The heading have only one term: Collective Decisions. I will clear up its meaning below. Its important to have a clear meaning of terms before getting in any discussion, to avoid me talking about one thing and you thinking about another (different) thing.
What Is A Collective Decision?
A collective decision is a decision that is made about a group of people and is made by the leader of the group.
There are 3 elements in it:
- Its a decision. Thats obvious and thus need no emphasis here. Having this out of the way following are parts that needs emphasis.
- Its about a group of people; its not about a person; its not about a sub-group.
- Its made by the leader of the group; its not a group decision because its not made by other members of the group. The non-leader members, any or some or all, may be consulted for advice(s) but the decision is of the leader.
Collective Decisions That Are Right Cannot Also Be Popular, In General
The Claim:
The claim is not just that they are non-popular. The claim is that they cannot be popular. This is ofcourse speaking in general.
A Proof:
Truth can be proven a thousand ways. Following is just one of the proofs.
This proof is proof by contradiction.
Suppose that, generally speaking, right decisions are popular. That means that most people in the group would have reached that decision themselves.
If a decision is popular then it by definition means that most people like it (thats what popular means). If most people like it then most people could have reached it on their own because thats the only way they would have like it. If whats your inside wants matches with whats available outside then and then only you like whats available outside. Thats the definition of liking.
Having said all above, here is the main point of this article, if people could have reach the right decision on their own then they wouldn't need a leader. The very existence of need of a leader is showing that majority of people are blind and thus cannot see the path, that they need to be guided. Ofcourse they wouldn't like what the leader choose for them. Its because its not their decision, it cannot be their decision. It, by necessity, has to be imposed on them.
A leader is like a sour pill. He is not liked but he cannot be avoided.
All Democracies Are Incompetents And Therefore Will Fail And Finally Perish
Democracy kills itself, through popular vote.
The decision that is chosen by majority of people, is in general, as shown above, wrong.
A democracy keeps on making wrong decisions because it has to make popular decisions. An entity that keep on making wrong decision is incompetent by definition.
A democracy can stand for long only against other democracies.
A democracy cannot stand for long against a monarchy, if everything else is kept constant.
Oldest form of government in world is not democracy, its monarchy. Monarchies tends to exist for thousands of years. The families that rule would change over centuries but monarchies themselves would continue to exist for thousands of years.
Moreover, when a monarchy perish its almost always replaced by another monarchy. Through unification or division.
Whenever a democracy is in conflict with another governement, of any form - democracy or republic or dictatorship or monarchy - it start being less democratic and more authoritarian. Thats the only way for it to be stronger. No democracy can survive any competition by being more democratic than its competitor.
Democracies tend to become republics. In a republic people choose through popular vote a leader, periodically, and then have to follow decisions of the leader. Each and every decision need not pass the people's consent. Its a compromise. Its not optimal in any direction.
Republics over time become dictatorships. Sooner or later a strong man will come that will postpone then abandon elections securing his seat for life.
Dictatorships when strong enough to "continue" to next generation become monarchies.
Whenever a democracy or even a republic face crisis it tends towards marshal law. If it was the brightest, rightest form of government then why it cannot handle hard problems by being itself? Why do it has to become enemy to solve problems? Isn't that in itself declaration of being wrong?
Bureaucracy takes over in all democracies over time. The popular leaders' hands and feet will gradually be cut off by making long, complicated rules about what decisions he can make. Anything that slip through is almost always handled by (lack of) implementation.
Who Should Choose The Leader
If people are too blind to make collective decisions on their own and thus need a leader to make collective decisions for them, then how can they make the collective decision on their own of choosing a leader? They cannot. If they could then a snake can survive indefinitely eating its own tail.
The truth of the matter is, people cannot reliably choose their own leader. They dont have the vision. A leader have to be presented to them, that is, have to be pre-selected for them. The most their consent can be taken for is whether they accept him or not. If they dont accept him then a different leader, pre-selected, should be present to them for their yay or nay.
Its important that once they have said yay they cannot dispose him. If this point is not followed then the person chosen cannot lead them.
Only the special people who had pre-selected the leader should have the power to dispose him.
No comments:
Post a Comment