This was really the question, if I can call it that, behind my A.I. Teacnocracy thread in the 'Other Ideologies' forum.
What I mean by that is "Is a fixed, some-what dictatorial (but stable, as a result), government better then a so-called free-for all, democratic
I mean The democratic system is fine and all but with the USSR gone there is no "Evil Arch-nemesis" to oppose, so the opposition to the majority
Representers, insted of disagreeing with the majority government about how to fight the communists, now disagree with the government about everything
else-and so, becoming a sort of internal destabilizing force in the government and the country as a hole.
The hole intro on the USSR and democracy was just to demonstrate how there has always been a counter to the ideals of the democratic societies that,
sort-of, held them together and unified, to some-extent, their publics against a commen enemy. You might argue that this is also the situation today
with terrorism and Iran. If you're right-then who will be the counter next? and if you're wrong (which is what I think) then democratic sociaties
(especialy hyper-capitalistic sociaties like the US) will soon start tairing themselfs apart with decadent regimes.
The Inherent flaw in democracy is basically that it's founded on having a constantly unstable regime with the people in the most critical points of
decision making being elected based on how well they can advertise themselfs to the majority of the voters.
The point of the last paragraph is to show how there has always been a unifying factor that posed a threat to democratic sociaties and distracted the
majority of the population from their own internal diagreements as a whole. And that now all the corruption of the godless dictatorships of the past
begin to plague those sociaties, whether for power or just money leadres and middle men will begin to make decisions out of personal interest that
don't serve, or even damage the publics interests.
But even if democratic sociaties are bound to fall apart, history has shown that the alternatives (namly Fascism and Communism) pretty much ruin
whatever country ther'e instatuted in.
So the situation is as follows:
-Democratic sociaties are unstable and lack unity. Plus their determination of leadership often comes down to who's the best at advertising.
-Dictatorships tend to go in to a state where they serve only the wishes of the rulers and not those of their people.
But there is another way to look at it...I mean a Technocracy (government were the people who rule are the ones with the most expertise in their
particular field-in this case-runnig the country) that is fixed, meaning there are no elections and whoever rules do so until they die, where people
will only vote on the ergent decisions of government if anything.
However this raises lots and lots of problems, naming just a few:
-who decisides who will rule?
-what happens when they DO die?
-What insures the people who supply the regime with information don't give them what they have in their interest to give them?
-What would keep the regime from getting...well...evil?
My solution was to give control of the state to AI computers who will only make the optimal decisions for all people or for most people and removign
humans from the picture all together. And while thats still not complete solution, it's the best one I've came up with.
So, what do you think? A Very efficient but fixed regime or a Democratic but unstable and corrupt regime?
Comment: I'm not trying to advertise my other thread
[edit on 25-7-2006 by HAL the bot]
[edit on 25-7-2006 by HAL the bot]