When has democracy ever worked?

When has democracy ever worked?

>actually expecting democracy to work

What next, communism?

equality and democracy is bullshit, Chad and Stacy still run the show the same way they did back in the homo erectus days, manipulation charm and small group psychology are the immortal governing dynamics of all social interactions, people die with 100 million bank just based on how good looking they are

t. virgin beta

you have a good waifu though :^)

>mfw its actually true
>triggered uggos with nice personality will atack it

I'm not a virgin.

Facts is facts. Don't make pretend we're not stuck in prehistoric hierarchies just because civilization has been around for 5k years.

>says something about how sexual market actually works
>gets called virgin

It's not even about the sexual interactions this shit governs ALL interactions.

I understand, but this fag who called you a virgin was totally referring to sexual interaction terms.

It's worked out in Anglo countries pretty well since its development in Medieval England and so forth.

Worked pretty well in Athens too. Hell actually its working pretty fucking well through the entirety of the West as we speak.

t. Constitutional Monarchist

lad 90% of jobs dont give a shit how ugly you are(except models and barmaids). As long as you present yourself respectfully(dont scare away customers with a degenerate rant about your waifu) employers dont care what you are like personally
t. retard living in society with job
You are right about sexual relations though

>As long as you present yourself respectfully
but
>employers dont care what you are like personally

I used to work with a Black Chad at 7/11 he picked up on me being a virgin and tried to help me get laid a few times, i was too autistic for it to work though.

has anything ever worked for more than a few hundred years?

Democracy has worked, but because nothing is perfect you can point to the remaining problems and say "missed a spot" with a dumb frogposter smug grin on your face.

That means
>wear a shirt
>dont scare away customers
>dont talk about your animated child porn addiction
if you cant do that user you are not truely human

Accepting that appearance and social skills dominate all human interactions taints whatever pretensions you may have about equality before the law, I hate to use this example but if you're pulled over in rural teneesee at three in the morning for going 10 over the limit who would you rather be an attractive white girl or a big ugly male negro.

You are definitly right to a degree, the ammount that this affects people might be overstated though and is dependant on location culture etc.
America is a shithole for things like that desu, places like new zealand canada australia are much better about it.
Also back to the original topic, democracy helps these people if anything as it gives non-normies a voice in the political scene, even if they are unable to accomplish anything due to numbers, compared to just ignoring them

>some of the richest and most successful people in the world are melvins like bill gates and zuckerberg
>FUCKING CHADS ITS NOT MY FAULT I CANT GET LAID

Canada is a catastrophically bad place.

>what is looks, money, status

Which non-democracy do you want to live in, OP?

i can think of two cases

1. ancient athens
2. 18th/early 19th century USA

only works in an aristocratic republic with high respect for private property, a limited state, and only a few in society given the privilege of casting a vote. Social Democracy doesn't work and universal suffrage has been an utter failure.

18th century USA wouldn't even be considered democracy by modern standards. If you told modern retards that only wealthy white nales should vote they'd start autistically screeching and calling it tyranny.

>government by the people works but only if you don't let the people participate in government
Spoken like a true Deutchaboo fasci-cuck

Technocratic oligarchy fucking when
People are idiots, only the educated should be able to have a say

>Trump
>Brexit
Badum cha

Democracy has never been tried.

Iceland and the Iroquois Confederacy.

>55% want cats to be banned
>45% don't want cats to be banned
>cats get banned because of democracy

whats with the 45% though? completely irrelevant?

When somebody, e.g. the OP, talks about Democracy, he usually means _liberal_ democracy which is different from mob rule.

Rashidun Caliphate worked fairly well

Democracy, at least in the United States and United Kingdom, has resulted in peaceful transfers of power for hundreds of years (with a few exceptions).

That is the great strength of a democratic tradition. Not that it necessarily makes the best decisions, but that it prevents violence from spilling into the political arena.

>liberal democratic capitalism
>not the end of history

Trigger warning.

Woah hitler was a big guy

>demos
>kratos

>cats get banned because of democracy
Cats get banned because of mob rule.
That's not how democracy works.

>Democracy, at least in the United States and United Kingdom, has resulted in peaceful transfers of power for hundreds of years (with a few exceptions).
That.
That is why Democracy works.

Power always shifts. You might not always like it, but it always happens.

Shifting peacefully is objectively better for everyone involved then a violent transition of power.

The United States is hardly a democracy though, its all one big bureaucratic mess. If anything it's an oligarchy, with some democratic principles sprinkled here and there.

>it allows for a smooth transition of power
The American people just don't have violent rebellions, this doesn't mean the transition of power is "smooth." And its not because of democracy, its because your average American is too rich and comfortable to want to rebel. Rebellions generally only happen when the people are so poor that they have nothing left to lose. The "smooth transition" is mostly thanks to capitalism, not democracy.

>The American people just don't have violent rebellions, this doesn't mean the transition of power is "smooth."

Yes it does. That's literally what it means.

