What good is democracy if it leads to the rule of people like Clinton and Trump?
What good is democracy if it leads to the rule of people like Clinton and Trump?
Carter Cruz
Tyler Hughes
But the US isn't a democracy.
Dominic Powell
representative democracy is still democracy
Owen Smith
(((democracy)))
Charles King
has there ever been a country that went from democratic to non-democratic? is that transition possible without widespread violence?
Ethan Hughes
Constitutional Republic
Lucas Thomas
Centralized highly hierarchical long reaching democracy is a terrible idea. Politics should remain local in all cases excluding national defense where larger foreign threats exist
Elijah Peterson
Do you have a better system with more longevity?
USA existed without any major disturbance for 2 centuries in present shape, ignoring Civil War.
You'll find few such examples in history.
Anthony Miller
No. Sadly you must deal with degenerates. Like glorious Ceasar who had to deal with cowardly Pompey and his ilk. Would've been interesting to see where he was intending to go, restoring it back to a republic (like Sulla did) or whatever. However he ended up suiciding by senator so we don't know. Augustus was 100% right tho.
Alexander Bennett
Germany in 30's?
Brandon Cruz
>What good is democracy
It isn't. Any system that determines legitimacy of an action based on public whim is a foolish one.
Brandon Perry
still a democracy
en.wikipedia.org
>Nazis get 92.11% of the vote
en.wikipedia.org
>Nazis get 98.80% of the vote
en.wikipedia.org
>Nazis get 99.01% of the vote
Angel Phillips
...
Charles Fisher
Because democracy can be subverted and tainted like everything else..
All of them just end up being pyramid systems no matter what they are named.
Henry Foster
Technically yes, but that's like saying NK is a democracy.
Logan Richardson
Well first, this isn't a democracy and never was.
Second, democracy is an objectively shit system of governance.
Third, Trump is the greatest thing to happen to this country since the 19th century.
Caleb Howard
There was widespread political violence that helped the Nazis in the Reichstag elections of March 1933, which were called for after the President of the Reichstag - Adolf Hitler, appointed by Hindeburg to placate the fascists in Germany - dissolved the Reichstag and called for new elections.
Because Goering was Hitler's buddy, a member of the NSDAP and also the head of the Police forces in Prussia, the largest most powerful state in Old Germany, Goering used the German police to root out Communists in the run up to the elections. They were arrested, beaten, and in some cases murdered. Communists formed street gangs in response. Germany became gripped with terror over the possibility of a violent bolshevik takeover ala 1917. And then, the Reichstag Fire "happened" a literal week or so before the election. Germany was convinced that this was the opening move of a Communist seizure of Power. The Nazis, even with all of this, still couldn't win an absolute majority in the chamber at the polls, and had to convince other parties to create a coalition government and used SA and police to bully Communist government members from not attending the critical vote on the Fire Decree. Similar tactics were used during a vote a few weeks later on the Enabling Act, and the two combined gave the Nazi Cabinet power to rule without the Reichstag.
Jason Wright
Guarantees a new leader every 8 years at most, so a shit-tier leader can never ruin the country and cause irreversible catastrophe. Even though the median democratically elected leader is worse than a monarch, all it takes is 1 bad monarch to totally fuck a country over with decades of bad rule. Democracies are much more protected from outliers, so even though this means shorter golden ages, it means they're less likely to be fucked over by a bad leader.
In conclusion, a really bad ruler can totally fuck over a country and a really good ruler can make a country great but the bad ruler is much worse so as a result even though the median democratic gov't is worse overall it's better since a it's much harder for a democracy to get fucked over by 1 bad ruler.
Jeremiah Diaz
If you understand the philosophy of both Miracle Yang and Kreia from kotor you would understand that there must always be two sides. Without the chaos of both sides the third fringe option of peace can never come about. It's a process of evolution. Just like how many forms of religion are all that is needed to maintain governance of nations. All else could be debated as excess.
The true power of human nature is to always obtain something doing the least amount of work. Eventually no one idea will work. In the end technology will be our savior. Especially if written language becomes obsolete. Imagine speaking to someone through emotional thought using cybernetics. That future is already in the budding process of emergence technology.
Andrew White
Oliver Butler
Democratic systems are not GOOD systems of government.
Democratic systems are STABLE systems of government.
People are more likely to swallow poison if they think they have a choice of flavors.
Compared to the relative chaos of hereditary autocratic systems, a stable system is an improvement, even if the majority of people are dissatisfied. Dissatisfied is better than starving or dead.
However, the stability of democracy and the closed-mindedness of its proponents has locked us into a local maxima where we can no longer improve our governance. It is assumed that democratic systems are the best possible systems, when there is no evidence to support this, and lots of evidence to the contrary. How many democratic systems have government approval ratings hovering at or under 50%? If you routinely got 50% on exams, would you think you were performing as well as was possible?
Thomas Roberts
It will end like most things.
Lucas Wright
To move past democratic systems we must first abandon the ridiculous notion of egalitarianism. Biggest lie ever told. The idea that all people are equal is completely wrong, and easily proven as such.
And I'm not talking about races being unequal, or nationalities, or cultures, or whatever deflection you want to toss in. I'm talking about the simple fact that some people can be completely better than other people. Smarter, stronger, faster, more attractive, more charismatic, healthier, more skilled. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MECHANISM that ensures that there has to be some sort of balance, that person A may be smarter, but person B is stronger so it balances out. Person A can just be utterly, completely BETTER than person B, and there is nothing that person B can do to change this fact. No moral failing on B's part, just the misfortune of having inferior genes.
Once we toss egalitarianism into the shitcan of ideas then we can immediately shitcan the idea that everyone's voice counts for the same in governance. It's completely ridiculous, prima facie. Some people are just too god damned stupid or evil to have any say in the lives of others.
This isn't even touching the idea of identity politics and voting blocs, which are downright fucking tyrannous in their own right.
However, trying to get most folk to ditch the idea of egalitarianism is a non-starter. How do you get the below average to calmly and rationally accept the fact that they are below average? How do you get someone to accept that they're shit without them chimping out? You don't. Democracy doesn't ask people to accept the fact that they suck. It waves its hands and tells them everyone is magically equal. Another reason why it's so stable.