What do u guys think of democracy?

>>131333898
it's a joke, but seems better than the alternative based on my (((knowledge of history)))

>>131333898
Good in theory, bad in practice.

>>131333898
I think it would be a good idea, as Gandhi said.

>>131333898
It goes to shit as soon as it becomes prosperous. Completely unsustainable

>>131333898
have u heard this guys new mixtape hes so fucking based

>>131334131
weird coming from someone with Gadsden flag. what would you have in the place of some sort of democratic system

>>131333898


Is it really a democracy when the entire (((system))) does its best to suppress education that can create independent thinkers?

>>131333898
GOTHBOICLIQUE

>>131333898
Trash/Dictatorship of the unwashed and ignorant majority.

>>131333898
fuck democracy and fuck jews.

>>131333898
who the fuck is this faggot

>>131333898
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING

>>131334283
How, except in name, is elective aristocracy even remotely democratic? Liberals have diluted the term to mean anything where people have even the most indirect say in government, just so that they can blame the people for participating in their limited way with no effect on actual outcomes.

lil peep on the creep

File: obiwan1.jpg (140KB, 970x545px)

140KB, 970x545px

>>131333898
My allegiance is the the Republic! To Democracy!

Its shit.

File: 17498989_1300873226667652_6905354087837483824_n.jpg (33KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x480px

>>131334450
lil peep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rkJ3L5Ce80

>>131334528
That's my friend. His name is Nitrodubz McPussyfuckboi. He eats meth and steals food from 7 eleven at 3am.

>>131334528
A faggot.

democracy can only work in a healthy society. At not point in time that I can see has any society been healthy enough for a real democracy to outlast other systems. Its primary advantage then is stability, but nuclear arms have insured freedom now.

The only preferable outcome would be to switch to
a state monarchy and allow me to be the King of my state.

File: 9.png (671KB, 1000x464px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1000x464px

>>131333898

>>131334148
I hope he dies of an overdose.

>>131335383
>democracy can only work in a healthy society. At not point in time that I can see has any society been healthy enough for a real democracy to outlast other systems. Its primary advantage then is stability, but nuclear arms have insured freedom now.
>democracy
>stability
Have you heard of political risk? It's an economic term for the idea that countries changing their laws can affect the value of some property, usually adversely. The American system was specifically designed to separate the general population from policy outcomes precisely to minimize political risk for the people who claimed ownership on people and things.
Every ruling class is rendered obsolete by proper democracy and every one of them will fight it down to the last mercenary.

>>131335876
I mean mostly in the sense of war. Very few democratic nations ever go to war with one another.
The way I see it it seems like it's a system that leads to a more gradual decay.

>>131333898
>Country is currently incredibly close to economic collapse and civil war
>On the verge of a tyrannical government take over and genocidal purge
>Too busy to notice because shitposting negative things about other countries
>Tfw I'm talking about Brazilians

File: 1469700149774.jpg (83KB, 1024x899px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x899px

>>131336025
>Very few democratic nations
What democratic nations are you talking about? I presume you're not talking about the US or NATO countries, which very rarely or never put specific domestic or foreign policies to popular vote.

>>131333898
It shouldn't belong to people most vocal about voicing their opinion
It's honesty one of the worst political systems
"A giraffe is a horse designed by a committee"

>>131336229
I mean the track record shows that I believe the only case of 2 democratic nations going to war with one another was England vs Finland in WWII, who ended up never firing a single shot at one another.
Im referring to representative democracies as we commonly see them in the west.

These problems would be solved by cutting these people off from any aid other than full blown aids.

No such thing, there will always be a hierarchy, because nature deplores a vacuum. Right now, a lot of "democracies" are being taken over by the papacy, Mozzie civilisation or Chinese authoritarian bureaucracy.

My suggestion is for whites to start building their own hierarchy unless they want to be ruled by outsiders. If democracy gets in the way of that, it obviously must go.

>>131336413
>representative democracies
Oxymoron. This is exactly what I mean by the dilution of terminology into meaninglessness. Westerners are all cucks for letting the liberals redefine warm fuzzy terms in their own image.

>>131336620
regardless of your opinion on the subject, all I said is that the impression people seem to have is that theyre more stable than alternatives.

