...I think Jack is on the right track there. Rather then just calling him a troll think about it for a second.

I know I'm certainly quite smitten with the idea of a benevolent leftist socialist oligarchy/dictatorship. Simply because I'm sick of seeing ideas that I hold dear ignored and a country steered down what I see as a terribly stupid path.

(That said I prefer democracy because on analysis a pre-existing oligarchy would be bad since I couldn't influence it at all. So I'd only really be content if it was something I was in on.)

Damian: "cars look prettier but they're (sic) build quality is inferior (to 20 years ago)...

??? I'm going to hazard a guess that you weren't driving a car 20 years ago. 20 years ago, cars that lasted 100,000 miles were thought to be outstanding. Fuel systems with carburetors were much more unreliable than today's computer controlled systems, so much so that you had to let them warm up before driving them or they might stall. From radial tires to improvements in glass to paint jobs that rarely rust (compared to cars that used to rust in 5 years) to ....... When you make a statement like that which is so wildly wrong...it makes one wonder about the rest of the generalizations. Name ONE competent source that says car quality is not HUGELY improved in the past 10, let alone 20 years.... I can give you five off the top of my head that categorically disagree with you: Consumer Reports, JD Power, Edmonds, Kelly, Consumer Digest

Having said that...I still agree with your take on having a say in who runs the country :)

Indy +1 for sorting out that car nonsense.

You have a point there and I grant that. However what you are talking about isn't build quality. You are talking about technological advancements. Yeah technology has advanced to allow these. However the actually build quality has decreased. Frames and the core of the car used to be built in such a way that they could take a lot more punishment.

It's because the cycle of technology goes like this.

Overbuild (Lasts a long time)
decrease build quality
Underbuild (Falling apart all the time)
Increase build quality again but only by a bit got to make it cheap
Evolved Product

I'm not saying that the old cars were better. Just better put together.

This is all based on what my father told me based on his work as a mechanic. So eh.

I imagine most people agree with me on that one. I don't think a single one of this wants to be told we can't have a say in what our government does.

"Hard to know if he is ignorant...disingenuous....or just a troll :)"
would I admit to being any of those 3?
Its 1 am here, and I'm hammered so I will respond to the rest of you later.

This thread, it's a gold mine.

Alright, damian, it is quite difficult to tell. but I'll stand by my guess that he is simply trolling everyone.

Canada and the US were never developed?

...

Every time I check back on the the thread, read the arguments, hope things have begun to become more sensical, ANOTHER nugget of insanity pops up...oy...

(And oh yes--anyone know what those lovely little protesters in Egypt are doing, since that's what the thread WAS about?)

never undeveloped*

'Egypt is not like the Sudan (it's nearest southern neighbour) it is more like Jordan, Tunisia or Morocco."
its still got an extremely low GDP per capita. '

www.bit.ly/gceyUj

i counter your baseless* asscertian with statistics - presented in a really nce graphical way.

*By baseless i mean you're making a value judgement based on some bias, you're not looking at the actually statistics as compared with the global situation. There is extreme poverty in the world, and Egypt is not the least developed by a long shot.

Also Egypt today is as wealth as Canada in 1935 and as healthy as Canada in 1960.

actually screw socialism, right-wing corpoatism, we need a gamer republic!
see: http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=680862#680862

"Also Egypt today is as wealth as Canada in 1935 and as healthy as Canada in 1960. "

Your source please.

Right-wing corporatism is a gamer republic. Or at least can be.

I'll start reading the last page now

"Yeah. However an uneducated population can’t always tell when their rights have been abused thus the importance of education."
Not answering this, already have.

"You can have a job and still not be able to afford to feed your family. This is particularly true when you consider what the price of food in Egypt has been doing of late. In this case was referring to a general scenario, but hey let’s say we throw away the bottom tier of the Egyptian poor. People who work as maids/janitors, Farmers, garbage collectors suddenly we have no food being produced within Egypt, and a dirtier cities which means that disease is more common."
Thats the beauty of capitalism...

Yes, yes you do I’ve already pointed it out earlier is this post. I don’t give a crap about money. That’s the funny part. I don’t care about what they earned. I care about human life, and the fact that they exploit it to live while others suffer. Does that mean I don’t know my “Place” no it means that I refuse to accept it. Being a cog in a machine is boring, and a pathetic waste of life."
If you knew your place, you wouldn't be complaining.

