Hacker News Reader

No. Well-educated, cultured individuals can be just as ideological and destructive as "mere plebs". Take a look at contemporary Academia.

What makes a democracy "work" is a set of established rules that secures the long-term development of the country.

Proportions matters.

Agreed, even highly intelligent people can be completely oblivious to certain basic things or have severely skewed views of reality which may actually be worse for society than mere stupidity.

No, I think the GP is right: in order for democracy to work, a significant part of the population must understand how it works, or at least care about how it works. "Educated" does not always mean "high-income" or "high-status" -- it can also just mean what it says.

If you only go by a set of established rules, you:

- are running (part of) your government by autocratic decree.

- still risk the population rejecting your form of "democracy".

Any section of society that has power will use it to benefit itself, at the expense of the other sections, hence universal suffrage is the only form of democracy that works.

Ancient Athens was a slave society rule by a small elite. Not a good example.

In my experience universities are often very dysfunctional organizations below the surface, with some of the most nasty and meaningless political squabbles I have ever witnessed. They are definitely NOT the kind of organizations we should strive to model our society after.

> Democracy "works" only when majority of population is well-educated and cultured

Who gets to decide who is smart enough?

Universal suffrage is a feature. It's a defensive mechanism against self-interested parties ignoring the needs of the people. You may see those less educated or cultured than as you as rabble, but the democratic process punishes that bias to ignore those people.

> The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support.

Recorded human history suggests that "competent and educated" aristocrats fail to remove themselves individually or as a an empowered group.

Ok, you propose to make a right to vote not for everyone. Then the question do you see yourself having this right? If yes, that is pretty arrogant, too say at least. If no, well, most of people will not choose this option.

Modern democracy isn't a gift of gods. History of the World is full of revolutions, civil wars, riots in basically every country in order to have what do we have.

Democratic procedures are fine. But one snap voting is silly. This is why more elaborate structures of parliament or senate has been evolved. The last word shall be of well-educated and well-informed. Period.

One of the well-known examples is bailout of AIG. Informed and educated people decided to avoid bankruptcy of the biggest insurance company in the world, no matter what idiots in charge did with CDS. Majority would vote to punish the banksters, as they vote for all the stupid things.

Democracy is when "all the people...involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting". All people vote in Belarus and Russia. Are those democratic countries? 108% of the Crimea population voted to be annexed. Is that democratic? By definition: yes. The people have spoken. But the reality is far removed from the ideology.

Source for "108%"? Other than that, yes, the Crimean referendum as well as Brexit are democratic. It is utterly bad to construct double standards around that as unrespectful Western media try to do.

The U.S.A. is not a Democratic government, but a Federal Republic with a constitution. It has democratic principles, but it is not a Democracy. Every decision is not made by a popular vote, but neither are the members that represent the people the "Philosopher Kings" of ancient Greece.

> Patients shall not vote for hospital's rules and medical procedures or staff election. Qualified well-educated doctors should.

Bad analogy. The goal of democracy is not to generate the best possible results for the country. If that happens then its the side effect. Democracy stands on the principle of "all citizens have equal rights".

Equal rights are the must. Not a single objection to that. It is a cornerstone of civilized society. The final decisions however shall not be taken by a snap voting of "mere plebs".

"The crucial thing is that members of such aristocracy must be quickly and easily replaced when fail or lost support."

How is failure defined or support measured?

What mechanism exists for quickly and easily replacing the EU beurocracy?

Exactly how universities or professional communities do. Of course, there is also corruption, protectionism and cheating, but at least, competence or lack of it and failures are obvious to majority, given that they are competent themselves. Good schools manage all this well.

Like the professional medical community?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shipman_Inquiry

If democracy is the problem, that means that the current authoritarian Russia has already solved it ...

"Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Winston Churchill

I wouldn't hire a blind school bus driver if one applied, but I think that's common sense. Your comment is flawed by thinking that it is just the Philosopher Kings vs. the stupid masses. Really it is the educated elites, who lacking common sense and respect for their fellow man, over-estimated that 'their' way of thinking was everyone else's, and that it was the 'right way'. Well, at least they have to think a little harder this time. A little humble pie couldn't hurt either.

I think this bit from John Gray in the NewStatesman hits it on the head:

"As it is being used today, “populism” is a term of abuse applied by establishment thinkers to people whose lives they have not troubled to understand. A revolt of the masses is under way, but it is one in which those who have shaped policies over the past twenty years are more remote from reality than the ordinary men and women at whom they like to sneer.The interaction of a dysfunctional single currency and destructive austerity policies with the financial crisis has left most of Europe economically stagnant and parts of it blighted with unemployment on a scale unknown since the Thirties. At the same time European institutions have been paralysed by the migrant crisis. Floundering under the weight of problems it cannot solve or that it has even created, the EU has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it lacks the capacity for effective action and is incapable of reform. As I suggested in this magazine in last year (“The neo-Georgian prime minister”, 23 October 2015), Europe’s image as a safe option has given way to the realisation that it is a failed experiment. A majority of British voters grasped this fact, which none of our establishments has yet understood." [1]

I think whether you believe in John Gray's politics or not, this is the crux of the issue, and rather than the 1% vs. the other 99%, it is more a matter of the 'elites' vs. 'the ordinary man' (and no, not "the stupid, racist, idiots" as they are called by even some of the so-called respectable journals). And by 'elites' it is not just about wealth, but education, and unquestionable feelings of superiority.

Go and try to institute your government of Philosopher Kings @dschiptsov, and see what happens when you ignore the common man, or worse, berate and try to hold him down even if he has more common sense than some of his university-educated peers.

I am happy about the Brexit vote, if for nothing at all but to disrupt the system, and make people stop and think, to reassess. To see so many adults whining like children, since the vote didn't go their way, to the point they are calling for a re-vote. What are they thinking? More people will go out and vote who thought it was in the 'bag' and stayed at home that day? Or that those they see as 'stupid sods' will change their mind, and see it 'their' way, the 'smart' way?

I don't know, and that's just it, I don't know what would actually be best, but I am Ok with that. Seeing the Remainers throw around financial comments about it being worse than the 2008 crisis don't really know numbers. When you couch the numbers as a percent of total market capitalization it is 4.7% for Brexit vs. 6.9% during the 2008 financial crisis one-day loss. Yes, $2 Trillion vs. $1.9 Trillion I believe. On the others side of the coin, the pound drops and the UK gets more tourists since it is a cheaper destination, and cheaper, more exports. People on any side are just afraid of big changes. Sometimes big changes are necessary in the long run.

It's the same reason that although I can't stand Hillary or Trump, I hope Trump wins to really shake things up back home in the U.S., since it seems nothing else does; Hillary would just be status quo at this point. Electing a woman POTUS shouldn't just be about checking that box, but about actually electing a true woman leader, not another political dynasty ala Bush. Can't we vote outside the box? Even though I am more libertarian or capitalist, I would have voted for Bernie Sanders. At least he showed some integrity.

Real change happens when people wake up and start really talking to their neighbor, or see them differently than before the wake up call that shook their world.

[1] http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/strange-deat...