Is it fair to say that Democracy is the ONLY acceptable form of government...

t. ahmed

Literally a /pol/ thread.

Go back to your containment board.

In the West, sure. The Saudis and Iranians would disagree with you.

After all, the law of God and his Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the only law that is morally correct. It follows that only those who study and understand this law are fit to lead men. It is arrogant to think that the people, many of whom are uneducated, would know better than God.

But is there any way to do that without resorting to authoritarian methods like torture or internment camps? Is it possible have a non-democratic government without having secret police and show trials?

t. bolshevik

Democracy is a naive ideology, and quite frankly was a mistake.

Remember, the US is NOT a democracy, it is a federal republic.

>This is generally frowned upon nowadays
Capitalism is the new God

>Go back to your containment board.

No. This is a political science thread.

Political science falls under the humanities umbrella.

It is still based on majority rule.

Just keep the apes distracted and nothing bad will happen.

Fuck Allah and that sand nigger Muhammad

>But is there any way to do that without resorting to authoritarian methods like torture or internment camps?
Television has been working pretty well for the past fifty years.

Simply because its possible to govern a nation with a single monarch doesn't by any means mean its the best way.

Why not?

It was the best way because it was working since the dawn of civilization in our species.

10/10 discussion of competing views on what makes government legitimate

>You're looking at things from a modern western viewpoint.
Correct.
>In other lands and times a government could only be considered legitimate if it had the backing of God (or the gods or heaven or whatever), usually vested in a single monarch or some kind of ruling class.
More to it than just divine appointment.

>Based on majority rule
No.
If that was the case, Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000, would have been president.
>see also 1824, 1876 & 1888

What form of democracy have you decided is the only democracy?

No
t. someone who comes here for history threads.

No, it's not, idiot. Political Science is a social science, not a humanity. This thread would literally fit in better on Veeky Forums. And even then, this thread fails to live up to the standards of a discussion of political science.

>Is it fair to say that Democracy is the ONLY acceptable form of government
Today we think this, but as time marches on, that may change.

Take for example the Roman Republic. For hundreds of years, it was seen as the only civilized way of Governance, the rule of the people, not the king; however, after it grew corrupt and bloated, the people eventually welcomed single rule.

Who's to say that in a hundred years or more, people will be filled to the lip with the inaction of populist governance and welcome the rule of a man or a group of men who can actually accomplish things?

except this isn't a politica science subject.

Political science deals with understanding voting patterns and making models to predict them.

This is a philosophical question. It does belong here.

Heinleinism is the on acceptable form of government.

A democracy/representative republic, with limited franchise. Where anyone can earn the franchise by service to the state. Otherwise, citizens and civilians are equal under the law.

Now if we were discussing the merits of communism...

Fuck off you little faggot.

That would still be a /pol/ thread. Like everyone there, you can only imagine that someone objects to you behavior because they must ALSO be unable to shut the fuck up about MUH IDEOLOGY.

One branch of government (the presidency) is not the entire government, you tard. The majority of the actual power is in congress, which is elected by the population

It took a very very long time for the people to "welcome" single rule in Rome. Theres a reason why rulers in the empire never called themselves kings; because the Romans despised the term due to a past history with kings. Usually they used terms like Princeps Civitatis, meaning first citizen.
Even then, over hundreds of years the facade of the republic was still upheld.

Yes, but in essence it's the same thing.

Sure, a society which values democracy would probably not go back willingly to an out and out kingship, but there is no fuctional difference between the latter Roman Emperors and a king.

Even when the there were Imperial and Senatorial provinces, the Emperor could control them all if he so wished.

Call it what you want, but single rule is single rule.

That's quite similar to saying "Is it fair to say everything that can be invented has been invented?"

Forms of government are also a part of ongoing research, there is no ONLY acceptable form of government.

Of course its the same thing. My point was that the emperor in the Roman empire was not backed by the people (at least within the early and middle empire). Julius Caesar, the first of many, usurped power and declared himself perpetual dictator. The people did not grow to accept a single ruler; Caesar usurped power and subsequent emperors were able to prop up the facade that the empire was still a republic, when in reality all power was vested within the dictator, first citizen, whatever they called themselves.

What went wrong with the United State's form of democracy? What changed?

You are rude
and the delineation still stands. The United States of America is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. Specifically, from the "CIA World Factbook":
[quote]
federal presidential republic
[end quote]

Have a blessed day.

Not really.

> Is it fair to say that Democracy is the ONLY acceptable form of government?
Not, it's just in vouge for now.
> How can any government call itself legitimate unless it has been fairly elected by a clear majority of the population?
Most governments in history weren't democratic yet people had no problem with accepting their legitimacy.

USA USA USA

Democracy ultimately leads to oligarchy where the government is eventually ran by families or the very rich, there hasnt and never will be a democracy that ever survives, it's only a matter of inevitability

>Democracy ultimately leads to plutocracy
FTFY

democracy is an epic fail like communism

Monarchy is the only government that has ever worked in human history.

Federal Republics are democracy

All peoples are equal. All things are equal. There is no better or worse, just differences of opinion.

Friendly reminder to stupid people.

Being a republic and being a democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

It is in the classic language of Aristotle. His distinction between the two forms of government is paramount and should be emphasized.

We're speaking modern English.

Virtually nowhere is a democracy if you only include direct democracy as being 'democracy'.

Why is it Americans have to choose between Hilary and Trump; are there not better qualified? Democracies are determined by the superior propaganda machine.

They don't. They could vote for an independent candidate.

>wasting your vote

They aren't mutually exclusive terms you fucking retard

>all peoples are equal

>stretch of my imagination cannot provide me with any better system than what we currently have thus it stands to reason it's the absolute best we can do ever

This is actually a key point of social justice.

I was mocking his implied relativism.

Ah, carry on then

>All peoples are equal

Lmao no

2012 Congressional election Democrats got 48.9% of votes.
They won 47.5% of the seats.
Republicans got 47.4% of the vote.
They won 52% of the seats.

If anything it is the First Past the Post voting that is stupid, not democracy

>How can any government call itself legitimate unless it has been fairly elected by a clear majority of the population?

When the government in question can dispense the law, make the state prosperous, can ensure the needs of its people, and protect them in times of calamity & war.

Chink's Mandate of Heaven succinctly summarized in no-bullshit terms what makes governments legit: if it works, it is legit.

That said, whatever "works" varies from society to society. In some, democracies worked well. In others, it didn't, and it turns out that say, for example, the old Kingdom worked better.

Does that guy spends the whole film bitching about how the locals failed to do anything?

God his job sucks.

I don't believe in democracy.
The only ones who get elected in a democracy are the biggest clowns, the populists with the most ridiculous claims. How is it correct to let an uneducated majority decide on something they don't have the competence to judge?
Territorial administrators should be chosen based on competence, not popularity.

Finally, it's not like our republican system is democracy anyway. Democracy is when each citizen has a concrete possibility, as well as the duty, of taking an active part in his community's political life. Our current political system is a sugarcoated parliamentary oligarchy.