Quote from: Helana on October 08, 2018, 10:08:00 AM

Quote from: Piggy on October 07, 2018, 07:30:30 PM

But the real question is what are the alternatives then?

I do believe that there are too many people in this world, to begin with. But, as far as I've been able to observe, small communities are needed. I think that humanity needs to develop a network of small communities with self-government, based on merits. Platon also spoke about a type of Aristocracy based on philosophy, in where the ruler should be a philosopher. The way he/she should reach the power was based on merits, and on a strong educational system preparing greedless rulers.

Well, in an over-populated community, this is impossible to achieve, of course, for, how are you going to develop a trust-system between millions of persons? Of course not. But in small communities, it can absolutely be done. But, again, in an overpopulated world, that's kind of utopic. I do see a dystopian future, though, based on a punctuation system, a meritocracy, but in where, probably, ignorance and appearance will be voted, instead of intelligence and greedless. Maybe you just asked a pessimist woman.

The systems that worked well in the past need modification to cope with extremes of population, communication changes etc..

There is no need to dispose of the democratic model, as it's most important attribute is that it seems to be more fair than other systems. It will always be easier to convince ppl that democracy is the fairest system (or , to paraphrase WLSC, the most unfair system, apart from all the others) .

Taken to extreme, an 'absolute' democracy, where everything is decided by plebiscite, would throw up ridiculous decisions and anomalies, and would be controlled entirely by the popular (social) media manipulators.

A representative democracy, as exists in many developed countries, is still the most effective. The representatives need some boundaries and filters such as an upper chamber or a written/legal precedent constitution.