The Democratic Question

This board appears to be divided over what the best form of government is and if a republic/democracy falls in that category.

So here is a thread asking a fundamental question for all those involved in politics; is the political system present in the west (being demoracy/republic) truly the most stable and most productive form of government? Or is it setup by ((())) to make goyim divided and easy to control?

I personally think a republic/democracy is a shit form of government but would like to hear your thoughts as well.

Feudalism is the superior form of government.

Shitposting isnt productive

A republic is designed to solve the problem of the cycle of constitutions wherein a unitary form of government (king, aristocracy, democracy) devolves into corrupted versions of themselves and is followed by revolution, and eventually another form of unitary government.

By separating political power and aiming political ambitions at competing powers, political stability can be more easily achieved.

Until, that is, a bunch of retarded racists try to dismantle the entire thing by electing retards into each branch.

smells like b8 but ill take it

>A republic is designed to solve the problem of the cycle of constitutions wherein a unitary form of government (king, aristocracy, democracy) devolves into corrupted versions of themselves and is followed by revolution, and eventually another form of unitary government.

This is a principle often used by republicans (im using the old definition here - those who advocate for a republic) as perhaps the largest component of their argument for a republic/democracy.

However, it is ignorant of the reason WHY monarchs eventually (not instantaneously) devolve into corrupt degenerates.

The reason for such a thing is called the three generation rule, and it frankly explains allot in regards to whats been going on the past 60 years or so, and it goes like this:

you have a first generation of men who live in hard times, the cruelty of nature, the violence of their surroundings, and the scarcity of goods naturally selects for men who are strong yet competent, disciplined yet zealous, and innovative yet cautious. You have what is essentially the equivalent of a greatest generation, whos environment produces the best rulers, most noble heads, and most innovative businessmen.

Fast forward 20 years; you hit the second generation and the abundance created by the first combined with the first generations morals and knowledge gives birth to a generation of people who may not be as competent as their predecessors which makes them vunerable, and the leaders they provide are less adept and the general sense of discipline is less than before. You now have the baby boomers/generation X. Who are more conservative than their children and more disciplined, and yet have leeched off our society due to the abundance they were provided.

Now you have the third generation, and this is basically the equivalent of millennials and blacked generation Z. Products of their parents misguidance and incompetence, and devoid of all experience (cont)

elective monarchy

Fucking Canadian I swear

Absolute bait thread, get your baiting up
Son

No one here is biting considering you didn't even name the delicious plump turkey ball of America you posted a picture of

Fucking NOOB & also degenerate for not naming the thickness in the pic

(contd)
As i said, you now have the equivalent of generation Z/millenials, and this is where the leaders provided by this group are at their worst, and where giving power to singular individuals results in a french revolution.

However, to say a republic avoids this is not true, if anything it amplifies it. Because with a more centralized power system (constitutional non hereditary monarchy for example), you can have a first generation ruler be given the power to raise and guide three generations or even more, and with future/censored medical technology, that number may be amplified to 100+ years.

In an electoral system, a first generation ruler(s) only last as long as the first generation does, and after that one is at the mercy of the law mentioned above. We can exactly see this unfold today in the west.

Furthermore, if the system is non hereditary. your nation or even organization can last much much longer (see: catholic church) and still be given room for modification or change. Its all a matter of getting it right the first time, and from there is a far better system than a republic that relies you getting it right EVERY time for your nations survival. That and the lack of long term leadership to guide long term policies makes for their inefficient execution of otherwise potentially beneficial policies.

Not to mention fracturing power to the point where our system takes it results in a classic divide and conquer scenario.

Not all systems are good for all people.
Communism works for the Family.
Democracy works for the Civilized Educated Society.

Then you have shit holes like in the middle east and most of Africa were a benevolent dictatorship would be a viable option.

She was a stock photo from an SJW website about fat acceptance i found on google for the sake of making this thread an eye catcher...

Glad to see you admitted your fetish user.

