Democracy is an illusion

[Divine Power]

For example even if people have the right to vote, their choices can be manipulated by powerful forces. Propaganda, sensationalist media, and social media algorithms can create a false reality, or "manufactured consent," that sways public opinion. Voters may believe they are making a free choice, but they are actually just reacting to carefully crafted narratives.

Uneducated voters, on average, are more susceptible to political manipulation. This isn't a matter of intelligence, but of a lack of civic knowledge, critical thinking skills, and media literacy that are often developed through education

Without a solid understanding of how government, economics, or science works, it's difficult for a voter to distinguish between a credible policy proposal and a false promise or conspiracy theory.

I Think the solution is The mixed constitution is a system that deliberately blends elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy to create a government that is more stable and less prone to tyranny. The goal is to set "power against power," so that each part of the government can check the abuses of the others.

A mixed government is fundamentally grounded in the rule of law. This principle, which Plato and Aristotle both championed, means that no one, not even the ruler, is above the law. A constitution serves as the supreme law of the land, providing a framework that limits government power and protects individual rights. This is a primary safeguard against tyranny.

Plato outlined a rigorous and lifelong process of education and selection to produce the philosopher kings. This process was designed to ensure that rulers had the necessary moral character and intellectual capacity to govern justly.

Their primary motivation would be a genuine passion for truth, knowledge, and wisdom, not for wealth or power.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

Good post OP but your highlighting makes it look like a video game.

 

[Divine Power]

Good post OP but your highlighting makes it look like a video game.

Life is a good video game for me.

 

[BONECRUSHER]

I agree with the initial observation but the reality is that a constitution doesn't amount to shit. There is only one primary safeguard against shit governing and that is the willingness to use violence. Not muh guns, but rather the actual will to use whatever you have at hand as a weapon against those in charge.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Oh nice, another person who sees through the democracy circus! Manufactured consent, media distortion, public ignorance, you go, girl

I Think the solution is The mixed constitution

I want my money back

a system that deliberately blends elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy to create a government

What the fuck is this crap
That's like throwing three different flavors of authoritarianism in the blender and hoping that you somehow get a non-poison out of it

A mixed government is fundamentally grounded in the rule of law

Which doesn't constrain power. It's power writing its own permission slip. That's why every regime, from Joe Stalin to your local school board uses it. Law is not the opposite of tyranny, it's tyranny in standardized form.
Like, you already saw that democracy gives people the illusion of consent while shaping their choices. What makes you think that a """mixed constitution""" wouldn't just also create illusions?

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

Constitutional limits are retarded nonsense, the US threats its as a todo list of things to break. Unless there are real constraints on the power they are as good as void.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

I Think the solution is The mixed constitution is a system that deliberately blends elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy to create a government that is more stable and less prone to tyranny. The goal is to set "power against power," so that each part of the government can check the abuses of the others.

It's not about the system, it's about the moral character of those who sit at the levers and how much blackmail mossad has on them.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Constitutional limits are retarded nonsense, the US threats its as a todo list of things to break. Unless there are real constraints on the power they are as good as void.

I think if you compare it to the typical Eurotrash country it's been very effective. Almost all of our rights that we associate with the Revolution were traditional rights of Englishmen. But England has completely abandoned pretty much all of it, while the United States still largely holds on to some degree.

But this is one of the biggest issues: a Constitution is a gentleman's agreement, not an actual enforcement mechanism itself. It depends on having somebody around with a big dick that cares. When this system finally burns down and people get around to building something new, they'll need to figure out how to design a constitution that's robust to people not caring about the constitution. I think a huge chunk of it will come down to recognizing the real source of all political power: military force. I'd rather have the Army straight up abolished, for example. There's already a Marine Corps for offensive expeditions, there's State Militia (National Guard: remove the President's ability to nationalize it except by the state's consent) for actual defense (size and isolation is quite a luxury...), and each state gets its own small nuclear arsenal as part of the broader national nuclear arsenal. I want every state having an ICBM as a matter of principle, even if it has to be subsidized by the Federal Government.

Local militias ought to be enshrined, and that includes explosives. State gets to regulate the access to it (licensing a private militia for it), but think "shall issue," not "may issue." The main purpose of the Second Amendment is to enable revolution. In a modern context armor and aircraft may be unaffordable, but stockpiles of things that can make government tanks go boom is reasonable.

 

[oprichniki]

I will add to this thread a relevant, wall-of-text quote, from everyone's favorite mustache man:

In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their wishes. Analysing this problem more closely, we see that the people themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the 'freedom of the press.'

In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Plato outlined a rigorous and lifelong process of education and selection to produce the philosopher kings. This process was designed to ensure that rulers had the necessary moral character and intellectual capacity to govern justly.

Their primary motivation would be a genuine passion for truth, knowledge, and wisdom, not for wealth or power.

I believe he also said (or I think, at least) that they shouldn't even be allowed to become wealthy, mandated to live a simple life so financial corruption isn't possible.

I'd also modify it further by mixing in elements of theocracy, producing a Christian philosopher-king. This would be the ideal form of government.

 

[TEA 3HF]

monarchy

If you seriously think the idea of investing power into some inbred shit licking mongoloid based on which cunt he was shat out of has any place in modern governance you should be shot in the back of the head immediately.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

If you seriously think the idea of investing power into some inbred shit licking mongoloid based on which cunt he was shat out of has any place in modern governance you should be shot in the back of the head immediately.

@Divine Power is Chinese. Subservience comes naturally to him.

Also, write the OP yourself instead of generating everything with AI if you actually care about the topic.

 

[Male Idiot]

Of course there is only one form of government that works perfectly.

The allies were so poopyscared they had to unleash Stalin to stop it.

 

[Divine Power]

I believe he also said (or I think, at least) that they shouldn't even be allowed to become wealthy, mandated to live a simple life so financial corruption isn't possible.

I'd also modify it further by mixing in elements of theocracy, producing a Christian philosopher-king. This would be the ideal form of government.

I believe money corrupts the soul; people abuse money, regardless of what plato said

Matthew 19:24: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." This famous saying highlights the great difficulty that the wealthy face in prioritizing God over their possessions.

 

[Divine Power]

If you seriously think the idea of investing power into some inbred shit licking mongoloid based on which cunt he was shat out of has any place in modern governance you should be shot in the back of the head immediately.

Monarchy is cool if your ruler is a wise old man like King Solomon; otherwise, it ain't working that much.

 

[C. G. B. Spender]

"Democracy is talking itself to death. The people do not know what they want; they do not know what is the best for them. There is too much foolishness, too much lost motion. I have stopped the talk and the nonsense. I am a man of action. Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy. You in America will see that some day."

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

Just return to having only having people with property eligible to vote

 

[Do Not Touch Me Pls]

Democracy is corrupted. When you look at Greek Democracy it was perfectly functional, just not us. I think the French Revolution and the Christianization of America had something to do with it.

 

[YHWH's Strongest Soldier]

When you look at Greek Democracy it was perfectly functional

Athenian democracy fell twice after Pericles and never recovered after the Macedonians. Don't be retarded.

 

[Do Not Touch Me Pls]

Athenian democracy fell twice after Pericles and never recovered after the Macedonians. Don't be retarded.

It lasted for 300 years. Things rise and fall and 300 is plenty enough for a human-built dynasty. Not everything has to be 1,000 years of systematic Jewish abuse and ongoing.