I'm an authoritarian scientific technocrat. I don't think democracy produces good outcomes and that most people need to be told what's best for them by someone who knows better. The average person is too easily led about via propaganda. Democracy and capitalism is destroying our planet.

Instead government should be small but decisive, and based around experimentation and the scientific method as a way to determine what produces good outcomes. If people don't like having to make needed sacrifices too bad.

The average person is not qualified to have an opinion on many topics, like climate, religion, etc. Being able to make choices that affect everyone isn't a right, it's a responsibility. The average person has proven time and again they aren't ready for that responsibility so it should be ceded to experts.

It's true that there will always be disagreement about who is an expert, but a constitution of checks and balances could be created to help mitigate that, just as republics use them to mitigate the damage of bad leaders as well. But those checks and balances must be present or you wind up with the Soviet Union: a failed scientific technocracy, failed because corruption and absolute power become more important then truth or merit.