Hi Sup Forums I've got an upcoming debate where I am arguing that we should abandon democracy. This will be in front of the whole school so any advice on how to best redpill them on democracy.
(((they))) make up a small part of the audience but to avoid trouble nothing too overtly natsoc please.
>tl:dr why would you get rid of democracy pol?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
bump
In favor of what? The answer is not to defend democracy but argue against the proposed new system.
No problem in democracies cannot be solved by reform
Democracy is good, when it is constrained by logical bounds.
If you do not have the mental ability to understand the effect of voting, you don't get to vote.
If you have no skin in the game through taxes or property, you don't get to vote.
The issue with Democracy in the West is that we gave everyone the vote, when at best 15-20% of them can handle it.
Universal Sufferage was a mistake.
> OP here
The motion is "this house is sick of democracy" so it is very broad and can be interpreted many ways so I was looking for alternate options on it
Democracy is inefficient
We have ID'S in this board, don't worry
which is good and bad, The good part is that inefficiencies lead to delays which lead to time to fix mistakes.
All the alternatives are worse, a constrained democracy of people voting beyond their immediate self interest is the best,
>get rid of democracy
But what is your alternative?
Also, democracy is somewhat meaningless now anyway (rigged elections etc.)
It would be a good idea to give people more votes the more they tax they pay. Let's say 1 vote / $1000 i taxes payed.
no, because then you have faggots like Bill Gates or the Rothchilds literally buying the country.
It should be limited to people with IQ over 100 who pay more in taxes to the government then they get back.
The best arguments against democracy come from some Libertarians such as Hoppe, (Democracy the god that failed) and from the Neoreactionaries like Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land. ("Dark enligtenment" essay and "Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations" essay)
youtube.com
also steal some quotes from democracy The God That Failed
>Neoreactionaries
You mong
1. You should have researched this before asking us
2. You should have another system in mind
3. You should understand the fallout for relaying some of our arguments
>(e.g. that cognitive and behavioral traits are heritable to a high degree and that low-IQ, high-aggression, high-public services-and-welfare-usage, high-birth-rate blocs over time form larger voting blocs than high-IQ, low-aggression, low public-services-and-welfare-usage, low-birth-rate-blocs.)
Also it seems you cornered yourself in in a false dichotomy
>(e.g. Democracy vs. No Democracy)
Instead of
>Full Participative Direct Democracy vs. Limited Franchise Democratic Republics which constitutionally prohibit certain things such as the guilt or innocence of people or freedom of speech to be decided by vote)
But we shouldn't.
Your best shot is to point the deficiencies in the system.
You should try clientelism, separatism, Political correctness.
Also you can point the problems it didn't solve as poverty, immigration, drugs, moral corruption.
GL senpai
this is a good post
For you.
Read Plato - The Republic. He lists democracy as a failing system that leads to tyranny.
A republic is whats recommended
>pay more in taxes to the government
Hey Einstein, taxes are not paid, they are forcibly taken.
I assume you meant to say "only people with some form of significant property should vote" - I agree. If you let the gibmedats vote, you get.. well, Europe. Just look at our shitty leftist outhouse.
Hmmmm...
>I've got an upcoming debate where I am arguing that we should abandon democracy
Do you want an honest answer from an ethicist that might upset you?
Democracy devolves into the sale of government to the highest bidder.
Third time.
You talk about how the average person isn't very well informed and it takes little effort to manipulate them into voting for something bad. Hell, since its a bluepilled school, use Trump as an example of small, low effort fake news organizations were able to convince enough people to vote for a businessman with no political experience.
Mention that a single or a small group of absolute rulers are harder to manipulate and if they are trained specifically to rule, they will do it better than someone elected because he had the best buzzwords during the election.
Democracy's biggest flaw is people.
People like you. Yes.
I didn't say I was smart.
i would say that history attests to the greatness of it, and if tax rates attest to the greatness of the monarchy they are worth mentioning. A few percent during the times of the monarchy and all taxes today amount to like 40-50% at least here in Canada.
All democracies liberalise, and therefor socialise, which in turns means education and healthcare costs go up and the quality goes down as with anything comparing government to the private sector.
Monarch also affirmed the state religion in the past which was a cohesion and better yet given the truth that is Christianity a positive cradle (and more) for the people as it were to keep and and raise them in the right faith.
