Followers, not leaders

Today I have been contemplating Plato's argument against democracy in his Republic.  Basically, he felt that people en masse are not fit to make decisions for the whole of a state, country, or republic.  With all of the banter back and forth regarding the current administration's decisions--I have really begun to agree. 

This is an excerpt from an essay I am reading on Plato's criticism of democracy in which the author, Matt Brazil, breaks down a potential evil of democracy, "What if, as a majority, the people decided to commit a heinous act, such as an unjustified military action against another nation for the sake of resources, no matter the cost in human lives? Such an action would lead to death and suffering for a great many people. Also, consider that the majority would not judge or correct themselves, for they were the ones who agreed to partake in that course of action. As such, they inflict evil upon many more people than an individual could ever hope to; after all, as a democracy, the majority’s actions affect the entirety of the state and its citizens."  We have actually seen this in recent years within our own democracy.

Plato advocated Oligarchy-governance/rule by the best.  This is typically taken to mean the aristocracy, but what if it didn't?  What if it meant "ruled by the smartest, wisest, most qualified?"  People allow themselves so easily to be swayed and manipulated by the media.  KNOWING that stations tend to be biased, why would ANYONE not take things with a grain of salt?

There was a woman at work today whose husband was an anesthesiologist.  She swore that the new bill would half her husband's salary.  Really?  Show me the math behind that!  She also said that her husband would be a government employee.  Seriously, this isn't the UK, and even then, Dr.s in London still drive Audi's... or whatever your pick of luxury car may be. 

If you look at the actual bill that was passed, all it does is regulate insurance agencies.  It sets rate limits, prohibits denials, and will ultimate benefit ALL consumers by forcing down prices on drugs and medical services.  Will people HAVE to have insurance?  Yes.  After 2014 anyone who does not can be fined.  SO?  We fine people for not having car insurance.  Why do we do that?  Because they are a liability to everyone else if they are uninsured!  The same goes for health insurance, not only because of disease issues, but for tax purposes.  When uninsured sick people don't pay/can't pay their medical bills--who foots that bill?  Tax payers.  Ipso facto, requiring insurance will free up some tax money for: lowering the deficit, creating jobs, fixing roads, public education... whatever!

My point in that is, people... READ the bill, and please, PLEASE stop regurgitating quotes from the press.  I am not saying that people shouldn't watch the news, but check your facts people.  I feel like I live in a country of conspiracy theorists!  The people who are opposing the health insurance bill are the same ones who opposed civil rights in the 60's and votes for women in the early teens.  Change can be, and often is GOOD!

With all of that said, I do often think that it would be better if people could not vote at all.  Or, if they elected a small body of representatives, those representatives would only function as an advisory board--a national thermometer of sorts--to those governing.  How would they come to power, well, that could be application to a board, similar to the supreme court, of proven officials. 

More to come on this... I am off to read.