What do u guys think of democracy?

What do u guys think of democracy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3rkJ3L5Ce80
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis
youtube.com/watch?v=kuCmEjpY2HY
youtube.com/watch?v=0VaeyqMK0GU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

it's a joke, but seems better than the alternative based on my (((knowledge of history)))

Good in theory, bad in practice.

I think it would be a good idea, as Gandhi said.

It goes to shit as soon as it becomes prosperous. Completely unsustainable

have u heard this guys new mixtape hes so fucking based

weird coming from someone with Gadsden flag. what would you have in the place of some sort of democratic system

Is it really a democracy when the entire (((system))) does its best to suppress education that can create independent thinkers?

GOTHBOICLIQUE

Trash/Dictatorship of the unwashed and ignorant majority.

fuck democracy and fuck jews.

who the fuck is this faggot

WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING

How, except in name, is elective aristocracy even remotely democratic? Liberals have diluted the term to mean anything where people have even the most indirect say in government, just so that they can blame the people for participating in their limited way with no effect on actual outcomes.

lil peep on the creep

My allegiance is the the Republic! To Democracy!

Its shit.

lil peep

youtube.com/watch?v=3rkJ3L5Ce80

That's my friend. His name is Nitrodubz McPussyfuckboi. He eats meth and steals food from 7 eleven at 3am.

A faggot.

democracy can only work in a healthy society. At not point in time that I can see has any society been healthy enough for a real democracy to outlast other systems. Its primary advantage then is stability, but nuclear arms have insured freedom now.

The only preferable outcome would be to switch to
a state monarchy and allow me to be the King of my state.

...

I hope he dies of an overdose.

>democracy can only work in a healthy society. At not point in time that I can see has any society been healthy enough for a real democracy to outlast other systems. Its primary advantage then is stability, but nuclear arms have insured freedom now.
>democracy
>stability
Have you heard of political risk? It's an economic term for the idea that countries changing their laws can affect the value of some property, usually adversely. The American system was specifically designed to separate the general population from policy outcomes precisely to minimize political risk for the people who claimed ownership on people and things.
Every ruling class is rendered obsolete by proper democracy and every one of them will fight it down to the last mercenary.

I mean mostly in the sense of war. Very few democratic nations ever go to war with one another.
The way I see it it seems like it's a system that leads to a more gradual decay.

>Country is currently incredibly close to economic collapse and civil war
>On the verge of a tyrannical government take over and genocidal purge
>Too busy to notice because shitposting negative things about other countries
>Tfw I'm talking about Brazilians

>Very few democratic nations
What democratic nations are you talking about? I presume you're not talking about the US or NATO countries, which very rarely or never put specific domestic or foreign policies to popular vote.

It shouldn't belong to people most vocal about voicing their opinion
It's honesty one of the worst political systems
"A giraffe is a horse designed by a committee"

I mean the track record shows that I believe the only case of 2 democratic nations going to war with one another was England vs Finland in WWII, who ended up never firing a single shot at one another.
Im referring to representative democracies as we commonly see them in the west.

These problems would be solved by cutting these people off from any aid other than full blown aids.

No such thing, there will always be a hierarchy, because nature deplores a vacuum. Right now, a lot of "democracies" are being taken over by the papacy, Mozzie civilisation or Chinese authoritarian bureaucracy.

My suggestion is for whites to start building their own hierarchy unless they want to be ruled by outsiders. If democracy gets in the way of that, it obviously must go.

>representative democracies
Oxymoron. This is exactly what I mean by the dilution of terminology into meaninglessness. Westerners are all cucks for letting the liberals redefine warm fuzzy terms in their own image.

regardless of your opinion on the subject, all I said is that the impression people seem to have is that theyre more stable than alternatives.

I don't deny that liberal republics are stable. See about political risk.
What I contest is that they're actually democratic in any meaningful sense other than muh self-esteem.

Inspirobot knows all about Democracy.

it is cancer

that's a fair point but I think that's more an argument over the definition of the word. Some people will say a representative system is close enough.

Personally I think what's more important is the accountability. Whats the point of having more keys to power if there's no consequences? You'll just see cliques form that behave like traditional aristocracy.

