DEMOCRACY IS THE PROBLEM

Democracy is the sacred cow that nobody wants to touch or even discuss.

The left-wing, even the extreme left wing, say that "capitalism" is the problem, but that "DEMOCRACY in the workplace" is the solution.

The right-wing populists say that "political correctness" is the problem and the solution is popular uprising of the nation, democracy.

All agree democracy is the solution.

Of all the problems we as thinking beings face, the hardest to recognize are the biggest and most obvious because our brains dismiss them in advance as background noise. In the case of modern society, the elephant in the room is our propensity for choosing ideas by their popularity with individuals and not their fitness for the task as a whole. This elephant manifests itself as democracy, consumerism, trends and social cliques.

We the people (who think) recognize that democracy has four major failings:

1) By the nature of trying to find one solution that represents everyone, democracy cannot accept any complete plan and thus offend some of its members, but must work out a "compromise" that preserves the appearance of change but, by adulterating and hybridizing details of any proposed plan, make it a muddle that defaults to the status quo.

2) Intelligence and nobility of character are rare; most people lack these traits in the degree needed to make decisions for a nation, and democracy cancels out the votes of the intelligent (the minority) with mass opinion.

3) Democracy encourages egomania by encouraging people to vote according to what brings them personal gain, ignoring the question of the best plan for all (usually beyond their comprehension).

4) To motivate sluggish masses to pick one choice over another, democratic leaders must oversimplify topics and create theatrical opposites. Proposals must be streamlined to the most simplistic four-second sentence available

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RQVIeTLqgOw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

Wrong pic shit

Agreed. People need to be ruled by their betters, not by their 'equals'. The fundamental problem of democracy is that it can only work with an informed voter base, and there is absolutely no desire from the general public to become informed.

THIS

SEE:youtube.com/watch?v=RQVIeTLqgOw

5) Democracy is a justification for terrorism, as you can fairly blame the people for what the government does. If a dictator invades Iraq, the Iraqi sympathizers can kill the dictator in revenge. If a democracy invades Iraq, then Iraqi sympathizers can justifiably start terrorizing the democracy and killing people, as they voted for it.

6) Democracies are unstable. Other countries don't know who they will be dealing with in a few years, and long term planning is impossible.

7) Democracies are warlike. The justification for invading other countries is often that they are not democracies. Democracies are intolerant of non-democracies.


The only justification for democracy is that it leads to better outcomes.

If it doesn't, then there's no reason to have democracy.

This.

Volodya speaks the truth. But only if the leader is as competent as Lee Kuan Yew or Putin

youtube.com/watch?v=RQVIeTLqgOw

How do we get the intelligent and noble to rule? in times like this, full of ignorants, dumbfucks, commie scum.

A good leader with power is all we need

Democracy a shit but at least it changes. A smart benevolent dictator would be far better but that's only if you don't get stuck with some communist fuckwit instead.

>Democracy is the sacred cow that nobody wants to touch or even discuss.
There's a reason why the US is a republic not a democracy.

>1) By the nature of trying to find one solution that represents everyone
I cannot speak for other countries but the US doesnt' function on that principle. Congress exists to stop all bills except those that are deemed necessary enough to gain support of both houses and the president (except in the rare occasion of a veto and then it's a super majority of both chambers to override it).

>2) Intelligence and nobility of character are rare
Neither of which are designed or even depended on in the US governmental system. We long since recognized factonalism as a necessary part of any governmental system as people are self-interested and self-serving. Thus was created a system designed to take advantage of factionalism to ensure that no one faction gains too much power or retains power for too long.

>3) Democracy encourages egomania by encouraging people to vote according to what brings them personal gain
See above.

>4) To motivate sluggish masses to pick one choice over another, democratic leaders must oversimplify topics and create theatrical opposites.
This isn't true for every form of government to ensure at least enough popular support/legitimacy to maintain order?

> "at least it changes"
> all parties end up being identical

You can't get rid of liberal democracy at the ballot box.

The problem is pure representative democracy. We will have to move towards DIRECT DEMOCRACY. It works, period. Just look at Switzerland.

