What does Sup Forums think about democracy?

What does Sup Forums think about democracy?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/RHIdSxs5_eQ
youtu.be/McqXbRp92sI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Cancer

I agree, but why do you think it is cancer? What are the downsides and where do they stem from? And what would be a better alternative?

a puppet popularity contest

youtu.be/RHIdSxs5_eQ
Homer explains it

very easily corrupted. i don't think there are many legitimate ones anymore

monarchy is where it's at

...

fuck it

Mob rule. Competition of thieves. The worst political system apart from gommunism.

It's retarded. Idiots get to vote too

I think it's a great idea for small groups. No more than about say...well, y'know it does depend on the context.

Context may be important in maintaining a democracy. Maybe like a constitution or pre-established laws or something. In order to vote for or against, you need people to fully understand the rules they are playing under.

They like it as long as there is an Electoral Collage where a tiny amount of whiny white busy work hillbillies can override the votes of smart people with money.

I personally think we should model our states after Plato's "Republic". He had a bunch of pretty good ideas. There would be the ruling class, which is raised as a group of philosopher kings and are forbidden from owning property or even touching gold/silver, the military class and the "normal people" which not only includes the workers but also the capitalists (CEOs, property owners etc.).

best system available

I would love to read "Democracy the God that failed" sometime
As Hans Hermann Hoppe once said, democracy is a soft variant of communism.

This is the answer you all seek.

I think we could experiment with other systems and retain democracy until one of the newly tried systems exceeds it.

Democracy - Easily exploited, Individualism is cancer, no real incentive to achieve higher goals as the Individual is more important than the Collective

Fascism - Stronger quality people lead to a stronger quality group/Nation/collective. The concept of higher goals are there, be it religious or something ideal (e.g. Ubermensch). The Nation will always be put first.

You don't have to watch the whole video, the beginning is good enough.

youtu.be/McqXbRp92sI

Plato too, criticized these aspects of democracy's. The mob is entirely driven by their desires, is ignorant and cannot make competent decisions. Strong, competent leaders are necessary to guide the people, even when it goes against their current desires for example gibs. You need to force a kid to take it's medicine, because they do not understand how important it is for their health, they are only concerned with what tastes good.

*democracy

Its a failed experiment and it really doesn't work, but it might be the best option

The ideal system is a benevolent dictator, but that is Utopian for various obvious reasons, democracy mostly negates the risks of a dictatorship (or monarchy), but it also negate most of the benefits.
It is the safest option available.

Its garbage, even monarchism is better. Read Hans Hermann Hoppe, he explains why democracy creates corruption and high time preferrence in order to get reelected.

Monarchy or nothing.

Despite its faults, there isn't a better alternative.

In democracy, even sub-100 IQ people can vote.

Democracy is cancer.

I'm actually all for a well maintained monarchy (no inbreeding).

Democracy COULD work, if they added in tests before people were allowed to vote.
You get graded from 0 to 6, and this is how much your vote "weights".

One of the best creations in history. Voting, debating, forums for the citizens to become involved in national and political affairs.

Informative about policies to government forming a better government, better nation in terms of living standard, happiness & human development.

Democracy can work when the vote is informed and dictated by personal gain.
Unfortunately the majority of voters vote who the shiny box tells them to.
I always say that voting should be a right entitled to every citizen but that must be earned, even a simple civic test on the basics of how your government works would make a huge difference.
Honestly I would treat it the same way as a driving licence.

If democracy worked, it wouldnt be implemented.

Democratic Socialism is what you all think about when you hear democracy.

Democracy in a sense of the good old Rome (300 BC) is the best one, the ruling class decides who is going to be the next set of Rulers, they decide on behalf of the country best interests and the new Rulers can only stay 1 year in cabinet, after that they cannot go back to this, ever.

Any attempt of someone who is declaring himself as King and wants to centralize the power, is punished, sometimes with death even. If you kill such person, you will not be fined or put in jail for murder, that was the law.

The Senate can call for Dictator, who is staying in power (and his power is all mighty) for 6 months at least, or as long as the problem is solved. Dictators cannot be called again (Look up Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus he is exception, great man.)

Same goes for early Greek democracy, only the ones that pay taxes and contribute to the society in major way can vote, and the richer and more valuable as a person you are, the more vote you get. That way the poor and stupid are kept away from politics.

Compared to nowadays, you can go to collage find a job at Starbucks and 5 years later can go to politics of some sort, which is crazy, even tho you know all this stuff, if you are born in the dirt, your mindset is way different and possibly easy to corrupt with money and power later on.


>tl;dr Only people who know how to rule others should rule in a democratic society, people should still have their basic needs and rights satisfied, but if you dont contribute to society in major way, you should not take part of the ruling class or vote. Also no women allowed, and no military men ((Main mistake for the collapse of roman empire)).