>>131336731
I don't deny that liberal republics are stable. See >>131335876 about political risk.
What I contest is that they're actually democratic in any meaningful sense other than muh self-esteem.

File: aXm6908xjU.jpg (101KB, 650x650px)

101KB, 650x650px

Inspirobot knows all about Democracy.

it is cancer

>>131337057
that's a fair point but I think that's more an argument over the definition of the word. Some people will say a representative system is close enough.

Personally I think what's more important is the accountability. Whats the point of having more keys to power if there's no consequences? You'll just see cliques form that behave like traditional aristocracy.

>>131333898

If you take away the woman and welfare vote, socialism and mass immigration go away. "Democracy" is an extremely misleading term, because there is a chasm of difference between the "democracy" of ancient Greece and Victorian Europe (where only property-owning men could vote) and what we have today (where women, and those claiming welfare from the state, can vote). What really be asking most of the time is "What do you think of universal suffrage," not "democracy."

>>131337541

What people really should be asking most of the time*

File: 143269225222.jpg (262KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1536x2048px

>>131333898
A huge mistake

>>131337224
>Personally I think what's more important is the accountability. Whats the point of having more keys to power if there's no consequences? You'll just see cliques form that behave like traditional aristocracy.
What consequences? Being "forced" to go through the revolving door to a lobbying job that pays multiples of the public "service" salary? There are literally no consequences in a republican system controlled by the wealthy.
Real accountability can only be achieved in a republican system through instant popular recall. There's no reason at all to recognize the lawgivers' right to rule for the full length of their terms, other than some design to let them get away with their ill-gotten gains and self-exaltation.
>Some people will say a representative system is close enough.
Which is bizarre, but alright. So what is the neutral descriptor for popular rule, now that the original term has been co-opted?

>>131334450
>>131334528
>>131335371
That's an amazing musician
He's the soul child of everything you listened to in middle school and SoundCloud rap
Also he said in a live stream that he doesn't give a fuck about politics but would've voted for Trump

>>131337673
thats what I just said though

>>131337673
Fair enough. We agree the problem has been identified, roughly. The trouble with accountability after the fact is that the misdeeds remain done. Thoughts?

File: 3000counties.jpg (53KB, 640x553px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x553px

Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

This is what the "muh popular vote" libtards don't understand. California shouldn't dictate what happens in the entire country.

File: d5c.jpg (33KB, 297x365px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 297x365px

>>131338254
WE ARE AMERICA

>>131338254
Have you considered that California isn't nearly as unified as you think they are just because of muh lines? States really should be abolished since they cause nothing but drama. Let counties be represented in the Senate instead, if we must retain such a ridiculous institution.

>>131338254
yes it should take for example georgia and why theyre not fit to make decisions for the rest of tjr country. perfect example the rap music that georgia produces. mindless drivel that only talks about how you should hate everyone that doesnt think like you while complaining about everyone supposedly hating you. schizophrenic shit like that set not only black people back decades but dragged the rest of the country down with it

File: Average Trump voter.jpg (96KB, 634x634px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 634x634px

>>131338254
>Counties with 6 backwater hicks in them should dictate our country's future and fate

Let that sink in

Monarchy is better, but hell if the kikes will let you keep or reinstate one.

>>131340526
I agree

>>131333898
fuck lil peep

>>131334004
>good in theory
No it's not. It's mob rule. Mob rule is bad in theory and in practice.

>>131340944
Only if you're an aristocrat. Mob rule has never been practiced because aristocrats see it as an existential threat to themselves and their class interests, and will gladly spend half their fortune to fuck it up in order to save the other half.
Are you a complete fucking cocksucker, or just partially?

It's completely incompatible with the levels of immigration we have.

>>131337796
link to that livestream pls

>>131341315
What if you only allow full citizens to vote?

>>131333898
If you take the idea of state seriously fascism is the only way.
Any other way is shit tier for the state.

>>131341467
If immigrants are prevented from becoming full citizens, that's an improvement.