If you take away the woman and welfare vote, socialism and mass immigration go away. "Democracy" is an extremely misleading term, because there is a chasm of difference between the "democracy" of ancient Greece and Victorian Europe (where only property-owning men could vote) and what we have today (where women, and those claiming welfare from the state, can vote). What really be asking most of the time is "What do you think of universal suffrage," not "democracy."

What people really should be asking most of the time*

A huge mistake

>Personally I think what's more important is the accountability. Whats the point of having more keys to power if there's no consequences? You'll just see cliques form that behave like traditional aristocracy.
What consequences? Being "forced" to go through the revolving door to a lobbying job that pays multiples of the public "service" salary? There are literally no consequences in a republican system controlled by the wealthy.
Real accountability can only be achieved in a republican system through instant popular recall. There's no reason at all to recognize the lawgivers' right to rule for the full length of their terms, other than some design to let them get away with their ill-gotten gains and self-exaltation.
>Some people will say a representative system is close enough.
Which is bizarre, but alright. So what is the neutral descriptor for popular rule, now that the original term has been co-opted?

That's an amazing musician
He's the soul child of everything you listened to in middle school and SoundCloud rap
Also he said in a live stream that he doesn't give a fuck about politics but would've voted for Trump

thats what I just said though

Fair enough. We agree the problem has been identified, roughly. The trouble with accountability after the fact is that the misdeeds remain done. Thoughts?

Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

This is what the "muh popular vote" libtards don't understand. California shouldn't dictate what happens in the entire country.

WE ARE AMERICA

Have you considered that California isn't nearly as unified as you think they are just because of muh lines? States really should be abolished since they cause nothing but drama. Let counties be represented in the Senate instead, if we must retain such a ridiculous institution.

yes it should take for example georgia and why theyre not fit to make decisions for the rest of tjr country. perfect example the rap music that georgia produces. mindless drivel that only talks about how you should hate everyone that doesnt think like you while complaining about everyone supposedly hating you. schizophrenic shit like that set not only black people back decades but dragged the rest of the country down with it

>Counties with 6 backwater hicks in them should dictate our country's future and fate

Let that sink in

Monarchy is better, but hell if the kikes will let you keep or reinstate one.

I agree

fuck lil peep

>good in theory
No it's not. It's mob rule. Mob rule is bad in theory and in practice.

Only if you're an aristocrat. Mob rule has never been practiced because aristocrats see it as an existential threat to themselves and their class interests, and will gladly spend half their fortune to fuck it up in order to save the other half.
Are you a complete fucking cocksucker, or just partially?

It's completely incompatible with the levels of immigration we have.

link to that livestream pls

What if you only allow full citizens to vote?

...

If you take the idea of state seriously fascism is the only way.
Any other way is shit tier for the state.

If immigrants are prevented from becoming full citizens, that's an improvement.

> implying aristocrats are an arbitrary elite
> the marxist reveals himself

I hate degenerates

I don't understand why we just don't get the Queen, the British seem to be happier than us, the retail apocalypse happening, Obama care premiums skyrocketing... just seems that our empire is failing and failing fast

FUCK LIL PEEP

>implying that meritocracy is a stable state
>implying that meritocracies in practice don't become self-perpetuating circle jerks after the first few iterations

$uicideboy$ and BONES > lil peep

Dude I never listened to rap, it's materialistic garbage.
Music's purpose is to bring light to what we cannot see.

>thinks democracy is jewish

who said anything about meritocracies? the king is king because he is the king. you trying to engineer a utopia on me bro?

anyway, meritocracies in politics become circlejerks once they are already largely obsolete, i.e. order has been established. the usual faffing about of aristocrats or royal families the world over does not say much about their power, especially when compared to the utter degeneracy of modern rich people. the power is still there, which you can be sure of if you tested 16'th century aristocrats. also, democracy destroyed all traces of tradition, culture and order in a cool 2 centuries of blood. i'm not happy about that, are you?

is your pic related supposed to say that capitalism focuses "wealth in the hands of your circlejerking meritocracy that somehow magically holds on to this "wealth" by sucking cock, not by being effective? is this the picture marxists have of capitalism? meritocracies are constrained and tested externally (reality) or they will fail. see if you can hold on to a billion dollars for more than 5 years. oh actually no wait you'd have to give it all to charity