If the class values conservative policies you can mention the death penalty under the monarchy and just prolongue jail sentences nowadays under democracies for those who commit big crimes. Why would you keep someone for a lifetime behind bars, if he's sentenced for life just kill him.
Also there's a class to the monarchy times architecture which isn't found in modern times, the same is said of all arts. If the class values this you can mention the arts, baroque and classical which were the vogue back then whereas the modern teen digital trash of today which merely reflects the era we live in - an era of democracy which values this modern trash.
If the class values conservatism you can mention orderly gender roles at home. You can mention how the schools didn't take a quarter of a century to get through, the system took a few years then it was apprenticeship under a tutor.
those are a few things, also there's the class i mentioned earlier reflected in chivalric codes in the military.
The only difference between a democracy/republic and a dictatorship is the amount of dictators.
>democracy as a failing system that leads to tyranny
This !
yes
There is only one answer, and that is that government is always immoral.
You can discuss all night long, or all your life for that matter, if your only source of philosophical insight is "argument from effect" but that is not how reality works.
Use Hans Herman Hoppe Arguments.
youtube.com
ok, see post below
No human being has "the right" to rule, that is, to have the monopoly on violence. For that to be valid, you would need specific different moral categories based on objective traits like "biological differences", for instance. Costumes are arbitrary, and so are votes. Occam's razor denies.
Read Hoppe - Democracy, the god that faild.
Yw
Point out the problem of mob rule. Everyone votes in their own self interest, so it's easy for a majority group to elect a representative who promises to steal everything from the minority group.
This 'majority vs minority's language will easily redpoll normies.
Argue that the best system places restrictions on what the government can actually do, so even if the majority would like to steal stuff, there's a constitution (or "supreme law" or "fundamental code", whatever terminology you want to use) that won't allow it. This kind of thinking is the first step in recognising that freedom is more valuable than equality.
if you take 2 men and one woman, and make a democratic referendum whether the woman should be raped or not. The result is "yes", and the woman gets raped.
Does that make rape moral?
Would it justify the act of raping?
How do we know that rape is immoral, other than empirical observation of the legislation of almost all civilizations ever?
Research well sourced databases and authors on these topics
Mob rule
Beurocracy
European Union and US democracies
Corruption in democracy
Differences between democracy and other forms of government
To name a few
Next to impossible to accomplish anything but consumerism and procrastination in a democracy. Every time America went full powerhouse and did impressive shit it was done under what would be considered authoritarian ways
>Every time America went full powerhouse and did impressive shit it was done under what would be considered authoritarian ways
so what about the minarchist governments during the the first decades after the declaration of independence? Would you agree that the countries that start with the smallest governments, get consumed by corruption much faster than countries that start off with social democrat governments?
People saying "the alternatives of democracy are worse" are fuxking retarded. A democratic society inevitably creates a shadow governmwnt because there will always be people qho qant to undermine the population for their own benefit, governments with leaders that have absolute power can stop those people who are working against the state more effectively, because they can stop them from integrating with the state unlike democracy which has too much bureaucracy and too many people to blame, all while never being able to pass laws without mutilating them with "compromises".
What about the soviet union? Or North Korea? not democratic republics, absolute government power, absolute corruption and mind-blowing administrative overhead.
How much time do you have?
Firstly, go with Moldbug and Plato. Namely, Gentle Intro and the Republic. It's not that they're the greatest, but that they are gentle and timelessly seductive.
>arguing that we should abandon democracy.
Just use the shit arguments used for remaining in the EU. (((They))) will eat it up.
Or, if not specified, only tear into direct democracy specifically with focus on the tyranny of the majority.
>Would you agree that the countries that start with the smallest governments, get consumed by corruption much faster than countries that start off with social democrat governments?
No, our country is aging at about the same rate as all of the previous empires and with the increasing instability it's expected to die very soon.
But the USA is a superpower for a reason. It was the country with the most individual freedom and strikingly few government regulations. Great economic and technological success.. but today, you have the single most powerful and bloated government with a military force that can destroy human life on earth. Why?
Oswald Mosley brings up some good points.