File: 0bd7xok7461z.jpg (118KB, 803x804px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 803x804px

>>131341272

> implying aristocrats are an arbitrary elite
> the marxist reveals himself

I hate degenerates

File: IMG_4945.png (3MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1242x2208px

I don't understand why we just don't get the Queen, the British seem to be happier than us, the retail apocalypse happening, Obama care premiums skyrocketing... just seems that our empire is failing and failing fast

File: GSs5ei9.gif (3MB, 500x213px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x213px

>>131340842
FUCK LIL PEEP

File: 1470752929739.png (490KB, 389x559px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 389x559px

>>131341714
>implying that meritocracy is a stable state
>implying that meritocracies in practice don't become self-perpetuating circle jerks after the first few iterations

>>131337796
$uicideboy$ and BONES > lil peep

>>131337796
Dude I never listened to rap, it's materialistic garbage.
Music's purpose is to bring light to what we cannot see.

>>131333951
>thinks democracy is jewish

File: 1498019424043.png (222KB, 352x514px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 352x514px

>>131342161

who said anything about meritocracies? the king is king because he is the king. you trying to engineer a utopia on me bro?

anyway, meritocracies in politics become circlejerks once they are already largely obsolete, i.e. order has been established. the usual faffing about of aristocrats or royal families the world over does not say much about their power, especially when compared to the utter degeneracy of modern rich people. the power is still there, which you can be sure of if you tested 16'th century aristocrats. also, democracy destroyed all traces of tradition, culture and order in a cool 2 centuries of blood. i'm not happy about that, are you?

is your pic related supposed to say that capitalism focuses "wealth in the hands of your circlejerking meritocracy that somehow magically holds on to this "wealth" by sucking cock, not by being effective? is this the picture marxists have of capitalism? meritocracies are constrained and tested externally (reality) or they will fail. see if you can hold on to a billion dollars for more than 5 years. oh actually no wait you'd have to give it all to charity

>>131333898
90% of people don't deserve it. The one's that have it take it for granted. In that regard I do sympathize a bit with the globalists wanting ruling over us. I would too if I were in their position since the ignorant masses are so fucking stupid.

File: bones.jpg (23KB, 589x126px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 589x126px

>>131343248
bones>all underground scene

Democracy is merely the end state of a dying society, before it falls apart and the elite rebuilds from the ashes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

>>131344105
>implies staving it off by maintaining a cancerous oligarchy in charge is any better

>>131344205

Democracy is like stage 4 cancer in comparison.

File: 1496630636638.jpg (489KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 2000x1333px

>>131344205

wouldn't you like the rulers of your nation to have some sort of stake in the prosperity of said nation? and if you tell me "yeah that's why it must be ruled by the people" i swear to god i'll make you draft the constitution where it says "THE MOB SHALL NOT ABUSE THIS POWER TO STEAL" in 100.000 words or less. seriously though, is this "cancerous oligarchy" idea the same as the scrooge mcduck corrupt capitalist? you seem to be under the impression that running a country is merely an administrative business as long as you have enough boots

>>131337541
And yet in all these democratic systems, women and minorities eventually got the vote. What could a new democracy do to prevent that from happening?

>>131344800
>t.child
Everything dies, kiddo. You're only making it worse on the next people. Let it go.

>>131344890
>i swear to god i'll make you draft the constitution where it says "THE MOB SHALL NOT ABUSE THIS POWER TO STEAL"
Why would I do that? Theft is a matter to be decided by the ruling class, not the assholes who happen to have stuff.
>this "cancerous oligarchy" idea
Is the stage after aristocracy and before democracy in the anacyclosis theory. The lesson to be drawn from anacyclosis is that all systems rot.
>you seem to be under the impression that running a country is merely an administrative business as long as you have enough boots
How is it not? You seem to be under the impression that dominance hierarchies are indispensable to humanity, perhaps because you are in a position to be part of one someday.

File: 1498042843200.jpg (101KB, 561x697px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 561x697px

>>131345310

well that's certainly not the case. there's no unbroken line of lineage or thought from ancient greece to now. nobody ever advocated for a pure democracy, not even the secular heroes of the republic. things changed dramatically with the american war of independence. they exported their democracy to form constitutional monarchies in europe and then destroyed the last remnants of the tsars and aristocrats in the century that followed. the devil was never that strong in ancient greece. maybe He came up with "all men are created equal" and scrubbed out the god part?

>>131343612
Your ability to see clearly will bring you no happiness in life.

File: 1497516263279.jpg (393KB, 851x851px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 851x851px

>>131345830

> Theft is a matter to be decided by the ruling class, not the assholes who happen to have stuff.

moral relativist pls go. also could your resentment be any more telegraphed? does that not at least bother your clear-minded rational brain a little?

