What do you think about direct democracy, pol? For me it looks like the solution to most of the problems

What do you think about direct democracy, pol? For me it looks like the solution to most of the problems.

People here eat bleach pods. I'd rather we not have a direct Democracy

It won't work with universal enfranchisement

To me it looks like you’re a retard.

Anything suggested by the enlightenment or anything that came from enlightenment thought is idiocy. The two best possible forms of government are anarcho-capitalism and monarchy

Democracy was a mistake.

You'd have to be completely ignorant of history to believe direct democracy would work. The minority are slaves to the majority. This is why the US is a constitutional republic, certain rights are too important to be left up to the whims of mass hysteria (ex. the Bill of Rights) Look at Democratic Athens, this is the perfect example of why a direct democracy is weak. Athens voted itself into endless wars that it could not win because the majority of its citizens in the lower classes wanted to continual employment as rowers on the Triremes.

Assimilate or die

Those who eat pods rarely vote. And of course there should be restrictions.
Do you think it is much better to have unelected officers deciding if they should allow Somalian ""refugees"" it, huh?

>muh mob rule, muh too many idiots
If we had direct democracy a lot of shit could have been prevented from the start. Instead we are ruled by people who don`t give 2 pences on the average folks.

why are americans generally so retarded?
your posts are so annoying that i lost interest to discuss with others here

> ancap
Lol
>monarchy
Yes, nice to have a guy selling your country to jews.
> Athens voted itself into endless wars
This is true, but maybe it is possible to protect society from such mistakes without changing the system.

Terrible idea, see Rhodesia as an example. We should go the other way and create further limitations to the franchise. Voting is a privilege, not a right

Direct Democracy can only work on a limited, local level with a limited franchise

Direct democracy isnt equal to universal suffrage.

Mob rule is dangerous especially when the mob is made up of dumb fucks

Do you have any actual arguments against ancap and Monarchy or are you just an idiot?

>most of the problems
What problems, what is a problem to you?

>being such a loser you have to force your opinion onto other people
Uhm no sweetie I don't think I'll participate thanks.

Carried to its logical conclusion it does.

Implying we don`t have wars because of our elected elite.
Besides, today people are much more domesticated, and will never vote to start a war that could get them bombed. We can`t say the same about our elites.

So why not have it at least on a limited, local level with a limited franchise?
There are plenty of examples when retarded monarch ruined the country. And ancap means dictatorship of corporations.

> not considering yourself as a party of the society
You live in your mom's basement, dont you?

Try it if you want, but I'm speaking of municipalities. If it were to fail on a municipal level consequences would be insignificant. I am still in favor of constitutional republicanism though.

There is one step from "constitutional republicanism" to "human rights", and from human rights to millions of illegals and criminals with whom you can do nothing because of muh rights, dont you agree?

The democracy today is a limited suffrage, what we vote has little relevance, what the people that were selected to be elected have the real votes, they are the one whose votes matters. Not yours. How has the suffrage limited to a few hundred people worked so far in america?

The thing with democracy is that you cant make everyone happy, but its still better than everything else available. Same thing with capitalism.

Democracy and Capitalism aren't perfect but they're the best systems you can pick from.

Monarchs and corporations have a much higher time preference than mobs, this they will actually rule with consideration for the fururw

Kim Chong Un doesn't look like a vise leader. And he is de facto a monarch.

>Mob
Much better to be ruled by intelligent, high-iq middle eastern tribe.

So one bad leader disproves an entire system of government? What a ridiculous standard. Also, NK is based on communism, which is not de facto monarchy because monarchy predates the enlightenment

As I already said, there were many irresponsible and stupid monarchs.
> monarchy predates the enlightenment
Why do you think so?

Before enlightment you and your country were the property of your monarch and your feudal lord. Thats what the current elites want, everyone to be owned by them and the countries to stop being relevant.

>Today the anarcho communist collective will vote whether anons mom is collective property

People simply don’t have time to participate in a direct democracy. Maybe something inspired by it could work but democracy in general in garbage.

>Two shit tier governments are the best

No

>I would like to explore the idea of 51% of the population controlling 49% of it
Worst idea ever. Representative democracy, or what we refer to as a REPUBLIC is the only idea that has ever worked. What makes it fail?
>Empowerment of women
>Consolidation of voting power

Every. Goddamn. Time.

