Sup Forums, what are the best anti-democracy arguments?

...

this movie any good?

Gypsies can vote.

It made an impression.....not sure if it holds up.

awful cable selection and my tinfoil is uncomfortable

The internet

how did you manage not to see it?

are you literally 12 years old?

What more than reality?

Being a cuck and liking other people to make your decisions for you without your say

some anarchist writers have polemics against democracy
but all in all, democracy is better than autocratic rule; there is nothing more unjust that a man not having a say in how he runs his own life; that is oppression.

tried like 3 times, got so bored

>flag
fuck off

Trump

And the reality is Democracy doesn exist. We live in a plutocracy anyone saying otherwise is delusional. Democracy is like communism, since power corrupt ppl it become dictatorial fast and only profit the top.

Manhunter is the only good movie from the Lecter series.

Democracy is not about the will of the people but about the manufacturing of consent.

The majority of people are retarded. Particularly women. This ultimately results in the people running the government being retarded. We should ban women from voting, and require people to pass some sort of test in order to have the right to vote. Either that or have something similar to the Chinese system where bureaucrats rise through the ranks through meritocracy.

It does not scale.
It is unstable.
It requires an educated electorate.
It requires a homogenous electorate or else blocs will vote against each other.

thx lads

When the people rule, an individual's only path to power is to align himself with beliefs that approach a majority coalition.

So to feel empowered a person must relinquish the his own clear vision and warp his beliefs to mesh with some amalgam that may capture the magic 51%.

Under an autocracy, the individual is freed by his own helplessness. Free to see things as they are and not be seduced away from truth by the false lure of agency.

A discussion with the average voter.

"A good government is one which we don't have to talk about all the time" —Ben Shapiro

Democracy's can be slow to act Its a lot easier to do something then have everyone vote on it first.

Who gets to vote?

imo everything should be scrutinised to keep it honest and correct but i mean isnt praising good govt talking about it?

crackhead degenerate who never does anything for society's betterment=1 vote

upstanding citizen=1 vote

what more do you need?

would you remove democracy completely, or if not how would you differentiate those who are allowed to vote vs not allowed?

Qatar and EAE

It only gives short term bandaids to real problems.
When something goes wrong you need to keep the electorate calm. To do that you introduce some (usually pecuniar) relief for a group of people that is affected and cries the loudest.
An actual solution is not needed and usually the problem reemerges after some time. This obscures the real cause of the problem because there is some time between its inception and the point in time where its presence is so overwheming that the pressure to do something about it is so large you can't prolong it any more.
Read some moldbug or H3.

roman democracy ftw
if you risk life for country-vote

two wolfs and a sheep choose what is for dinner

I love that quote. Nadam se da si Srbin a ne poturica LARPer

As a government "of the people" democracy encourages people to vote in blocs which does not necessarily bring about optimal outcomes. The economy is a great example. Ask yourself why the average person's opinion should really matter in forming economic policy. Democracy creates a dictatorship of the majority which is not inherently going to provide stable or efficient outcomes and whose moral high ground is questionable

ne samo da nisam poturica no sam poturici podturio stoodstotnu prasetinu, inace svidjelo mu se

It's okay.

Its format has been so cemented in popular culture that you will probably be able to guess exactly what will happen as you are watching it. At least that was my experience.

The problem with this is that an individual doesn't generally have the power to influence public opinion in the way that democracy is sold to people. It makes sense in governing a small village or town because there is a potential for dialogue between the voting population. Once things get too big, such as the case of a nation-state, dialogue becomes impossible and voting is reduced to a futile numbers game that rests on the erroneous assumption that the majority of people aren't stupid enough to be manipulated by lying politicians.

This is why globalism will never work and government should be as local as possible, if it holds an active role at all. A world democracy would just pillage everyone else in favor of the self-interested majority (chinks and pajeets).

1. If you want to rule under a democracy, you will perform actions with minimum disutility and not maximum utility.

Example: Funneling NASA money into welfare.

2. Thus, democracy converges to stasis, as phase shifts from status quo always yield massive disutility. Distribution becomes impossible.

Example: Reforming healthcare is impossible because taking away yields more disutility than giving gives utility.

3. Any change of policy is better accepted gradually. Gradual institution of policy is generally less effective and produces mistakes.

4. Those mistakes, as per 2, remain in the system.

Basically, democracy is sunken-cost fallacy on state level.

Most republics originally required land-ownership or military service as a prerequisite to voting rights. I don't see a problem with only letting the most competent people vote, with criminal history being an automatic disqualification for life.

Democracy = being ruled by yourself and every other stupid faggot

Oligarchy = being ruled by a club of stupid faggots

Dictatorship/monarchy = being ruled by one single stupid faggot

Nice try Stalin.

Athens willingly committed suicide via democracy
That's reason enough for me