"Yeah. Let’s just ignore the plight of the people and consider them peasant scum because they had bad luck. That’s a free fair society."
I can say this without sarcasm :)

"Who judges who deserves protection from what and when? I mean, it's not just hobos who are starving. And shouldn't the government have some mechanism where those who have a desire to be employed can be? That's not the case in Egypt now, but it has been the case in previous fascist governments: Mussolini and Hitler both were very interested in getting rid of unemployment. We can make all the arguments in the world about the lowest common denominator and what they deserve, but there's plenty of people who are not the LCD in Egypt who are starving and unemployed."
Such is life in a recession in a poor county. As Orathiac says later, Egypt has the wealth of Canada in 1935. All I can call it is a case of bad luck.

"Yeah a life has value, non-monetary value, which is eminently more important than any material possessions. Heck I wouldn’t care if someone killed Bill Gates. I’d probably be pretty happy about it. But someone who loved him, they’d give away ever cent of that 50 billion to get him back.
This worth is so much more than a bit of profit. So who cares about a few extra dollars, governments should put their money into education so a person can live a fulfilling life, otherwise you’ve destroyed more value than money could ever be placed upon."
Life can be placed a value on. Its difficult to explain, but even my socialist accounting teacher agrees.

I agree that education is important, said this about 8 times already, but it is not the priority. Egypt can't afford it.

"Who judges who deserves protection from what and when? I mean, it's not just hobos who are starving. And shouldn't the government have some mechanism where those who have a desire to be employed can be? That's not the case in Egypt now, but it has been the case in previous fascist governments: Mussolini and Hitler both were very interested in getting rid of unemployment. We can make all the arguments in the world about the lowest common denominator and what they deserve, but there's plenty of people who are not the LCD in Egypt who are starving and unemployed."
Egypt is not fascist. Also as I said, it is more the individuals fault then the governments fault for them being starving and unemployed.

"And what else should the government of Egypt spend money on?

Stabilizing food prices.
Health Care.
Education.
Public Services (Water purification, Garbage collection etc.)

I can't think of much else they need to worry about."
Egypt is spending it on something I'm not sure what, but Mubarak has (and probably rightfully so) found more important matters.

"Heck they could scrap most of the military they have or at least stop investing in growing it if they are short on funds."
Did I say something about protection???

"Appointed, Elected. When you get down to a small enough group of people the two are practically the same thing. "
How so, also can you use quotations from now on, I am have troubles seeing what point your countering.

"There has been innovation and new ideas in products sure. But the net trend in all products has been towards crappier products sold and the same price or more adjusted for inflation. "
Not really. A competitive market ensures that progress is made to stay on top. If the product is crappier a competitor points it out.

"Cars.. Sure they look prettier now but they're build quality is inferior
Appliances... You can't get parts for most appliances now a days and even when you can most people don't know how to fix them. It's not a sign of higher quality products when a microwave from 20 years ago outlasts one bought 3 years ago. Last time they did the no warranty, cheap as possible, expensive as possible, all the companies that did that declared bankruptcy. The bailing out means capitalism didn't cause the problems in the industry, but them knowing that the socialist government policy of bailing out big businesses was the problem.
Phones... Breaks at end of warranty get a new one. Nobody knows how to fix them any more. Most phones are built to be obsoleted by the next model
Clothing... New fashion lines, but on average production has been shifted from produced in America to China, quality control standards have dropped"
Cars: So over the last 10 years the fatality rate from crashing has decreased. New models are safer (aka better).
The average maximum speed of the car is 20 KMH faster (aka, Better) then 20 years ago.
New models are prettier (aka better), you admitted that.
New models have a 10 year warranty, which is identical to those sold 10 years ago. No change.
Appliances: The only example you gave was Microwaves.
The modern microwave looks nicer, has a higher wattage, and is easier to use. The only downside is the warranty.
Phones: If the phone is obsolete so quickly, doesn't that mean the market is advancing quickly? I fail to see why phones going obsolete quickly is a bad thing.
Clothes: You can't actually tell the difference between the quality, and besides, fashion changes so quickly, it becomes obsolete before being worn down.

You have yet to give an example of a market that capitalism was the direct problem in the market. You have even yet to give an example of a market that is bad.
"The goal of the industrialist is to sell the highest quality goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible, while maintaining the highest profit possible."
-Henry Ford
This is a quote that most big companies have followed at one point in their rise to power.

