Democracy

Honest thoughts on democracy? Is it the best system or should the west abandon it? Are authorian governments superior?

Other urls found in this thread:

riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Against

good Austrian bro

No. In fact, it's probably going to be abandoned in our lifetimes. The nationstate has outlived its usefulness as well.

There are very few actual virtues that democracy possesses. I suspect the future is more Libertarian/NRx, but that might just be my bias.

...

Democracies are garbage because they depend on mob rule.
Republics are superior in every way.

its garbage but ive no idea what should replace it

Corporate mini-states.

Seems like a good thread to red pill the masses.

“Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.”

“If the right to vote were expanded to seven year olds … its policies would most definitely reflect the ‘legitimate concerns’ of children to have ‘adequate’ and ‘equal’ access to ‘free’ french fries, lemonade and videos.”

“Egalitarian and relativistic sentiments find steady support among ever new generations of adolescents. Owing to their still incomplete mental development, juveniles, especially of the male variety, are always susceptible to both ideas.”

“What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

“Democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government.”

“One-man-one-vote combined with 'free entry' into government—democracy—implies that every person and his personal property comes within reach of—and is up for grabs by—everyone else: a 'tragedy of the commons' is created.”

—Hans-Hermann Hoppe


DEMOCRACY—THE GOD THAT FAILED
riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

Well most "democracys" today are more like republics with democratic influence, people only call it democracy for whatever reason. We get to decide what partys sit around in the parliament but never have direct control about politics (what actual democracy would be).

Pure democracy is shit. This american system seems to be small improvement, but it's still flawed system.

Only employed taxpayers should have right to vote. And voting age should be raised to 21-23 so muh feelings won't be major reason someone was elected.

> I suspect the future is more Libertarian/NRx
I hope that's the case too. The sooner we break up into ethnically/culturally/religious homogeneous covenants the better.

Ideal democracy, with an hypothetical population consisting of informed, understanding citizens who are knowledgeable in various areas and act logically, is the perfect form of government. But you know, pretty much every single "democratic" government on Earth has degenerated either into a demagogy or a barely disguised oligarchy. And the fact that many people still think with their emotions rather than their brain is not helping either.

Limiting it to a group is unwise. That group will just proceed to take advantage of all others.

I would suggest a system where the weight of your vote is based on the amount of hours you have spent doing community work. This way most government institutions can be taken over by the citizens and the most selfless ones will have the most voting power.

Democracy is nothing but tyranny of a mass of idiots. Would you rather have a single tyrant who does something wrong gets the full blame, or a faceless mass of people who can't be held accountable?

I'm possibly for some form of limited democracy, but the form we have is terrible.
It reduced all the parties to what appeals most broadly to enough voting blocks,
Everyone congregates around what is acceptable to just enough voters.
This leaves you with no real political choice.

In the types of democracy we have at the minute you have phenomenons such as you see in Sweden, where SD get a very large percentage of the vote, yet all the other parties align against them for the sole purpose of stopping them from achieving anything.

In Britain the public attitude has never been in support of immigration, yet there was no major party willing to advocate for no immigration. In fact immigration just kept increasing no matter who was in power.

No major party wanted to leave the EU.

In the general election UKIP only got 1/650 seats despite getting 12.5% of the vote.
Lib Dems got 7.6% of the vote and 8/650
SNP got 4.7% and 56/650


Democracy has us sending money to African to increase their population.
Sending money to Ethiopian girl bands.
Sending money to Pakistan and everyone other shithole on the planet.
Democracy has us unable to deport undesirables, control our borders or protect our people because of the believe in "human rights".

Give me authoritarian government.
Give me Fascism.
Give me national socialism.
So long it puts our people first, I don't give a shit how many civil liberties it stamps on, or how many foreign and subversive groups it has to oppress and deport.

We're in real trouble as a civilisation, and democracy got us here.
More democracy isn't going to get us out. We're not going to survive if all we care about as a society is open mindedness, tolerance, understanding and all those other cancerous buzzwords.

Country would be ruled by unemployed sooner than you could say gibs

it's just a variant of communism,it needs to be physically removed

>should the west abandon it?

Name one western country that uses a straight democracy form of government.

Is that necessarily a bad thing though? I mean, they'd actually be doing something. What's the harm in that?

BASED
A
S
E
D

why can't more libetarians be like triple H
this world would be so much better

I think Hoppe is right about the fact that exclusivity is a fundamental right-wing principle. It's something that both libertarians and social right-wingers can agree on.

Look at who has the time right now to spend for their political activities - that should answer the question

I don't see how only employed taxpayers voting would be bad apart from muh students muh pensioners. Taxpayers are the ones supporting the system so they should get a say in what's going on and not the leeches.
>weight of your vote is based on the amount of hours you have spent doing community work
Wouldn't that just create a bunch of workaholics ruling the country?

Well, even if that's the case, they'd be a minorityand other groups can unite to outvote them, And if they can't - it's basically a self-dissolution mechanism for the country( which has failed anyway if it has that high of an unemployment rate )

Lol this fucking book is £999 for hardback on Amazon.
Not available on Kindle. I know there is the PDF but I just wanted a quick Kindle download.

The paperback version has a "normal" price. Hardback was limited and extremely hard to get.

the problem is that big L Libertarians don't believe in this. They're way too worried about pandering to drug users, alcoholics, misfits and punks that they forget to say "Oh, and by the way, you people would probably be physically removed from everywhere if we had our way."

>I don't see how only employed taxpayers voting would be bad apart from muh students muh pensioners. Taxpayers are the ones supporting the system so they should get a say in what's going on and not the leeches.

I don't think it's a moral question, Hell, I'd even say I agree with you in principle, but I think politics is fundamentally a zero-sum game between interest groups and you have to account for that more than anything else. Eventually the employed taxpayers would figure out a way to make the situation more advantageous to themselves than everyone else.

>Wouldn't that just create a bunch of workaholics ruling the country?

It could. I'm not saying that the idea is perfect or even workable, I just think that the basic principle of good governance is allying personal and group interests with public interest as closely as possible. This is the best I could come up with when it comes to that.

Three words

SERVICE
GUARANTEES
CITIZENSHIP

>Eventually the employed taxpayers would figure out a way to make the situation more advantageous to themselves than everyone else.
Good. Everyone else doesn't contribute.
What i wan't to say is basically this You should read Starship Troopers, i think you'll like it

It's garbage. Instead of posting some wall of text I'll just leave a great speech from Dr.Pierce.
youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8

I think what ST suggests is a pretty good idea, but it's hard for me to accept a system that splits society into two groups. It seems too unstable.

there is no such thing as democracy nowadays, it's called representative government.

>It seems too unstable
That gets covered in one of the first chapters i believe. Basically when one group is military vets and the other is liberal faggots any instability will always go one way.

Oligarchy master race.

Ultimately, I'd agreee. I think rule by board of directors + CEO is the best. We'll get there sooner or later.

But you don't believe in a system that splits society into two groups.

so...Hoppian ancapistan ?
day of the helicopter when ?

soon my friend, soon

Direct Democracy is the best.

Well, most people wouldn't have any voting power. I mean, I get what you're saying, but I don't think anybody here is in favor of complete egalitarianism.

What I meant was that having two large, clearly distinct groups in a society tends to put stress on it. Ethnic groups are probably the best example, but this would also apply to political groups. Not long before the US civil war for example, the North and the South had basically two separate presidetial elections.