I would prefer to live in a non-murderous democracy where franchise would be limited to rational, productive members of society who are not getting any subsidies or welfare (except maybe retirement benefits). Or an orderly, efficient non-democratic society.Who determines the limits of the franchise? Who determines who the "rational" "productive" members of society are? I certainly know a lot of people who fancy themselves consummately "rational" who are the most ignorant wish-fulfillment fantasists imaginable, as I also certainly know a lot of people who fancy themselves uniquely "productive" while disavowing their dependence on the efforts of historical and now living laboring, communicating, participating multitudes they nonetheless disdain as "non-productive" in comparison with themselves. Why do anti-democratic assholes always assume that they would be the ones running things, they would be regarded as the rational ones, they would manage to do everything better than the people they look down on without knowing them or really knowing themselves? It is interesting that my interlocutor does not seem to conceive of the benefits of a stable legal system and efficient administration of common and public goods from which he would benefit in this non-democratic polity as in any sense general welfare entitlements disqualifying him from having a say in the public decisions that affect him -- only money "stolen" from the "good" people to bolster the "bad" people counts as welfare, right?
Such societies are more likely to make people invest in what they prefer less, than let them squander their resources on short-term luxuries, such as bigger housing, cars, as Americans are wont to do..That's rich, you glibly refer to "Such societies" as if any actually exist -- or can you possibly be pining for historically actual examples of monarchical or plutocratic tyrannies?
From my own experience, and from what I have seen in others, I am convinced that people mostly do not have a clue about what is good for them, and often only get it after a failure of some kind.You are definitely demonstrating the truth of that insight. Funny that you seem to believe that some people should tell others what is good for them whatever their preferences in the matter even though the ones doing so are just as prone to wrongheadedness as the ones they dictate to.
This egalitarian notion that people are in any way equal is just ridiculous. They are not.What you describe as "this egalitarian notion" is a straw man. The aspiration toward equity is not an aspiration toward homogeneity. I regularly refer to the value of equity-in-diversity precisely to circumvent such confusions (to treat you generously here).
Equitable recourse to law is indispensable to the sustainability of a stable trustworthy legal system in a complex functional division of labor with even a notionally mobile, meritocratic rather than inherited selection of roles in the labor force.
The universal provision of basic education, healthcare, and income (at any rate a living wage coupled with a comparable unemployment benefit) are indispensable to the maintenance of a scene of actually informed, actually non-duressed consent to the terms of commerce if that system is to benefit from market efficiencies and innovations (such as they are) without endorsing forms of fraud, exploitation, and slavery it presumably disapproves.
While it is true that some people are stronger than others, and some people do exhibit different forms and measures of intelligence, of course it is also true that co-ordinated collective inquiry and effort are incomparably more accomplished than any individual efforts could ever manage to be, and hence such individual differences in strength and knowledge are always rendered socially negligible (though they remain personally important) when people act in concert.
Social justice is mostly impossible, simply because some people are more able, or more motivated than others. Equality of outcome is a complete crock of..Apart from your repetition of the facile confusion of equity with homogeneity here, what you really mean to say is that your vision of social justice is different from mine. That is obvious from the arguing happening here.
I believe that societies where elections, sloganeering and propaganda stunts such as Apollo program would be less important could take a longer view where infrastructure, basic research and such are concerned.Because non-democratic societies built such better infrastructure -- pyramids, possibly? Because non-democratic societies facilitated such wide-ranging exemplary research programs -- Lysenko, possibly? There is at least a loose correlation of comparatively more mobile and responsive governments investing in public goods with periods of greater experimentation and discovery, presumably because they must respond to a wider range of real stakeholder experience and draw from a wider pool of potentially capable collaborators.
There is also the notion that Europe was at the pinnacle of it's power and success in an age when franchise was limited to wealthy individuals..Not to mention when it was gorging itself on the wealth and effort of non-European societies -- do you pine for slaves and imperial conquest too or are we pretending not to know about all that bloody business?
Of course, there is little hope of bringing about such change, short of armed revolt, or some sort of elite coup.Dizzy daydreams, eh?
Which of course would be unlikely to result in what Id like, since the present elites do not care about the greater good, but are rather selfish. Maybe if some real trouble happens in EU. Even then, we would probably just get fascism like so many predict.Yes, armed revolt would be ugly -- not because the wrong elites would be in charge instead of the right elites you would prefer -- but because armed revolt is ugly, and elites are almost never elite in the sense you mean anyway (which is why your politics are so foolish).
On the other hand, fractional improvements to the abysmal representative democracy can be envisioned.I agree. Ever increased and improved provision of education, healthcare, support paid for by steeply progressive income, property, and transaction taxes eventually coupled with more and more public funded elections and wider and wider enfranchisement of consenting adults would in my view yield an ever more competent, accountable government in an ever more sustainable, equitable, consensual, diverse society.
Imagine letting people have a say in legislation, in a process where lawmakers would have to explain, and have each part of new law approved by (literate and intelligent) citizens - who could be selected via some sort of open-source complex IQ and grammar test.IQ tests? Really? Testing for what? And just who decides who isn't intelligent enough or intelligent in the right way to deserve to have a say in the public decisions that affect them? Somebody a lot like you, right?
Business is greatly hampered by suddenly changing laws, and there is little evidence the frenetic pace is necessary.No small amount of what passes for "business" should be hampered.
This kind of improvement.. I believe is doable. No doubt has been suggested..Well, we agree that reform is possible. Otherwise, I think your politics are profoundly misguided and your anti-democratic assumptions mostly based on self-congratulatory fictions.