote:"Elites" seem to me to be inevitable. Some folks are just more talented in one area or another. Some are simply smarter in one area or another. Some of these areas can be very destructive. Others can be extremely valuable and yet have little in the way of power over influencing the structure of society.

Yet, some of my "liberal" friends seem to be pretty fanatic about the benefits of what they think of as "democracy."

In the absence of certain boundaries or control systems, i don't have much confidence in "democracy." Especially the bigger it gets. I'd rather have smart, thoughtful people in charge, than impulsive ignoramuses who just "do shit."

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Who is to choose these smart, thoughtful people? Who decides who is smart and thoughtful? And how? An IQ test?

Plato advocated rule by the best people. That implied an upper class that were well-educated and philosophical, with the philosopher-king at the top. A philosopher would govern in the best interests of all the people, each doing their proper role according to their natural abilities. Now, the problem is, what if the philosophy is faulty? What if it does not curb appetites and greed, as it's supposed to? What if the best people rule in their own interest and not in the interests of the people and the state as a whole? Since philosophers are rare among aristocrats, so far in history rule by the best has been mostly rule in the interest of the best people themselves, and not the people.

Aristocrats have mainly been the military leaders and fighters who were able to usurp power, and then pass it on to their descendants, who became the nobles.