I would argue not even a benevolent dictatorship works for Africans, they are most accustomed to small scale tribal society as they have had since their ancestors migrated west from the plains of Ethiopia.

Democracy and republic are very stable, you just cannot allow every Jose and retard to vote.
If you let the poor vote they will vote themselves more money rather than the welfare of the state.
Same with illegals etc, most of the modern democracies are failing precisely because of this.

Poor people have equal power as rich even though they contributions to the state are miniscule when compared. Illegals are able to give their opininos on how they think the state should be running and how much money they deserve even though they aren't prt of the system etc.

Voting should be a privilege and a duty, not a right.

See

True, but in order to participate in world affairs and have a modicum of international trade it would require a dictator. Also, the general instability of each region necessitates a stable and cohesive military presence.

If we left them to their huts and spears it would be non-stop inter-tribal war; or the neighboring regions would just take it over; or a colonialist government would just ransack the country.

A colonialist government wouldnt ransack the country. The African colonies were the best thing to happen to Africa.

Plenty of African countries are de factor dictatorships, and at the end of the day its still a tribe dominated society. With tribes dictating most policy and even conducting wars within the country.

sage
republic

A Federated Republic is the best form of government. The bulk of the laws that affect an individual should come from his local municipality. Then the State government should regulate interactions between the municipalities, and the weak federal government should govern interactions between the states.

If you can't pull that off, then a Christian Constitutional Monarchy is the best option. I specify Christian, because a Monarchy requires a divine mandate or it's just a dictatorship. And Christianity is the best religion for supporting the freedom of the people.

Democracy is Communism applied to political power. It needs to die.

What if there is no 'best form' of government and all governments are doomed to be gamed, corrupted, bloated, and implode?

What if the best kind of government is where the core tenants are irrevocable (ie the constitution) but government once in a blue moon is radically altered to avoid gaming the system?

best government?
divine dictatorship

That's a Monarchy.

Some form of Monarchy, if you don't want that then you don't belong here and should fuck off back to cancer reddit.

It was the abrupt disillusion of the colonies which were to blame. Nobody left behind knew how to rule.

If they were going to dismantle colonialism, they needed to do it over the course of a generation at least, to train those who would wield power in their absence.

I agree on the second part, a monarchy would need some sort of religion and Christianity is by far the best one.

The biggest issue with a too weakened centralized government was shown in the articles of confederation.
In addition, a benevolent dictatorship/monarchy does not have to be a purely centralized one (your thinking of absolutism). There can be some degree of decentralization/federation and even constitution - which has shown to be very complementary to a monarchical system - but what should be delegated to the states/municipalities should be within what would be the most efficient execution of duties of government (in general). Military and security should be centralized, as should finance, commerce, ideology, foreign relations, and some degree of taxation (though on a federal scale individual income taxation would be tedious, a flat tax would be the most "profitable" form of taxation), critical infrastructure management etc... Basically the most essential components of a nation.

Again i recommend reading for further details to my side of the argument.

Dictatorship is the best form of government.
But finding a character suitable enough to lead a country properly is a whole different thing.

Okay, you have an inbred idiot in office.

What do you do?

You are more likely to have an inbred idiot in office under a (((republic))) so long as he can represent the ruling class than a monarchy. Especially with a non hereditary system akin to the catholic church where good rulers can select good heirs.

Republicans (using old definition here not those who align with Donald trump) often blow out of proportion the incompetence or potential for incompetence in monarchies when republics offer far more room for just any idiot to walk into power so long as he knows the (((right people))). Republics devolve into faction wars (see: 2016 election) between elites, while with a monarchy at least you have the opportunity for elite factions to be more controlled via a ruling elite faction.

See my two earlier posts to get a better idea of what im saying.

>Communism works
lol

>non hereditary system
how would it work though? how do you stop the king from chosing his son as an heir?