"Yeah some governments like to focus on the short term. Doesn't mean all governments do. "
We have two parties:
Party A: I want to give tax cuts, increase investments in quality of life for the middle class worker and focus on cutting unemployment. I want to bail out the failing companies so that they can continue to make products that nobody wants, but at least we have the option to buy them.
Party B: I want to raise taxes to further invest in education and environmentalism to the extent that our lives are hell but at least our kids will be happy. I will let the free market (except the taxes) decide most markets, so if the car industry declares bankruptcy we will not be able to buy cars for a few years. But after that cars will be better and cheaper then ever.
If you can name a country that would vote for Party B over A I will give you a prize (by not trolling on this site again). But even if you can, a majority of democracies (especially the US) in the world focus short term, and as a majority of people would vote Party A.

Also in 2009 people praised Harper for the strong economy Canada had despite the recession. He didn't do anything, the person who saved our economy was Paul Martin, the former Prime Minister. Nobody praised him, because when he came into power the economy was only ok, and as he only focused on the long term, nobody noticed that he did anything. He was in power for 3 years (he wasn't elected into office though, he came into power when Chrétien resigned), and lost in his first election (actually second, but his first election was a few months after coming to power) simply because he focused on the long term.

"Actually more governments where I am like to make promises and plan that are supposed to be completed the year after an election. >.< Stupid stupid stupid!"
Thats politics.
Ok people. I am a democratic president and I have a plan that will save the economy, it will take 4 years, and I have 3 years left in office before having to run for re-election. However if the republicans win that election, this plan will no longer work for these reasons...
Its a way for self preservation (or in some cases party preservation), rather then actually helping the people. Now in a oligarchy the other leaders would say, make it be done in 3 years by doing this, sacrificing the people and that instead.

Point is, in the oligarchy everyone (except the people who were sacrificed) win.

"Democracy; not the most effective system. However I'd rather have a say in how my country is run then being stuck in an oligarchy where someone else decides if I'm worth or not to effect the course of my country."
Oligarchy works, you may have a say right now, but so do the 96% of Americans who are so retarded that they don't deserve a say.

"You must live in a similar time zone to me. Since I need to go eat supper now as well."
I am from Toronto. You?

"Sorry. I shouldn't be judging you when I haven't even read your posts. But it's awful hard to disagree with the rest of the Forum. Believe me, I know."
I live in Toronto, a city that has elected a conservative MP once (or twice) in the last 40 years. I go to a public school (OUT OF CHOICE, as my brother goes to UCC, the most prestigious school in Toronto) and am one of 3 non liberal/socialist/communists at my school (of the 120 people I have had the opportunity to politically debate with). I am use to everyone telling me I am wrong when I know I am write.

"Late, but I've come to the conclusion that Fasces is a troll,
Sorry, fasces, the jig is up."
I plead the 5th

"especially when he called 80%+ of the world the 'scum of the earth', yet earlier said he wants everyone to have more economic freedom."
I don't recall calling 80% of people scum of the earth. I do however recall calling 96% of people that.

"No, he's a kid that's gotten pushed around a bit, and perhaps understandably has a bit of hostility towards the world. As a result, he dreams of a world where "superior" people like him rule, and the people who have tormented him are reduced to the status that they deserve."
Kid yes, pushed around yes. However I do not hate the people who bullied me given how much rl trolling I have done to them, I understand why they choose to take their anger out on my physically, since they couldn't match me mentally.

"The best part about this is the sheer irony. If such an oligarchy existed, it would have no interest in an autistic kid with dyslexia, or even be interested in trying to bring out his more useful qualities. Just another broken worker for the machine."
CLAP CLAP CLAP! I have no interest in self preservation, I am well aware that I wouldn't do well in the society I support, but I support it because it is the only society I feel that humans deserve to live in.

"He's obviously not from the States, where we know that there was a time when completing six years of education was not typical. "
Since when does education have to do with development?

"And I like his "if the police abuse their authority, they get fired". I guess it depends on the definition of "abuse their authority". Tell me....who fired the military when they seized power in Egypt? Who fired the security forces when they tortured?"
Noone, but the smarter people gave it, rather then protested like they are now.

"Exactly who in the "Oligarchy" that he admires has any incentive to fire any of the staff which keep them in power? "
Thats the point, in order for an oligarchy or dictator to remain in power, he has to at least appease the people enough for them to not bother with revolting.