>"the people"

such a typical Enlightenment-fag abstraction. Almost as bad as the universal "man". You do not allow children to participate in democracy or government and women were never allowed to vote until fairly recently. Most men were not even allowed to participate. The only people that were able to were landowners (ie people with a stake in the country) and the upper class often the most educated gentry.

Why do we live in a world where "smooth transition of power" means "nobody died?" Just look at whats happening now, would you call this smooth simply because nobody has died yet? The branches of government are at war with eachother, over have the country is furiously protesting. Thats not "smooth." And its not like this has never happend before, it happens almost every time. Just because there is no violence doesn't mean there is "peace."

>Communism
>2017
Come on mang, we all know that Fascism is going to work this time.

Pirates had a pretty good democracy going.
They voted on just about everything they did
Captains of the ships were generally voted on. Where they went,what they did. Splitting the treasure equally except for the captain & quartermaster

In antique Turkey (Anatolia and Cappadocia)

Also in 2016 USA

What's with this "reactionaries pretending the last 300 years of history didn't happen" maymay?

>Just look at whats happening now, would you call this smooth simply because nobody has died yet?

Yes.
Pic related is a rough transition of power.

>The branches of government are at war with eachother, over have the country is furiously protesting.

There are always protests after elections. The right did the same after Obamas election. Protests are good. They let people get there anger out without killing one another.

> Just because there is no violence doesn't mean there is "peace."
The world is not a peaceful place. But the absence of violence is usually pretty dam peaceful.

>Just look at whats happening now, would you call this smooth simply because nobody has died yet?

Yes. Assuming you're talking about the results of the 2016 Presidential Election, then yes, a smooth transition of power took place. There is always bitterness and confusion when the incumbent party is defeated. It isn't something new.

>Why do we live in a world where "smooth transition of power" means "nobody died?"

Because historically, transitions of power usually involved slaughter, such as occurred during the French Revolution or Russian Revolution. A group of people forcibly destroy the old government and form a new one, and the people who supported the old government are killed or imprisoned. These were very bloody events, and in both cases large numbers of innocent bystanders were killed in the process of transition.

The only thing worse than having war and not needing it is needing war and not having it. Not having war=/=peace. As long as people around the world suffer, there will never be peace. Do you think North Korea is at peace? Because they usually have a very smooth transition of power. Everyone is simply too afraid to start a violent uprising. Damn, it must be so peaceful there, huh?

North Korea isn't a democracy

How is that relevant to my argument?

You were before talking about the 2016 election which was of course not needing a war. Then you randomly brought up North Korea which would probably not have the problems it has if it was a democratic capitalistic nation. North Korea "needing a war" is not relevant to how things are done in democratic nations.

>The only thing worse than having war and not needing it is needing war and not having it.
>People actually believe this

>As long as people around the world suffer, there will never be peace.
I agree. But people not killing each other because they disagree about things is pretty great.

>Do you think North Korea is at peace?
Kinda. It's a temporary peace.

>Because they usually have a very smooth transition of power.
No. They have had no power at all.
North Korea is a perfect example of what happens when you try to stop the transition of power.
A monarch passing rule from himself to his son transitions power from person to person but the political ideas have not changed at all.
Yes there is peace, but the people suffer under the stagnation of power.

>Everyone is simply too afraid to start a violent uprising.
It will happen eventually.
Survival trumps fear. Things just need to get even worse.

>They have had no power at all.
*They have had no transition of power at all.

My whole point is that no war =/= peace and North Korea was my example. Capitalism and democracy are weak forms of government which cause a plethora of problems. Sure the people aren't killing eachother in the streets but that doesn't mean there is peace. The liberals have hypnotized everyone into thinking that coercion is the greatest evil. Everythinf is perfectly fine as long as nobody dies, right?

>I agree. But people not killing each other because they disagree about things is pretty great.
Ok...

>Kinda. It's a temporary peace
No its not, did you read my post? You just agreed with me and then disagreed with me a senctence later.

>No. They have had no power at all.
What are talking about? Monarchy still has a transition of power, this is a rediculous argument.

>Yes there is peace, but the people suffer under the stagnation of power
You are really biting the bullet here, aren't you? If I am a slave who is beaten daily by my master and forced to work hard physical labor for very little food every day am I at peace simply because I haven't attacked my master yet? Does peace stop when I do attack him? No, peace only begins when my opressor is dead or he stops enslaving me.

>It will happen eventually. Survival trumps fear. Things just need to get even worse.
People only rebel when they have literally nothing left to lose, this has been consistent throughout all human history. I think our current system is going to be around a lot longer than you think

>No its not, did you read my post?
It quite literally is. North and South K are still locked in a cease fire.

>Monarchy still has a transition of power, this is a rediculous argument.
When we say "the smooth transition of power" we are implying the transition of power from one political party to a different political party.

Monarchical succession is the same party repeatedly giving power back to it's self.
Yes the child is different from the father, but the difference is normally not great enough and the same system remains when change is needed.

