Is it fair to say that Democracy is the ONLY acceptable form

You're looking at things from a modern western viewpoint.

In other lands and times a government could only be considered legitimate if it had the backing of God (or the gods or heaven or whatever), usually vested in a single monarch or some kind of ruling class.

>>1450258
Because the majority of humans are stupid fucks, only a selected few should lead a nation.

>>1450274

Obviously, that is true, but if the government is led by an unpopular minority, then that leads to rebellion and instability.

>>1450258
Democracy is pretty overrated to be quite honest. It's nothing but a mob rule of idiots being controlled and manipulated by people seeking to further their own gains.

The west is completely right to try to force their values on the rest of the world.

Our values are simply better.

File: respect-1.jpg (24KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 800x532px

>>1450289
Thank you for your highly original comment, fellow enlightened bretheren.

>>1450265

>You're looking at things from a modern western viewpoint.

Yes.

>In other lands and times a government could only be considered legitimate if it had the backing of God (or the gods or heaven or whatever), usually vested in a single monarch or some kind of ruling class.

This is generally frowned upon nowadays.

>>1450338

>Iran and the Saudis might disagree with you.

Probably.

So what? Where is the case for their point of view?

>>1450283
No

You can squash rebellion and quell instability

The people only respond to fear and power

>>1450302
t. ahmed

Literally a /pol/ thread.

Go back to your containment board.

>>1450308
In the West, sure. The Saudis and Iranians would disagree with you.

After all, the law of God and his Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the only law that is morally correct. It follows that only those who study and understand this law are fit to lead men. It is arrogant to think that the people, many of whom are uneducated, would know better than God.

>>1450345

But is there any way to do that without resorting to authoritarian methods like torture or internment camps? Is it possible have a non-democratic government without having secret police and show trials?

>>1450349
t. bolshevik

>>1450258
Democracy is a naive ideology, and quite frankly was a mistake.

File: image.png (186KB, 463x515px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 463x515px

>>1450258
>>>/pol/
Remember, the US is NOT a democracy, it is a federal republic.

>>1450308
>This is generally frowned upon nowadays
Capitalism is the new God

>>1450349

>Go back to your containment board.

No. This is a political science thread.

Political science falls under the humanities umbrella.

>>1450363

It is still based on majority rule.

>>1450345
Just keep the apes distracted and nothing bad will happen.

>>1450352
Fuck Allah and that sand nigger Muhammad

>>1450356
>But is there any way to do that without resorting to authoritarian methods like torture or internment camps?
Television has been working pretty well for the past fifty years.

>>1450386
Simply because its possible to govern a nation with a single monarch doesn't by any means mean its the best way.

>>1450402
Why not?

>>1450402
It was the best way because it was working since the dawn of civilization in our species.

>>1450381
10/10 discussion of competing views on what makes government legitimate

>>1450265
>You're looking at things from a modern western viewpoint.
Correct.
>In other lands and times a government could only be considered legitimate if it had the backing of God (or the gods or heaven or whatever), usually vested in a single monarch or some kind of ruling class.
More to it than just divine appointment.

File: image.jpg (19KB, 191x264px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 191x264px

>>1450373
>Based on majority rule
No.
If that was the case, Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, would have been president.
>see also 1824, 1876 & 1888

>>1450258
What form of democracy have you decided is the only democracy?

>>1450358
No
t. someone who comes here for history threads.

>>1450367
No, it's not, idiot. Political Science is a social science, not a humanity. This thread would literally fit in better on /sci/. And even then, this thread fails to live up to the standards of a discussion of political science.

File: [Republican Noises].jpg (2MB, 1300x1950px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1300x1950px

>>1450258
>Is it fair to say that Democracy is the ONLY acceptable form of government
Today we think this, but as time marches on, that may change.

Take for example the Roman Republic. For hundreds of years, it was seen as the only civilized way of Governance, the rule of the people, not the king; however, after it grew corrupt and bloated, the people eventually welcomed single rule.

Who's to say that in a hundred years or more, people will be filled to the lip with the inaction of populist governance and welcome the rule of a man or a group of men who can actually accomplish things?

>>1450367
except this isn't a politica science subject.

Political science deals with understanding voting patterns and making models to predict them.

This is a philosophical question. It does belong here.

Heinleinism is the on acceptable form of government.

A democracy/representative republic, with limited franchise. Where anyone can earn the franchise by service to the state. Otherwise, citizens and civilians are equal under the law.

>>1450349
Now if we were discussing the merits of communism...

Fuck off you little faggot.

>>1450772
That would still be a /pol/ thread. Like everyone there, you can only imagine that someone objects to you behavior because they must ALSO be unable to shut the fuck up about MUH IDEOLOGY.