"This thread, it's a gold mine.

Alright, damian, it is quite difficult to tell. but I'll stand by my guess that he is simply trolling everyone."
Based on the post above would you still stand by that?

"...I think Jack is on the right track there. Rather then just calling him a troll think about it for a second. "
Or you could call me what I am! Someone who is correct!

"uh, what?"
Since Canada and America our both less then 250 years old, since the time they were created, they have been on par with the more developed nations of their time, since their creation.

"You have a point there and I grant that. However what you are talking about isn't build quality. You are talking about technological advancements. Yeah technology has advanced to allow these. However the actually build quality has decreased. Frames and the core of the car used to be built in such a way that they could take a lot more punishment."
But what allowed those developments? I'll give you a hint, here is a passage from my economics textbook about comparing East Germany (a communist nation) with West Germany (a capitalist one). Two countries that had an almost identical GDP, Population etc in 1946:

"Before the second world war, the complex where Trabent was made in east germany was part of a four-car consortium including Audi. After the war, Audi fled west. Today (This article was written on December 21st 1989) any of its cars can drive rings around the two-stroke 26 horsepower Trabis, East Germany's strongest car.
The reason for this was the competition for car manufacturing in west Germany and they had to be good to stay alive, while Trabis, as the one car being produced in west Germany up until 1980, and there was no need to upgrade cars.
The extent of todays gap is evident at the inauguration of a new engine plant in Stadt. That cash-strapped East Germans purchased the line from Volkswagen, which agreed to take back 430 000 of the simple bar-boned engines (no transmission or electronics) in payment.
For Volkswagen, the engine line represented obsolete equipment that cried out for replacement with automated technology but for the east germans, it was a 30-year advance."

The fact is, competition forces companies to make better products.

"I imagine most people agree with me on that one. I don't think a single one of this wants to be told we can't have a say in what our government does."
I don't want a say. If me getting a say means the 96% of us that are retards get a say, then I don't think its worth it.

"Well, Fasces, the thing is, generally--and I just mean generally here--when people are educated and are allowed to actually learn they can--at least some of them--become INFORMED, and when you ahve an INFORMED citizenry they might actually at some point become an INTELLIGENT and AWARE citizenry...

And once a group is intelligent, aware, and informed about the issues around them they MIGHT wake up and say "Gee, this 'president' of ours has been in office 30 years and has seen our economy hit the toilet and has refused to pay his civil workers and has taken away basic human rights...basic human rights! *I* know what those are, I *LEARNED* about those!

"Inalienable rights, among these, life, liberty, and the protection of property and the pursuit of happiness!
"Man is born free, and yet everywhere he is in chains!

GEE, we ARE in social chains right now...we might want to DO SOMETHING to regain these rights that we've been denied!"



(So in short, Fasces, education is THE MOST IMPORTANT form of education--after all, once you're educated, you KNOW you're in an police state and your rights have been taken away and you've been treated horrible, you KNOW...

And knowing is half the battle!)
"
In poorer countries, you can clearly see why not having a high literacy rate can benefit the country, but I agree that education is the backbone of modern society.

As I already said, In grade 8, when given the choice of high school to go to. I choose a public one. I support a two tier system in health care and education.

@scaga "Also Egypt today is as wealth as Canada in 1935 and as healthy as Canada in 1960. "

'Your source please.'

Gapminder.org, data collected by a Swedish professor Hans Rosling, but you'd know that if you bothered to look in the link earlier in my post.

"Yes, an all-knowing benevolent dictator would be awesome. A continuous stream of perfect, all-knowing benevolent dictators would be the greatest thing to ever happen to a single country."
I play the 5 good emperors card (which I have in every democracy vs dictatorship debate). The fact was, for a period of 81 years, there was a standard for the emperor, they weren't above the law, and there were pre-requisites to becoming emperor. Now for those 81 years, 5 emperors were in powered.
Is it a coincidence that these are known as the 5 great emperors.

As Obi is in this thread, and in all 4 times I have played this card he has countered it, I am going to counter his counter, before he can counter.

