Democracy doesn’t work.

[ES 195]

Democracy does work though but only for a couple generations before it gets corrupted like every other form of government. The biggest problem with it is when the masses get complacent. The uneducated, apathetic, and single-issue voters are the biggest set backs and destruction of the system.
It would honestly work a lot better if every single law, bill and move politicians and corporations made were treated with the same scrutiny and ferocity as the 2nd amendment is. When one wrong step could end in violent disaster people would get jerked around a lot less and the system would run a lot better. People are just too used to the government being a bureaucratic nightmare that intentionally screw people over and things are going just a little too well for people to pay it much mind.

It's also why a sudden tyranny in the same vein as Caesar or Napoleon works really well. They force a bunch of good laws, systems, and reforms into being since they get into power by being champions of the people and are then killed off before the corruption seeps in.

And the only reason democracy is the "best" form of government so far is because it's more hands off with the market, which allows inventors and other people to develop product and spread wealth. A Monarchy or Theocracy would work just as well as any democracy if they had free markets.

 

[Rand /pol/]

Except the countries with the highest standards of living are all democracies.

 

[Shoggoth]

Indeed, it is the worst system except for all of the other ones.

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."

Is it though? People keep bandying this truism, but I sincerely doubt it.
The key problem I see with democracy can be formulated in terms of incentives - elected representetives have no incentive to not be corrupt in some way or another which will enrich themselves. Unless they're siants, the system's very structure will draw to it people who will abuse it for personal gain. Why not rob the public coffers if you're out in a few years? Laws? Laws are for the plebs.
Hereditary ownership of the state seems to be a model which will provide the generational incentive not to fuck it up, as when you pass it on to your children, you want to pass them a prosperous, nice place. If you encourage corruption, abuse the populous or enrich yourself, you leave a headache, execution, or crisis to your child.
I'd rather see a confederation of small principalities (like before the Prussian empire) or something similar.
Even if you go for a federated republic, like the original US, you must keep the franchise limited to only people with skin in the game. A modern interpretation will be net tax payers. Heinlein's proposal in Starship Troopers is also viable. There's also Formalism (Moldbug) and Propertarianism (Doolittle) if you want to venture into turbo-autism feuled solutions.
Universal democracy isn't the end all and be all of politics. It reeks of "end of history"

 

[FA 855]

Capitalist and Communist societies have both committed atrocities in the past, America is no exception to this rule, democracy is fundamentally a question of fairness vs pragmatism, fairness in the sense you believe everyone has natural rights to live as they choose and vote their representatives, however the problem therein is that representatives fool the gullible with promises of bread and circus and play up tribal identities (either the national identity or a minority) to get them to vote like a tribe for free handouts. Democracy degenerates when no one votes for the quiet principled candidate who has policies tried and tested and instead vote for someone promising endless cash and public services at no cost to the economy. Worse still, people have been known to vote for the winning candidate for no other reason than they like to 'win'. Pragmatism is perhaps most easily found in China, and their are both strong arguments in favor and against such a system, if you believe trading your freedoms away for 'sensible governance', then its for you, but if you like your sense of agency it is naturally a horrific thought having the Chinese surveillance state watch you jerk off.
Their is an argument for 'elitist' democracy, where people who contribute to society in meaningful ways, such as by joining the civil service, enlisting in the army etc. should vote, this is a idea helpfully expounded in Heinlein's Starship troopers.
Democracy as we know it will not go out with a bang but with a whimper, European democracies will become more censorious in an attempt to appease its tribes as they become more powerful electorally, eventually, inequalities will probably reach a breaking point and the welfare state will collapse, creating the conditions for a overthrow.
I don't really mind too much which system is in power, virtually all systems have merits except maybe feudalistic monarchism.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Is it though? People keep bandying this truism, but I sincerely doubt it.
The key problem I see with democracy can be formulated in terms of incentives - elected representetives have no incentive to not be corrupt in some way or another which will enrich themselves. Unless they're siants, the system's very structure will draw to it people who will abuse it for personal gain. Why not rob the public coffers if you're out in a few years? Laws? Laws are for the plebs.
Hereditary ownership of the state seems to be a model which will provide the generational incentive not to fuck it up, as when you pass it on to your children, you want to pass them a prosperous, nice place. If you encourage corruption, abuse the populous or enrich yourself, you leave a headache, execution, or crisis to your child.
I'd rather see a confederation of small principalities (like before the Prussian empire) or something similar.
Even if you go for a federated republic, like the original US, you must keep the franchise limited to only people with skin in the game. A modern interpretation will be net tax payers. Heinlein's proposal in Starship Troopers is also viable. There's also Formalism (Moldbug) and Propertarianism (Doolittle) if you want to venture into turbo-autism feuled solutions.
Universal democracy isn't the end all and be all of politics. It reeks of "end of history"