> You seem to be under the impression that dominance hierarchies are indispensable to humanity, perhaps because you are in a position to be part of one someday.

I don't even understand what that first part is supposed to say. You want to do away with dominance hierarchies and live in a free world where people can follow their dreams, yeah? The world doesn't run on power. Those "assholes that have things" do not just have them by the divine grace of the ruling class that lets them keep it. People create wealth, it doesn't fall from heaven. If your "dominance hierarchy" that runs on arbitrary power fails to safeguard contracts or property or justice, your world will burn.

But hyperbole aside, man you are dogmatic. There's some good faith here so I'll ask: do you believe in marx's analysis of capitalism and the role of capitalists in it?

>>131345830
>Everything dies, kiddo.
no shit dummy, that is what I pointed out in the first post. what are you even arguing about now?

>>131345915
What made the american democracy so special that it somehow ruined the rest of the world? Only white, male property owners could vote originally in America, after that all it took was one rule change after another until finally everyone had the right to vote. The mob just kept voting themselves more shit.

>>131346472
The implication that the natural cycle of things should be treated. If I only imagined that there, then nothing, and cheers to you m8.

>>131346495

Are you asking for real or do you mean that rhetorical? Cause what caused the fall of the west is one of the most hotly debated topics ever since that moment...

>>131337796
He went on an anti-trump rant on twitter though. Maybe he changed his mind if what you say is true

File: 1496637381574.jpg (1MB, 2310x1781px)

1MB, 2310x1781px

>>131346688

that "natural cycle of things" still involves millions of people toiling to build and maintain the world you live in. resigning yourself to the kali yuga and waiting for it all to end so something new can grow from the ashes is ridiculous. first off, the metaphor is wrong since the ash of civilization is in fact not in the least bit fertile. secondly, civilization does not magically emerge from people's happy feelings but from hard work. those people who look at our stage 4 cancer with bleary eyes at least recognize the tremendous suffering and rebuilding that awaits us. learn to care a little. spacedust we are but what we do still matters.

>>131346744
Im asking for real

>>131333898
Ineffective. Imagine going to a concert and the whole audience plays instruments along with the orchestra. Drowns out the masterworks. In my view a Republic with single term limits would work best because it forces (1) changing viewpoints and opinions (2) makes consolidation (and therefor dissolution of the Republic) more difficult (3) encourages citizen run governments, not career politicians.

>>131346495
We're a Republic not a democracy.

>>131341814
Me too.

Purge.

>>131347666

well i would say the american experiment was doomed to fail from the start, as are all democracies, but the particular sequence of events since the 18'th century was of course brought about by conscious effort as well. People here will tell you it was the jews that introduced and subverted the whole thing, and there is certainly ample evidence for subversion, but that still leaves the issue of how it is possible in the first place. in reality the actual practice of governance is still ultimately a matter of policy and force, no matter who rules in name, and it has been a long slow death by a thousand cuts. anyway, there's also a lot of eventual-socialist thought to be argued from that initial "all men are created equal", with or without subversion, and you can view modern democracy as a kind of advanced protestantism/quakerism/puritanism. the founding fathers of america and the ancient greeks did not think as much alike as you might imagine, and democracy in greece was a very peculiar thing indeed. Anyway, Libertarians and anarchists and other formalists will tell you that the state ruins everything and mob rule is obviously retarded, but they won't tell you how to reach consensus in a group. they just go about their merry way defining property rights as a universal game a sufficiently sensible group can agree on. also they think anything metaphysical is stupid and degeneracy is fine as long as money is being made. whatever the case may be for its effectiveness, the 'reason' that american democracy and its underlying religion of equality (under god) was brought to the world the old-fashioned way: by the sword. most traditional people who believed in democracy were almost on board with libertarian ideas, but they figured that the populace would have a strong moral code. they would never abuse that power. nevertheless they wrote a constitution declaring this to be the case (oops).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuCmEjpY2HY

Superior Peep coming thru.

>>131348211

(constitutional) democracy. limiting the power of the mob through a founding document is an admirable feat of engineering but it has clearly not passed the test of time. what gave? subversion and degeneracy?