It didn't work in Athens. There's no guarantee the people won't make retarded decisions.

>but at least it changes

Yes, but looking at historical trends it always changes into progressive liberalism with a detached political caste.

When you have a small centralized power, you can remove that power far more easily than if you have a big and widespread one.

This "the US is a republic not a democracy" meme HAS TO STOP, you fag. The US is BOTH a republic AND a representative democracy.

If you make it non-anonymous and responsible, sure. Even Switzerland is suffering from the current ills.

Pretty much this. Referendum everything and everything ugly and nice will be brought out into the limelight.
No jews

And your alternative is what exactly? Anarchy? Fascism? Communism?

Democracy is a shitty system but everything else is worse.

PURE direct democracy does not work, but using many elements of direct democracy (like a dozen referendums every single year) DOES work. Proof: Switzerland.

I don't see anyone on the far-left loving democracy. If anything they despise it when they don't get their way and would prefer some sort of oligarchy where only they get a say. Moderate leftists seem to like democracy as do centristd and moderate right wingers

>republic AND a representative democracy.
Republic:
>elected individuals representing the citizen body[2][3] and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.
Democracy:
> Democracy is further defined as (a:) "government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
you just said the same thing twice but disregarded the difference between a Republic and a Democracy (sans representation).

It's a semantical argument but one that is worth some discussion which I will take up if you demonstrate an interest in addressing the other points I raised.

You should read Hobbes' Leviathan.

The problem isn't big government, it's the risk of no government. The ultimate job for the state is to provide security. People in stable countries forget this, but they also forget that all states are fragile one way or another.

Without a sovereign power there would be “no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

Yeah having coups every few years is so much greater than democracy. wow

Actually I preffer fascism to the others.

One example does not prove a system works. All I need is a single counter example.

Proof that referenda don't work: most US states with direct democracy at the ballots, which have never done anything worthwhile with them.

My preference: government by artificial intelligence.

Direct democracy isn't without problems. It hinges on having a well educated population and unbiased media.

If OP picture was showing not democracy it would be Lion as absolute leader and wolf leading oposition/rebels.

>You should read Hobbes' Leviathan.

Will do.

the problem is that our democracy is really an illusion, at least here in America. Our choices for President are a corrupt money collecting whore criminal and a billionaire with his own share of shady shit

Im still voting Trump, and like the guy, but I wish we had better choices, but money and connections are all that matter in politics

Also, if you want to bring up alleged drawbacks of democratic systems of government would you also be interested in knowing strengths of democratic systems?

I'd argue it comes down which offers the greatest net value after weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the various systems.

Not that I expect a response given how this is a pointless "1 post by this ID" thread.

These are not fundamental problems with democracy, just oversights the founding fathers did not take into account. Big business should have never been allowed into politics.

You also need an ethnically homogeneous population.

Imagine a referendum in the UK on whether we should have Sharia Law. Muslims would vote yes, everyone else would vote no. It would settle nothing. The only thing it would show would be the relative population percentages of Muslims and non Muslims.

Democracy doesn't work if you have more than one culture and ethnicity.

Multicultural countries need to be enlightened dictatorships, like Singapore.

Democracy reflects the morality of its people. The modern world is morally bankrupt, hence are its elected representatives. Return to God, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Fascism, as originally intended, was a dictatorship only temporarily. Hitler himself intended to have elections once every generation.

The problem is that the establishment has achieved to equal democracy with freedom. It is in all the movies. Every science fiction product in the mainstream has it as an element. Oh, you have overthrown your evil dictators. Good for you. When will you erect a democracy?

Democracy is just a fraud to make people think they have agreed to the state ruling them and that there is no need to overthrow it because democracy already is a form of constant revolution. To hell with the state, destroyer of liberty!

Democracy works great in homogeneous nations of similar values.

IMO the problem was giving the vote to women
its all been downhill since then

> tfw the God Emperor died
Couldn't they just have pickled him in formaldehyde and said he was sleeping? I want to believe he watches over us still

It only works great if you assume the nation state is valid.