You would think that, and yet history shows that time and time again feudalistic states end up embroiled in corruption and warfare, often because of corrupt nobility.
Monarchies essentially centralize power to the point that you must have nothing but saints in the ruling line and in the stewards to have a monarchy that doesn't fester in short order, because there is no check to a monarch's power short of violent revolution.
The problem of thinking about this sort of thing in terms of incentives is that it assumes homo economicus, not homo sapiens.

 

[Webby's Boyfriend]

Yo momma doesn't work. @OP

 

[Queen Elizabeth II]

Trump is a lolcow? Okay, let's take your statement as truth just for the sake of the argument. Shall we take a look at the Muslim world at the moment? It must be better because they've rejected decadent western governments right? Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bahrain, Oman, UAE.....

Even the "best" places of these states such as Dubai are better because of their giant western migrant populations, and they still suck compared to the west because of the shitstains who run them. I picked Dubai because of the UAE's open practice of enslaving migrants from other nations by taking their passports and forcing them to work for the right to have them back rather than pay.

Yes. Democracy is shit clearly. We'd all prefer a dynasty of goat fuckers who are too busy obsessing over their women showing some ankle to actually come up with a policy beyond nuke Israel.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I really love this argument. You have no way to actually know this, you're just attempting to elicit a fear response from people instead of arguing.

Probabilisticly speaking what @Senior Lexmechanic said is completely accurate.

Regardless of the mechanism or circumstance of how the new upperclass would establish itself post-revolution, the vast majority of people would not be in the ruling class.

The people that do have a good chance of being inside that ruler class are already those with disproportional power. You may guillotine a couple of industry leaders or political figureheads, but why would you think you could get anywhere near those people with multiple failsafes to protect themselves?

Did a single Rothschild living in Germany or Italy get themselves captured during the second world war?

The superpowerful would be glad to have a system where there isn't as many checks and balances, no separated powers keeping each other marginally in check. And you have to be Sargon level delusional to think that barista's, computerprogrammers or even doctors would suddenly ascend those stairs of power in the case of a revolution. There'll be a couple, but only by being complete loyalists to existing powers or through a sheer luck in times of chaos and even then you have a better chance of winning the lottery.

 

[QI 541]

Of course democracy doesn't work, if hypothetically the entire world suddenly became a single democratic country overnight where the billions of people in India, China, and Africa were able to vote on what the world government should do your western liberal freedoms would crumble very quickly.

And the only reason democracy is the "best" form of government so far is because it's more hands off with the market, which allows inventors and other people to develop product and spread wealth. A Monarchy or Theocracy would work just as well as any democracy if they had free markets.

Every single good thing that came from le free market only happened through the guiding hand of the government.

 

[Black Waltz]

I want to be a global dictator and make people do whatever I want

 

[Rei is shit]

get in the car anon, we'll explain to you how democracy is antifragile

 

[OB 946]

I picked 130 because it's 2 standard deviations away, I'm not going to post my exact IQ because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. All I will say is, I would be okay with a society stratified by intelligence even if that meant there were people above me.

That's fucking retarded. There's been tons of studies that prove IQ to be total bullshit. It has more to do with schooling than anything.

A benevolent dictatorship is objectively the best form of government, but the obvious problem is that after the good king dies, the country goes to absolutely shit. Tito is the perfect example of this.

