1. I doubt any dictator could manage as badly as the masses. Democracy was created because it was supposed to be ethical, not efficient.
2. Pluralism is bad. All ideas should be tested against reality. Crappy ideas do not deserve representation.
3. The ability to reach a high degree of occupational qualification doesn't have much to do with how to govern a society.
I dunno. I've met many intelligent, well-meaning people, but i've met very few people i would trust to run society - including myself. If you handed the reigns of society over to me tomorrow, it would crumble and i would be rapidly usurped in a machiavellian fashion. The same is unfortunately true of you too, and probably everybody else on this forum, no matter how smart and well-meaning we all might be. Having tried my hand at it, i know for certain that effective leadership is so difficult that i don't think we the people are qualified to do it, even as a collective. To me, it makes much more sense to seek out a statistical anomaly who is uncannily gifted in leadership and societal organization and elect him lord and tyrant. When you apply this concept to the idea of an aristocracy, i personally believe that somebody who is literally born to rule with an even hand will do so much more effectively than ten million clods like myself running around like chickens with our heads cut off, arguing about abortion and marijuana and religion and taxes in a never-ending, never-progressing cycle for decades on end.
The only real downside to the idea is the possibility of corruption, but the more one knows about the realities of the current lobby system, election system and socioeconomic pecking order, the less they fear the idea of corruption in alternative systems.
god help me if i ever expect my idea to be put to practice in a million years, but now you know how i think and why i don't vote.