>At present the mass of the people have no freedom. Under Fascism for the first time theywill have freedom. What is the use of a vote if the people never get what they vote for ? How can they get what they vote for when only two big Bills can be carried through Parliament in a whole year on account of obstruction? The beginningof freedom for the people is that the programme for which they vote shall be carried out. It cannot be carried out until the Government has power to act. By giving" Government the power to act, Fascism brings not the end of freedom but the beginning of freedom. Real freedom is economic freedom. Economic freedom cannot come until economic chaos ends; and it cannot end until a Government has power to act.
Real freedom means good wages, short hours, security in employment, good houses, opportunity for leisure and recreation with family and friends. Modern Science enables us to build such a civilisation. It is not built, because Democracy prefers talk to action. We have to choose between the freedom of a few professional politicians to talk and the freedom of the people to live. In choosingthe latter, Fascism makes freedom possible and releases the people from the economic slavery rivetted upon them by the Democracy of talk.
It is the deliberate aim of Fascism to bringto an end the Partygame which we believe tobe the ruin of the Nation. We substitute a new system of action suited to the modern age for the system of talk which belongs to the past. For instance, a Parliament elected under Fascism will be a technical and not a political Parliament. The franchise will be occupational and not geographical. Men and women will vote accordingto their industryor profession, and not according to their locality. They will vote for people versed in the problems of their industries, and not for professional politicians. In such a system there is no place for parties and for politicians. We shall ask the people for a mandate to bringto an end the Partysystem and the Parties. We invite them to enter a new civilisation. Parties and the Partygame belong to the old civilisation, which has failed.
>The Fascist Movement represents Leadership, not Tyranny. It offers to the people a Leadership in national revival which theywill accept of their own free will. The Dictatorship is a Dictatorship of the will of the people expressed through a Leadership and Government of their own choice. The onlywayin which the will of the people can be carried out is through a Leadership which theychoose for the purpose and give the power to act.
>Fascism offers that Leadership through which the will of the people can be effective. Thus a Dictatorship of the people themselves replaces the present Dictatorship of Vested Interests. Parliament and Government are paralysed byuniversal talk. Programmes for which the people have voted are never implemented. As a result real Government under Democracy rests in the hands of the great interests, such as International Finance. Fascism restores to power the people. That power can only be expressed through Leadership voluntarily accepted and chosen, but armed bythe people with power to do what they want done.
Attack the system of party play basically.
Leftists; empires always destroy themselves at the height of their power. See: The Fate of Empires and the search for survival
The same people who run democratic governments funded both the chinese and russian communist revolutions.
Collectivism is just as bad as democracy anyways because who decides what is to be redistributed, and what is and isn't fair?
Totalitatianism/authoritarianism shouldn't instantly mean "oppressive" these efficient forms of goverment are the most able to give people economic and social freedom, all while ensuring there is no shadow government behind the leader, who is out in the open.
Of course picking the right person is the hard part, but that's much easier than in democracy, because then they have incentives to do what our current politicians do, which is to say one thing and do something their donators told them to do instead, then have the blame shifted to the infinite abyss of bureaucracy because there is no accountability, and it makes people think there was nothingthey could to to begin with. However traditional rulers were simply overthrown quickly when they could not perform or where against the will of the people.
Tradional dictatorships have the most incentive of all forms of government to follow the will of the people.
>start speach
>roman salute
>sieg heil
>id like to talk to you today about the kike menace threatening the planet
Talk about George Washington's statements on FACTIONS and how they can eventually become a 50%+1 faction to undermine the country.
That's why we have a representative republic!
Leftists don't grow on trees. They grow out of the culture and the families and the education system.
yes, but why?
Government is concentrated aggression, it is the monopoly on physical violence granted to a minority of "rulers".
There are "evil" people in the world.
Government grants them all the tools they need to do evil (gather resources at the cost of others).
So what is the difference between democracy and dictatorship? one is mob rule, the other is single person rule.
Both claim that "laws" are the epitome of "morality", they say that "smoking weed is bad because we say so"
if you look at my example with the rape situation, the inconsistency becomes very obvious. Laws are always arbitary opinions, enforced by either "might makes right" or become "justified" by a common delusion of the majority of people. All those scenarios are arbitrary
And then the cannibalize their country and starve or get overrun by foreigners.
Jews, capitalism and liberalism.
You've been found out Jool Aid!
