gondaily

Cliché, I know.

But really, this upsets me terribly.

Democracy is horrible. People are dumb, easily manipulated, and they don't know what they want. Moreover, the masses are amoral. An individual might discern good from evil (whatever those are) but put them in a group and suddenly they trust the motion of the arms around them, they sway in the sea of sweat, and they lurch and barf and puke into the plate they eat off of if they see their brothers in mass do the same. It's absurd. I'm not immune to this, mind you, but I believe anyone has the right to criticize and point out problems where they stand, regardless of their own personal inclinations and vulnerabilities.

The rule of the people is the rule of beasts, because people are beasts. Simple as that really; there isn't a better way to summarise the sentiment that I can think of, at least. My neighbour isn't a beast and neither am I, but give us the colours of a party, give us the speeches of a demagogue and god-forbid give us the demagogue we are like parrots spouting nonsense after nonsense, sunflowers tricked by an incandescent bulb. To vote is to think, and people don't think. Not even individuals think much at all, really, but people don't think. They go with the flow, they trust that the one next to them thought, but that very person trusts that the one next to them is the one doing the thinking. Count the heads and turns out there's barely a single brain spread between them, it's an embarrassment to humankind, it's a real and true shame.

Then again, what other choice is there? Sure, people don't think, individuals don't think, there's no way democracy has any merit, but what can we do instead? I can think of many options but they all stink worse than rotten eggs drenched in sulphur.

The first and most obvious solution---at least to me---is monarchy. The idea of a single lineage tasked with governance is nothing short of ideal. It's not a privilege, not really, it's a burden by all accounts. Generation after generation an individual is raised to rule. They are educated in every relevant subject, they are broken down and reshaped into the ideal of a leader, someone that can make the right decisions at the right time, and the populus shall never even think about what needs to be done or doubt if what was done was the right thing, for the monarch knows best and knows more than anyone else. It's a bothersome position and heavy is the head, as they say, but it's really hard to come up with something better. Surround the royal with a court of specialists in the relevant political and social issues of the day and there you go, a perfectly run nation. The only problem, of course, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely. To give a single person---or a single family---that much power and influence is a recipe for disaster. It's not a matter of if but of when the country will fall to bits because a single heir decided they knew best and the best was to live a life of unadulterated hedonism. Then, everything comes crumbling down.

Monarchy is a terrible idea. It sounds good, but power simply cannot be allowed to concentrate on an individual or family.

The next best thing is a technocracy, I suppose. I first heard this word in a song by Samsa, actually, called technocrat. I thought it said techno-rat at first. It was a weird experience. Regardless... The idea is simple: don't let power go to one person that is a specialist in everything, instead let the power go to the court. The court is a group of specialists in a bunch of different fields, and each should be responsible for their own particular portion of the country. This sounds good, at first glance, but it's completely undoable. Who chooses the specialists, who decides what fields deserve representation, oh and worst of all who decides which decisions go forward and which ones don't? Governance is a quid pro quo. If you give to education you have to take from somewhere, if you give to health you have to take from somewhere. Who makes those kinds of calls? If the group makes the calls, well, that defeats the purpose. Why would a specialist in education decide whether or not the nation needs more public transport and how it should be operated? It's a paradox, at the end of the day, and it cannot work without power being given to someone, or worse, the people. Because when the people are given a choice, they choose to behave like beasts.

We're back at square one.

Perhaps a middle ground exists, somewhere. A way to pick a select number of individuals with varied specialisations for the purpose of making these calls. Not the people, not a person, but a group of persons that are individually capable, but not so numerous they devolve to a mob.

I imagine a nation where education is valued. With this I don't mean that everyone has a university degree or something, but that people are informed and in possession of a developed sense of critical thinking. On a side-note, I think university education isn't all it's cracked up to be. Once again, I know, what a cliché. I'm a PhD student on a grant, I'm doing well for myself and I work in research, I'm highly educated, but I don't see how university benefits the vast majority of individuals. If anything, basic education should be extended to include more philosophy and history. I value those very much in my personal life, despite their complete uselessness in my daily activities. But hey, what do I know, and really that's my whole point. I don't know. I'd like someone that does know to make those decisions.

I'm thinking something like the Americans with their whole "a jury of your peers" spiel, but for technocrats. Randomly selected from people that have achieved a certain level of achievement in a given area or several. Of course, whenever merit is discussed we have to consider how economic situation influences accessibility, but that's why I think the nation needs to value education above all else to try and mitigate this as much as possible. Make it so that children and young adults find learning to be a viable way to spend their time.

I don't know, I feel silly even talking about this because of how ignorant I must sound, but I really think that the current system is a failure. Things don't get done, and when they do they're half-arsed and mediocre. We're ruled by a class of idiots and speakalots rather than people that actually have something meaningful to say. There must be a better way, I just don't accept a reality in which there isn't. Lotsa people have given this thought, I suppose I should go out and read what they've written, huh? Hypocrisy flows in my veins like blood.

My hands, especially my left hand, hurt. I have very sensitive skin---and very dry skin---and I ate a bunch of oranges. Peeled them myself, like the swell dude I am, but holy crap those things have a bite. Reminds me of cheese. You know, I was convinced I was allergic to cheese until this very moment. My skin always breaks out in hives when my hands touch cheese for a not-short period of time. It's very uncomfortable. Eating is no issue, just like it isn't with oranges, but I just thought that there was no way that was normal. I had to be allergic, at least partially! Which by the way, is not a thing as far as I know. Now, faced with my orange-stained skin---D...Donnie?!---I must come to the conclusion that I am not allergic to cheese, but rather my skin is simply stupid. Funny how things work.

I read lots of Babel yesterday. Finished Book 2. It was thoroughly enjoyable. I really, really loved it! This R. F. Kuang fellow has something of a talent, I'd wager. She's puh-retty good. Really, I mean that. I'll read more today, most likely.