Monarchy has had two thousand and five hundred years of undisputed efficiency, tho.
Democracy has crumbled more times in the three centuries since it's modern inception than monarchy has in those two millenium in a half.

Democracy is as I said garbage but the only reason why it and capitalism have any appeal is that monarchy somehow manages to be even worse. We’ve also had horses for thousands of years but cars unquestionably are better.

> it is bad when 51% rules 49%, but it is ok when 3 hundred years old paper rules 100%

>undisputed efficiency
Doubt.

I'm going to elaborate on this, too. Of all civilizations of all time, the most valuable resource isn't education, agriculture, water, or even fuel. In every civilization, these resources are necessary, and yes, sometimes they are fought over. But these aren't the most valuable of all resources.

The most valuable resource of all time is PUSSY. Pussy, and "equal access" to it are what makes civilizations work. Pussy, and access to it, is what makes young men voluntarily go to war on behalf of old men. Pussy, and access to it, is what makes rampaging cunts from other lands invade your country (rape trophy). Pussy, and access to it, is the ONLY RESOURCE IN THIS ENTIRE WORLD THAT CAN MAKE BETA AND ALPHA MEN COOPERATE TO FORM A SOCIETY.

Now, give that pussy the right to vote. Watch the mayhem.

Useless and retarded. Political policy making that doesn't instantly ruin society is extremely time consuming. There's no way for working people to have the time to digest all the information needed to make informed decisions. Politicians can't formulate competent policy when it's their only job, you expect lay-people to be an improvement?

Yes, only for a country that follows the ancient-greeks principles.
One of the conditions is that women should not vote, nor immigrants.
Only well educated (in a good school system, not the shit we have right now) males.

Because monarchies predate written history?

cringe

Yeah we were better off and less people died when we’re co trolled by overlords because monarchs have long term time preference and don’t fuck is their countries over little shit

So monarchies are worse because technology has advanced more rapidly under democracy?

>No other government form than despotic or feudal monarchy were ever officially made until four thousand and five hundred years after the foundation of the first city-state
>Implying that's not undisputed
kek

I represent myself before God and reserve ALL rights.

>Let's take a 4000 year old concept of democracy and pair it against a 300 year old concept of something that takes the original idea and improves on it.
Does the Electoral College create a weighted voting system? Yeah, somewhat. Does the system take a 9th grade education to understand? Sure, we'll go with 9th grade. Do I want someone to be elected president of the United States of America, that has lived here her entire life and had a political career spanning 30 years, and has exhibited ZERO UNDERSTANDING OF 9th GRADE CIVICS? I mean, it's almost too easy at this point to figure out who's going to be the winner/loser in the end with almost every race.

Look, we're used to watching other nations crash and burn. After all, that 300 year old document was good enough to kick a little ass back in the day. I also acknowledge, however, that we've "had a good run"; and unless we revisit the concept of "civic duty" on a per-citizen level, it's going to go downhill more rapidly that anyone can imagine.

The US will become a silent "empire" before they let all that slip, and plunge the US into chaos.

doesn't know the difference between bleach and tide

kill yourself, commie faggot

>The minority are slaves to the majority.
as opposed to our current system, where the minority are masters to the majority

how's that homeschooling working out for you, jedidiah?

>Those who eat pods rarely vote
yes, because they are twelve

>Rhodesia
zimbabwe

ftfy

Switzerland has it and its the most successful country in the world.

who fucking talks like this?

>t. virgin neckbeard

Ahmeds

>anarcho-capitalism
That basically comes from enlightenment though.

>they're the best systems you can pick from.
Brainlet opinion. Ochlocracy is worse than tyranny.

>We’ve also had horses for thousands of years but cars unquestionably are better.
Can't eat your car if you get lost in the wilderness.

Why this racism.

why have a few smart people make smart decisions when you can have a bunch of retards make retarded decisions

makes perfect sense

no one gives a fuck about your feelings

> why have a few smart people make smart decisions
Aka having a bunch of 120+ iq jews

bow before your corporate masters nigger

I bet pol's feelings are hurt more by the fact that I am not white.

I think it’s really the enlightenment argument coming full circle and recognizing that economics is the most basic unit of human interaction

it is bad, it implies people are equal. they're not.

>foreign policy should be dictated by walmart moms xDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Direct Democracy is defined as the direct, continuous and unmediated participation of citizens in government tasks.

