@ppcroft

autocracies are more prone become corrupt and can be difficult to correct, where as democracies can be equally be corrupt, but are easier to correct.

It's the "Easier to correct" part that I like. Dictators rarely go quietly into the night.

Many of the advantages that are attributed to democracies are actually the positives rubbing off from the society in question. A well developed society will thus flaunt democracy to good effect than an underdeveloped society.

I like this. I have a different way of saying it though and that's that Democracy is something you earn. You can't impose it with a Hellfire missile like was done in Iraq nor can you put it in a gift basket as was done in the Philippines.

@brianluce "It's not perfectly fair or flawless. But it's got a reputation as the best hedge against the lesser angels of human nature. Democracy isn't fertile ground for avarice and totalitarianism to take root. Democracy does a good job of forcing transparency among the political class. It's not perfect, but I'm hard pressed to think of a preferable political system."

While not arguing with Brian’s position, I would like to point out a few things.

I have lived in both autocratic and democratic countries for long and what I have come to realize is that as far as their abilities to ensure the welfare of the country and its people are concerned, there is nothing intrinsically bad or good about either of them. If anything, a well meaning autocracy will be faster, efficient compared to a well meaning democracy. However autocracies are more prone become corrupt and can be difficult to correct, where as democracies can be equally be corrupt, but are easier to correct. Then there are certain decisions, even if it is the right decision by large, that cannot be executed by a democracy simply because it is a democracy as democracies tend to be more politically correct than correct.

The transparency that democracies seem to enjoy may not mean much if what you see through the transparency is distorted, as Vitaliy pointed out. Such distortion is often worse than opacity that autocracies tend to court because people believe the distortions to be truth and they will feel righteous about themselves because they have ‘seen’ it themselves.

I have seen totalitarian regimes flourish, while democracies struggle under the weight of its own democratic nature. Many of the advantages that are attributed to democracies are actually the positives rubbing off from the society in question. A well developed society will thus flaunt democracy to good effect than an underdeveloped society.

I am not championing the cause of autocracy over democracy, but just saying both can be good or bad. The model Vitaliy outlined in his OP is tailor made for a well meaning autocracy, but will not thrive or can go hugely wrong under democracies or bad autocracies.

"Right now we see how prevailing model is failing and will be eliminated soon.

It's not failing for the overclass. It's just failing for the rest of us.

I do believe in Democracy, but to call it fair or flawless may not be accurate. Democracies can be very flawed too.

It's not perfectly fair or flawless. But it's got a reputation as the best hedge against the lesser angels of human nature. Democracy isn't fertile ground for avarice and totalitarianism to take root. Democracy does a good job of forcing transparency among the political class. It's not perfect, but I'm hard pressed to think of a preferable political system.

@brianluce "We have one, it's called Democracy."

I do believe in Democracy, but to call it fair or flawless may not be accurate. Democracies can be very flawed too.

"And every model fails, sooner or later. Same as every organism dies."

I agree. That's why I feel myself a bit more liberal-socialist, to be open to change and personal initiative but with solidarity for who is less lucky. Or this is what I like to say. And I know this do not solve my or your existence, maybe because existence do not need a "solution". The problem of ideology and models is that makes you want compress reality inside your model, but will not fit. My opinion is that an "organic" approach to society is a bit more open-minded than a "mechanic" approach: after all we are not machines, aren't we?

We have one, it's called Democracy.

Brian, as usual you try to post about religion in economics topic :-)

We could perhaps look at the often successful examples of Nordic countries etc. and learn some lessons.

I absolutely do not agree with use of word "successful" here. Nordic countries failed miserably.

However I always felt that the reason democracies or autocracies fail is more to do with flaws in human nature than to do with any systemic failures.

Models compete. Now competition is between companies, communities and countries.
They develop much more quickly than eny natural organisms. Right now we see how prevailing model is failing and will be eliminated soon.

As for human nature - every model is made by humans and for humans, so all of them account for human hature issues. And every model fails, sooner or later.
Same as every organism dies.

on the other hand, growing a centralized govt. is the wrong way to go. unless you mean growing it by decentralizing it and leaving it to slightly larger local municipalities to manage local problems and needs locally.

No, I do not mean "growing it by decentralizing it and leaving it to slightly larger local municipalities". And no, it is not " wrong way to go". It is just another model, it is not wrong or right. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. You can't proclaim some approach as "wrong one".

I was just pointing out that if no democracy exist that follows the definition of what a democracy should be, then what is the point in alluding to a Utopian version of democracy?

Point is in making some model that has certain advantages. Current "democracy" with all institutions did not existed 200 years ago, yet long time ago many smart men proposed things that fuck you every day now in all available holes.

So why bother?

I really do not understand your point. It is all good words, but with no real meaning. If something is completelly fucked, why bother? I'll tell ya - it is shitty position.

All points are false, completely.

I am absolutely welcome critics, but not declarations.

If you're going to say that, then you're obligated to prove how and why if you want credibility. Otherwise you too are making declarations -- and they're not persuasive.

Most of us here would genuinely appreciate it if you'd support some of your claims. Something is not made false just because you say it's false.

"Unmanageable complexity" doesn't make sense. If it is truly unmanageable, it should have been collapsed already. This should be just "Monstrous complexity" because core of the issue is "monstrous complexty" per se.