An Islamist would tell you the nation state is bullshit and you have a duty to everyone in your own religion regardless of country.

An anti-nationalist would say democracy should not stop at borders.

Borders and states are just human constructs and aren't 'real'.

...

go to bed stirner

What's Singapore like? I love your system of government. I think it's the only way to do it when you have many different races and cultures.

Why don't you guys start offering government-as-a-service for shitty countries?

>silence
Yeah, that's what I thought. There are differences, significant and important differences, but you'd rather just raise a stink than actually discuss the issue.

These people have to be physically removed.

every fucking time, social construct my ass. Go fuck yourselves with some molotov's spineless and mindless freaks. Better dead than red.

Explain Switzerland then a-hole. Best country in the world is most democratic.

There is just a gigantic lack of discussion-culture in our societies, which is the real problem. This ensures that people don't try to understand where the other side is coming from or reach consensus, but rather just keep yelling that the other side is retarded.

But what are its strengths?

That is a weak argument. The nation state has no reality outside of what people agree on. If you had a strong argument, you could justify its existence on these terms alone.

Here, I'll start:

> People need separate states because they disagree on fundamental issues and need security
> States correspond roughly to human nations
> States need to be geographically contiguous
> Therefore, we need states and borders

They have the luxury of being neutral mountain jews, I'm not convinced their systems would work globally

And yet the most democratic countries in the world are those that have the best living standards.

Swiss citizens are about 98% white and monocultural. That won't work in most western nations. Democracy doesn't work if voters just split into ethnic blocs all the time.

Democracy, capitalism and socialism are all cancer, we need a new system.

>complains about how democracy sucks
>Slovenia, Russian satellite state
yfw?

How about government with a command economy run by artificial intelligence?

Democracy never really existed but i get your points.

Just have direct democracy, like Switzerland.

>Slovenia, Russian satellite state
So this is the legendary American education i keep hearing about?

Compared to what other forms?

Monarchy? Better, longer-lasting form of legitimacy (no bloodline crises or disagreements on who has better "blood"). Simpler and cleaner lines of authority. Etc.

Communism? Marxist or Leninist? More adaptable to social and economic pressures and constraints. Better diplomatic resources through enhanced avenues of soft power. etc.

Authoritarianism? Similar to monarchy in regards to legitimacy though less about blood and more about systemic repression of political antagonists. Less susceptible to panics and "big vision" idiotic policy swings. Etc.

As Churchill said,
>Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
The saying highlights how no system is perfect, that they all have their drawbacks but that of them all democracy has arguable the least net loss.

Problem isn't democracy. Problem is equality.
Not all vote should be equal. People with degree and big salary should be allowed to vote more

I think once technology gets better, and AI take over most jobs this may be the only solution.

Direct democracy is only applied for minor policies though.

>My preference: government by artificial intelligence.
Yes well having a superintelligent demigod take enlightened decisions for us would be great but we're at least 1 decade from that possibility.

The problem is that democracies are obviously less stable and more warlike than other forms of government. These claims don't stack up to reality.

Western liberal democracies invaded Iraq and fucked up the middle east. They fail to hold their own leaders accountable. Under Western liberal democracy, most people's incomes have got worse off since 1980. Western democracies have got corrupt and bought off by corporate money.

Asian dictatorships by technocrats seem to be the best, stablest and most peaceful governments in the world today. Asian dictatorships have given their people rising incomes when other governments haven't.

If you were a sheep why would you vote for a wolf, whose main diet is sheep and deer, over a lion, whose main diet is gazelles and wildebeest and shit?

Have you ever read Iain Banks "Culture" series?

Democracy only works on small fry issues like how we should tax people and various other civil matters.

More fundamental, significant issues like culture and way of life cannot be solved by Democratic voting because it's too easy to rig the system and failure tends to be not an option.

This constant push of Secularism vs Islam and Nationalists vs Liberals is bringing this problem to the forefront.

>the best living standards
Having lots of Shekels is the only value in life?
The only way you measure a nation's success?

