Why is democracy the west's sacred cow?

File: [refutes praxeologically].png (1MB, 920x1250px)

1MB, 920x1250px

Congratulations, you broke the intellectual chains to which you are shackled by (((public education))).

>>135695852
You're pretty much right on your assessment OP.

As for your question, I's say it's simply propaganda, reinforced by the illusion that the common vote matters.

>>135695852
you want fucking Kim Jong Un then or what?

>>135695852
Democracy is useful only in a polity where everyone has similar wants and needs, as a means to decide priorities and tradeoffs. For example, you have a house of Commoners, a house of Workers, and a house of Moguls. Each house can use democracy within itself to decide what things they want and what things they are willing to exchange for them. Now you have a basis for agreements between houses: the Commoners want to be granted a modest level of consumption (welfare). The Workers and Moguls come to a cost sharing agreement to pay for it, but in exchange they want population control measures that will limit the reproduction of the Commoners. Negotiations are held and the Commoners agree to a combination of voluntary sterilizations and childbearing limits in exchange for the modest consumption they desire.

Takeaway: democracy works within unified polities (houses) and by crystallizing what the polity really wants and what they are willing to trade for it, makes possible exchanges between houses. Thus there is no need for class warfare, IF YOU MAKE GOVERNMENT REFLECT THE CLASS STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY.

>>135695852
Because when everyone gets one vote then whoever can reach the most people wins. This means the media is really the one that controls the country.

>>135701315

>This means the media is really the one that controls the country.

not anymore.

Trump proved this.

>>135701693
Yeah, but not because of any change of power, but rather because he forced them to cover him 24/7

>>135698592
No.
But the lack of democracy does not lead to hereditary dictatorships.
>>135701051
But that would never happen because we don't live in a democracy, we live in a plutocracy. banks always win.
>>135701315
What people want is not always whats good for them. Ancient societies knew this and that's why they generally didn't let the common folk vote.

>>135695994

....And when the men at the heads of these families have their own conflicts and complaints against each other, where do they turn?

To the poor to fight and die for them.

Nearsighted observation Hans.

Constitutional Republic

>>135701851

Yes but the coverage was almost entirely critical/negative.

They had a year and a half to frame the argument against him 24 hours of every single day and they failed.

People don't believe the media anymore. They know it is no longer even slightly impartial or conducted with and semblence of honor.

>>135702312
He is not proposing anything, he is just pointing out how the logical conclusion of AnCapistan is a Monarchy.

Democracy is better on a smaller, more local level. You want to elect a county sheriff? Fine, give it to the people. You want to elect a mayor of your city? Give it to the people.

You want to elect federal level officials that represent the entire country from Eskimos up north to desert people down south and everyone in between? Maybe a full democracy isn't the picture perfect way of doing things. People criticize the electoral college because it gives people in smaller states more votes proportionally to those in more populous states, but what they fail to see is that that is the exact purpose of the system.

Imagine if you will, a single world government. We are all one country, as many claim to want today. Should we have a straight popular vote to decide things? Should we let 3.751 billion rule over 3.749 billion because they have a slight percentage more? Is it ok for two poor men to vote that they should take the money of the one rich man because there's more of them?

The idea that people complain 'X is bad because it's not democratic' is horribly put on its own because it implies that democracy is the end all be all of political formatting.

>>135695852
UK is a parliamentary system where voters don't even choose the prime minister. You've got even less influence than in the US.

Don't talk about your monarch, because Parliament is sovereign, not the queen.

So you've got Saudi Monarchs, and some corrupt one party rulers who have show elections. Almost every world leader is "elected" either by Parliament or by an executive election.

>>135701851
While they did cover him for extended periods of time, more than any politician in history in a 1.5 year timeframe, it was almost unanimously and constantly in a negative light. If they really had control of the populace, Trump would have been bumped off of the stage in the primaries. And that was with not just CNN, MSNBC, WSJ, NYT, TYT, and any other media outlet you can think of, but FOX News giving him negative coverage at the time since he wasn't the republican candidate.

>>135703520
Republics are supposed to be layered bottom-up affairs, strangely like feudalism. The exact purpose of the electoral college and the Senate/House and how members are selected was because less populated New England states didn't want to be ruled by the Southern slave owning states.

And now New York and California are trying to rule the US.

>>135701871
But to what would it lead? By what else would rulership be decided?
While democracy is flawed, there is no current or past example for a nation, that experienced this amount of personal freedom and increase in quality of life

>>135704615
They don't seem to understand that when you're running for president of the US you're not running to be president of the people, you're running to be president of the states.

They seem to forget that America is 50 different states with 50 different governments in place.

>>135704702
>personal freedom and increase in quality of life
Gay.

We should all live our lives to serve the whims of a deified ruler.

Bring back the Pharaohs and God Emperors.

>>135704702
>that experienced this amount of personal freedom and increase in quality of life

What do you mean by 'this amount'? Are you referring to modern day Germany? US? Europe? The Western World?

File: 1776.jpg (589KB, 2550x2276px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 2550x2276px

>>135702713

>the logical conclusion of AnCapistan is a Monarchy.

And the logical conclusion of a Monarchy is a rebellion.

>>135695852
Because the West has overturned Christendom and lied to itself that authority comes from the people. That when a majority of people come together and decree is the arbiter of truth.

The universe is hierarchical. Nothing reigns from the masses, or "we the people" upward.