Democracy is inherently authoritarian. It just defers to a disunited, insane dictator: the mob. The need to protect against it is why all forms of government exist. Constitutions, laws, checks and balances, even monarchs.

very good video

I seem to keep reposting your stuff

Glad you find value in it 💜

Democracy ≠ liberty and this is my main critique of this video. The rest of the diagnosis might be true, but democracy is not the cure for that. Democracy in reality is a kleptocratic oligarchy. Elections just switch the puppets. She herself is in the oligarch class, that hates strong leaders, because they are unpredictable, may be hard to manipulate and they take the money that the oligarchs want. Instead of leaders they prefer committees to rule and milk the sheep, telling them that taking their liberties away is for their good. She IS the kleptocracy. Democracies don't die, because they never actually existed. What she's complaining about is just that there is a competition between the predators. Rant over.

A book everyone should read - Title: Coup d'État; A Practical Handbook Author(s): Edward N. Luttwak Publisher: Harvard University Press

Welcome to nginx!

(pirate download link at top)

You are clearly not a citizen of a nordic state or switzerland, we haven't yet completely lost it. Dying democracy is a kleptocratic oligarchy, like she said. A living Democracy is constantly fighting off extractive behavior and building inclusive institution that make it possible for members in society to participate without power (to use terminology of Prof. Acimoglou https://economics.mit.edu/people/faculty/daron-acemoglu) And why attack the person presenting? Clearly a lack of arguments, otherwise you would think for a moment, what strong leaders usually do ...

Good for you, if so. Regarding Anne Applebaum: did you look her up?

Absolutely. The dictatorship of the masses is not the goal. Keeping in check the power addicted is. And if we are very very truthful, we want the human rights and duties respected, a federated republique still seems the best we got to offer to do this, but once the private sector would be more using checks and balances, representation etc. Than we might have "one fine, but very hot day in the future", we might have a conglomerate of federated cities of federated associations. But even then we don't want nobody in power getting comfortable, they should age really fast, the system should be full of sand in their wheels, clubs should be thrown between the feet of the power hungry. You NEVER want a STRONG LEADER. If you do, I know you are prey. Power over people by people of the people often results in pushing forward a demagogue who masterfully plays on the unfulfilled needs and frustrations of the people. That's why all countries should not have majority votes on single persons for any given job, but on factions, that work together - lists of candidates, a proportional election system. That helps to wear a power addicted out, but he still is the talk of the people, which really helps his ego, people are kept on their toes, because they know, if they let the attention go, their state will fall apart. You need a state, who falls apart slower, than a greedy, power addictat persons life. The Alternative is choosing amongst the citizens by lot, and is in fact the true method used in ancient greek city states, the only true democracies in that sense, but of course they did not let participate human property (women, slaves) and the poor and outsiders neither.