Hello everyone,
So nobody else appears to want to comment on my other thread. Fair enough. Here's another matter that I've pondered since a few years ago which I believe is worthy of discussion. I'll make sure to write less so my posts don't sound so boring.
In the western world, unrestricted democracy (i.e. everyone can vote) is seen today as the best way to elect "leaders". By "leaders", I mean those who are the government. This idea is questioned very little (or not at all) by the mainstream political movements (left, right, socialist, libertarian, etc.). Nevertheless, I strongly believe that this unrestricted democracy is not ideal, even if for practical reasons it works right now. I base this on the following two observations:
1. Most people rarely apply rational or logical thought when making a choice for a leader. They most often vote with their feelings.
2. Politicians prefer to "look better" rather than do the right thing a lot of the time. Moreover, because there is no screening, a highly corrupt politician can be very well liked.
So what am I suggesting? I won't flesh out my ideas in this post, but basically I'm saying that democracy is not the best solution, and that, in my opinion, ideally a committee of very intelligent people with complete transparency should basically be dictators; or more practically, that in order to vote, one should have to first apply and get a permit.
What do you think? Too radical?