Obi will say something along the lines of:
"but the fact that there was only 5 emperors of the many emperors Rome had, shows how weak the system was"

I will once again say "however the system of laws that were placed for the 5 good emperors only lasted 5 generations, a civil war started this, and a military coup (from a greedy Prince) ended it"

He will say "but the 5 good emperors weren't perfect"

I will say "but they were a hell of a lot better then Clinton, Bush and Obama"

He will say "but they were still not all knowing and were not philosopher kings"

I will say "neither are presidents"

I can't remember what he says after this. I don't think he has made a point after this.

one good emperor does not make a population want to embrace a dictatorship.

You are completely missing the point that people want to be free. I know you may think them wrong, and flawed for not being willing to accept your ideas, but that is reality. You can't have things your way, get used to it.

People will not accept living in a dictatorship on principle. International relations and global trade has proven more useful to stability and economic growth without dictators.

Yes democracy is flawed, no that doesn't mean the people will accept a dictatorship in it's place (whatever logical/intellectual arguements Facses happens to make)

This makes the whole arguement pointless.

On the other hand it is possible for certain types of peer-to-peer networks to organise without any specific centralized authority.

Look at the human brain. Each neuron contributes to the whole, they are each peers, the whole makes decisions as a result of the contribution of individual activity (distributed throughout the brain) - this is not the same as the 'averaging' behaviour of a democracy. In fact it's very difficult to map how the individual interactions determine the end result. (though you can model it as a neural network)

The interesting thing here is that social networks exhibit the same sort of structure as neural networks.

Though non-centralized information gathering may be needed AND having a social network which happen to include specialized areas (like the part of the brain specifically involved in visual processing) means there is still room for things like governments and journalism within this kind of decision making network.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

39 countries elected a dictator (such as Hitler) in the great depression. All of those 39 dictators maintained popular support for at least the first 3 years they were dictator.

The fact is, if the people are desperate enough, they are willing to do anything.

Hence the electing Muslim Brotherhood to get Mubarak out

"Look at the human brain. Each neuron contributes to the whole, they are each peers, the whole makes decisions as a result of the contribution of individual activity (distributed throughout the brain) - this is not the same as the 'averaging' behaviour of a democracy. In fact it's very difficult to map how the individual interactions determine the end result. (though you can model it as a neural network)"
Cells and neurons share a collective intelligence, humans are completely different.

Fasces needs to read Arendt.

She divides human activity into three majors groupings: labor, work, and action.

Labor is the animal labor required to survive.

Work: "typical representatives are the builder, the architect, the craftsperson, the artist and the legislator, as they create the public world both physically and institutionally by constructing buildings and making laws."

Action: Action, the only activity that goes on directly between men…corresponds to the human condition of plurality, to the fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world. While all aspects of the human condition are somehow related to politics, this plurality is specifically the condition – not only the conditio sine qua non, but the conditio per quam – of all political life .

In short, you would restrict humanity's freedoms, and thus lose out on that which makes us human... our ability to act. (Act in the Arendtian sense, of course.)

Go read Arendt's "The Human Condition"

Why do I like the free market so much? Because it lets humans be humans
Why do I like dictatorship so much? Because it means these humans can fuck over society.

Dictators are human, there for they will fuck over society.

"Dictators are human, there for they will fuck over society."
I hereby acknowledge that my previous was wrong. Allow me to correct it:
Why do I like the free market so much? Because it lets humans be humans
Why do I like Oligarchy so much? Because it means these humans can't fuck over society as only the more intelligent ones get a say in politics.

“If you knew your place, you wouldn't be complaining.”
Perhaps that’s exactly why I am complaining. I understand the place society expects from me, and I consider it to be garbage. It’s perhaps a literal definition of knowing your place but it’s just as accurate as anything else.
“Egypt is spending it on something I'm not sure what, but Mubarak has (and probably rightfully so) found more important matters.”
You don’t know but it’s obviously more important. That’s swell can you actually list of anything you can think of that’s more important to human society then what I’ve listed off? If not I’d say the riots are pretty justified as it means the government has misplaced priorities.
“Did I say something about protection???”
Yeah and believe it or not unless your state goes around antagonizing other states you don’t need to continually invest is increasing military might. The protection of the citizens could easily be accomplished by a police force.