A democracy is only as strong as its people, which is why the US has been the premier world power for the last hundred years or so. Unfortunately the current generations are all decadent, degenerate sacks of shit with absolutely no respect for historical frame of reference.

 

[IN 041]

That's fucking exceptional. There's been tons of studies that prove IQ to be total bullshit. It has more to do with schooling than anything.

Post them

 

[OB 946]

Post them

Alert: IQ scores are meaningless · The Dirt Psychology

Those aren’t my words. They come from Dr. Roger Highfield, the director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London and the first man to bounce a neutron off a soap bubble. Highfield was commenting on one of the largest online surveys ever conducted on this subject and part of a study he...

thedirtpsychology.org

IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure

Results cast into doubt tests that have been used to link cognitive ability to race, gender and class

www.independent.co.uk

You realize that we have too keep revising the tests because people keep scoring higher, right? They have to continuously make them more difficult. This is especially evident in Africa where IQ scores have skyrocketed in places with access to modern education systems.

If you want more information on why IQ tests are flawed literally just google it. IQ tests are far, far from being a settled science and are appearing more and more to he total bullshit.

 

[IN 041]

Alert: IQ scores are meaningless · The Dirt Psychology

Those aren’t my words. They come from Dr. Roger Highfield, the director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London and the first man to bounce a neutron off a soap bubble. Highfield was commenting on one of the largest online surveys ever conducted on this subject and part of a study he...

thedirtpsychology.org

IQ tests are 'fundamentally flawed' and using them alone to measure

Results cast into doubt tests that have been used to link cognitive ability to race, gender and class

www.independent.co.uk

You realize that we have too keep revising the tests because people keep scoring higher, right? They have to continuously make them more difficult. This is especially evident in Africa where IQ scores have skyrocketed in places with access to modern education systems.

If you want more information on why IQ tests are flawed literally just google it. IQ tests are far, far from being a settled science and are appearing more and more to he total bullshit.

You said that you had studies, what you just posted were articles.

 

[OB 946]

You said that you had studies, what you just posted were articles.

That link studies. Just read the fucking articles. They hyperlink the goddamn things.

Do you REALLY want me to link 60 page PDFs with neutral names written in the most bland way that you are just not going to read? I fucking will, but your mind is already made up and you aren't going to change it, no matter what I post. I guarantee you that I could have Christ Jesus himself come down from the heavens, heralded by a cohort of angels in golden regalia, blasting their trumpets, point at you, and say "IQ tests are stupid, and should not be a basis for voting rights." And you would find reason to argue. I already know how this ends so just go ahead and meme arrow away my arguments and fuck right off.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Of course democracy doesn't work, if hypothetically the entire world suddenly became a single democratic country overnight where the billions of people in India, China, and Africa were able to vote on what the world government should do your western liberal freedoms would crumble very quickly.

Democracy sorta works, but it's not going to work without a Demos, without a people, a group that feels connected to each other and have some interest in a shared destiny.

 

[IN 041]

That link studies. Just read the fucking articles. They hyperlink the goddamn things.

Do you REALLY want me to link 60 page PDFs with neutral names written in the most bland way that you are just not going to read? I fucking will, but your mind is already made up and you aren't going to change it, no matter what I post. I guarantee you that I could have Christ Jesus himself come down from the heavens, heralded by a cohort of angels in golden regalia, blasting their trumpets, point at you, and say "IQ tests are stupid, and should not be a basis for voting rights." And you would find reason to argue. I already know how this ends so just go ahead and meme arrow away my arguments and fuck right off.

Post the actual studies and read at least the abstract, I'm not going to spoonfeed on you how to actually make a scientific argument much longer.

 

[OB 946]

Post the actual studies and read at least the abstract, I'm not going to spoonfeed on you how to actually make a scientific argument much longer.

Dude I'm not going to post and summarize fucking studies that are linked in the articles I posted.

I'm not trying to change your mind I'm just calling you a fucking dipshit.

 

[IN 041]

Dude I'm not going to post and summarize fucking studies that are linked in the articles I posted.

Way to out yourself as a retard, retard