>Jews, capitalism and liberalism.
Can you explain this in context? I'm not sure if I can follow
Mob rule is tyranny etc
see
>all government is evil
No
Should be "all government run by people who have a different agenda than the majority population is evil"
Not necessarily capitalism, but when the average person gets the idea that they can use the government to take from others the country starts to die.
>That which we may call the High Noon of the nation covers the period of transition from the Age of Conquests to the Age of Affluence: the age of Augustus in Rome, that of Harun al-Rashid in Baghdad, of Sulaiman the Magnificent in the Ottoman Empire, or of Queen Victoria in Britain. Perhaps we might add the age of Woodrow Wilson in the United States.
>All these periods reveal the same characteristics. The immense wealth accu- mulated in the nation dazzles the onlookers. Enough of the ancient virtues of courage, energy and patriotism survive to enable the state successfully to defend its frontiers. But, beneath the surface, greed for money is gradually replacing duty and public service. Indeed the change might be summarised as being from service to selfishness.
In democracy the mob rules, otherwise the individual rules. The individual is always more powerful than the mob.
Totalitarianism is the quickest and easiest way to economic and social freedom and prosperity, all it takes is to elect the right person, or overthrow them until you do. However in democracy the bureaucracy is there to defend the government when people question it and want to make changes against it. A dictator with absolute power can instantly give postive reform or face the wrath of the people immediately.
1) government is by definition an agency of coercion (monopoly on violence)
2) using violence for anything other than self-defense is universally evil (argument from First Principles, please don't ask me to elaborate on this it's midnight in austria and I got to work soon)
3) Thus government is universally evil
just gather all lefties,sjw,lgbt,blm,feminists in one place and nuke them.After that democracy might start working again.
Heard on Gavin Mcinnes show he suggested only people who pay more to the government than the government pays them should be elligible to vote.
Is this actually feasible?
that made me chuckle
Read Democracy The God that failed by Hans Hermann Hoppe i recommend comparing the incentive structure to traditional Monarchy and empirically show the continues increase of
Parasitism of the State +
Destruction of Norms for short term gain...
Here is a short video [10:33] where he outlines the key arguments that he elaborates on in his book.
youtube.com
I look at it from a different perspective.
Government is there is ensure the survival and of the population within its borders. With war, trading power, natural resources, all for the benefit of their people. Government should be there to keep cultural traditions as well, as we all know cultural subversion is a serious problem today in just about all western nations.
Survival and prosperity*
I ahoudl probably point out that this ideal form of goverment is most suited for homogenous nations. I do not believe that goverment works efficiently at all in multicultural environments.
Democracy is great but it has to be in a way that supports socialism in favor of capitalism and communism
THis is the only way if we want to allow humans to prosper
1) DISCRETIONARY RULE, where leaders can legislate (issue commands) anything that the public will allow them to, rather than RULE OF LAW, under NATURAL LAW, where (like our trial-run original constitution) they can only construct otherwise legal contracts between members of the polity on their behalf. Much legislation is not (objectively) LEGAL in the sense that it violates NATURAL LAW: the preservation of the incentive to cooperate by the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.
And 2) UNIVERSAL ENFRANCHISEMENT rather than demonstrated ability earning enfranchisement. But unlike Plato and Socrates, recommend, it’s not EDUCATION that demonstrates wisdom, but ACHIEVEMENT in life. Why? Because the reason we no longer possess RULE OF LAW, and are the victims of DISCRETIONARY RULE is the fault of the academy’s teaching of social pseudoscience for 140 years. So conversely, how do we know we are in fact ‘educating’ rather than ‘deceiving’? I am not the first philosophy to suggest that the 20th century will be remembered as an era of pseudoscience and the refutation of democracy – because of the failure of the academy. So the reason our ancestors required PROPERTY(demonstrated ability) and military service (warranty or ‘skin in the game’) was that together they DEMONSTRATED knowledge and investment, they didn’t ‘imagine’ that they were knowledgeable, because they had an education, or ‘imagine’ people were moral – they wanted empirical EVIDENCE OF IT. For a criticism of the university systems see either Sowell’s work on education and intellectuals, or See Kaplan’s work on the fallacy of the rational voter, and his work on Universities: there is very little evidence that universities do anything more than filter by workload. They teach almost nothing that produces outcomes other than fitness for workloads.
