Democracy: good or bad?

Its philosophy you dumb birch

Technically that autism happened due to boycotting the vote, mussolini is a less contestable example of dictator by popular vote

Democracy works in a smaller polis style society where the leaders have real accountability for the outcomes of their decisions, but proceeds to rapidly degenerate once the society is complex enough to allow elected leaders to completely insulate themselves from the people they rule over. It then becomes a defacto aristocracy except with none of the benefits of aristocracy.

Systems of government aren't real so they can't be good or bad.

t. Aristotle

Hitler didn’t get the most votes

Democracy is mob mentality and Argumentum ad populumturned into a political ideology. Its complete and utter shit.

Representative Democracy is shit
Absolute Direct Democracy with full public transparency of everything solves a lot of problems.

I like this

Good.
Proof: You choose to live in democratic nations and not non-democratic ones.

What benefits of aristocracy?

>assuming

based

Try serving your local government in a volunteer capacity. Technocracy may be a shit system, but having complex decisions made by laypeople isn't great either.

I wouldn't mind living in Singapore or one of the Gulf States.

Generally with a real aristocracy you have people invested in the future of the society long term to benefit their children and establish a sort of dynastic prestige. Probably the main benefit to having unelected leadership is this changing of the time horizon in which the leader is approaching. A noble family can reasonably tackle 50+ year projects knowing that likely they will be done to fruition. If you compare this to representative democracies where a project intended to be completed in 5 years will be indefinitely suspended and you have obvious problems.

The vast majority of people don't get to choose where they live.

Well shit. I can't say it's good, now can I? That guy Hitler was a real jerk. They elected a jerk under a democratic system.

Bad. Most of the population is too stupid and impressionable to be able to have that kind of power.

And yet, here you are. I guess you do mind.
The people who live in democracies do, and the few that manage to get the choice in non-democratic places choose democracies.

remote work nationalism

good in a municipal level in a pre-industrial agrarian community, doesn't work so well in an industrialized, modern nation-state.

Okay boomer, I'll just go learn a new language from scratch, spend years applying for citizenship in a foreign country with no family or contacts, hope they accept me, and then move there where I will forever be an outsider.

There are huge barriers to moving to non-democracies.

Bad. Everybody believes in democracy in theory, but when they form tribalist groups and camaraderie along party lines and develop a seething hatred for the other side, especially when their own party loses, it's pretty clear that they don't believe in democracy in practice.

Bad. Just remember mobs are not always right.

What’s worse; participating in democracy knowing full well that it only serves to give the illusion of control, or choosing not to vote and allowing a bunch of ignorant, myopic reactionaries to determine who the leaders of their countries?

nick land for president yay

i vote null

You can’t have a functioning democracy under capitalism

Attached: 94DBCD6C-391F-4B9D-8ED5-FF9A99691EF2.jpg (650x650, 73K)

pretty corny tbqh

yes, but the aristotle quote isn't needed. Oligarchs like Bezos etc. just buy opinions.

Has real democracy even been tried?

Which is why we need a non accumulative currency with our democracy in the workplace.
Put the Bezos etc out of work.

It's a spook

>non accumulative currency
Implying it's money that allows for the accrual of power. Non accumulative currency won't do shit.

kill yourself dumb tranny

99% of people are idiots too stupid to understand anything.
Why would you let them decide what's good for the world?

damn, sounds like communist critique of democracy

We should cast votes by killing neoliberal elitists or their kids.

Because they're white, silly.

With a strong people, who value their nation, virtue, and education, it is the best system. Without it’s a utter failure.

Read the sticky you faggot

You can't put a leader out of work from anything. That would just be a waste of time as another leader inevitably rises. Humans are pack animals. There will always be a leader.
You need to learn more about human nature.

>Be born in Latin America, moved to Europe
>Degenerate music and culture
>Mother is listening to her favorite radio station, a "family" show from our country
>It's all reggaeton with lyrics about men being horny for women, singing about their ass and tits and lusting after them
>Old women listen to this, kids listen to this, no wonder casual sex is so normalized
>Observe how the poor uneducated people, who can barely write a paragraph, have more children and don't think much about anything
>Democracy seems tremendously unjustified just by looking at my surrounding culture

>reggaeton
I thought blacks listened to the worst music, and then one day I had to co-habit a jail block with puerto-ricans. God. Fucking. Damn.

I'd prefer smart people.

based

It's not about good or bad, it's about what you deserve.

This basically.
If they vote in a dictator then they get what they voted for.
If they vote for policies that goes against their interests then they get what they voted for.
If they aren't educated and critically thinking then they get the serfdom they deserve.

>complex decisions
Name one which direct democracy couldn't address.

You're talking about simple mob rule, bub.

Large scale projects that requires people of high level expertise in many technical areas e.g. city planning, all aspects of military, fiscal policies etc.
Normal people don't have the right knowledge to pick the best people for jobs like these.

And when normal people inevitably have to vote for a person who claims know how to pick these people then you have indirect democracy i.e. bureaucracy.

So there's a public job that's offered to private companies, instead of a representative giving the job to the company that bribes him, the public votes for the best offer (often the cheapest bid). Sounds like direct democracy wins this one.

