> I think people just can't handle the complexity of distributed decision making, so are consistently biased to believe that small, centralised & appointed auth

> I think people just can't handle the complexity of distributed decision making, so are consistently biased to believe that small, centralised & appointed authorities make better decisions than the hive mind. I absolutely agree with this. There is a natural process that occurs, where people are able to route around or resolve problems with no authority to "help". It is our natural state. In fact I see authority as a parasitical attempt to control and steer individuals at mass for the personal benefit of the parasites. Still, government has become an entrenched habit it seems, with many people still believing it is worth the ~40% of their income they pay for its wars, military, governance apparatus, etc. Nb - we do not have democracy - we have representative democracy - we do not have a say on any of the thousands of decisions that government makes in our name, the person we elect chooses on our behalf, and can even do the exact opposite to what they promised with zero repurcussions! Hurrah, what a system! > Dictators cannot manage multiple constraints simultaneously. Democracy is just better at resource allocation. Insofar as somewhere like China remains ahead of somewhere like India, I think it depends on the ability of the CCP to simulate a typical democracy internally. I think you're dreaming that the CCP works on democracy! But, it is the chosen, future system. We will have (perhaps already have) citizen scores. We will be run (overtly, in future) by an unaccountable, technocratic elite.