Got a concrete example of your preference working?Got a concrete example of that working?
That's a matter of elite's culture, not any kind of laws that would have any chance of binding them, rather than being exploited by them.Elites are far more likely to do that if they become part of an entrenched, degenerate multi-generational oligarchy.
I would rather have darwinistic elites who want their brats to succeed the way they did, by their own bootstraps in an environment of severe darwinian selection.
Functionally, they end up in oligarchy, however they got there.Yeah, I think that we have two different notions of what "elite" is.
In your case you are making it sound synonymous to an oligarchy, whileas it should be "whoever managed to get through the meatgrinder with the most finesse and grit."
And everyone should have their own unicorn with that...In any case, the concept of "no skin in the game" electoral power should be constitutionally enshrined, and the requirements can be set in such a way as to make sure that no cushy jobs are created.
This just isn't how extensive government regulation bodies work and survive.
Again, wishful thinking on the level of "communism would work if only we made sure everyone was a dedicated enough communist willing to sacrifice all personal interests for communism".This along with proper schooling should create a class of Citizen that will defend to the death the limitations and prerequisites of the special election system, and fight against entrenchment.
Reaching into typical "benevolent dictatorship" conundrum. Sure, a benevolent dictator can be great... But unless he's immortal, one day he will be replaced by another, not necessarily so competent and/or benevolent. And what you're gonna do? He's a dictator.Personally I'd rather have governance by custom/principal, by written law, or by a limited, selective group of worthies than by moronic nation-wide over-18 head counting, as long as my personal freedoms are also safeguarded by a legal code.
A pro-business dictator like Lee Kuan Yew is also preferable to U.S. style democracy.
Still, Singapore is not even that great example for countries not aspiring to be a diverse city-state focused on economy numbers without a specific nation for the government to represent.
So? Was it such an overwhelming value in the West of 1700 or 1900? Perhaps in the stereotypically individualistic Wild West era USA? Yeah, seems like a rather modern invention, even if made in the West, but definitely not a traditional value of even most individualistic parts of the West.Not exactly, Dr. Edward Dutton thinks it is an individualist value.After all, it is no skin off my nose if you want to be referred to as a flying unicorn and I will avoid personal harm by being polite.
Asian cultures worked on that for thousands of years. Even then, they still suffer the downsides - see: how exactly China gets its high scores in PISAThe democrats are a problem because of U.S. universalism and because conservatives are not willing to step up and fight for some institutions, like education.
That tug of war has been going for a long while, and IMHO shit like creationism has as much place in chassrooms as Marx does, read, 0.
Check the PISA scores, most of the top 10 are in Asia.
As I said, centralized systems have worked quite well in places like Asia.
Hey, score is score, that's what counts, right?