What makes democracy "inherently" better than a monarchy?

What makes democracy "inherently" better than a monarchy?
Hypothetically isn't it a better idea to raise someone from birth to be a leader. As opposed to just selecting a handful of rich people and voting for the one we like most.

Because humans inherently act in self interest.

The more evenly the power is distributed, the closer this collective self interest will come to representing society's interests.

Also, if the proles don't have a stake in the game, they won't help your government stay around.

Democracy is only better than monarchy if the cultural conditions for a successful monarchy exist.

You line of thinking is why Obama can't figure out why all those Muslim countries he supported in the 'Arab Spring" all elected Islamic fundamentalist leaders who toss any semblance of western democracy out the door

Obama fucked up the Middle East on his own.
Well he had help from the bushes but he definitely had a big role in it.

>removing an important phenomena deciding our everyday lot from reality

lmao

He had a lot of help from Hillary.

Because you're getting the opinion or vote of every mind available in the nation. The more minds you have, the better outcome it will be.

Never underestimate the majority's decisions.

Yes yes she falls under the Obama administration so he's also to blame for her fuck ups

What if most people have a low IQ or have a shit ideology?

I see a lot of people going with the
>with democracy we have a voice
The problem with this is that we all have seen how democracy's don't really do a good job of hearing the people
So aside from the illusion of choice what other benefits are there?

Most people only know the world they are born into and that is in front of them

Being raised from birth to be a leader does count for a lot, but you fail to acknowledge that so much can go wrong with a family. To name a few, there's inbreeding, petty jealousies, and mental illness. To make things worse, you better believe that all members of the family exercise a lot of power. That makes monarchies vulnerable to internal military strife and assassinations.

Hypothetically speaking, how someone who risen to be a leader from birth is going to lose elections?

>The more evenly the power is distributed
What a joke democracy just makes the aristocracy unstoppable because a monarch can no longer keep them in check like how America is ruled by an oligarchy of Billionaires that finances all of the parties to do what they say.

That's where news organizations come in and tell people the facts and inform the public. Most major news organizations in the US have failed to do their job because they're too concerned about being fair and balanced.

Nope, not even close. The middle east started getting fucked after WW1.

Willey is about the best argument against monarchism.

You end up with an autist in charge.

>That's where news organizations come in and tell people the facts and inform the public. Most major news organizations in the US have failed to do their job because they're too concerned about being fair and balanced.

Yeah, that's it - and also probably why so many news organisations are removing comments sections for their online articles

An uninformed, dumb majority will always figure out anything if their minds work together, lad.

Because democracy makes it so when a shitty leader is elected it is then the people's fault for voting him in and not the royalty which won't end up with a revolt against a royal family.

Yes yes the Cold War and all that jazz

>The more minds you have, the better outcome it will be.

You could have twenty farmers vote on medical policy and have a worse outcome than if you asked one doctor.

>You end up with an autist in charge.

What about monarchy that isn't strictly hereditary?

>Hypothetically isn't it a better idea to raise someone from birth to be a leader. As opposed to just selecting a handful of rich people and voting for the one we like most.

Sure sounds great, except history has shown that the 1st is just as unlikely to produce a great leader than the 2nd

Exactly. Not to mention, the term limit we see as a feature in many of today's democratic governments beats the hell out of all the violent successions monarchies have suffered over the years.

>All
>What is Tunisia
Sure they aren't a "Western Democracy" but come on now

It involves the people of the country in the political process in a legitimate way that lets them air their grievances short of armed revolt.

Say the country you live in adopted a tariff that hurts your business, you want the tariff gone. In a democracy, you have several avenues of trying to influence the legislature about the action, and if you get enough people behind you, you'll effect change.

If you live in a monarchy and he doesn't want to lower that tariff? You can't really do shit. The only way you can effect change is to try to bring down the monarchy in general, or replace the monarch, either of which is going to require violence, which is usually bad for the country as a whole.

>you're stuck with THIS GUY as your divinely appointed ruler for the next few decades