http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...trump.html

Understand this comes from a scared Clinton supporter (not a Clinton Kool-Aid drinker). Its hard to tell what is his interpretation and what Plato actually said. But it is an interesting read.

Too much Democracy, too much equality, leads to Totalitarianism.

Now he makes his point about halfway through and continues. Running into a lot of these lately where they seem to be paid by the word.

His overall point..."Trump is Hitler". His solution... "Elect Hillary".

The other bazillion words is padding.

(05-02-2016 12:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  His overall point..."Trump is Hitler". His solution... "Elect Hillary".

The other bazillion words is padding.

This.

I skimmed it.

As my grandfather would say, an educated idiot...

Wonder what Pluto predicts

(05-02-2016 12:11 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  His overall point..."Trump is Hitler". His solution... "Elect Hillary".

The other bazillion words is padding.

The more important point is: Trumps are inevitable. And he actually gets the disgust at the condescending liberal elite. Rare for that side of the aisle.

Of course, he doesn't understand that Hillary is being pushed by the Sanders people to be the same thing as a Trump.

I guess the writer forgot one crucial point: we don't live in a democracy but a republic. We have representative gov't, not a direct democracy as described in much of the article. Skimming over it again, I did see that he acknowledged the distinction between a direct democracy vs a representative republic. He reviewed how we evolved away from the built in checks and balances in the constitution in favor of more elections - like the electoral college and the public elections of senators.

But what the author appears to be pining for is also just as chilling as his fear of too much power in the hands of the people in the form of a direct democracy. In Plato's book "The Republic", the most "perfect" form of gov't in his view was one where a "philosopher king" ruled the people. And our author implied that he pined for this by wishing our political elites had more control over the system by taking some power back from the people via elections in favor of the elites controlling the electoral colleges and most pertinent to current events for the party elites to have better controls over who gets access to the power. His preference is a return of the aristocracy...

In reality, these 2 forces will constantly be opposing each other and that is where the balance comes into play. Because if we take the author's advice, then we strip away voting rights from those who own no property, because those who own property would - in theory - be less inclined to mob rule. Also, senators need to be elected by the state gov'ts, and we all know how squeaky clean the elected officials are at the various state party apparatuses... And finally, we would need a real electoral college who may literally overturn general election results in order to get the "right" guy into office, i.e. someone with real gov't experience as opposed the risks that first came about when Wendell Wilkie won the right to run against FDR as merely a businessman with no real experience. Of course, a guy like Barack Obama never becomes president under the author's ideas either.

In the end, pick your poison. No matter what you choose, you'll never completely remove corruption from the system. Humans always find a way to circumvent rules for personal gain. There will never be a Utopia.

Corruption chases power. The more power you give government, particularly the central government, the more corrupt it becomes.

Additionally, the more power you give to people who are unaccountable for its use, the more corrupt those people will become.

Our current system of ever increasing executive department regulatory agencies is structured to maximize corruption in government. Whether that is intentional or not depends upon to what extent you like conspiracy theories.