Democracy allows for groups of people with radically different views from the current people in power to come to power without war or bloodshed when the nation feels it's necessary.

> If I am a slave who is beaten daily by my master and forced to work hard physical labor for very little food every day
Your master will eventually end up the slave of a master who's better at managing his slaves. This is pretty much how modern society's came to be.

>and forced to work hard physical labor for very little food every day am I at peace
Yes.

>because I haven't attacked my master yet?
Because you are living without violence.

>Does peace stop when I do attack him?
Yep

>No, peace only begins when my oppressor is dead
When he's beaten by better slave owners, and they eventually do away with slavery entirely

>People only rebel when they have literally nothing left to lose
Sometimes. The French had plenty to lose and little to gain from there revolution. A rebellion happens regularly in the US when A democrat loses to a republican and vise versa.

> I think our current system is going to be around a lot longer than you think
Democracy? I think it will be around quite a long time as well.

Thank you for this btw.
I rarely get to have conversations like this.

I am done arguing with you. You are simply denying my arguemnt and not really giving any counter points. I say "peace is more than just not war!" And your response is "no its not." You have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word peace, and so this isn't even an argument. It's a pointless back-and-forth.

Peace to me means the ending of all suffering. For this reason, the world is never truly at peace. However, some forms of government bring about more suffering than others, and this suffering isn't only through war. Some people are even happier when they are at war, because fighting for justice feels really good. In my eyes, people under democracy and capitalism are suffering. Suffering even more than they would under other systems of government. You may not it see it, but I do. Does this mean we need to go to war to overthrow our opressors? Not necessarily. But the people are still not at peace.

By your definition of peace, which is simply "not war," peace isn't even necessarily a good thing. The holocaust wasn't a war, therefore under your definition Germany was at peace during the holocaust. The holocaust wasn't a good thing, and so under your definition peace isn't always good thing either. And so you should actually agree with me that ultimately that sometimes we need war.

>When we say "the smooth transition of power" we are implying the transition of power from one political party to a different political party
This isn't true either. A party-to-party transfer of power doesn't even guarantee there will be major systematic change. However, the son of a monarch's policies could be completely diferent from his fathers. Your arguemnt still makes no sense. A monarchy still faces a transition of power just like any other form of government.

comment got too long, finishing in another post (1/2)

(2/2)
>Democracy allows for groups of people with radically different views from the current people in power to come to power without war or bloodshed when the nation feels it's necessary.
Lmao. Only Americans believe this. Republicans, democracts, and libertarians are all forms of an extremely similar core ideology. This ideology is called "Classical Liberalism." Their values include free market capitalism, limited government power, and individualism. Its a very self-intrested movement which takes ideas heavily from philosophers of the enlightenment movement. Democracies offer barely any variety in political opinion at all. And don't you dare cite disputes over domestic issues as major differences in policy. If you learn nothing else from me today learn this: our political parties have PLATFORMS not policies.

>Sometimes. The French had plenty to lose and little to gain from there revolution.
This is false, many of the French proletariet during the time of the revolution were very very poor. A better example would actually be the American revolution. The VAST majority if the time, especially if you look at pre-columbian history, rebellions only occur when the people are near-starving. This just shows you have a lack of historical knowledge.

>Democracy? I think it will be around quite a long time as well.
Democracy? The United States is n oligarchy, but ok sure, whatever. Its not like I think Democracy is much better anyway.

(3/2)
Please ignore that there are a few spelling errors, I typed this all up on mobile because I don't have access to my computer right now.

Has anything even worked?

>I am done arguing with you.
Awe. I was enjoying it. Its usually hard to get this far without it breaking into name calling and pettiness.

>I say "peace is more than just not war!" And your response is "no its not."
Yep.

>You have a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word peace, and so this isn't even an argument.
You and I have a different definition of the word peace. I think you will find a lot of people have different definitions for the word. The word "peace" has been used by a lot of people in very different contexts. I'm trying to move past that and understand what peace means to you.
>It's a pointless back-and-forth.
arguing semantics always is.

>Peace to me means the ending of all suffering.
Not my definition of peace but I understand you.
>For this reason, the world is never truly at peace.
I agree, and that's why I don't like that definition. But now i'm arguing semantics.

> However, some forms of government bring about more suffering than others, and this suffering isn't only through war.
I agree.

>Some people are even happier when they are at war, because fighting for justice feels really good.
Yep.

>In my eyes, people under democracy and capitalism are suffering.
Yep. But suffering is universal.

>Suffering even more than they would under other systems of government.
Maybe. but you would have to elaborate.

> Does this mean we need to go to war to overthrow our oppressors?
In a democracy? No. If everyone agrees things suck, and could be better they will elect someone who reflects those ideas.

> Not necessarily. But the people are still not at peace.
And they never will be.

>A party-to-party transfer of power doesn't even guarantee there will be major systematic change.
Major systematic change is not always needed.

