The problem with democracy and regulations both come down to essentially sovereign financial powers (wealthy/corporate) that have interests that don't align with the people or the state that is supposed to represent the people.

These corporations control us if we don't control them.

The problem with democracy is the dunning-kruger effect more than the principle-agent problem. People think highly-complex problems are obvious and easy. They care more about big sweeping theory than they do about local technocracy.

The idea that anti-intellectualism even exists is testament to this.

Gonna say something that would likely be downvoted but a functioning society does not need democracy. A governing body needs legitimacy because it's power springs from the people, but democracy and voting are not necessarily requisite.

e.g. China/CCP (which isn't really communism, but definitely not democratic).

The advantage of a democracy is that it gives society a way to say "we made a bad choice". Individuals almost never can do this.

But you are right, a benevolent, enlightened dictatorship is probably the best form of government. Only two problems:

- finding a benevolent enlightened dictator

- keeping them benevolent and enlightened

How is regulatory capture a problem of democracy? Surely you only need a regulator and a party to capture them?

For example, what's stopping a company in China lobbying a minister for regulations that harm their competitors? The Minister may not have been elected through democratic means, but regulatory capture can still occur.

I didn't mean exclusively. I meant it's an existing problem, the distance between the regulator and the authority, which in democracy is quite distant, but in other form of government can also be quite distant.

I think we're getting closer but I still don't understand. What do you mean by "the authority"?

This is not a game for me

?