It won't work because

>The average person even in a red pilled society is not educated or skilled enough to make decisions for the collective. Ancient Greece was not a true democracy in the sense that only non slave citizen men could vote with certain governmental roles filled by meritocratic means.

>If we had DD now it would be still shit because of the amount of conditioning we have in the west.

>If we implemented DD and become minorities we are even more fucked because of the representative nature of DD. In a representative system that is disproportional such as first past the post as we have in the UK, you can still win seats through gaining th most votes in a given constituency even if it's not majority. We would be even more fucked in a DD.

>Plus it gives the impression that all people are equal, even if you limit it to men even that is a fallacy

>T. Politics student

Ideally only men should vote, but even this may be better then foreign policy dictated by israel.

they're all pants-shitting pussies, so you are probably right

>Ancient Greece was not a true democracy in the sense that only non slave citizen men could vote with certain governmental roles filled by meritocratic means.
It was and will always be the only good democracy.

>walmart moms

nigger, that isn't even a thing

They voted for the war with the Spartans who sacked it. The Athenians thought the Spartans were barbaric and got shit on unfortunately

>The average person even in a red pilled society is not educated or skilled enough to make decisions for the collective.
one person = one vote, there is no single person deciding anything for the "collective"
>If we had DD now it would be still shit because of the amount of conditioning we have in the west.
yeah, says the guy who still unironically has a royal family
>If we implemented DD and become minorities we are even more fucked because of the representative nature of DD
yes, everyone knows wypipo can't handle the idea of being shit on like they have been shitting on minorities for centuries
>Plus it gives the impression that all people are equal, even if you limit it to men even that is a fallacy
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL
>T. Politics student
more like
>t. petrol clerk

also, learn how and when it is appropriate to greentext, fucking newfag

Lol thats just the electoral college, you have direct democracy at the local level.

In DD there are far more chances to pass laws banning foreigners from politics or to deport them than now. Our democracy, on the other hand, will inevitably be hijacked by minorities.
Another reason why there are more and more minorities is that natives are too individualistic, they don't think about the country and so are ok with endless immigration. DD has a chance make people less individualistic, if they see that it is their country and they rule it.

No, you still have representative democracy at the state level.

But the collective is a social mass, one unit, ultimately.
If any in the unit is in disapproval, it can lead to a change in the matrix's normal decision-making process.
Democracy is uncondemned inefficiency

need some maple syrup for that word salad, leadbro?

>American Education

How about you learn to read on a high school level. You’re making Americans look bad. Back to the books Jamal

one bootlicking crown worshipper defending another, whodathunkit?

you misspelled russian shitposters user kun

Look at the education that democracy gave you. Under a crown at l ast you would have been forced to learn a trade

and if the population is mostly left leaning?

DD is complete dog shit. Worse than anarchy.

mmm taste that yummy boot!

leave it to tighty-righties to double down on stupid every fucking time

then i guess you get to deal with the fact your opinions are the minority view.

you people are like children worrying if someone else is gonna get a fucking cookie befor you

Rousseau had it right to a certain extent. On the one hand the problem with representative democracies is that there quickly exists a disconnect between the representatives and those whom they claim to represent, and that representation effectively silences the populace. Rousseau mentioned the example of England in his days (which his rival Voltaire loved jacking off to), and how the court bribing MEPs was commonly accepted practice. For a more recent example, look no further than modern migration laws which the masses often disagree with because it harms them but serves the elites. Or the Roman Republic in the days of Caesar for the more historically savvy among you. Rousseau did however realize that direct democracy does not work on a large level and works on a province level at best, but moreso at a city level. However, in his considerations on the Polish Constitution he did insist Poland retains a confederational model, as a balkanized Poland would not be able to defend itself effectively against its enemies.

We don't know the 'ideal' system Rousseau imagined, as he died before completing his work "Institutions Politiques", but we can imagine that Rousseau's ideal system would be something like Switzerland today: a federation where there's a lot of legal autonomy on lower levels, but one centralized national government. Within the local constituancies there are still representatives, but due to being active on a lower level they're much more checked and citizens are much more involved in and critical of the process. There's also a wide opportunity to form referenda, in order to make the citizens themselves directly involved even in higher levels of politics.

You do know the tide pod craze only happened after the media started reporting on it, right? The sensationalist media is the perpetrator in many of the problems it reports on.

It would only work if the universal vote was abolished and replaced with the old voting system, where your vote is proportional to your tax contribution. If you're a burden on the government, you shouldn't have a right to vote.