>
Same goes for early Greek democracy, only the ones that pay taxes and contribute to the society in major way can vote, and the richer and more valuable as a person you are, the more vote you get

Thats not how greek democracy worked, but the prussians had a wealth based voting system.

And I'm pretty sure I'm not talking about democratic socialism. I'm talking about the system used by all of europe+usa

Its shit

One leader, one nation

Don't forget women, their feels, their shameless bloated egos, their need for sugar daddy state...
There are 100s ways to attack the idea. Rule of the majority - but why would it be ok? Organised group extortion via taxes breeds division and infight. Complete lack of stability (be it Hitler comming to power - for normies, or Merkel destroying Europe - for all those with common sense). Look at the public debt worldwide and resulting slavery (we're on the brink of majour financial disaster of once in a lifetime kind). The will of the people which it isn't - concentrated benefits and disperrsed costs make lobbying great always. It has no fucking sense - how can you give away power over whole country to your representatives as an individual if you can't have this authority in the first place. Inability to suppress subversive influences.

Or read Hoppe's book.

>it really doesn't work, but it might be the best option
contradiction much?
>The ideal system is a benevolent dictator, but that is Utopian for various obvious reasons, democracy mostly negates the risks of a dictatorship (or monarchy), but it also negate most of the benefits.
>It is the safest option available.
How many times have you changed your mind writing this? Here, let me help you - you can kill a dictator, easily if there's a real need. Just one dedicated human near him. You can kill a king. Can't kill a fucking concept that is too abstract to grasp for most.

Now convince a pleb to let him be rated by some arbitrary list. Hell will freeze before that.

True, not how it worked, but that was the first idea and for a while it worked like that, read old history books, writen from greeks. If they are wrong, I am wrong too. Not the point here.

Anyway, what I meant by "democratic socialism" was exaggerated term for the nowadays EU+USA state of democracy. If you are human and you have 18 years of age, you can vote.
And thats what I think is socialism.

This is just stupid, we all know that stupid ppl are the majority.

All in all, I think that someone who is unemployed and never contributed to the society by any mean and is low IQ chimp who is not able to do so in any near or far future, should not be able to vote.

It's amazing, we got brexit as soon as we voted for it.

It's great when only white land owners can vote.

what would stop the military or the plebs from simply killing the philosopher kings and reverting to a democracy/despotate

Useful for small populations

Democracy is inapplicable and unrealistic in scenarios where the populace exceeds 10k people.

the members of the military are raised to be absolutely obedient to the philosopher kings, those who are not fit for that are simply sorted out.

complete disaster DO NOT DO THIS

*raised from birth

Well my opinion of the system is tied to how smart my fellow citizens are and i gotta tell ya - right now it could use some work.

I think you should only be able to vote if you have paid more in tax that the government has spent on you - that should fix most of the bullshit

i disagree, with the internet it's easy to have a direct democracy, think how easy it is to take an online poll, all that's needed is digital security

A meme that has gone too fare.
It literally worked only where and when it was invented, that is in Greek poleis. And even there it wasn't anything like our own democracy.
Today it's just oclocracy, and needs to be culled.
Masses are cancer and they need not meddle in nation-wide matters

democracy has nothing to do with freedom, democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in history has its ideas been taken for anything else

a stateless society governed by the NAP is about as believable

The 'intelligence' of the citizen is closely related to what purpose academia serves in a society, which in turn is related to what the political system wants to accomplish.

A small society that cares about itself it will vote for itself and the citizens will almost all be clever because that's how you elevate said society.
The current politics do not care about the people they allegedly serve.
In a small democracy, the demos would care obviously for their own people (because that's what the word means).

Would be much better if non-whites, females, and people under 25 weren't involved.

> richer and more valuable as a person you are, the more vote you get.

> That way the poor and stupid are kept away from politics

Because dumb cunt rich people do not exist

Because fuck it, violent reprisals and revolutions are based af

why?

My argument about limited populace did not imply that I think there are difficulties in voting procedures.

It's dead. Just look at the UK.

Pic related is what passes for intelligence these days man. Just stop the tax negative popupation from voting and you prevent them from using their useful idiots to fuck shit up

well it's definitely applicable, show me how any candidate or referendum is different from an american idol election.

Shit meme

The people are often Nero. The people are never Marcus Aurelius.

This.

Yeah I know... It's infuriating. More or less that's what I meant though, in large societies the interests served are almost never the interests of the people but essentially of the oligarchy (kinda different system than democracy) so their goals are instilled via the academia to the people who ''vote'' them, practically we are living in an illusion of 'demos' doing any 'holding' whatsoever.
In a small society there can be democracy because people care about them so they'll ''vote'' with their interests in mind, not the interests of rulers or other people elsewhere.

Perhaps your proposal can fix things.

...

Ask Dr. William L. Pierce for my opinion on democrashitty.

>Just let everyone vote to take away everyone else's money they certainly won't do that ever definitely