>>131333898
(((democracy))) is a really efficient method for jews to run nations via puppets

>>131349354
Not even.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaeyqMK0GU

>>131335232
I bet this guy lets his nigger heroin dealer fuck him in the ass

Democracy is already a pretty crap system but add universal enfranchisement and you're pretty much fucked.

File: 1484050588697.jpg (82KB, 1108x447px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1108x447px

>>131347023
>world
>civilization
are not synonyms for society. Civilization is literally nothing more than the habit of living in cities. You're idolizing it as if the present state of civilization were the endpoint of some singular intellectual teleology, which it's not.
Fuck civilization. I'd rather have society.
>first off, the metaphor is wrong since the ash of civilization is in fact not in the least bit fertile. secondly, civilization does not magically emerge from people's happy feelings but from hard work.
Doesn't matter. Societies form naturally. After ochlocracy there will be a monarch to pick up the damage, or the cycle will be broken. Whether that involves cities or dominance hierarchies is for them to decide.
>those people who look at our stage 4 cancer with
That's the disagreement, isn't it? Is this oligarchy or ochlocracy we find ourselves living out right now? I contend it is oligarchy, since the people by and large do not rule nor decide with any real freedom who rules them. The people on this rock have a unique opportunity to break the wheel right now, rather than remain in subjection to manipulative overlords.
Believe me, I care. Nature doesn't. Nature is reaching its limits as to providing for us, thanks to, among others, oligarch-coerced consumerism. We are heading for a world of hurt either way, and not every ticket is going to be a winner, but somehow, spending resources to cushion that blow is way down the list from bolstering the oligarchy. I can't agree with that. They've gotten too good at their game. It's time to start over by any means necessary, including flipping the table.

>>131349371
We have a ruling body of federal govt which is separated into three branches. Legislative (House of Reps and the Senate aka Congress), Executive (President and all Departments), and Judicial (Courts circuits 1-9 of the Supreme Court). The whole point of the model we have is to vote for people that "represent" us. In other words, you are putting your faith in someone and electing them with the idea being that they will support your issues and represent your community. While voting maybe a democratic act, the fact that we (being American citizens) don't have the ability to vote on legislature in any way other than indirectly (see electing a representative) makes our government a Republic. If you want to look at the failings of our Republic, look at the loss of citizen government and the rise of career politicians.

>>131333898
indirect democracy is ok, universal sufferage is bullshit

>>131349086
>democracies
except this isnt a democracy you fucking idiot

File: 1498041228374.jpg (196KB, 901x459px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 901x459px

>>131349901

i think i misread your assessment of the natural cycle of civilizations (not a very clear theory imo unless you go very metaphysical) as a kind of "let it burn" sentiment that's pretty common around here. apologies.

> Civilization is literally nothing more than the habit of living in cities. You're idolizing it as if the present state of civilization were the endpoint of some singular intellectual teleology, which it's not.

this part i don't understand mate. i'm arguing in defense of people who diagnose cancer in our current civilization, and the pressure it puts on your 'society'. i'm no fan in the slightest, and i'd like to see change too. but i think it's dangerous to go with "let it burn", and believe in other paths. a world of hurt will come either way but there are reforms possible that don't involve war. not through participating in the "democratic" system though, that's for sure

>>131350425
I know. Been trying to explain this to him. Insufferable to hear a foreigner talk about our government without understanding it or being able to even properly label it. Our system is complex and layered with many different levels of governance with many differences in autonomous choices.

>>131335232
What was that Russian hip hop artist's name from a thread a few days ago? It was actually kind of catchy. Well done comrade.

>>131350106

I know about your system, and like I said it's an admirable feat of engineering, but such branches are defined in a document and maintained through practice and policy. In the ultimate analysis the levers of power should terminate with the voters. A direct democracy has never been taken seriously, not even by the ancient Greeks, and representation tends to be the norm by practical necessity. Nevertheless though you may not be able to influence legislation or execution directly, the founding fathers absolutely intended for your people (congress) to hold everybody accountable. That means the responsibility for the legislation lies with the (gerrymandered) voters. A republic or a representative (social) democracy is still a democracy in philosophy. For the purposes of this thread I don't see how the American constitution is exceptional.

