> I think this depends on what you define as "better".
I think by most standards that most people would agree on, democracies come out well.
For example, consider life expectancy -- this is IMO a good measure because nearly everyone wants to be alive, and someone who is alive is (usually) better off than someone who is dead. If you look at countries with the highest life expectancy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country ) democracies seem to be over-represented at the top. This is particularly the case if you discount territories that aren't counties (such as Hong Kong).
Of if you go by UN Human Development Index, you get a similar story.
> Certainly there are also example of successful societies that have lasted for very long periods of time that are not democracies, such as tribal communities. They don't exhibit significant economic growth, but they also are far less likely to make war
I'm not sure this is the case. Are you familiar with the high rate of homicide among the Yanomamo?
> My point being that it is very common for a culture to reinforce in its members a perception that the cultures way of doing things is "right" and that it produces a better outcome-- and it does it in such a way that people presume that this to be a fact, rather than a bias.
You're right that this is a cognitive bias we should guard against.
When looking at statistics you must guard against differences in methods and political bias. The UN is not a neutral organization, and life expectancy is not measured in a consistent way (in my understanding.)
At any rate, I believe what you're seeing is the superiority of democracy as a form of tyranny, and I won't dispute that. Most of the comparisons, looking at those statistics are to other forms of tyranny. There are very few free countries, and few people who have been educated to respect human rights enough to take up arms to overthrow their government to defend them. When these people do this, though, as the somalis overthrew their dictator, they are visited by no end of warmaking from these so-called "peaceful" democracies. Somalia has been attacked without provocation by the US and UK many times since throwing off their dictator.
As for the Yanamamo, I'm not familiar with them, but it would be interesting to understand how many of these homicides are murders and how many are instances of the death penalty. (EG: crimes themselves or responses to crimes.) I, of course, can't say.
Other than people have a natural instinct for a form of morality, but this morality can be perverted by culture. (note americans propensity for supporting violence against the innocent in the forms of war and taxes.)
I think by most standards that most people would agree on, democracies come out well.
For example, consider life expectancy -- this is IMO a good measure because nearly everyone wants to be alive, and someone who is alive is (usually) better off than someone who is dead. If you look at countries with the highest life expectancy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Expectancy_by_Country ) democracies seem to be over-represented at the top. This is particularly the case if you discount territories that aren't counties (such as Hong Kong).
Of if you go by UN Human Development Index, you get a similar story.
> Certainly there are also example of successful societies that have lasted for very long periods of time that are not democracies, such as tribal communities. They don't exhibit significant economic growth, but they also are far less likely to make war
I'm not sure this is the case. Are you familiar with the high rate of homicide among the Yanomamo?
> My point being that it is very common for a culture to reinforce in its members a perception that the cultures way of doing things is "right" and that it produces a better outcome-- and it does it in such a way that people presume that this to be a fact, rather than a bias.
You're right that this is a cognitive bias we should guard against.