The best method is a Hellenic Renaissance in every Western country
absent international domination
>pic related

>You are more likely to have an inbred idiot in office under a (((republic))) so long as he can represent the ruling class than a monarchy. Especially with a non hereditary system akin to the catholic church where good rulers can select good heirs.

It's painful how limply you back up your proposed government system.

Literally just:
>NUH UH, REPUBLICS ARE WORSE. WITH A MONARCHY MONARCHS WILL ALWAYS PICK GOOD SUCCESSIVE MONARCHS

The problem, you dick bag, is that humans are fucking petty fallible creatures who can't be trusted to do what's good for all of us.

The entire point of having a system with power as distributed as possible is that when one part of the system fails- Which if FUCKING WILL- the other parts can hopefully correct and adjust for the failure.

Course, in the US' case our government has become so entrenched with corruption the whole fucking thing is falling apart.

The non hereditary system is based of meritocracy, a competent man he will almost always choose a competent heir, knowing the three generation rule that i stated earlier is key to understanding how it would work.

If it didn't work then the catholic church wouldn't be around and nor would most old organizations we still see in a powerful state today, such a system wouldnt be any more likely to choose an incompetent ruler than a democracy/republic would. Only one does see the idiot a democracy would choose because he would likely be too charismatic to notice (i.e. Obama).
I recommend reading.

>So here is a thread asking a fundamental question for all those involved in politics; is the political system present in the west (being demoracy/republic) truly the most stable and most productive form of government? Or is it setup by ((())) to make goyim divided and easy to control?

Canada's parliamentary government was established by the British. That system evolved over 800 years on the British Isles.

Communism works in groups until you exceed Dunbar's number

>NUH UH, REPUBLICS ARE WORSE. WITH A MONARCHY MONARCHS WILL ALWAYS PICK GOOD SUCCESSIVE MONARCHS

Not necessarily. See I accept that an imperfection is inevitable, as i stated earlier, but the biggest perk of a more monarchical system is that those who are most likely to be competent (i.e. the rags to riches types you often find in the first generation of individuals in a nation) are given the opportunity to rule long term, and carry their competence with it, and while a monarchy is very much about getting it right the first time for a nation to survive; a republic is about getting it right EVERY time for your nation to survive.

May i also add that splintering up the power to the extent of the American system into a group of relatively powerless politicians or constantly forcing it to shift into a period of uncertainty; you end up with ambitious and yet resource starved people; whom the elites then come by and offer their "black hand" (resources and power in exchange for favors) and you now get exactly what has happened with every system similar to the united states, most famously what has happened to Donald Trump.

With a monarch, there is at least a greater incentive for the traditional method of "black hand" style infiltration to be viewed as necessary at the very least and thus unattractive of a deal; perhaps this is why the queen of England was openly pro Brexit despite the poorer and more easily (((bought out))) labour, tory and other politicians were not (and ill admit there are always the more anti elite UKIP types who are indirectly products of electoral process, but as you can see they are a minority when looking at voting statistics).

>The entire point of having a system with power as distributed as possible is that when one part of the system fails- Which if FUCKING WILL- the other parts can hopefully correct and adjust for the failure.

Here is another flaw in your argument: that you confuse forms of monarchy with absolutism.

correction in my third paragraph:

"With a monarch, there is at least a greater incentive for the traditional method of "black hand" style infiltration to be viewed as UNNECESSARY at the very least and thus unattractive of a deal"

Temocracy is the last stage/form before the ultimative collaps.

Even platon(?) Knew this already.

Democracy is overrated. Idealy you get an absolute ruler who gets things done and is highly in favor of your race/ethinicity. The problems only come when he dies and transition of power is disputed and/or you get a shitty absolute ruler who doesn't necessarily give a shit about you your religion, you family, your culture and just throws your into a commie gulag while tearing your country to shreds.

See Napoleon the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

i believe in a democratic republic in theory, but you cannot deny that it has been failing us recently because socialists are allowed to exist in such a system.

Republics are great when your country has a strong traditional society. When that society breaks down, the democracy become the main agent of a nation's destruction.