“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

- James Madison, Federalist No. 51

Akemi Gaines at Real Life Spirituality left a comment on Secrets Of The Millionaire Dropouts, saying she questioned whether democracy was the best form of government.

Back in 2000, I watched the Great American Think-Off debate, with the topic of “Is Democracy Fair?” (Ironically, this was just a few months before Florida had to recount its votes in the Bush-Gore election.) There were many questions posed with no easy answers, such as “If democracy isn’t fair, then what form of government is better?” and “How can you defend democracy, when Hitler came to power through democratic elections?”

In the end, the audience voted that democracy was fair. (See anything ironic about that?) If I recall correctly, the winner’s main argument was that while people are mostly apathetic, when things really get bad enough, they’ll vote for change. (Though apparently, they’re willing to let things get really really bad first.)

But while we might be able to agree that democracy is fair at least to some extent, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best way. Akemi pointed out some of the problems:

“History has shown democracy fails. In ancient Greece, it deteriorated to mob rule. In modern times, it has become a popularity contest, manipulated by the media. The French Revolution turned to a horrible blood bath and only a brilliant man who enthroned himself could end it.

This is because we cannot agree with what we don’t understand. So our intelligence limits our decision making (= vote). Think what might happen if a company (even a medium size one) is run by democracy. I am sure it will go out of business soon.

But then, when we entrust the pros who know better (sometimes called rulers, sometimes politicians), it creates a perfect ground to breed corruption. We are in a catch 22.”

The part about running a company by democracy reminded me of The Office, when Michael and Jim were both made co-regional managers of Dunder Mifflin’s Scranton branch. Of course, nothing got done because they were too busy trying to overpower each other. As Oscar sarcastically said,

“Look, it doesn’t take a genius to know that every organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn’t have two presidents. A boat that set sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be, without the popes?”

And that’s with just two decision makers. Yes, democracy is very inefficient by nature. Autocracy is very efficient, but then, you take your chances. Oligarchy is in the middle, but who decides who’s on top?

It’s a tall order to fill; a form of government that doesn’t rely on voter rationality, wants what’s best for everyone, enforces checks and balances on itself, and gets things done without red tape. Maybe Churchill had it right:

“Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

“You’ve been fed a lie. The lie is that if you study hard, get good grades, get into a good college, and get a degree, then your success in life is guaranteed.”

We’ve all heard this lie, and it’s certainly a convincing one. After all, it used to be true. But many people didn’t notice it gradually becoming less true as the world changed, with tuition skyrocketing and job prospects dimming.

In The Education of Millionaires, Michael Ellsberg explores alternative paths followed by millionaire and billionaire college dropouts. His point isn’t that education is unimportant, but that it doesn’t have to come from a lecture hall. He makes a strong case that what it really takes to get ahead today is self education over formal education, practical intelligence over academic intelligence.

Although I’ve read several books on this theme, I found this one to be perhaps the best of them. In fact, the only thing I didn’t love about this book was the title (just because it’s a little bland). Everything else was great.

Specifically, I liked:

• The plethora of interviews and case studies of the rich and famous, including Russell Simmons (fashion), Dustin Moskovitz and Sean Parker (Facebook), Matt Mullenwag (WordPress), David Gilmour (Pink Floyd), Phillip Ruffin (casinos), and John Paul DeJoria (hair care products)
• The interviews of the not-quite-yet rich and famous (such as he and his wife), whose situations may be easier for most of us to relate to
• The practical information about key success skills such as networking, marketing, sales, branding, and bootstrapping, and his style of “teaching you how to teach yourself how to fish”
• How he anticipates and overcomes objections that most authors ignore, like “well, that might work if you have endless amounts of money to burn, but what if…”

Are we in an education bubble that will burst in the coming years? It’s hard to be sure. In the meantime, consider this book mandatory reading for any student of success, dropout or not.

Could the world’s greatest Taoist be a fuzzy, plump, lovable bear? Perhaps.

In Tao of Pooh, Benjamin Hoff uses characters from Winnie-the-Pooh to explain the principles of Taoism.

“While Eeyore frets …
… and Piglet hesitates
… and Rabbit calculates
… and Owl pontificates
…Pooh just is.
And that’s a clue to the secret wisdom of the Taoists.”

For those who aren’t sure what Taoism is, the story behind The Vinegar Tasters explains it well. This painting shows Confucius, Buddha, and Laozi (representing Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism) around a vat of vinegar, reacting to its taste.

Confucius finds the vinegar sour (people are degenerates and need rules to correct them), Buddha finds it bitter (life is full of pain and suffering), but Laozi is smiling (life is fundamentally good in its natural state, and nothing needs to be judged).

While this book is certainly a good read and a useful introduction to Taoism, I found myself constantly wondering how Taoism is supposed to apply to real life.

If you’re a bear without a care in the world, fine. But if you’re a human being, this kind of “hakuna matata” attitude strikes me as an incomplete life philosophy at best.

The book gives Thomas Edison as an example of someone who found success by modeling Pooh, which is where it really fell apart for me. Edison was a Rabbit/Owl, and absolutely not a Pooh.

So, this is meant to be a recommendation for the book, though it may not sound like it. If any Taoists out there want to show me the way, I’d like to hear from them.