>>131350425
>>131350897

okay, nevermind. gl with your republic

File: 1497740327927.jpg (52KB, 400x337px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x337px

>>131333898
YFW: you wake up, don't feel like being a degenerate piece of shit, but realize you can't undo years of tattoos, sexually transmitted diseases, and strangers' cum deposits that have been absorbed by your body through your large intestines.

tl;dr: democracy only works when degenerates are dealt with expediently

>>131349901
How do people not decide who rules them? Who decided that Donald Trump be president?

>>131351116
>representation tends to be the norm by practical necessity
With smartphones everywhere? Come on, stop flattering the ruling class.

>>131333898
A track record of repeated failure

>>131351443

historically. democracy is thousands of years old.

>>131351116
But the whole argument you're making is based upon a direct democracy. Our government isn't a direct democracy (for the most part.) I'll juxtapose the two for you so you can see the difference. An example of a direct democracy would be a petition getting passed around till you had 51%+ of the population saying yes and it is law. A republic you could still petition the government but the final say is within the legislature. The wording is written within the legislature. The power resides DIRECTLY in the hands of those elected to the legislature instead of DIRECTLY in the hands of the whole of the populace.

>>131351779
At this point I wonder if an actual democracy would be better than the republic we currently have. It's pretty clear all of our politicians are bought and paid for. So much for the "educated decision makers" meme.

At least with a monarchy/dictatorship the monarchs have some stake in the survival of their people.

>>131333898
Hot! Got any nudes?

>>131351779

my argument is not based on direct democracy at all, only on where the theoretical and philosophical actual power should lie. just because a government should be constrained by a document does not mean that it will actually be. case in point: your country's entire history. despite your impressions of my argument i actually do know how the american government was set up, but i don't consider your consitution, any constitution, that fundamental of a difference when comparing its essentially (legal)democratic character with for example monarchies or communist states. frankly i'm getting the feeling you're having an argument with me over something you've argued about before. believe me, your constitution and that you are a republic is an absolute improvement over any kind of lesser-constrained democracy. but dude i'm not arguing from pure democracy at all, degeneracy is a property of all democracies, legislation doesn't stop it.

>>131351092
Pharoah? COLDSIEMENS?

>>131351779
I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, putting middlemen (congress) in between people and policy hasn't stopped America from degenerating. Or do you think everything is going great as it is?

>>131333898
It doesn't exist, and even if it did it would be horrible.

File: 1487787820686.jpg (503KB, 1370x800px) Image search: [Google]

503KB, 1370x800px

Damn, good threads are always so fucking slow, I guess that's just /pol/ for you...

>>131353056
My two biggest issues with our Republic is this: money in our politics (lobbying) and career politicians. Each can be solved either through legislation or creating tradition. Personally I think that there should be single term limits on all offices and public funding of all candidates. It would force citizen government because it'd be much more difficult to be a career politician, fuck over your constituents at the local or state level, and expect to be elected to the federal offices. The public funding of all candidates would also mean that you needn't worry about funding for a campaign and with that need gone, so too goes most of money's influence on our politics.

>>131352239
I'd say that it is feasible considering the technology we have. But I don't want mob rule. Our Republic is difficult enough with a little less than 500 voices running the show. Imagine if it was 360 million instead.

>>131353056
And the second part, which I know is personally idealistic but also integral to our system is the idea that we elect those that should best represent our interests. I know that doesn't occur always, but I think that the two reforms that I propose would help our system go a long way towards redemption in the eyes of the citizenry and restore faith in our system of government.

>>131353526

i think the general consensus is that democracy denegerates because of mob rule, regardless of how you arrange the power institutions. that was why it was mocked in ancient greece and why the founding fathers of america spent blood and tears designing a constitution to safeguard the primary role of government as they saw it. then degeneracy set in, possibly cause god is dead possibly through subversion (possibly both). now you can either return to small-ish government somewhere on the libertarian spectrum or with whatever mandatory social program you want through democratic means as originally intended, or consider some sort of transition to a different system where everyone has their favorites. it's usually nice when that transition doesn't involve the ruination of civilization and the associated risks of a revolutionary party in charge, but that's a difficult problem. i have faith though. anyway, what about democracy you curious about?

>>131333898
Democracy is a solid idea in theory, but we're at the limit here with what has effectively become an elective aristocracy. Now that it's possible, I'd rather see a technocratic direct democracy.