> However, the son of a monarch's policies could be completely different from his fathers.
Yes, but it's far less common then a Democracy's opposite partys being completely different.

>Only Americans believe this
Because we regularly witness it.
We just witnessed it happen.

>Republicans, democracts, and libertarians are all forms of an extremely similar core ideology.
Go on.

>This ideology is called "Classical Liberalism." Their values include free market capitalism, limited government power, and individualism.
I would say this is because those ideas have all tended to work for them.

>Democracies offer barely any variety in political opinion at all.
I don't follow.

>And don't you dare cite disputes over domestic issues as major differences in policy.
We wen't from a nation where only white native land owners could vote, to a nation where everyone can vote, with many stops along the way. We went from an isolationist nation, to the worlds armory, to a super power.

I would like to hear why you don't believe any of that counts as major differences in policy.

>If you learn nothing else from me today
I'v learned quite a bit. This was a great argument.
> our political parties have PLATFORMS not policies.
Ours do to. Sometimes. New platforms are not always needed. Sometimes they are.

>Please ignore that there are a few spelling errors, I typed this all up on mobile because I don't have access to my computer right now.
of course. Thank you for posting.

Everything works.
Nothing works well.

Switzerland

>You and I have a different definition of the word peace.
This is why I can't really continue this argument. The whole point is that I was arguing my definition of peace is the correct one. Have you ever read Plato? Basically 80% of all his dialouges are about semantics because so many arguments are started simply because people define words differently.

>arguing semantics always is.
Only because people are very stubborn

>Maybe. but you would have to elaborate.
I believe the system outlined under Plato's Republic to be the most optimal form of government. This is a whole other argument though that perhaps we should not get into.

>In a democracy? No. If everyone agrees things suck, and could be better they will elect someone who reflects those ideas.
The main argument against democracy in Republic is that the majority of people are unwise, and thus will elect tyrants to rule over them.

>I would say this is because those ideas have all tended to work for them
This is another issue with democracy according to Plato. Success is defined by material wealth, but not everyone in a free market society can be wealthy. Also, I will forever argue that material wealth is by no means is a direct route to happiness. In fact, the wealthier you are the more attached you become to your body which will often prevent "spiritual" success.

>I don't follow.
Not sure how I can help you here. I am trying to say that democracy has little variety in opinion because everyones opinions are based off of the same core ideology, but several other core ideologies exist beyond classical liberalism which are usually not represented in democracy.

>Yes, but it's far less common then a Democracy's opposite partys being completely different
I disagree, my point above explains why I think a democracies parties are very similar.

(1/2)

>Ours do to. Sometimes. New platforms are not always needed. Sometimes they are
It seems you misunderstood what I said here, but it may have been my fault for not being more specific. I meant that I believe political parties positions on certain issues are based mostly off of what they think will garnish them more votes (i.e. platforms for getting more votes) as opposed to policies based on morality or ethics.

Overall I really don't like the idea of political parties. I feel like the seperate and divide a nation and are counter-productive to the idea of working together. They even seem anti-democratic in a way, it's weird to me that they ever became a thing.

>of course. Thank you for posting
I will say that you are much more respectful than the average poster on Veeky Forums.

Now I actually do have to leave because I have somewhere to be so I won't be able to reply for a while. Not even if I wanted to.

*guarantee not garnish, that was a weird error.

>Have you ever read Plato?
No, hes on my list.

>Basically 80% of all his dialouges are about semantics because so many arguments are started simply because people define words differently.
I agree but I accept that as an inevitability and try to get around it.


>The main argument against democracy in Republic is that the majority of people are unwise, and thus will elect tyrants to rule over them.
I will have to read the Republic. I'd really like to argue this but I need to know more about what Plato is saying. What he means by tyrant.

> Success is defined by material wealth
I define success as the ability to successfully reproduce and raise offspring. Being able to insulate yourself and family from the chaotic randomness of nature is a bonus but living a life rich in material wealth without having a family is not success to me.

>but not everyone in a free market society can be wealthy
They can by my definition but in terms of just material wealth, you are correct.

>In fact, the wealthier you are the more attached you become to your body which will often prevent "spiritual" success.
I'm coming around to seeing why Plato thinks arguing definitions is so important.
The very idea of success is subjective from person to person, and I have no idea what "spiritual" success means in this context.

Owning things makes you care about them, in the same way you care about your own body. You would be upset if you lost an arm, and you would be upset if someone stole your car. But likewise you are (usually) happy when your arm brings food to your mouth, and likewise a car can make you happy. But happiness is very subjective and this is as far as I can go logically.
I just view material wealth as natural as being born. You may be born with a healthy body, you may be born with a broken body. You may be born into wealth you may be born a slave. Your body may grow up healthy, you might get sick or lose a limb. The same goes for material wealth.
continued..

>Do you think North Korea is at peace?

The DPRK does a lot of things that I don't support, but generally speaking, yes, it is at peace.