>Governmental figures fear that they will lose their jobs, status, possibly lives depending on the situation
>Use coercion to ensure that this doesn't come to pass
>It's literally self defence
>the benefit of their people
"The people" is a concept, as such it cannot benefit / act /desire / crave etc.
"the People" describes multiple individuals with differing preferences
I agree with you that cultural cohesion is preferable to multiculturalism, of course.
However, social cohesion is natural behavior, it is a result of evolutionary beneficial behavior.
Government does not do this, all government can do is inflict violence against individuals to enforce certain behavior. Universal objective moral prescriptions like "thou shalt not murder" can not be enforced, since you cannot prevent people from being evil - you can only punish them. So government might be good at punishing, but it cannot create virtue ("being good"), as virtue does not exist in the face of violence or the threat thereof.
>using violence for anything other than self-defense is universally evil
Says who?
First Principles
>supports socialism in favor of capitalism and communism
u wot m8?
>elected servants of the population should be able to defend themselves even though they are working against the same people who elected them
>You give someone a job
>Therefore they have no right to defend themselves from you
Wowe mister, you sure are stupid.
Doesn't exist in the world of my gun.
You left out how there are other governments who wish to undermine your own system for their benefit.
A government that has it's roots in a specific people/culture has the ability to create and defend virtues of the ethnic population.
You're forgetting how all other nations are basically out there to get you and your wealth/people/resouces just as much as we to them.
that is called "might makes right"
no criterion for the evaluation of virtue
morality is not like gravity. You obviously cannot decide to ignore gravity and float away. But you can decide to be moral, or to be immoral.
Morality is a prescription: If you want x-y-z, then you SHOULD do this or that.
IF you want to describe physical reality, you SHOULD use the scientific method. Sure you can read in fish guts, but your result will be arbitrary and not reproducible.
If you want to really convince people, abandon actual arguments completely and say, "lol trump".
That alone is enough, but maybe follow up with "lol duterte" for good measure.
You explicitly left out the part where said official is working against the population who elected them to do beneficial work.
governments / states attack other governments.
I am not here to present you a perfect alternative to what already exists, but a logical argument that explains why all those systems are incredibly violent and keep failing.
>might makes right is no basis for a system of moral values
>don't ask why Goyim, just trust me
>here are some unrelated weasel words about the scientific method to prove my point
Let me guess
According to your stupid logic clinton and nixon shouldn't have been impeached? Any politician who is voted in can never be impeached even though they are doing destructive things to the population?
You can use Isocrates' argument that it is inefficient to have to reach a consensus, follow up with "Hitler andd Trump were democratically elected", point out that the general public is ignorant of basically anything beyond their local area and so should not be given power over things they do not understand.
Try to subtly frame the thing as direct democracy rather than all forms of democracy.
Faggot! *shoots you*
whow, now you are gathering the power of sophism to launch an all-out ad hominem, that sure will convince me that my arguments are invalid
Would it be OK if someone raped you? This is a serious question and leads to an explanation to why "might is right" cannot be associated with morality
Ok, so 2 things here:
1) I was responding to the statement that government is inherently evil. If you believe that every elected official ever is conspiring against the people, I've got some tinfoil headwear to sell you.
2) so you hire someone to do your gardening, then one day find out he's pissing in your pool. That removes his right to self defence? What if he wasn't your employee, and just some random kid? Do you get to grandslam some dumb teenager for pissing in your pool, while he is morally obliged to just take it? When does his right to self defence come back? Never? When you're satisfied? After some arbitrary point in time?
Read Plato's "The Republic"
Herodotus has a passage where the Persians decide what form of government they want.
They form a substantial argument against democracy. Quoting ancient greeks is always a good start.
The basic argument is that in a democracy there will always be conspiracies that try to enrich those 'in the know' on the cost of everyone else.
You should google that shit and use it in your argument.
I think we are at a misunderstanding.
I was not advocating violence against those elected officials, but the ability to fire/impeach them in a timely manner instead.
that pic is pretty close to my path except I started right on the freedom/authoritarian lines of the right.
However, it is worth noting that if you apply a more stringent law-code and allow people to exercise their rights, the degeneracy would have to stop.