end-of-line: questions arising on a debate relating to freedom.

This is a good example of the type of question that relates to my previous statement about the politics the lack of rational debate. For this cannot be discussed rationally without leading to polemic positions. After all, our unelected government has imposed austerity upon the people of the UK, because it feels that this is the solution to the problem. This was not decided by the people but by the authority of the elected state who chose to consider the rights of the rich over the needs of the poor. I think that is a pretty good example of authority don't you?
A friend of mine once said "don't underestimate the stupidity of the electorate" hos words not mine, In looking at the PUK question, there are hint's within it that remind me of those very words. I am not sure that I agreed with him when I first heard them over twenty years ago, any more than I agree with them today.
This is due to the fact that I believe we can, and do, think for ourselves. Many have the ability to see corruption, even if we lack the empowerment to do anything anything about it. However, we do have to right to point it out when we see it, and this is the truly beautiful thing about democracy, the right to speak our minds without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or the work-camp. Also we have had in the past, and at the moment, a form of authority imposed on us by rule of law and moral judgement; which we accept, and know we need, as it protects us from ourselves and those around us.
So in the need to find a form of rationalism behind the polemic this argument conceals I would like to ask the individual who made the statement what form this authority will he take.
Does he take a socialist position where the welfare of all is uppermost or the fascist position where the welfare of the selected few is uppermost? Whether it is liked or not, these are the two of the four political models most used collectively by humanity over the years (the third being monarchical the fourth being totalitarianism.)that we have created for ourselves. to create a stable form of society.
And In a statement like the above, it is hard to see that the individual is considering the mass of the electorate clearly and the sheer tone of the position- e.g "weak and foolish" is suggestive that the individual has little thought for the common individual.
In fact, by the use of the words "weak and foolish" there is the implication in he statement above that implies authoritarianism is a good thing, that the rule of an authoritarian government can consider the good of the individual, when historically, this has been proven complex, depending on the behavior of the individual in charge. This is why society is in flux, and is dependent upon those who rule to care for those who allow them to rule.
Perhaps a new form of authority will rise and consider the needs of all, but human behavior is such that the stronger will always trample on the weaker and the poor will never be given the empowerment they need to achieve. Perhaps one day there might be a society that considers the many over the few. But history has not shown this, leaving me to conclude that I doubt that it will occur in the future. In fact I think, rather sadly, that the PUK member who posted this will win out in the end. With -no doubt- thunderous applause.
-end of line-