Democracy is no longer the best form of government.

I would first like to address your complaints on my title. I should have been more specific; what I meant to say was that democracy is no longer the best form of government in my mind. For the first 99% of my life it was my belief that democracy was what was right, as I just assumed that any type of authoritarian government would be malicious (the ignorance of us Americans). As I said in my opening statement, I also believe that democracy is a very fair form of government, as the people can in theory make all decisions for themselves. But in reality these people are only voting in people who will then vote for themselves or their seat, not for the betterment of the country. In short, democracy is fair, but not necessarily good for the people. Understand? As for you stating that a benevolent dictatorship is not a form of government, you are right. It is however a THEORETICAL form of government. A simple Google search will affirm this statement. I mentioned a couple of times that for the sake of the argument you should assume the things that I was saying were true. Since a benevolent dictatorship is theoretical, so too is the integrity of the dictator. If we assume that this would ONLY be for the betterment of the people, we must also assume that the dictator will not change from doing what is best for his country to burning religious minorities alive in death camps, as I believe you are hinting at. I must apologize for one thing: your points of a benevolent dictatorship not being able to hold true to it's name probably stem from me not being informative enough in my opening statement. In my own mind, there would have to be some form of checks and balances for the sovereign; not enough to restrict his ability to lead his people, but enough make sure that he does not get out of hand. Perhaps there could be a partisan council who votes on the dictator's decisions. As the council would be in support of the dictator, they would seldom vote against him, allowing him to swiftly provide lawmaking for his state. But if he were to make a move that is too drastic, the council would be able to shoot it down, and vote on whether the integrity of the dictator is still strong. In one of your arguments, you state that because democracy places the power in the hands of the people and the majority of the people are benevolent, then the assumption would have to be made that the government would also be benevolent. This is not true. How many politicians have promised to do a million things, but as soon as they get comfortable in their Washington chair they digress? They've already been voted in, why would they strain themselves to get their job done? They don't need to hold their promises to get voted in again; all they need is the stupid minds of the average human to believe their recycled lies. I am not trying to pretend that there is perfect form of government. In practice, they all have severe downfalls. However, I cannot offer up an argument against the theoretical benevolent dictatorship. If you assume for the sake of my argument as I assumed for yours, I believe that you will better understand. If a benevolent oligarchy is easier for you to understand, then you can think of this instead. However; the indecision factor should always be considered if a group of people are making decisions. In your rebuttal, I look forward to hearing your direct challenges and opposition to my statements.