When did you realize that democracy is a complete sham and failed system?

When did you realize that democracy is a complete sham and failed system?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk
youtu.be/RAJ_n_CMAjU?t=38s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I always knew. It's obvious since the average person is retarded and half of them are worse.

>complete sham and failed system?

In all fairness it has it's advantages. The Roman Republic was nominally democratic, with a senate and people's assemblies to determine law for their respective areas. The problem with democracy is that it degenerates when the weak and stupid realize they have the numerical superiority to affect widespread change. That is where we are currently.

>no, I'm actually an autocrat, but I'm also reasonable

Not to mention what happened to American democracy. Being forced to choose between two parties which are closer to center rather than being radically different, often times it comes down to choosing "the lesser of two evils" which is fucking absurd. Clerical fascism is the only way forward

When they banded together and took down the most loving man in history. The man was seriously the equivalent of Mister Rogers.

Yea agree, democracy is shit, stupid people must be under dictatorship and only elites should have rights to vote.

Fear not my sons. We shall destroy the enemy within and strive forwards to a brighter future, as humanity has done for thousands of years.

Constitutional Republics are better anyways

never believed in this desu

Enlightened absolutism is the only way.

this
meritocratic dictatorship is the one true form of government

republics are best, anyone who pays taxes,owns land, has children should be able to vote and hold office

>what happened to American democracy
It never existed, except in mythology.

It's a rigged game.

You get some control over the color, width, length, etc of the dick your neggyhole is going to be pozzed with, but you are still getting pozzed.

N-next time I'll vote for a smaller, wider, purple one!!

You may say everything bad about democracy, but it's the best system yet.

Name one dictatorship that has ever been meritocratic. People always work to consolidate power for themselves first and foremost, dictatorships are no different.

owtheedge.jpg

>tfw you never get to live in a roman republic

what i mean is a government that is meritocratically elected rather than democratically

Democracy only works if the intelligent ones are the voters.

The majority of voters are dumb retards that don't take the election seriously,
they don't form their own opinions,
they just do as they are told. Etc. Etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=fLJBzhcSWTk

^^ This is a VERY good video on it, it's only 4 mins long and it explains it easily.
Like Churchill said, a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

If a sweet shop owner and a doctor were running againist eachother in the election,
The Sweet Shop Owner would win.

When I realized how hard (((they))) will work to subvert our society, and how easy it is to accomplish that through Democracy.

At school whilst I was being taught it. I cited my class mates as rationality for thinking it was a flawed system.

I was bullied a lot.

After learning about the fall of Rhodesia.

Once I realized that blacks didn't deserve the vote it wasn't long to realizing that women and children and people without responsibility don't deserve it either, but that they'll inevitably get browbeat into giving it to the incompetent groups.

Then seeing the uniparty in action firmly cemented my belief that the powerful will rule, and it's best that society not lie about it.

when I found out I have the same voting rights as gypsies

...

found the newfag

You tell me, OP. Why do both Sup Forumss as well as a good amount of non-chan stormfriends think Trump was some sort of god savior figure? Democracy lets frauds like Trump rise to power on a lie and they submit to jews 200 percent once he gets in.

>When did you realize that democracy is a complete sham and failed system?

Only to those who want all the power to themselves. Sorry but we all get a say here fuckface

When I realised that fascism is superior to decadent fake liberal democracy

>tfw rapidly becoming an unironic monarchist.

They won't stop until they've gotten rid of all of us. Rhodesia was just the beginning. They want to Billy Yank into Guillermo, George and Andrew into Achmed and Mohammed, Pierre into Wei, and so forth.

Americans of America, until the tide was turned... now we're just Anglos of the world.

The first time I watched Cops as kid. You can't see the plebs in action and not know democracy is a farce.

But its better than most alternatives.

Pinochet. He saved his country, then retired and gave the government back to the people. Like Cincinnatus.

youtu.be/RAJ_n_CMAjU?t=38s

Way too late.

Democracy is an awful system to come up with a leader. It might have worked to some degree when only privileged persons could cast their vote but even that is a step in the wrong direction. You have to increase the circle of eligible voters ever more from this point on. In the end you have to pander to the dumbest and weakest people and it's a sharp decline from there on.
I still think absolute monarchy is the way to go. Doesn't necessarily have to strictly hereditary - the oldest son may be a retard - but it definitely needs to be absolute and any rights granted to (some) subjects would have to be completely a voluntary act by the sovereign.

