Is Democracy Truly Just?

So, in an effort to have an interesting discussion amongst all the "how does this make Sup Forums feel" and "Ugh, I just need to get this off my chest" threads... I pose this question.

Is democracy really the best system? Is a corrupt democracy better than a just monarchy? Surely "giving the people power" sounds good to the people, and therefore seems to have a moral highground as opposed to a monarchy... But is it really better? It seems as if democracy itself is kind of the ring in which different ideologies battle, and it's only the manipulation or presentation of/to the voters that really matters. Not the merit of the ideology.


Other urls found in this thread:

Democracy is communism lite.

You know, I've never really thought about that before. But the name is fitting. I think it's kind of a matter of perspective. If you look at democracy as equality for the people and a people centric "commune" then sure. But it's the opposite if you look at it as taking power away from people and giving it entirely the government.

Are there any decent writings on this? It's decent food for thought.

no democracy is a sham

people are not what they think they are, they are small and weak and generally do not care about or pay attention to politics

there will always be rulers, the only question is how large and unthreatenable the ruling body will be

In a monarchy, no matter how bad it gets, the people can always kill the king and their family if it gets bad enough

in a democracy, no matter how many officials the people kill, there will always be one left for the unelected government to cling to for legitimacy, meaning the one bit of conceivable leverage the people had over a king is now gone

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism because cutting it's easier to increase taxation, regulation, etc. than cut. Democracy with women voting replaces the man with the state. Leaders are encouraged to do decisions based on how they superficially appear and with a short-term view, planning for the next decades and generations is not how you get elected. In elections, the ones who are most funded and able to persuade your average retard wins the elections, which may not necessarily be the ones who know.

''People having the power'' is total and utter bullshit, but the masses believe in it and that's what we get. No matter how much one researches and thinks about his votes, he will not influence the election any more than the ''equally capable'' voters with Down-syndromes.

This is why I'm an elective monarchist.

Communism doesn't mean giving power to the government.

It is a classless,stateless society, where the means of production and its distribution are mutually decided by the community.

There don't have to be elected representatives or a government for something to be considered democratic.

Ah, I see. My mistake. I suppose I was thinking more than by abiding by the governed "laws" of communism, it was like a form of governance in itself. But kind of instated by certain people. I've got some reading to do and will consider that in the future.

Then why have democracy at all? Is it the gateway system?

>Democracy with women voting replaces the man with the state.

Explain? Or is it as blunt as it seems?

>Then why have democracy at all? Is it the gateway system?
Democracy is what came out of incompetent hereditary monarchist systems, I think it's just sounded good on paper three centuries ago and they decided to go with it. And democracy was after all initially only for men who owned stuff, not the masses, and especially not minorities or women.

>Explain? Or is it as blunt as it seems?
With that I meant, the system transforms the State into ''the Man'', the provider. The state provides benefits and public sector service works. Women can buy a house and have children just fine without a man. This results in the value of responsible men decreasing and ''exciting'' men increasing. Marriages fail because partners do not need each other anymore.

Very tired so might be hard to read, sorry.


In that order. Read The Republic.

Nothing derived from 1789 is just.

>Is a corrupt democracy better than a just monarchy?
you can't have government without corruption. unless your government is perfect robots then human self interest will always lead to corruption

It goes like this
the best system is a just Monarchy because everything gets done and is efficient and awesome under said philosopher king.

The worst form of government is Tyranny. An evil man being able to do the most evil the quickest.

Down the line you have Aristocracy vs Oligarchy and you have Democracy vs Mass Stupidity. When Democracy works it is slow and inefficient compared to a well functioning Monarchy but it also has checks and balances so that the evils that come with Tyranny can't fully be realized either.

I vote for Democracy. I think it's the best we can hope to have. Well...a Republican (big R) form of government anyways.

Thomas Hobbes and Roussue and John Locke. Also Federalist Papers.

Corruption is only natural in a system where people are expected to work against their own interest. Corruption is also more likely when no one is truly in charge of anything, so they take whatever benefits they can from their position while they have it for a few years.

A king can become more powerful by making his people more powerful and the country more prosperous. If it's a wise king, he has transcended the want for material wealth, and he will have zero tolerance for corruption.

its the most fair form of government. course, fire is also fair as it doesn't discriminate


All of them are easily corrupted now.
I'd say we find a God King and have him appoint apprentices to choose a successor.
Democracy is endless compromise which seems to be a constant slide to having more and more laws.

a good monarchy is better than a good democracy but a bad monarchy is worse than a bad democracy

Exactly why america is a republic. Good job USA

Republics should only allow men who pay taxes to vote. Women and leeches deserve no representation. The Greeks and Romans understood this shit thousands of years ago.

Democracy or nothing, goyim!
>import millions of shtiskins, create perverted incentives for them to vote against the host population's interests
>indoctrinate children with the media, academia and parts of government to vote in certain ways
>claim it's about what the people want but then ignore what the people want when it doesn't fit the agenda of the current ruling class

I'd argue that democracy only works if the citizens/the voters are highly educated. Obviously not everyone is smart af, but you can remedy this to a degree by teaching critical thinking.

Democracy is probably the best system we have up until now, however with all the proletarians who are not educated and just vote for the gibs, it's just a matter of time until socialism sets in.

Imo the best option would be a democracy with limited access (like it was back in the day, e.g. you need to own land in order to vote.). If every retard can vote, the system stops working after a couple of generations/gets transformed into a different system.

Is there a way to implement that in the modern world though? I feel like it wasn't entirely prohibited and entirely necessary until very recently. And now all of the sudden, some kind of barrier/rule/test/system is desperately needed, but at the same time, impossible to implement because everyone would label it racist, discriminatory. I.e. As much as it's needed, it's also impossible for someone to do because they would be hated so much for it by all the sub-par "intellectuals."

I think that's a pretty fair statement. I like that.

Couldn't the same thing happen in a non-democracy? As far as the media indoctrination, that can happen in just about country or system with freedom of media.

And speaking of the ruling class... How does that fit in with democracy? I mean, surely it's a thing here in America and such. But SHOULD it be? If there's a ruling class, that essentially controls the people, that makes it the same as if it were just the ruling class contributing, right? But no one's feelings get hurt because they all think they're contributing.

What do you all make of ruling classes within democracy? Does it undermine the spirit of freedom, or is it the embodiment of having the educated/involved people vote?

I appreciate all of your inputs by the way, Interesting perspectives.

Forgot the Timocracy.

But not his subordinates. He has to keep them happy, or somewhere down the line, the next king is telling those same supporters that he'll pay them more (taking wealth from the people) if they replace the current king with himself.
Corruption is inevitable. It's not desirable and rarely intentional, but it's inevitable. Because even if you're a perfect, selfless benevolent dictator, somewhere down there the next Stalin is waiting for his chance to slit your throat.

Honestly I don't know if it's even possible anymore. I just do my part and vote the best possible way. There's not much else you can do anyway (Race war memes aside).

But I don't think that the current situation came about because of democracy, but because of indoctrination (German WW2 guilt etc.) and possibly because the west has basically attained pseudo-post-scarcity, e.g. you can't really die from illness or malnourishment.

I don't know what to make from all of this though, and I don't really know a solution to this problem.

I don't think corruption is totally inevitable. Corruption is not caused by ''bad people'', but by conflicts between common and own interest. I've not yet come up with a monarchistic system with a balance in order and chaos, but I believe one could be made.