People elect a party to determine the general course of action for the country (tyranny of the majority, but it's doing the most amount of good for the most amount of people) and from there the people can vote on individual laws in realtime. Ministers/Department heads are selected for their roles based on their education and experience, rather on how close they are to the party leader.

Ideally you end up with a system wherein experts of their fields manage departments and no leader can unfairly use their mandate to push through legislation against the will of the same majority that voted them in.

>>131334250
No vote for people on welfare.

>>131352401
I've argued about it before with other American's. You know the "burger education" meme? It has some merit. If you want to make arguments about it's democratic TENDENCIES and how that can eschew society sure. But to call it a democracy is simply fallacy, and we have two different words in the English language of Republic and Democracy, and these systems, while similar, have fundamental differences to them. I'm genuinely tired of you making loophole arguments because I'm just repeating myself at this point. What are you talking about when you mean "...just because your government should be constrained by a document does not mean that it will actually be. case in point: your country's entire history."

>>131335496
So basically feudalism. There would be a retarded amount of conflict and war.

>>131333898
Things were mostly better when only land owning whites could vote. That's real American """"democracy"""

>>131354716

Yeah okay, but do you also know about the "burger exceptionalism" meme? You can fuck right off with my labeling America a democracy as a "fallacy". I'll use my own words, thank you very much. You are literally arguing semantics as if it's a fallacy and calling the differences "fundamental". From the perspective of a reactionary monarchist, your fundamental differences are trifles. I'm not arguing for any loopholes, I'm just using my own words (which weren't directed at you btw).

As to what you quoted from me, I think that speaks for itself? A constitution is literally a document, not a guaranteed spirit in the people, and it does not survive intact, anywhere. It gets amended and re-interpreted and debated, but government mandate tends to grow. Your country's history is one long march of progressivism with the occasional bout of reaction, and the same is true of the other western countries mostly since the first world war when the monarchies really died. Anyway, I just remembered you called me out on not using the term "democratic tendencies" cause you've argued too much on reddit or something so I'm kind of bummed out now. I'll repeat that designing a constitution is impressive work and tends to be a great improvement on democracy, as all laws are.

>>131351569
You said practical necessity, yet you don't acknowledge the ease with which the necessity of the middlemen is mooted..

>>131352239
>At this point I wonder if an actual democracy would be better than the republic we currently have. It's pretty clear all of our politicians are bought and paid for. So much for the "educated decision makers" meme
That's what I'm saying. Ruling classes offer nothing but self-flattery.

>>131354110
>democracy denegerates because of mob rule, regardless of how you arrange the power institutions
How can you have mob rule with an oligarchy or aristocracy in the way?

>>131333898
I prefer a limited democratic republic. Because the majority is a lynch mob.

>>131338254
>democracy is based on the majority getting what they want
>the majority of people live in one area
>this suddenly makes it bad that the majority get what they want
Democracy is garbage, but this argument is worse. Why shouldn't california dictate what happens in the entire country? If that's what the majority wants then it's fine.

>>131353622
I don't see how that prevents mob rule and degeneracy. Congress is not a lifetime appointment, they still have to be consistently reelected by their constituents. I don't see how forcing a new guy in every few years is going to solve anything.

>>131355992

I think the proper perspective is that everything in the constitution is a compromise of exactly the sort of problem you're describing. You can't have the mob do everything (laws), and it can't be too whimsical (representation), and for the proper functioning of society it's important to gerry-mander the votes according to land / households / taxes, etc.

>>131355755

What do you mean by "in the way?". The mob votes and the mob complies, the mob participates in the democratic system. It isn't a foreign police force that is enforcing the democratic laws. Are you getting at a sort of oppressor / oppressed analysis?

>>131356265
I guess that's fair. I still think each state should have its own independent government that can do whatever they want

File: 1498166096645.jpg (257KB, 1280x753px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1280x753px

>>131356655
yes, sovereignty is love/life. the federal system was supposed to be mainly for defense and other useful cooperation between the states. but over time it has "degenerated" into the top-down legislator we see today, still powered by that same old constitution whose creators never intended this kind of mileage. if you try to imagine what the founding fathers would make of it, they probably would be more shocked at the extent of government power than how votes are gerry-mandered, although they would immediately understand how the latter would be important to everyone in america all of a sudden. it's ironic that everyone is trying their bestest to be faithful to the forms of the constitution, while the creep in power is so obvious and blatant that people just try to ignore it or label the whole thing "enlightenment progress"

