Is democracy really better than autocracy?

Is democracy really better than autocracy?

>democracy
you mean jewocracy?

An Autocracy would be better with the right person in charge, but that hasn't happened so far. Don't listen to what memers tell you; Putin is a terrible leader and none of you would want to live in Russia right now.

When the leader is competent autocracy is superior. When he isn't, democracy is superior.

Did you watch the show? The short answer is no.
The best would be a mix between the two, so as to not have corrupt rulers or politicians.

pretty impossible though

Hitler did nothing wrong

Operation Barbarossa

the worst democracy is better than the best autocracy

>Hitler did nothing wrong
He invaded Russia in the Winter.

Fuck off Yang.

Who could be behind this post...

Democracy is fucking terrible, 51% get what they want while 49% get wasted away. I'd rather be in a republic or an autocracy so I can enjoy the bread and circuses

Isn't kinda like a republic or constitutional monarchy?

>An Autocracy would be better with the right person in charge, but that hasn't happened so far.

Who is Josip Tito?

so now 1% get what they want while 99% waste away.


join the 51% fagget

This isn't even true in some cases. America for example is evidently an oligarchy. If you look at any polling data the public opinion has no relation with what policies get pushed. It's 100% kikes controlling everything.

Take the GOP for example, Republican voters don't give a rats ass about their free market ayn rand kool-aid, in fact they are in large parts FOR social programs (and against open borders). That doesn't stop the GOP from going against what they want and pushing their jew shit, knowing they'll get the votes anyway because of muh bible and social conservativism.

1% is the scapegoat, 51% is too large to use as a scapegoat.

Competent Autocracy > Competent Democracy > Incompetent Democracy > Incompetent Autocracy.

The oligarchs still have to go to the polls and actually get their favourite candidates elected.

The fact that Jeb! isn't the GOP candidate right now is proof the people still do have a say.

An authocratic ruler isn't "1%" you fucking retard, why would an authocrat give a shit about what rich kikes want? Putin regularly cuts the balls of these kinds of people.

The question is how much he cares about his people. The problem with monarchy is that there's no fear of backlash if you fuck up. Even if the people get fed up and start a fucking civil war the rulers can likely just fuck off to somewhere else. It's such a distant threat that noone fears it, thus they have no inclination to serve their people unless they have the ideology to do so.

I'd live in the Empire long before the FPA.

This. I've always been of the opinion that a benevolent dictator (ie; one who actually cares about his people's well being more than his own personal gain) would be far better than any democratically elected leader. They have the ability to enforce large, sweepings changes on a nation that will help it without needed to go through the bureaucratic nonsense that presidents have to deal with. Imagine how much a leader could get done if they had absolute power. Unfortunately there are not many people in this world who wouldn't be corrupted by such power.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other kinds that have been tried.

well, a good leardship autocracy is better than a good democracy

but a bad leadership autocracy is 10 times worse than a bad democracy.

A benevolent incorruptible competent dictator with a group of benevolent incorruptible competent leaders under him to carry out his plans is arguably the best system However, it doesn't account for human nature or the simple fact that humankind isn't perfect.

Democracy is still pretty bad, in concept it's meant to account for human nature and imperfection by allowing the majority to change who is in power but it's been subverted by groups with the money and influence to control a democratic government because again, human nature.

The obvious answer would be to remove human nature out of the equation as best as humans could, a computer governing humankind may well be for the best but even then, humans have to make and program it and human nature dictates it will not be free from attempts to subvert it

I think the best form of governance is one that accounts for human nature, promotes competence, benevolence and incorruptibility. Which I think is impossible, the best form of governance humankind could ever achieve is one that will most definitely fuck up but it's fuck ups are guaranteed to be fixable and more importantly, will end within at most a century. Any form of governance that lasts for longer than that I think allows for too much time for human nature to corrupt it. Human history without violent and thorough upheavals stagnates and bad things take hold.

>tfw the Kaiserin will be overthrown by admirals vying for power
>tfw no peace ever in the galaxy

to that end, I think reinhardt-sama's wish that his son would be supported up until the moment someone more competent overthrew him was kind of the right idea. Flawed but on the right track.

With the FPA, had it not been for the galaxy wide turmoil, it could have well remained in power for decades, even centuries, and they were absolute bastards.

If you're actually interested in an answer grounded in reality, you should start by reading Why Nations Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson.

The short answer is yes, but it's more subtle than just the political system.

I really think Hilda could guide them towards some sorta constitutional government and it seems like the end result would be some sort've England-ish deal with some useless tax-wasting monarchs that eventually get executed for being wastes(here's hoping)
She always struck me as someone who would fill a sort've placeholder ruler role really well. No super strong ambitions and like, she's not going to do anything that would upset any admirals enough that they could get any support for dethroning her

In closing, the people must always be armed to overthrow the current form of government. Power should be decentralized where possible. Society should reject safety and stability, but not civility and care for your fellow man. Someone in a society should always be able to rise up and challenge the current power.

Why do you ask me? I don't know

>someone more competent overthrew him was kind of the right idea.
>Dragging the galaxy into a coup or even a civil war as a replacement mechanism

if I'm part of the government then autocracy, if not then democracy :^)

people fearing coups or civil wars as a replacement mechanism is exactly why others get to stay in power as they constantly consolidate power and influence to stay in power to consolidate power and influence and so on and so forth.

How willing would someone be to be a bad dictator if they knew at any moment a war could break out and that their life would be put at risk?

Democracies can have bloodless 'coups' you know

>autocracy is better then democracy

A benevolent autocracy is literally the best form of government.

Hitler did nothing wrong until he started doing war with Russia, and things like Jetplanes & tin mines.
Then he fucked up, and lost the war.

Historical reality has shown that even under a shithead, most people with armed forces will support said shithead, just to avoid having said civil war.

NO
I live in former YU and fucking hell NO.

...

>but a bad leadership autocracy is 10 times worse than a bad democracy.

No it isn't. With a bad autocracy at least you know who your enemy is. A bad "democracy"? Take a look at the US. The entire population is at each other's throats while nobody has any fucking idea who is ruining them thanks to the entire thing being a massive circlejerk with no transparency.

Back when it was just kings and nobility ruling you, you know who to send the mob after.

Josip Tito was a shithead who was somewhat competent.
That his death lead to what it lead to, is a sign that he was not the man of the hour.
The fact NATO sactions lead to even more civil war is also a sign of how bad he was supressing the problems instead of solving them.

The best form of government we ever had was feudal. If the king is being retarded, the nobles rebel and kill the king. If a noble is being retarded, the peasants rebel and kill the noble.