Democracy is trash. Anyone with sense knows this. Libertarians and ancaps have said so from the beginning. Monarchists have always said so. It's why America's founders had the good sense to found a Constitutional Republic. Just a shame that democracy infected that country.

>People with degree and big salary should be allowed to vote more

Then you just end up with feudalism within 1 or 2 generations.

The middle east was fucked before Iraq, hell Saddam, an Asian dictator, kicked off the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War.

That is wrong. We can vote to chsnge whatever we want, whenever we want. This includes the constitution.

>implying these boons aren't the result of their top tier democracy

>all this shit about betters, elites, aristocracy
>all of you would be either the lowest class or outright shot

Democracy is alright. The problem is in the people, not the system. If we changed the system, we'd still have the problem.

Your communism won't really solve much.

Actually if we had to define Slovenia as a "satellite state", it is France's satellite state. Napoleon created the Illyrian Provinces which were the basis of modern-day nation-state Slovenia.

>Saddam, an Asian dictator, kicked off the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War.

The Middle East isn't in Asia, I'm talking about East Asia.

But I hope you realize the Iran-Iraq war was backed by the USA and the USSR. It was a proxy war. And the USA "green lighted" Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which he did after the US-backed Iran-Iraq war left his country in ruins.

You are absolutely correct.

What we need is weighted voting. Not everyone's vote will count the same. People with lots of voting power will be intelligent, well established individuals who have garnered lots of respect in their community, and who care about the best interests of their people, rather than themselves.

Anyone who gets a paycheck for the government, whether as an employee or as a welfarite loses their vote (conflict of interest)

Not yet. I'm Googling about it now.

>Better dead than red.

You are not the brightest if you assume from my post about abolishing the and the attached picture, that it is a leftist message.

Well, Switzerland has an unusually large number of non citizens. It's more like a Gulf State with lots of non-citizens doing shitty work and citizens leading the good life.

Nations like Sparta did this long ago and it generally didn't end well. The helots rise up and kill the ephors after a while.

>The problem is that democracies are obviously less stable and more warlike than other forms of government.
How do you come to that conclusion? Let's think about it in comparison to a totalitarian system. In one system it takes an agreement with a large number of people to declare and prosecute a war (other than being attacked) while the other it only takes one person to decide.

>Western liberal democracies invaded Iraq and fucked up the middle east.
First off, the middle east was already fucked up and had been for centuries. Don't think the "Arab spring" is so new phenomenon. Islam is, IIRC, the only religion where its prophet practiced and espoused war.

Secondly, if Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait in the first place then the "western liberal democracies" wouldn't have any reason or justifications to invade Iraq.

>Asian dictatorships by technocrats seem to be the best
You mean like Mao and his "cultural revolution" or the Kim's dynastic "Worker's Party" in the DPRK?

>People with lots of voting power will be intelligent, well established individuals who have garnered lots of respect in their community

This sounds like a positive feedback loop. People with high voting power will vote for policies that make voting requirements even more restrictive and concentrate education and wealth. Eventually you end up with Feudalism.

>unaware of Russian influence over the Balkans
>believing NATO propaganda

That's an interesting idea. But I think you'll agree we need to weight votes not based on wealth. I don't want to live in a society where more shekels equals more voting power. Like you said, we need weighted voting based on virtue, nobility of character, etc. But how do we determine that "weight" so it doesn't get manipulated? I see no solution... rich people would use media influence to make the masses give them more voting weight....

Scale is Democracy's problem.

The people are too far removed from a Central Government. Every new layer on top cannot help but subvert the purpose of having that layer.

Return to Parish Councils, the big problems of Big Government are removed. What do we actually need central governance to actually manage? An Army to defend the country. An oversight for the Legal Society. Maybe someone needs to manage the Energy Grid (although that could be handled locally 2bh).

The sheer number of wars fought by Western democracies shows how warlike they are.

Virtually all democratic nations today didn't START democratic. They were invaded by democracies and forced to become democratic.

For example, Germany and Japan.

> First off, the middle east was already fucked up and had been for centuries.