>>1450705
One branch of government (the presidency) is not the entire government, you tard. The majority of the actual power is in congress, which is elected by the population

>>1450752
It took a very very long time for the people to "welcome" single rule in Rome. Theres a reason why rulers in the empire never called themselves kings; because the Romans despised the term due to a past history with kings. Usually they used terms like Princeps Civitatis, meaning first citizen.
Even then, over hundreds of years the facade of the republic was still upheld.

>>1450810
Yes, but in essence it's the same thing.

Sure, a society which values democracy would probably not go back willingly to an out and out kingship, but there is no fuctional difference between the latter Roman Emperors and a king.

Even when the there were Imperial and Senatorial provinces, the Emperor could control them all if he so wished.

Call it what you want, but single rule is single rule.

>>1450258
That's quite similar to saying "Is it fair to say everything that can be invented has been invented?"

Forms of government are also a part of ongoing research, there is no ONLY acceptable form of government.

>>1450835
Of course its the same thing. My point was that the emperor in the Roman empire was not backed by the people (at least within the early and middle empire). Julius Caesar, the first of many, usurped power and declared himself perpetual dictator. The people did not grow to accept a single ruler; Caesar usurped power and subsequent emperors were able to prop up the facade that the empire was still a republic, when in reality all power was vested within the dictator, first citizen, whatever they called themselves.

What went wrong with the United State's form of democracy? What changed?

File: image.jpg (120KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x300px

>>1450797
You are rude
and the delineation still stands. The United States of America is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. Specifically, from the "CIA World Factbook":
[quote]
federal presidential republic
[end quote]

Have a blessed day.

>>1450258
Not really.

>>1450258
> Is it fair to say that Democracy is the ONLY acceptable form of government?
Not, it's just in vouge for now.
> How can any government call itself legitimate unless it has been fairly elected by a clear majority of the population?
Most governments in history weren't democratic yet people had no problem with accepting their legitimacy.

>>1450381
USA USA USA

Democracy ultimately leads to oligarchy where the government is eventually ran by families or the very rich, there hasnt and never will be a democracy that ever survives, it's only a matter of inevitability

>>1451066
>Democracy ultimately leads to plutocracy
FTFY

>>1450258
democracy is an epic fail like communism

Monarchy is the only government that has ever worked in human history.

>>1451032

Federal Republics are democracy

>>1450265

All peoples are equal. All things are equal. There is no better or worse, just differences of opinion.

Friendly reminder to stupid people.

Being a republic and being a democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

>>1451631

It is in the classic language of Aristotle. His distinction between the two forms of government is paramount and should be emphasized.

>>1451646

We're speaking modern English.

Virtually nowhere is a democracy if you only include direct democracy as being 'democracy'.

Why is it Americans have to choose between Hilary and Trump; are there not better qualified? Democracies are determined by the superior propaganda machine.

>>1451685

They don't. They could vote for an independent candidate.

>>1451702
>wasting your vote

>>1451032
They aren't mutually exclusive terms you fucking retard

File: 121313515.gif (217KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 500x333px

>>1451617
>all peoples are equal

>>1450258
>stretch of my imagination cannot provide me with any better system than what we currently have thus it stands to reason it's the absolute best we can do ever

>>1450289
This is actually a key point of social justice.

>>1451810

I was mocking his implied relativism.

>>1451860
Ah, carry on then

File: image.jpg (568KB, 1856x3624px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1856x3624px

>>1451617
>All peoples are equal

>>1450373
Lmao no

>>1450797
2012 Congressional election Democrats got 48.9% of votes.
They won 47.5% of the seats.
Republicans got 47.4% of the vote.
They won 52% of the seats.

>>1451747
If anything it is the First Past the Post voting that is stupid, not democracy

File: I happen to be a sage on this topic.jpg (25KB, 339x479px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 339x479px

>>1450258
>How can any government call itself legitimate unless it has been fairly elected by a clear majority of the population?

When the government in question can dispense the law, make the state prosperous, can ensure the needs of its people, and protect them in times of calamity & war.

Chink's Mandate of Heaven succinctly summarized in no-bullshit terms what makes governments legit: if it works, it is legit.

That said, whatever "works" varies from society to society. In some, democracies worked well. In others, it didn't, and it turns out that say, for example, the old Kingdom worked better.

>>1452314
Does that guy spends the whole film bitching about how the locals failed to do anything?

God his job sucks.

>>1450258
I don't believe in democracy.
The only ones who get elected in a democracy are the biggest clowns, the populists with the most ridiculous claims. How is it correct to let an uneducated majority decide on something they don't have the competence to judge?
Territorial administrators should be chosen based on competence, not popularity.

Finally, it's not like our republican system is democracy anyway. Democracy is when each citizen has a concrete possibility, as well as the duty, of taking an active part in his community's political life. Our current political system is a sugarcoated parliamentary oligarchy.

>>1452327
They are still elected by the population and Congress still holds the majority of the power. Not only that, but in Congress, even when are the minority, Congressional procedure affords enormous power to the minority government.