90% of people don't deserve it. The one's that have it take it for granted. In that regard I do sympathize a bit with the globalists wanting ruling over us. I would too if I were in their position since the ignorant masses are so fucking stupid.

bones>all underground scene

Democracy is merely the end state of a dying society, before it falls apart and the elite rebuilds from the ashes.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

>implies staving it off by maintaining a cancerous oligarchy in charge is any better

Democracy is like stage 4 cancer in comparison.

wouldn't you like the rulers of your nation to have some sort of stake in the prosperity of said nation? and if you tell me "yeah that's why it must be ruled by the people" i swear to god i'll make you draft the constitution where it says "THE MOB SHALL NOT ABUSE THIS POWER TO STEAL" in 100.000 words or less. seriously though, is this "cancerous oligarchy" idea the same as the scrooge mcduck corrupt capitalist? you seem to be under the impression that running a country is merely an administrative business as long as you have enough boots

And yet in all these democratic systems, women and minorities eventually got the vote. What could a new democracy do to prevent that from happening?

>t.child
Everything dies, kiddo. You're only making it worse on the next people. Let it go.

>i swear to god i'll make you draft the constitution where it says "THE MOB SHALL NOT ABUSE THIS POWER TO STEAL"
Why would I do that? Theft is a matter to be decided by the ruling class, not the assholes who happen to have stuff.
>this "cancerous oligarchy" idea
Is the stage after aristocracy and before democracy in the anacyclosis theory. The lesson to be drawn from anacyclosis is that all systems rot.
>you seem to be under the impression that running a country is merely an administrative business as long as you have enough boots
How is it not? You seem to be under the impression that dominance hierarchies are indispensable to humanity, perhaps because you are in a position to be part of one someday.

well that's certainly not the case. there's no unbroken line of lineage or thought from ancient greece to now. nobody ever advocated for a pure democracy, not even the secular heroes of the republic. things changed dramatically with the american war of independence. they exported their democracy to form constitutional monarchies in europe and then destroyed the last remnants of the tsars and aristocrats in the century that followed. the devil was never that strong in ancient greece. maybe He came up with "all men are created equal" and scrubbed out the god part?

Your ability to see clearly will bring you no happiness in life.

> Theft is a matter to be decided by the ruling class, not the assholes who happen to have stuff.

moral relativist pls go. also could your resentment be any more telegraphed? does that not at least bother your clear-minded rational brain a little?

> You seem to be under the impression that dominance hierarchies are indispensable to humanity, perhaps because you are in a position to be part of one someday.

I don't even understand what that first part is supposed to say. You want to do away with dominance hierarchies and live in a free world where people can follow their dreams, yeah? The world doesn't run on power. Those "assholes that have things" do not just have them by the divine grace of the ruling class that lets them keep it. People create wealth, it doesn't fall from heaven. If your "dominance hierarchy" that runs on arbitrary power fails to safeguard contracts or property or justice, your world will burn.

But hyperbole aside, man you are dogmatic. There's some good faith here so I'll ask: do you believe in marx's analysis of capitalism and the role of capitalists in it?

>Everything dies, kiddo.
no shit dummy, that is what I pointed out in the first post. what are you even arguing about now?

What made the american democracy so special that it somehow ruined the rest of the world? Only white, male property owners could vote originally in America, after that all it took was one rule change after another until finally everyone had the right to vote. The mob just kept voting themselves more shit.

The implication that the natural cycle of things should be treated. If I only imagined that there, then nothing, and cheers to you m8.

Are you asking for real or do you mean that rhetorical? Cause what caused the fall of the west is one of the most hotly debated topics ever since that moment...

He went on an anti-trump rant on twitter though. Maybe he changed his mind if what you say is true

that "natural cycle of things" still involves millions of people toiling to build and maintain the world you live in. resigning yourself to the kali yuga and waiting for it all to end so something new can grow from the ashes is ridiculous. first off, the metaphor is wrong since the ash of civilization is in fact not in the least bit fertile. secondly, civilization does not magically emerge from people's happy feelings but from hard work. those people who look at our stage 4 cancer with bleary eyes at least recognize the tremendous suffering and rebuilding that awaits us. learn to care a little. spacedust we are but what we do still matters.