>I am trying to say that democracy has little variety in opinion because everyones opinions are based off of the same core ideology.
But several other core ideologies exist beyond classical liberalism which are usually not represented in democracy.
They could be, if introduced, studied, and found to be agreeable by the populous. In most other systems (that I know of) the only way the core ideology changes is with bloodshed. I offer the Armenian Genocide as an example.

>I meant that I believe political parties positions on certain issues are based mostly off of what they think will garnish them more votes
They unquestionable are. The goal is to offer a platform that addresses the needs of the largest number of citizens.

>as opposed to policies based on morality or ethics.
Morality and ethics are highly subjective.
I would argue it's better the majority of citizens decide on a nations ethics and morality then a single person dictate morality and ethics to the nation.

>Overall I really don't like the idea of political parties. I feel like the seperate and divide a nation and are counter-productive to the idea of working together.
I understand what you mean, but fracturing and splitting are side effects of
democracy. Not everyone wants to work together. If most of a group wants to do something but a few members don't and they refuse to compromise, what choice do you have but to ignore them?

>I will say that you are much more respectful than the average poster on Veeky Forums.

People willing to openly argue what they believe are rare in general.
I hope you were able to take away things from this argument just as I have.

>Now I actually do have to leave because I have somewhere to be so I won't be able to reply for a while. Not even if I wanted to.
Dam. Nice arguing you.

The world under the guidance of a liberal democratic system is far better than it ever was under the Gilded Age system or Fascism. But don't let that get in the way of your ideology right Evola? feels>reals

Not sure if you will ever see this but I am back.

>What he means by tyrant.
A tyrant is essentially anyone who holds power but doesn't know how to use it. To Plato, democracy is just another form of Tyranny because the majority of people make unwise decisions because they are self-centered and do not understand the nature of good and evil. The only form of government which is essentially not tyranny according to Plato is what he calls "the philosopher kingdom." A state in which laws are made only by the wisest philosophers who will presumably make the best possible decisions when it comes to policy. A country can be ruled by multiple philosopher kings, but it is incredibly unlikely that the majority of people can become one, which is why Plato opposed democracy.

>Success is defined by material wealth
I was worried I worded this poorly. I was saying that nations which follow a classical liberal ideology believe success is defined my material wealth. Individuals might not, but society collectively interprets success as material wealth. At least in an oligarchy, which the United States is by Plato's definition.

>I define success as the ability to successfully reproduce and raise offspring.
>I have no idea what "spiritual" success means in this context.
To Plato success was "spiritual" success. This is effectively becoming a philosopher king. Plato believed this required decades of meditation, self-reflection, and independent study. It is a wholly spiritual success because Plato believed realization of the nature of good and evil resulted in the soul's freedom. It's surprisingly similar to the idea of "spiritual enlightenment" in Buddhism but not exactly the same because you don't ascend into a higher form or whatever. However, Socrates did believe in reincarnation.

(1/2)

>Owning things makes you care about them
Plato would probably say that in order to become a philosopher king you ought to reject material possessions and live a minimalist life. Plato thought it was fine to get married and have children, it was even fine to have "property," but one should never get too attached. Plato was famous for despising the rich. He wasn't completely socialist but he would probably be called one today.

>They could be, if introduced, studied, and found to be agreeable by the populous
Sorry but the whole point of democracy is that it can't be compatible with other ideologies. Democracies value freedom and individualism over almost anything else. The point is that if (classical) liberals embraced any other core ideology, it's very likely they wouldn't even want to live in a democracy.

>Morality and ethics are highly subjective.
Oh please don't tell me you are a moral subjectivitst. I have written several essays, one over 3,000 words, on why positions such as moral subjectivism and cultural relativism are actually fairly dangerous.

>I would argue it's better the majority of citizens decide on a nations ethics and morality then a single person dictate morality and ethics to the nation.
The whole point of The Republic is that Philosopher Kings aren't actually deciding anything. There are objectively correct ways to do things and Philosopher Kings just know what they are and why.

I hope you see this, because I actually did enjoy arguing with you for the most part.

(2/2)

Actually ones who rule today are either the extremely intelligent or the extremely physically attractive.

Its those who have a balance of both features who tend to be ostracized because balance is usually inefficient in a civilization.

Political systems shouldn't be thought of as ends in themselves. They are processes, changing to fit the capabilities of the nation and people.

A democracy can rise for a couple reasons. The people, made virtuous by their strict adherence to tradition, often 'earn' democracy. But then, the democracy degenerates into a race to see who can bribe the poor, which facilitates poverty and sloth, which makes the people vicious, which leads to a childish citizenry, which leads to dictatorships.

"Worked" is the wrong word, the question is what stage leads to the next.

>Not sure if you will ever see this but I am back.
Well this night just got a lot better.
As long as the thread does not 404 i'l keep checking it when I have time.

