Good idea. Perhaps we should vote for a group of people to coordinate this action.

Just to clarify, I do not have a bone to pick with democracy, but it obviously is not the only source of leadership, nor the only source of positive leadership.

> I believe we must solve them ourselves directly, not indirectly through government.

And perhaps to refine the question for a HN audience, I'll note that game theory, social choice theory etc, offer opportunities for technical insights to potentially play a part in answering this. But only a part.

2. Because your idea is unworkable for running a nation of 300 million people. It's not even workable for running a medium-sized town. You need coordination. That thing that coordinates winds up being a government.

Now, you are right that the answer isn't going to come from government. We need something more. But we still need government.

People don't cry for help, they want efficiency. Healthcare, infrastructure (transportation), education and social services (nursery, kindergarten, school), research, disaster relief, environmental protection, consumer safety standards (from food to communications and financial services), etc. are all best done on a larger level.

And all of it needs coordination.

And of course there are hundreds of millions of people that don't accept this. Are they stupid? Maybe. Are they ignorant? Maybe. Do they have serious counter-arguments? Maybe. Are they constructive? Well, not really, it seems.

We seem to be facing a rather serious regression toward tribal "standards" (old conservative values like purity, respect for authority, might makes right as only the strong survives, and we're in very hard times, we need to follow the strong, etc) via populism. Why? Because the social psyche is very susceptible to this, because there are real problems (growing inequality, serious changes due to globalization, automation clearing the middle-jobs, global warming).