"The majority implies the ordinary; hence a democratic system is a major hurdle for excellence" Your comments?

Answer 1

Hmm... Godwin's Law proves itself yet again. :-)

Why the angry responses to a legitimate philosophical question? Democracy may be the best solution, but it's not a perfect one. And the issue isn't the intelligence of the masses or the superiority of the few, the issue is short-sightedness and misinformation.

Think of the plethora of medical/scientific advances that are currently impeded by lack of understanding, fear of the unknown, and the imposition of "morality".

A more concrete example is free trade. Most economic models show that lowered trade barriers improve the economies of both parties. However, there is a short-term adjustment period, as jobs in one field disappear, and jobs in another field are created. Those who would have to find new careers will not allow the decision. Democracy chooses the few and the immediate over the many and the future.

In a situation where majority rules, there is no willingness to accept a solution that involves temporary setbacks. Thus, the nation has no agility.

Answer 2

Nothing unleashes a Scotsman's sword faster than an Englishman saying: "You are not smart enough to pick your own leaders."

Ordinary people do not want ordinary leaders, we want excellent leaders. We want George Washington or William Wallace.

Ah… but will our elite leaders serve the interests of the common man?

Well, they will if they are ACCOUNTABLE to the common man. Which is why it's so important to put a sword to the throat of anyone who suggests they should not be.

If an EXCELLENT society is defined as one that best serves the AVERAGE member of it, one cannot reasonably expect EXCELLENCE from a government that is not ACCOUNTABLE to the majority of its citizens.

Though certainly NOT a guarantee, Democracy is, quite simply, the only viable path around the hurdles between the ordinary and the excellence.

Answer 3

It is commonly known that when something grows in size,usually decreases in quality. But some aspects of your expression may be revised: for instance,majority does not necessarily imply the ordinary - because things aren't intrinsically ordinary,they become so when they start to spread. Besides,what exactly is your concept of excellence? That all reminds me of Hitler and his perfect society - which meant no Jews. Hitler was looking for excellence and everybody knows how things ended all up. Make excellence a personal goal,not an achivement for the whole society - because if excellence means different things for different people,there's not a single way to get it and you don't have the right to impose your way to other people.

Answer 4

Wrong answer. For starters, a system of majority rule is best for a society to lay the boundaries of illicit behavior and to set rules governing what would be criminal activity. Secondly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so such a system concentrates more on programs that help most or all of the society as opposed to pet projects that only help a small segment and ultimately harm the majority (like welfare). Finally, your statement implies there is no incentive for excellence in a democratic system, which is completely bass-ackwards. You will see much more effort being made and more new ideas and innovations in a society where one is free to take risks and become wealthy than you will in a society where the government controls the economy. We saw how well that worked (NOT!) in the former Soviet Union. There was no incentive to work harder or do better because you still got paid the same amount as the lazy slug working next to you. A socialist system is a much greater hurdle for excellence because it brings everyone down to the lowest common denominator. No one is smarter than the dumbest person and no one works harder than the laziest person in such a society.

Answer 5

How approximately this? only an concept! i'm of the view that because of occasion whip gadget, political profession interests of our MP’s and the priority of looking undesirable interior the media our MP’s and councils can no longer be depended directly to symbolize the universal public view of the universal public they serve. The question in my concepts is how long can this proceed and what would be finished? I recommend an intensive reconsider of how our parliament applications commencing with stripping MP’s and the government / nearby councils of the skill to improve taxation and run it like a organization with shareholders. in its place we introduce a Jury form gadget the place person-friendly ‘Tax paying’ individuals of the universal public are chosen at random to serve a quantity of time on a determination making committee. the government nonetheless creates the guidelines and the competition events can nonetheless argue against them and recommend adjustments and enhancements. yet the two sides would desire to contemporary or sell their case and arguments in front of the ‘share holders’ committee who after taking into attention over the evidence, make the perfect determination. If the gadget is nice adequate to make certain the existence’s of human beings on trial it might possibly be good adequate for this job. I for possible have lots greater self assurance in it than the present gadget.

Answer 6

I would say not, for a democracy to be considered, as long as when a community where it is traditional and customary to reverence the gods, to honour our parents, to respect our elders, and to obey the laws, the will of the greater number prevails then there is what we call democracy. Plain and simple composition.

Thanks for asking. Have a great day!

Answer 7

You seem to be saying that something ordinary can't be excellent.

I would argue that something becomes ordinary BECAUSE of it's excellence.

Answer 8

In a democrary you get the government you deserve.

Answer 9

Bunk. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Answer 10

That sounds convoluted.