Im asking for real

Ineffective. Imagine going to a concert and the whole audience plays instruments along with the orchestra. Drowns out the masterworks. In my view a Republic with single term limits would work best because it forces (1) changing viewpoints and opinions (2) makes consolidation (and therefor dissolution of the Republic) more difficult (3) encourages citizen run governments, not career politicians.

We're a Republic not a democracy.

Me too.

Purge.

well i would say the american experiment was doomed to fail from the start, as are all democracies, but the particular sequence of events since the 18'th century was of course brought about by conscious effort as well. People here will tell you it was the jews that introduced and subverted the whole thing, and there is certainly ample evidence for subversion, but that still leaves the issue of how it is possible in the first place. in reality the actual practice of governance is still ultimately a matter of policy and force, no matter who rules in name, and it has been a long slow death by a thousand cuts. anyway, there's also a lot of eventual-socialist thought to be argued from that initial "all men are created equal", with or without subversion, and you can view modern democracy as a kind of advanced protestantism/quakerism/puritanism. the founding fathers of america and the ancient greeks did not think as much alike as you might imagine, and democracy in greece was a very peculiar thing indeed. Anyway, Libertarians and anarchists and other formalists will tell you that the state ruins everything and mob rule is obviously retarded, but they won't tell you how to reach consensus in a group. they just go about their merry way defining property rights as a universal game a sufficiently sensible group can agree on. also they think anything metaphysical is stupid and degeneracy is fine as long as money is being made. whatever the case may be for its effectiveness, the 'reason' that american democracy and its underlying religion of equality (under god) was brought to the world the old-fashioned way: by the sword. most traditional people who believed in democracy were almost on board with libertarian ideas, but they figured that the populace would have a strong moral code. they would never abuse that power. nevertheless they wrote a constitution declaring this to be the case (oops).

youtube.com/watch?v=kuCmEjpY2HY

Superior Peep coming thru.

(constitutional) democracy. limiting the power of the mob through a founding document is an admirable feat of engineering but it has clearly not passed the test of time. what gave? subversion and degeneracy?

(((democracy))) is a really efficient method for jews to run nations via puppets

Not even.
youtube.com/watch?v=0VaeyqMK0GU

I bet this guy lets his nigger heroin dealer fuck him in the ass

Democracy is already a pretty crap system but add universal enfranchisement and you're pretty much fucked.

>world
>civilization
are not synonyms for society. Civilization is literally nothing more than the habit of living in cities. You're idolizing it as if the present state of civilization were the endpoint of some singular intellectual teleology, which it's not.
Fuck civilization. I'd rather have society.
>first off, the metaphor is wrong since the ash of civilization is in fact not in the least bit fertile. secondly, civilization does not magically emerge from people's happy feelings but from hard work.
Doesn't matter. Societies form naturally. After ochlocracy there will be a monarch to pick up the damage, or the cycle will be broken. Whether that involves cities or dominance hierarchies is for them to decide.
>those people who look at our stage 4 cancer with
That's the disagreement, isn't it? Is this oligarchy or ochlocracy we find ourselves living out right now? I contend it is oligarchy, since the people by and large do not rule nor decide with any real freedom who rules them. The people on this rock have a unique opportunity to break the wheel right now, rather than remain in subjection to manipulative overlords.
Believe me, I care. Nature doesn't. Nature is reaching its limits as to providing for us, thanks to, among others, oligarch-coerced consumerism. We are heading for a world of hurt either way, and not every ticket is going to be a winner, but somehow, spending resources to cushion that blow is way down the list from bolstering the oligarchy. I can't agree with that. They've gotten too good at their game. It's time to start over by any means necessary, including flipping the table.

We have a ruling body of federal govt which is separated into three branches. Legislative (House of Reps and the Senate aka Congress), Executive (President and all Departments), and Judicial (Courts circuits 1-9 of the Supreme Court). The whole point of the model we have is to vote for people that "represent" us. In other words, you are putting your faith in someone and electing them with the idea being that they will support your issues and represent your community. While voting maybe a democratic act, the fact that we (being American citizens) don't have the ability to vote on legislature in any way other than indirectly (see electing a representative) makes our government a Republic. If you want to look at the failings of our Republic, look at the loss of citizen government and the rise of career politicians.