It was fine under the Ottomans. WW1 (started by democracies) and Israel (Balfour declaration, by the UK) and US invasions have fucked it.

> You mean like Mao and his "cultural revolution" or the Kim's dynastic "Worker's Party" in the DPRK?

China is doing very well. DPRK used to be a well developed nation with a good economy until the US declared war on it.

Taiwan and South Korea were both US backed dictatorships till the late '80s. But even so they had good economies and looked after their own people.

That's why we need to throw out the Brexit referendum! Stop letting Europeans vote for right wing parties! We technocrats know better, immigration is good for you, culture is bad!

>What do we actually need central governance to actually manage?

Security, trade and taxation. Want national infrastructure? Want nuclear weapons? Want higher education and research? Want to negotiate trade treaties with other nations?

Bargaining and organization power, economies of scale and the ability to plan at scale are where state governments come in.

It won't be based on wealth, but rather respect.

Respect is a very real metric in human beings that isn't often recognized.

Democracy is the reason that technocrats have to be politically correct, because they have to worry about ethnic factions and other special interests trying to vote their power away.

There are plenty of researchers who show that ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are higher trust. A pure technocrat would take all that into account. If you look at nations like Singapore they do take ethnic conflict into account.

Technocrats who don't have to worry about political correctness would be able to formulate policies that deal with (eg) lower mixed-ethnic trust and with high black crime rates.

There must be a way to make it work, you just need to get creative

>We technocrats know better
Are you saying that is never the case? That a person with a Masters' Degree in Public Policy who spends his life studying society can make a more informed decision than an unemployed drunkard who say... voted for candidate X just because he reminds him of Tom Cruise, his favorite actor? There are such voters, you know. Many people who voted for Brexit didn't understand what it actually means. This is undeniable. I know a person in Britain - personally - who voted for Brexit and I talked to him about the EU a little and after 3 sentences I realized he doesn't know what the EU is. Not even close. His idea of what the EU is was out of this world, something fictional.
>immigration is good for you, culture is bad!
So the EU is pushing the agenda "culture is bad"? In what way? And what is "culture"? Folk dances? National costumes? Local customs? These are the things nobody cares about EXCEPT when they pretend to "stand for their nation". My culture is European culture, I read German writers, French writers, I listen to Austrian composers, these are embedded in who I am as a person, who all Slovenians are. And that actually goes on as who I am as a person is also defined by the Japanese cartoons I watched as a child, and the American movies, etc. - All these are part of my being and define me. How is EU anti-culture in any way?
I only agree with you that the EU made a mass with the immigration thing, that was really a catastrophic mistake. But as for the rest, I see no problem with a common European identity and even seeing oneself as a defender of European values, not of Iberian, Italic, Catalonian, etc. values - but the common substance of them all which is more concrete than the local specifics.

They're the ones that brought the different ethnic factions in in the first place. Elites don't care about crime, it doesn't affect them. So long as the surveillance and police state are powerful enough, they are happy to impose a certain level of discomfort onto the population. They have no national loyalty left. These are the elites of the modern world.

>For example, Germany and Japan.
Not the guy you're replying to but both started the respective wars which lead to the removal of their monarchies.
>inb4 the Kaiser a good boy he dindu nuffin

What your looking for is a meritocracy, now for the low, low price of all the money in the world you could have your very own meritable people running this show, as an added bonus we will throw in one world government and abolishment of war

>Note a new world ideology OR religion is a prerequisite

Well, back in the days when I was getting my bachelor on CS, I got my degree after writing an essay about how the only legitimate form of goverment should be one ruled by an (perfec) AI, designed to make only logical decisions. Kind like the singularity but without them trying to kill humans.

Up to this day, more than a decade later, I still believe in it.

I think our brightest and logical should rule over the whole population. And that the common should have no say on that. I don't like to voice this, because I don't want to be more ostracized.

To add: These people measure everything in terms of broad economic impact and waste too much consideration on people who aren't part of the nation or union they're supposed to be leading.
They're human filth.

Wolves like hillary eat sheep.

Lions like trump protect them.