>A tyrant is essentially anyone who holds power but doesn't know how to use it.
I believe any leader in a position of power over a nation is using power, even if they do absolutely nothing. I also believe it's impossible to wield power absolutely, or utilize it completely.
But now we come to what exactly does "power" mean. The word can mean many things in many contexts. In terms of political power, people follow leaders for many reasons but they follow leaders for reasons and those reasons bind the leader. It is those reasons that prevented Caesar from crowning himself king of Rome even though he held absolute control of the political systems in place.

I wrote this several times and still think it poorly explains my position.
I could go on if you are interested but i'd like to get back to addressing the rest of what you wrote.

> To Plato, democracy is just another form of Tyranny because the majority of people make unwise decisions because they are self-centered and do not understand the nature of good and evil.
I generally subscribe to Epictetus' Stoicism. Good and evil is another long conversation.
I will come back to this because I want to hear the rest.

continued

>The only form of government which is essentially not tyranny according to Plato is what he calls "the philosopher kingdom." A state in which laws are made only by the wisest philosophers who will presumably make the best possible decisions when it comes to policy.
Many problems arise with selecting a worthy king, deciding who is the "wisest", and so on.
It was this exact system that led to the overthrow of the Roman monarchy,
Romans making a law allowing anyone to behead anyone on the spot for trying to become a King, and It's also what ultimately led to Roman democracy, and in part the democracy practiced by the United States.

Going back to
>democracy is just another form of Tyranny
Democracy accepts some Tyranny is unavoidable and tries to minimize it as much as possible. That's why transferring power from one Tyrant to another peacefully, once they become to tyrannical is a great thing.

continued

>I was worried I worded this poorly. I was saying that nations which follow a classical liberal ideology believe success is defined my material wealth. Individuals might not, but society collectively interprets success as material wealth. At least in an oligarchy, which the United States is by Plato's definition.
Ok I understand and agree with this.

>To Plato success was "spiritual" success. This is effectively becoming a philosopher king.
Spiritual success is becoming a philosopher king, but most people can not become one.
>Plato believed this required decades of meditation, self-reflection, and independent study.
I interpreter this as, the king achieves some feat that makes him greater then the masses. Be it meditation in the philosopher kings case. And uses his accomplishment to elevate the masses and help them reach enlightenment. I agree that this kind of political system is great, as long as the kings great accomplishment is actually considered great by the subjects. A bad king in the same position, well was Tarquinius Superbus.

Maybe i'm going to far and making to many assumptions.

> Plato thought it was fine to get married and have children, it was even fine to have "property," but one should never get too attached.
I completely agree.

>Plato was famous for despising the rich.
I'm reading this as despising the rich because of there attachment to property, not that they owned property.

>Sorry but the whole point of democracy is that it can't be compatible with other ideologies. Democracies value freedom and individualism over almost anything else.
Maybe classical Democracies, but the United States Democratic system is willing to change and restrict freedom and individualism when it is deemed absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation.

>Oh please don't tell me you are a moral subjectivitst.
I honestly do not know what that is. If I had to put myself into a camp i'd be a stoic but I believe it's somewhat outdated.

continued..

worked fine for the past 240+ years

>I have written several essays, one over 3,000 words, on why positions such as moral subjectivism and cultural relativism are actually fairly dangerous.
I would be willing to read them if you posted a link.

>There are objectively correct ways to do things
The problem with objectivity correctness is time.
Time changes what is objectively correct.
If 1000 years ago I asked you to plot the objectively fastest route from Point A to B, that route most likely is not the objectively fastest today due to the ever changing nature of the world.

Plato's Philosopher Kings sound like what modern day scientists are.
I think if you could always elect a good Philosopher King, it would be a good system.

I would also like to know how it handles war and general conflict that can not be resolved with words.

Never, no form of government works. It's just that non-democratic forms of government are outside of the Overton window so no matter how reasonable they might be, people will never seriously consider them.

>As long as the thread does not 404 i'll keep checking it when I have time.
Do you have a Tumblr or Reddit? we could continue the conversation on some other forum if you would like. I am going to be very busy Sunday so idk if I will have much time to reply

>I wrote this several times and still think it poorly explains my position.
Yeah to be honest I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.

>Many problems arise with selecting a worthy king, deciding who is the "wisest", and so on.
Heh, this was my first argument against Plato's point of view when I first started reading his works. It would certainly be difficult finding philosopher kings at first, but far from impossible. We would probably start with something similar to what ancient China had where state-administered tests would try to find the most knowledgeable. Knowledge is different from wisdom, but those who are wise are more often than not also knowledgeable.

Then, after the philosopher kings are discovered and given power, it actually becomes easy to find others. The person who best at knowing when someone else is a philosopher king is another philosopher king. There would be philosopher kings whose job would be to seek out and find other philosopher kings.This would also ensure a very smooth transition of power because young philosophers would have already started working for the government before the old ones even retired or died.