Singapore, South Korea, Chile.
Maybe even China. We can't tell yet.
But of course leaders want power for themselves first and foremost. Who doesn't think that he's the best leader and knows better than others? That's why it has to be a life long job.

Monarchy is the only way to go. Also a monarch should be a religious person, catholic for example. He should acknowledge the existance of God and be devoted to him, like the the kings of old.

I never believed in democracy.

I think religion is necessary as a leash, because it is obvious that absolute power should have a leash, because unironically you don't want someone genociding parts of your population because he feels like it (aka Hitler killing the retarded Germans, Stalin killing the ukrops, etc). However, you can't allow the people to be the leash, because that means ((((democracy)))). Therefore you should have something transcendental that both leashes the monarch and his subjects, but binds both together (render unto Caesar).

>tfw will never be a citizen of the british empire
it's an abstract kind of feel

>Also a monarch should be a religious person, catholic for example.
I tend to agree. Englightened absolutism was full of fedora tippers but even then they did govern quite well. A religious element is getting some humility into an allpowerful person.

>unironically you don't want someone genociding parts of your population
Why not?
If he decides it's advantageous e.g. for the overall gene pool then surely it's his obligation to do so.

>aka Hitler killing the retarded Germans
What's wrong with that? Do you want to feed useless people who don't do anything but drag you down?

yes I have a problem with that. I think that the only people within a nation that the monarch should kill are those who set themselves outside the souverain (by breaking its laws or something of the kind, or not being of the same people). A nation is its people. The monarch serves the nation. Therefore the monarch should not kill parts of the nation (aka I don't care if Hitler kills Jews, but Hitler should not kill Germans. The German people can decide to kill Germans, by redefining German, but the monarch cannot.

never thought women or minorities should vote but this did it in for me
hail to the king baby

...

>The German people can decide to kill Germans, by redefining German, but the monarch cannot.
But that's irreconcileable with monarchy, is it not? Do you want to introduce different notions of sovereignity for different parts of governance?
Like eugenics should be democratic but taxation, infrastructure whatever should be monarchic?

>It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

I am not very good at expressing myself, i guess. By redefining German I mean not an exercise in democracy, but sovereignty. Any people that is sovereign has its right to exist as a people, I think, and I do not think a monarch can infringe on that people. However, if Bavarians leave Germany, then they are no longer German. Bavarian people can exercise an act of sovereignty to leave Germany behind. In this scenario, the German people has been redefined.

This.
Imo Hoppe makes a better case for Monarchism than an Ancap-Society though.

Ah ok. I think I understand even when I don't fully agree with you.

>Any people that is sovereign has its right to exist as a people and I do not think a monarch can infringe on that people
I would agree with that. The reign of a monarch shouldn't include other people even though that has been the norm during the ages.

>if Bavarians leave Germany, then they are no longer German
No, you can't chose what ethnicity you are. You are born into it and that's it.
But they could (and should) of course be able to choose to be governed by the House of Wittelsbach as Bavarians.

>even though that has been the norm during the ages
Yeah, but I think things are different now that people are more defined in nationalities than they used to be. Anyway, I think such occupations are injustices

>you can't chose what ethnicity you are. You are born into it and that's it
I believe that to an extent, but I also believe in self-determination (as above), so if the catalan people defines itself separately from the spanish people, I think it has they right to independence. Of course, the state has the right to try to crush this independence. I think a people can only be sovereign if they can maintain this sovereignty.

When I first went on reddit.

It's also the best argument for Democracy.
Humanity is getting nowhere if the average person remains dumb. Humanity will strife if the average person is good, and democarcy will show that.
As in, we'll only reach the stars when we deserve it, and democracy shows if we deserve it or not.

It should be no representation without taxation

>Anyway, I think such occupations are injustices
Agree.

>so if the catalan people defines itself separately from the spanish people
Catalonians are not Spaniards. They even have their language. The current situation rather the other way round. Catalonians are governed by the Spanish king.
In other words, I agree with you.

Interesting thought.
So in a democracy the state has an incentive to educate the average guy because he will make better decisions at the polls?

Glad we agree germabro

I'll admit my first example was total crap anyway (bavarian). Catalonia was the type of appropriate example I should have been looking for, but I just went for a random region

top kek i like this a lot actually

Reminds me of the election of Kreisky in the 1970. He was a socialist who has increased gibs on a massive scale which secured his power throughout a whole decade. Of course Austria got a lot of debts...

The argument that republics (like modern "democracies") are democracies is one of the oldest memes

What did you expect from white people