>Normal people don't have the right knowledge to pick the best people for jobs like these.
What usually happens is corporations give money or favors to officials to get different jobs.

People can objective judge whether a person or company is qualified.

your average voter has no knowledge of economics and politics. more than that, 95% of general population are retarded, or npc as some may call it. only people who have proven they're competent should have a right to vote.

i dont like that system in general, bit my desired regime (voluntary contract jurisdictions) is a literal wet dream thats never happening

Your average (corrupt) elected government official limited to a 4 year term can get his hand on so much money that it’s gonna last generations. An aristocrat could do the same, possibly in a shorter time and if given absolute authority, with less effort.
Difference between them is, the democratically elected leader’s worst case scenario is a luxury prison for a few years and the loss of some wealth. His most likely scenario is bad press and lost elections. The aristocrat on the other hand will die along with his family and mistresses unless he can placate the people. That’s what makes them benevolent, they fear the people, as they should. Dem politicians have no real stakes from the moment they become rich.

The problem is that most probably not everyone voted for a dictator but those who made the right choice also need to suffer the consequences, which is unjust. Depending on the electoral system, it is even possible that only a minority voted for a tyrant, in which case it is totally unjust that everyone has to suffer.

In such a case it would be better to have a semi-autocracy that does not allow voting or interferes with the elections but protects the rights of those worthy (by rights I mean stuff that a true tyrant would take away like freedom of speech, of assembly, of movement etc.)

Instead of companies paying politicians to scam people they just scam people directly. A mega corporation gets contracts if they want to get contracts.

>People can objective judge whether a person or company is qualified.
1. That's an extremely generalising statement.
2. You're grossly overestimating people.
3. Then why not just pick politicians """objectively""" to sell contracts for them instead of voting for every little thing?

Neither. If the nation is comprised of animals then it will not matter what system you have.

Easy.
Should we cut taxes and thus give the average man and woman more spending money for the next four years, or should we raise taxes to begin construction of a vast public infrastructure work which will cost the taxpayer more over the next four years, but which in twenty years time (and only then, since it will take time to complete) will become a necessary and much-appreciated service for all?

yeah the professionals have done a stellar fucking job today

>YUO MEAN LIKE HITLURRR DURRR

Attached: hurr durr.png (462x404, 82K)

Mussolini is a valid example

these people do not know who that is

Sad but true

Based, also reads like a marxist critique

So bad

There are Marxists who have admitted Spengler's ideas were often deeper than the ideas of the leftist philosophers at the time, and he ended up getting adopted into a lot of philosophical thought without ever really getting much credited for his influence outside of Wittgenstein.
This isn't one of those times, since Engels said the same independently, but Spengler is one of the most criminally overlooked men of the 20th century.

He's also Tedpilled, which you can see in the essay pic related.

Attached: technics.jpg (324x499, 36K)

>tfw no real life Reinhard to rule over society
youtube.com/watch?v=xGeOEr6yFL4

This was pretty different to being Tedpilled at least as far as I recall.

Underated post. And factually truthful

“Let there be one commander only, one ruler, who is given the sceptre of power and the right to rule by Zeus, son of sickle-wielding Cronus.” -Odysseus Iliad 200

Which is exactly why democracy is bad. Because voters are stupid. Look at all of the 20th century dictators that gained power through democracy.

Based and, dare I say it, redpilled.

>democracy
you mean giving the illusion of choice to a predominantly brainlet society?

Attached: 1567851711397.jpg (720x960, 106K)

>The wealthy will simply work many more hours in a day than the lower classes! Then where will you be!?
Funny.

>Appeals to human nature
Human nature is malleable.
This Mostly incomprehensible rant seems to come out of love for Bezos. Dear, he is not a leader, he is an owner. He hires people to do the leading. Democratically run workplaces puts them out of work, or more accurately puts them back to work

You posted presidential elections, moron.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election

Go to bed, Mill.

Bad. This isn't good politics, this isn't good governance, and this certainly isn't anything that the average Twitter user needs to be involved in to begin with. We are beholden to the least among us, and with the current state of our culture and discourse, this explains a lot. The only problem is we have fooled ourselves into thinking that the western liberal democracy is the crown jewel of political development, the end all and be all. This is not the case, and the sooner we get over this way of thinking, the better. Ultimately it doesn't matter though, the same people who are screaming about democracy will be good little monarchists within 48 hours of a hypothetical monarchy taking its place. They don't have political convictions, they have opinions which fit comfortably within whatever the dominant power structure is.

99% of liberals today would have been segregationists 60 years ago because they have confused their own opinions with whatever fashionable middle-class trend they have inherited. Change their circumstances and the person will change with it. Liberals would become subjects with very little friction if it came down to it.

Kill yourself dumb tranny

This but also more so conservatives. In which case it becomes even worse as they willfully walk into a cage and defend their right to be in it

Oh yes, as far as I'm concerned, most of what passes for conservatism these days is just liberalism from 20 years ago. They are spineless nostalgics. They still support the western liberal project in their own way, even if they aren't "liberals" in the usual left/right sense.

I doubt any people with absolute direct democracy would want/allow full public transparency, the world loves to be decieved.