(1/3)

>Democracy accepts some Tyranny is unavoidable and tries to minimize it as much as possible.
By the most technical sense of the word, tyranny is unavoidable even in the philosopher kingdom. You simply cannot stop corruption in its entirety. This is true for all forms of government. It’s part of human nature. It’s just like how there will never fully be peace by Plato’s definition. It’s all about trying to have the least amount of tyranny and most amount of peace humanly possible.

Here is a nice analogy for you: the growth and decay of government is like the growth and decay of the human body. Just like we are not born as adults, nations do not begin as philosopher kingdoms. It is something they have to work towards. You have to eat right and exercise in order to be healthy. However, no matter how much we eat right and exercise, we will all eventually grow old and die. In the same way, no matter how wise a nation's rulers are, all governments will eventually deteriorate from corruption. However, by no means is this a reason to not try and create the best government possible. Just like how our eventual deaths are not a reason to stop exercising or eating right.

>Spiritual success is becoming a philosopher king, but most people can not become one.
Yes, but more people have it in them than you might think. It's just that nobody today ever tries to become one because that's just not how our government works.

>I interpreter this as, the king achieves some feat that makes him greater then the masses. Be it meditation in the philosopher kings case. And uses his accomplishment to elevate the masses and help them reach enlightenment.
yes, the only thing I would say is that usually it requires more than just meditation to become a philosopher king, typically some type of higher education. This is why Plato founded The Academy.

(2/3)

>I'm reading this as despising the rich because of there attachment to property, not that they owned property.
Yes, but he was also very against capitalism and thought most people should have about the same level of wealth. Not socialism, but extremely close. Perhaps "despised" is the wrong word, but only because Plato preached the idea of "loving thy neighbor."

>Maybe classical Democracies, but the United States Democratic system is willing to change and restrict freedom and individualism when it is deemed absolutely necessary for the survival of the nation.
But America is not 100% a democracy, and this is exactly the reason why. Plato defines government in a very nontraditional way. Remember how I said democracy has little variety of opinion? Really, all forms of government have very little variance in opinion. This is because Plato does not define government by policy or even by the number of people in charge. He literally defines governments by their core ideology. So according to Plato, once a system moves away from classical liberalism, it is no longer a democracy/oligarchy. Not every single policy the United States makes is consistent with classical liberalism (although most are) and so America is not democratic in the absolute sense.

>I would be willing to read them if you posted a link.
I have either thrown out or combined most of them. I do have one I would show you but I don't want to post it publicly.
(3/3)

>The problem with objectivity correctness is time.
Please lets not get into this, philosophy of time is incredibly complicated and difficult. I will say this though: your argument is that objective truth changes over time, but this doesn't disprove my argument. All I am claiming is simply that objective truth does in fact exist, and this would still be true even if objective truth were to change. Also some objective truths I believe cannot change. Things such as the laws of nature (i.e Gravity, 1+1=2, etc.) do not change, and I think even modern science would agree.

>Plato's Philosopher Kings sound like what modern day scientists are.
Sorry but there seems to be a misunderstanding. Remember when I said knowledge is different from wisdom? Today's modern scientists are very knowledgeable but most of them would probably have no idea how to lead a nation. Many philosophers (including Plato) were also scientists but being a scientist doesn't automatically make you a philosopher and vice versa.

>I would also like to know how it handles war and general conflict that can not be resolved with words.
I could try to answer this but I can't say I know for sure since I am not a philosopher king myself.

(4/3, I ended up writing way more than I thought I would)

Ended up falling asleep. Feels bad man.
I'm busy today as well unfortunately.
I'l check the thread again tonight or whenever I get more free time. Veeky Forums is a slow board so I think it wont 404.

>Do you have a Tumblr or Reddit?
No, but I would be willing to set one up to continue the conversation. Send me an email with how to get in contact with you: [email protected]

>Yeah to be honest I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.
My fault for trying to simplify complicated subjects late at night when i'm tired.
I was not really firing on all cylinders in these posts.

>It would certainly be difficult finding philosopher kings at first, but far from impossible.
>We would probably start with something similar to what ancient China had where state-administered tests would try to find the most knowledgeable.
Any test used to find a philosopher king becomes the standard that defines what a philosopher king is.
A philosopher king in this scenario is still elected by the people, only in this case, the people are deciding on what test the king will complete, instead directly deciding who will rule.
You also limit the potential of the king to the core ideology of the land.
To go with the China example, I don't ever see an outsider, lets say a Greek philosopher, ever becoming a Philosopher King in China. As with a Democracy (when I say Democracy, i'm referring to what the U.S. has created, not Plato's definition)it's much more likely if the Greek is a worthy candidate.

I may be misunderstanding but I feel like with this definition some nations have already found there Philosopher Kings, in the form of religious prophets.

continued

>implying everyone in politics isn't an ugly retard with a strong work ethic
lel
>anything
>working
heh, kid, nothin werks round he'ya.
>doubt
>those guys
>attractive
shiggy

>Then, after the philosopher kings are discovered and given power, it actually becomes easy to find others. The person who best at knowing when someone else is a philosopher king is another philosopher king.