“You have yet to give an example of a market that capitalism was the direct problem in the market. You have even yet to give an example of a market that is bad.
"The goal of the industrialist is to sell the highest quality goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible, while maintaining the highest profit possible."
-Henry Ford
This is a quote that most big companies have followed at one point in their rise to power.”
Followed or not at some point it’s certainly ignored in a modern globalized world, where corporations continue to outsource to other countries to find cheaper and cheaper wages. And while sure the quality of the good may be all fairly equal and better then countries without competition. The drive for cheaper products has reduced the build quality of their products, because that way they can sell them for a cheaper at higher profit margins to more consumers, and since they break more people have to replace them more often. More profit. That’s the reality competition drives innovation that’s for sure but profit motivation doesn’t ensure quality of products.
I don’t brink up a system where the market is a failure because I’m not all against the market. By no means do I think that there should be no such thing as a private company. I do however feel there should be strict regulation in place to protect the workers and maintain jobs within a country by preventing outsourcing. Should these companies refuse fine, quick them out and create new ones that will follow the regulations, there is nothing wrong with the market, except that it shouldn’t be driven entirely by what is profitable it should instead by worried about the impacts of its actions and being a positive element of a country.

“Party A: I want to give tax cuts, increase investments in quality of life for the middle class worker and focus on cutting unemployment. I want to bail out the failing companies so that they can continue to make products that nobody wants, but at least we have the option to buy them.
Party B: I want to raise taxes to further invest in education and environmentalism to the extent that our lives are hell but at least our kids will be happy. I will let the free market (except the taxes) decide most markets, so if the car industry declares bankruptcy we will not be able to buy cars for a few years. But after that cars will be better and cheaper then ever.
If you can name a country that would vote for Party B over A I will give you a prize (by not trolling on this site again). But even if you can, a majority of democracies (especially the US) in the world focus short term, and as a majority of people would vote Party A.”
See I don’t agree with either position, there is a reason you won’t find a country that embraces party two. You’ve paired two conflicting ideas in it. Lasize Faire with high taxes and social welfare programs, I can’t think of a single party that combines the two ideas.

“Point is, in the oligarchy everyone (except the people who were sacrificed) win.”
Yeah and my point is that we shouldn’t have to sacrifice anyone. If that is the cost of a better society then I’ll stick with democracy thank you very much.

“Oligarchy works, you may have a say right now, but so do the 96% of Americans who are so retarded that they don't deserve a say.

I am from Toronto. You?”
Fine, they don’t deserve a say because they make poor choices and uniformed ones. However an Oligarchy allows for the exclusion of new ideas even if they are better than the old ones because the old guard wants to hold onto their power.
I’m from Calgary here. Ironic that we are debating opposite sides of what are city normally takes.
“I live in Toronto, a city that has elected a conservative MP once (or twice) in the last 40 years. I go to a public school (OUT OF CHOICE, as my brother goes to UCC, the most prestigious school in Toronto) and am one of 3 non liberal/socialist/communists at my school (of the 120 people I have had the opportunity to politically debate with). I am use to everyone telling me I am wrong when I know I am write.”
See I like is conservative Calgary. While we’ve had a bit of a shift towards the left in the youth, primarily since I got to a fairly artsy school, I am still in a minority with my views. Views that I too am sure are right. You’re sure your right I’m sure I’m right. This isn’t going to go anywhere. The way we view the world and what’s important is totally different.
“The fact is, competition forces companies to make better products.”
As I said not anti-competition, I’m anti-profit motivation, and pro-corporate conciseness
“I don't want a say. If me getting a say means the 96% of us that are retards get a say, then I don't think its worth it.”
If 96% don’t get a say and have their views trampled you aren’t going to have a very stable country.

I know I didn't address everything you said. I'm sorry. In those cases my initial points stand on their own. So I saw no reason to refute what you where saying because it doesn't really scratch what I've said.

Just wanted to make one addition about your comment about being correct.
There isn't such a think as a correct opinion. That's the reason we are still debating it to this day. Because it's impossible to be right since someone will always decide what you think is wrong for one reason or another.

'Desperate times call for desperate measures.

The fact is, if the people are desperate enough, they are willing to do anything.'

-Entirely true, but electing a dictator (like hitler) is now a proven failure. Just like the economic policies which lead to the great depression. Now i'm not saying we learn from history, but some ideas which have been proved flawed remain consider thus and hence not an acceptable alternative to any current failure.

'Cells and neurons share a collective intelligence, humans are completely different.'

No, humans send signals between each other, 'collective intelligence'/consciousness is an emergent feature depending on the organisation of these cells. There is no sharing equally among the parts...

also neurons are cells, i take it you don't know what the fuck you're talking about when it comes to the brain?