A Quote by Max Boot

The case for democracy is that voters in the aggregate will make better decisions than a lone monarch or dictator would. — © Max Boot
The case for democracy is that voters in the aggregate will make better decisions than a lone monarch or dictator would.
Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator, that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. Best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and government would prevent any economical growth.
Having a representative democracy requires the confidence of the voters in the system. And if voters lose confidence in the system they can make some very bad decisions.
Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians.
Characteristically, however, the overthrow of the dictator simply means that there will be another dictator. ... the policies they follow will probably not be radically different. If we look around the world, we quickly realize that these policies will not be radically different from those that would be followed by a democracy either.
Sometimes it's better to have a benign dictator than a dumb democracy, to be honest.
The way to make better decisions is to make more of them. Then make sure you learn from each one, including those that don't seem to work out in the short term: they will provide valuable distinctions to make better evaluations and therefore decisions in the future. Realize that decision making, like any skill you focus on improving, gets better the more often you do it.
The director can be a dictator, but it's not wise to be. You have to choose the days to be a dictator and the days to deal with diplomacy and democracy. Every great leader should know that, even a dictator. Tyrants get overthrown.
American voters tend to make their decisions based on a variety of vectors. Professional political satirists employ rather more scientific criteria. Namely: who will provide us with better material over the next four years?
Even with a margin of safety in the investor's favor, an individual security may work out badly. For the margin guarantees only that he has a better chance for profit than for loss - not that loss is impossible. But as the number of such commitments is increased the more certain does it become that the aggregate of the profits will exceed the aggregate of the losses.
Normally I do all my own post work. It's not that I do it better than anyone else, I just do it my way. I make decisions. People who print at labs are probably far better printers, but they won't make my decisions mid-process. I don't want to be out of the loop. I want to be a photographer and do all of it.
As population susceptibilities are better understood, we will be in a better position than we are in today to make informed decisions about risk management.
Facebook is the biggest nation in the world and we have a dictator, if you look at it from a democracy standpoint. Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator.
People are trying to build a society where they can talk across the aisle so to speak, and have civil discourse. At the same time we're trying to inform ourselves about what's really true so that we can make evidence based decisions that is better than superstition or rumor. But the fact is that people who use evidence based decision making have much better life outcomes, greater life satisfaction, they live longer, they make better personal and medical decisions, better financial decisions. But parallel to that is you can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
In democracy, as quaintly understood, voters pick their representatives. American democracy increasingly reverses that. Legislative districts are drawn to protect incumbents who, effectively, pick their voters.
My advice is to listen and accept the will of the American people, the Republican voters. The Republican Party is the Republican voters, and Republican voters oppose these trade agreements more than Democrat voters do.
The moral case is, people say, "Oh they're not ready for democracy," but that's something someone who lives in a democracy would say about someone who doesn't live in a democracy. Well, if democracy is the highest form of human potential, then it can't be true for us and not for them. But, the practical case is democracies don't invade their neighbors. Democracies don't traffic in child soldiers. Democracies don't harbor terrorists as a state policy. So there's a reason to have more democratic states.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!