give 10 points on Argument against Democracy

1} [The dignity of the human species] will be completely destroyed [if the population growth continues at its present rate]. I use what I call the bathroom metaphor: if two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want to stay as long as you like for whatever you need. But if you have twenty people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person; you have to bang on the door, “Aren’t you done yet?” In the same way, democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive. Convenience and decency can’t survive. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one person matters.

2}Democracy invalidates the expert. This is to say that a majority of people will have no special or expert knowledge about which they vote, however the expert that does have the knowledge is made irrelevant. A classic example is mandatory treatment for 1st time drug offenders. A professional judge should be capable of deciding who is a viable candidate and who needs to go to jail, after all he does this every day day in day out and consults with other professional experts. But the mandatory sentencing law has taken that discretion and authority away from the judges

3}Democracy at its worst is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. When the most votes gets to decide, they can easily rob dissenting groups of rights and privileges. This ia one reason our Founding Fathers decided on a republic

4}Democracy is unstable. With no guarantee of smoothness at succesion of rule, the incoming government may very well reverse the policies and decisions of the previous one, only to be followed by another administration that reverses that one. This makes it difficult for a nation to plan for any long term strategies, such as where to spend money; on the military, space exploration, social services, etc.

5}Democracy is potentially the most corrupt system. By this, I mean that the emphasis becomes winning votes, not on establishing the best policies. Groups will vie to "purchase" these votes, by lobbying, bribing, or even blackmailing those who can provide the votes. As people become disenchanted with the system, and choose not to vote, those who can produce blocks of voters(such as union officials) acrue even more influence. The one good thing about an absolute dictator is, how do you bribe someone who has everything? And once in place, politicians are beholden to those who helped put them there

6}.Democracy is more emotion driven than reason driven. This is a subset of the majority rules argument. But when people can and do vote under stressful conditions, they often make the wrong choice. An example of this would be the Spanish American war. Fueld by "yellow journalism" the American public was riled into wanting to go to war. Imagine if a vote had been taken on September 12, 2001. Might we have gone to war with Saudi Arabia, or Afganistan,based on the emotional reaction at the time? Or decided to round up all Muslims and put them into iternment camps? Democracy can lead to that sort of excess.

7} it is accountable 

8}provides method to deal with situations

9} enhances the dignity of citizens

10}improves the quality of decesion making.

What makes for a monarchy having pretty "thin talent at the top" has nothing to do with lack of ability from those born into it, so much as them growing up as spoiled brats. The Britihs monarchy has lasted as long as it has because all British royals, especially potential male or female heirs in line to the throne, are treated with tyranical discipline. In fact, the great majority of us are probably spoiled compared to the prison William and Harry lived in for most of their lives.

Leadership, is not so much about intelligence, so much as personality traits. Intelligence can be developed; bomard a little kid with puzzles, brain, number games etc, and by the time he or she is 10, they will have an I.Q. of 160. Anybody can be reared, if done the right way, to be super smart. The Brits have known this for years, specially from Neurobiology research papers that I have read from Edinburgh University way back when. While America is still stuck on the idea that you can not increase I.Q., at Edinburgh its Neurobiology department has known for years that the right rearing can make children more intelligent, it was they who discovered the fact that childhood is not about making new brain cells, but holding on to them.

Leadership involves using a group's best qualities, a personality that can exploit and use those qualities, all the while having a perception of things other people do not have. Certain kinds of perceptive abilities are only passed down genetically, hence the need for a noble class, and a monarchy, as argued in days past. What caused the incompetence was not lack of leadership abilities or qualities, so much as carelessness on the part of the royals parents to ensure proper upbringing. Even the worst royal brat had leadership abilities; however, they were too bratty to ever use them to their fullest, hence the incompetence. Also, hence the reason, why the people in charge of raising British monarchs, are borderline tyranical with their discipline; the British do not want their nobility or monarchy guillotined any day now.

As far as an argument though, go with the Jefferson thing; in its effort to get rid of monarchies and dynasties, democracies may unintentionally create them
What makes for a monarchy having pretty "thin talent at the top" has nothing to do with lack of ability from those born into it, so much as them growing up as spoiled brats. The Britihs monarchy has lasted as long as it has because all British royals, especially potential male or female heirs in line to the throne, are treated with tyranical discipline. In fact, the great majority of us are probably spoiled compared to the prison William and Harry lived in for most of their lives.

Leadership, is not so much about intelligence, so much as personality traits. Intelligence can be developed; bomard a little kid with puzzles, brain, number games etc, and by the time he or she is 10, they will have an I.Q. of 160. Anybody can be reared, if done the right way, to be super smart. The Brits have known this for years, specially from Neurobiology research papers that I have read from Edinburgh University way back when. While America is still stuck on the idea that you can not increase I.Q., at Edinburgh its Neurobiology department has known for years that the right rearing can make children more intelligent, it was they who discovered the fact that childhood is not about making new brain cells, but holding on to them.

Leadership involves using a group's best qualities, a personality that can exploit and use those qualities, all the while having a perception of things other people do not have. Certain kinds of perceptive abilities are only passed down genetically, hence the need for a noble class, and a monarchy, as argued in days past. What caused the incompetence was not lack of leadership abilities or qualities, so much as carelessness on the part of the royals parents to ensure proper upbringing. Even the worst royal brat had leadership abilities; however, they were too bratty to ever use them to their fullest, hence the incompetence. Also, hence the reason, why the people in charge of raising British monarchs, are borderline tyranical with their discipline; the British do not want their nobility or monarchy guillotined any day now.

As far as an argument though, go with the Jefferson thing; in its effort to get rid of monarchies and dynasties, democracies may unintentionally create them

Democratic country have many demerits -

1. leaders are corrupted in democratic countary . 

2 . in order to win elections , different political leaders make false promises . 

3 . leaders take long time to pass the law .

 4 . because of corruption only many of the people are diying due to starvation .

 5 . leaders are free to do whatever they want and if they are caught doing wrong then they simply give money        and remains save . 

 6 . leaders children get the admition , no matter if a child is fail or pass , leaders make their child pass by            giving money .

7 . sometimes talented children are not able to acquire the seats because of the problem created by the                 leader 's children .

8 . there is no scope of morality in democracy , as the leaders cheats the people .

9 . a person when get elected by the people becomes corrupted when joins the political parties .

10 . the leaders go on changing with every new election this change leads to instablity .