And here is where I think the system fails.
As living, biological creatures we are all subject to illness, philosopher kings included.
This works, so long as the current philosopher king does not die of illness before appointing a replacement, does not come down with any number of diseases that impact mental faculties (such as alzheimer's), or simply succumbs to madness.

>There would be philosopher kings whose job would be to seek out and find other philosopher kings.This would also ensure a very smooth transition of power because young philosophers would have already started working for the government before the old ones even retired or died.
This requires the philosopher king to be able to pass on power without any bias and I believe that is an impossible feat for humans.
Marcus Aurelius, arguably a Philosopher King, is known as the last of the 4 great Emperors because he failed to do exactly that.

This also assumes there will always be a philosopher king ready to replace the last one.
If philosopher kings appoint philosopher kings, as soon as an unworthy king is appointed, tyranny grows, and will continue to grow with each new appointment. unchecked and unstoppable.

In Democracy, the system it's self is the king, unable to fall victim to all the problems I just listed. The different people elected to power through the system are just surrogates for policies the king would decide on.

continued

>By the most technical sense of the word, tyranny is unavoidable even in the philosopher kingdom. You simply cannot stop corruption in its entirety. This is true for all forms of government. It’s part of human nature. It’s just like how there will never fully be peace by Plato’s definition. It’s all about trying to have the least amount of tyranny and most amount of peace humanly possible.
Gotcha

>Here is a nice analogy for you: the growth and decay of government is like the growth and decay of the human body. Just like we are not born as adults, nations do not begin as philosopher kingdoms. It is something they have to work towards. You have to eat right and exercise in order to be healthy. However, no matter how much we eat right and exercise, we will all eventually grow old and die. In the same way, no matter how wise a nation's rulers are, all governments will eventually deteriorate from corruption. However, by no means is this a reason to not try and create the best government possible. Just like how our eventual deaths are not a reason to stop exercising or eating right.

Great analogy.
Here I would argue Democracy surpasses the Philosopher Kingdom, because (i'm arguing this purely from the point of the survival of the nation) the decay of the Philosopher Kingdom ends in Tyrants appointing Tyrants, where as a successful Democracy's decay ends in Empire with an Emperor that has surpassed the greatest challenge the society could produce.

> It's just that nobody today ever tries to become one because that's just not how our government works.
If the government is functioning, and someone who tries to become a philosopher king is unable to come to power within the current government, it may just be that philosopher kings are no longer needed.
I feel my understanding may be drifting off at this point.
I may have lost sight of something here.
>This is why Plato founded The Academy.
I never put much thought into this. Interesting.

continued

Never has democracy worked, it's why the United States is not a democracy. We're a representative republic. It's as close a nation could be to democracy without being self destructed by the pitfalls that inevitably result of democracy.

>But America is not 100% a democracy, and this is exactly the reason why.
America is something unique, I don't think it would have been possible for it to exist in the Ancient world.

>Plato defines government in a very nontraditional way. Remember how I said democracy has little variety of opinion? Really, all forms of government have very little variance in opinion. This is because Plato does not define government by policy or even by the number of people in charge. He literally defines governments by their core ideology. So according to Plato, once a system moves away from classical liberalism, it is no longer a democracy/oligarchy. Not every single policy the United States makes is consistent with classical liberalism (although most are) and so America is not democratic in the absolute sense.

I agree with all of this. I think this just shows the limits Plato could reach due to the time period.

> I do have one I would show you but I don't want to post it publicly.
[email protected]
I would be honored to read it.

>Please lets not get into this, philosophy of time is incredibly complicated and difficult.
Ok, but I find it hard to avoid. I would love to discuss the topic at another time if you are up to it.

> your argument is that objective truth changes over time, but this doesn't disprove my argument.
I concede this.

>All I am claiming is simply that objective truth does in fact exist, and this would still be true even if objective truth were to change. Also some objective truths I believe cannot change.
I would love to argue this another time. Admittedly here i'm somewhat moving the goal post because I want to argue other things as well as government and I lost track of the topic at hand.

continued (Veeky Forums could do with a higher word limit)

>Sorry but there seems to be a misunderstanding. Remember when I said knowledge is different from wisdom? Today's modern scientists are very knowledgeable but most of them would probably have no idea how to lead a nation. Many philosophers (including Plato) were also scientists but being a scientist doesn't automatically make you a philosopher and vice versa.

A while back you said
>The whole point of The Republic is that Philosopher Kings aren't actually deciding anything. There are objectively correct ways to do things and Philosopher Kings just know what they are and why.

Scientists, though use of the scientific method try to discover objective truths about the universe and present them to society, backed by proof and reason.
Arguably what they discover leads a nation indirectly.
This is all I meant by liking Philosopher Kings to scientists.

I understand what you mean about directly leading.

Sent