>>131355603
It is though. There is a fucking fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic though. And were not a fucking democracy. I know what our exceptionalism is, and it was a desire to remain outside of Europe and her conflicts. Our constitution has allowed for the winnings of many legal battles in the United States that would be considered breaking the law, but if you can make a good argument that the constitution, in other words, the highest law, contradicts the federal law, or state law, or municipal law, then that law is null and void. There are parts of our constitution that hold very strict language, usually for the protection of rights, and then very loose language, usually in the definition of what exactly those rights are, which means there are plenty of interpretations of our constitution, and the ones that allow for more choice will always outpace those of the more restrictive. In this respect, the more choice, I can understand your statement of our one long march to progressivism. It is difficult to maintain a balance of respect for our rights while also maintaining a healthy society. Also, these trifle differences are important. Are you for a feudal system of monarchism? A constitutional monarchy? How is the power distributed in your system, if at all? These trifle differences are important. The distribution of power shows the system to me what it is.

>>131356473
>participates
Their participation is ersatz and so divorced from policy outcomes as to be negligible. The "mob" votes for their oppressor and the "mob" complies with them, to a greater or lesser extent. In fact, at best the "mob" votes for in what canned narrative the oligarchy wraps their decisions.
Have you read Gilens & Page's 2014 paper? If this were a democracy, then the people's will would be expressed in policy outcomes. Which happens approximately 0% of the time when an initiative comes from the "mob" and about 33% of the time when an initiative comes from the oligarchy.
>Are you getting at a sort of oppressor / oppressed analysis?
It's a dominance hierarchy, isn't it?

>>131357170
ok nvm, good luck with your semantic purity, i'm glad we were able to figure out whether the difference is "fundamental" or not.

>>131333898
It's (((((ok)))) but fascism is better,much better.

>>131357197
Well yeah of course democratic politicians do not do what the people want. But that fact is still a fault of the people, as that is the whole point of the democractic philosophy. If people believe that their government is not democratic then they should storm capitol hill, or accept subjugation. It is not a magical quality of the ruling class, be it socialist or aristocratic or "democratically elected" or just filthy rich that keeps a government in power. Frankly I'm no good with Marxist analysis so I'm not sure if democracies swerve into "oppressive" once some metric establishes the government doesn't do what "the people" wants. Democracy isn't obvious, and it's not clear what "the people" want. I take it you are not a fan of property? or just vast wealth?

File: 2017-06-25_21.51.57.jpg (318KB, 1078x1390px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1078x1390px

>>131343994

>>131357529
>Well yeah of course democratic politicians do not do what the people want. But that fact is still a fault of the people, as that is the whole point of the democractic philosophy.
Blaming the victim is the whole point of LIBERAL philosophy. There, fixed that for you. I'm done

>>131333898
Democracy failed.

>>131357715
ok bye, dunno why you mad

Anyway, who is doing the blaming mate? I'm pointing out a technicality. All your oppressive regimes have also been overthrown by "the people". You either consider people brainwashed and incapable of understanding their situation, or they are capable to some extent and accept it. People have been oppressed and divided at all times in all places, even democratic representatives are such only as long as the people believe it sufficiently and (apparently) policy doesn't veer "too much" from what "the people" want. You seem very focused on smashing the aristocratic/oligarchic/doesitmatter class. Where would you say their power comes from? What is this "oppression" force? The people are almost always the victims of their government, and analyzing at this level suggests you think there's some utopia just around the corner where people are "free" and the government does what they want. We sure are supremely evil or supremely stupid to have taken that long to figure out something so simple

>>131337796
>he said he would've voted trump
Sauce?

>>131357715
Sorry to break it to you but in all the western democracies (and republics) the people pretty much made the bed they're in.

By the way, you still haven't replied to my post:

>>131351414

File: 1497625512097.jpg (58KB, 600x395px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x395px

Bump

wtf is this question? seriously wtf??? do you think that i have to answer this retarded question? kill yourself

>>131333898
Democracy was pretty decent when people voted based on their own needs and problems instead of just idolizing their candidates and turning it into some kind of religion.
But mass media basically ruined it, though I can't really think of an alternative that isn't significantly worse.
And no, having computers rule us is not an option.