Do we live in a democracy, and should we (part 2)?

for part one go here
So how about this democracy thing eh?

I for one disagree with democracy.

My two main reasons for this are stupid people and hippies (for lack of a better word for those kind of do-goody people).

I mean the kind of people who sign petitions on this website. "Oooh look at me I'm so bloody righteous".

Stupid people will vote UKIP or BNP because they listen to the news and believe its sensational headlines. Stupid people will also vote for the green party because the green party doesn't really have any policies past 'stop harming the environment' (which I am not against in itself but they've only really thought about one thing). Really retarded people will vote labour or conservative as their policies are basically the opposite to what the other one said, which is not a stable or sane way to make policy. The lib-dems proved to be spineless and useless so they're out too. So that leaves us with a few small parties that I can't be bothered to look into.

(Foreshadowing) When was the last time virgin media employees were cold and hungry?

So really my point from that last paragraph is that people don't know what they want, and people certainly don't know how to run a country. Where do the hippies come in you ask? Well as I said they're not so much hippies as people who moan and get in the way no matter what you try to pass as law, they are the fleshy red tape that twists together with the legal red tape and together everything gets stuck and can't do anything.

So democracy won't work, what else is there?

Communism? No. Dictatorship? Maybe.

OMG, so evil, much 1984 you shout.

Shut up; you haven't heard what I have to say yet.

"Blah, blah, blah, argue, blah" - The sound of nothing getting done, good or bad (and it ends up bad in the end anyway).

The main problems with democracy are that it's really hard to get stuff done because of all the many people with conflicting views arguing over what is right, and the fact that as there are so many people it is difficult to hold a government accountable for something it's done wrong.

A bit of modification to the dictatorship model would solve its flaws and be better than democracy. So here is a breakdown of how it would work.

We run the country like a company, getting a CEO, who is essentially an enlightened dictator to decide what gets done, the general public will not get to vote the CEO in, but can vote him out (there will be a yes/no referendum each year) and he must meet with a council of 100 randomly selected people each month who will make sure he is doing a good job. This CEO will hire advisors and people who know about the area they are assigned to, and as such the country would be prosperous.

With this idea, the dictator can get things done without the hassle of minorities buggering everything up, but also is not so powerful that they become corrupt and turn the country into a bad dictatorship. And if they try to they can easily be removed from power.

When was the last time Google was in billions of pounds worth of debt?

My main reasoning behind this is that large companies, that have incomes similar to small countries, seem to manage it very well and are successful, they are in effect like countries that don't provide utilities like water and electricity. And I'm sure these could be accommodated and dealt with by a properly selected 'CEO'.