"Democracy is better than the alternatives." Discuss

Let's do this democratically
strawpoll.me/11109886

Dictatorship/Autocracy, Sophocracy, Ochlocracy (Direct Democracy).
I guess I should've been clearer, I meant the Representative Democracy used in most developed nations.

Ochlocracy isn't direct Democracy. Ochlocracy is the (mostly violent) literally "rule of the mob", which doesn't have to be based on direct democracy plus Ochlocracy is pejorative.

The thing people don't get is that in white countries any system of government will work; in non-white and mixed countries only dictatorships can be effective to stop crime and make people work, democracies will inevitably lead to civil unrest if not war and balkanization.

e n l i g h t e n e d
d e s p o t i s m

Better for what? Better for who?
>implying there's some sort of universal better

...

how about 4u you fucking faggot

desu corruption is much higher in non-democracies. Corruption is something we will never get rid of but in democracies it's a bit more manageable at least.

glorious meritocracy/technocracy WHEN

Democracy is an oxymoron. "The People" as a whole never run societies, but a group with a determined ideology , which outnumbers the rest does. What if I have not chosen the president of my country? Am I not part of the people?

Doesnt democracy's have more transparency so when corruption happens because of freedom of speech and journalism we can notice it better? If it was the soviet union the corruption would never be noticed and the average person would never be aware of it as the average person in a democracy would be

"Here read this. Perhaps we don't know all the alternative forms of governance, but this book proves that democracy does not produce ideal governments."

never

competent people are too busy being productive to go into politics as it exists now

Democracies have directly caused famines in the 20th century.

>give food aid to struggling third world country
>surplus of food from food aid allows large population to develop
>interruption of food aid
>famine

You're objectively wrong.

he means no famines in your own country. disasters in third world holes just happen.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

>this is democracies fault

it happened in a democracy. So far, the two statements that have been made, and I quote:

>"No famines."
>"he means no famines in your own country."

are objectively wrong. Educate yourself.

How is the dust bowl related to democracy as opposed to farming practices?

Saying that democracy is better than all the alternatives assumes that the set of all possible alternatives has already been exhausted and that there needn't be any more workshopping political ideologies.

It promotes a lazy style of thinking that suggests there should be no further improvement to the political system, if the political system is at least nominally democratic.

What we really want is the most competent and reliable people assuming the positions of responsibility and decision making at the highest levels of government or top-level decision making entity, regardless of who they are. It is sheer idiocy to give the village idiot the same amount of decision-making power (via voting) as the best and brightest.

Theoretically I'd say that good absolute dictatorship/absolutism are the best forms of government, however, that isn't very realistic perspective and in the world we live in on average democracy will lead to better results for most amounts of people, though that might be mostly to the fact that actual democracies are usually tied to quite free capitalistic market that is the actual reason why the democratic countries flourish more than ones with absolutistic forms of government and planned market.

The fundamentals of democracy might be better than alternatives, but the crux of the problem lies in universal suffrage.

I'm cool with enlightened despotism, but the issue is securing someone fit for the job.

Many people argue we are in a post-political stage, and that capital markets can take over the job of governing. After all, if the government's job is mostly just making sure things are affordable, markets have been proven to be a mostly reliable solution to ensuring that.

>If no famines happen in a democracy, it's because of democracy
>If a famine happens in a democracy, this has nothing to do with democracy

You really ride the shortbus huh

Democracy is mob rule
Republic is oligarchic mob rule
Communism is universal oppression
Socialism is social classism with theft
Anarcho Libertarianism is Pullman Economics
Social Libertarianism is social classism with pity
Meritocracies devolve into fascist regressivism
Fascism is regressive mob rule
etc.

You know what's better?
Moderate Centrism with multilateral options.

>centrism
t. indecisive fag

Hitler was a centrist.

So, technocracy?

>Meritocracies devolve into fascist regressivism
like when?

You can create goverments that might theoretically work well, but would crumble in practice. I mean, theoretically you can argue that anarchism/communism could work, it's just about how you're modeling the world and despite democracy being still flawed, it's the system that allows a bit margin of error, which is probably its biggest advantage, since it's very clunky and bureaucratic.

And I'm not sure what'd mean to have society without any form of gevernemnt, it just sounds like anarchism in general, but even if it was plausible I think that most people do find government useful as regulatory device that serves interest of the citizens in practicalities and makes things easier for most of the citizens.

circa 1932.

I agree with both of you, I'm just stating that it isn't a serious issue. The USSR was incredibly corrupt, of course, like many totalitarian civilizations.