Is Republicanism not the purest, least degenerate form of polity of all?

bla bla bla

republic means elected representatives
democracy means elections

>plebish """egalitarianism""" is what defines democracy

they were. They were just less democratic than current democracies. They still had popular elections, however rigged they might have been

...

that look is almost Machiavellian

Meh, I think once you've reached a certain size, particularly if you have no internet, direct democracy is just too slow, and you have to resort to at least a representative republic.

That said, I've yet to hear of any form of republic where the representatives are thoroughly vetted. I mean, if you put enough requirements on them, it wouldn't matter if they were representative of an ignorant voting block or not.

Why is we keep talking about putting restrictions on voters, thus disenfranchising huge swaths of the population, when it'd be so much simpler to ensure that the representatives they get to choose among are all of "philosopher king" quality to start with?

because it's easy as fuck to say "representatives should be benevolent geniuses" but you can't put it in practice. A lot of the greedy morons in Congress have law degrees

Doesn't have to be simply legal and business educational requirements - you can lay down ethics requirements and psychological profiling as well.

so who are the incorruptible demigods who will judge their ethics qualifications?

Like the good ol' persian empire

Just have the current politicians create panels to whip up a lengthy series of modal tests. Take the tests proportionately from each party's representation, should you have a party problem. Rinse and repeat every few years to keep them updated.

I mean we have tests for policemen, doctors, lawyers, etc... And yet for some reason, the position of "Leader of the Free World", has less qualification requirements than the position of "kindergarten teacher".

Hi

democracy literally means "people power," meaning people have a say in their government. elections aren't democratic per se. The greeks thought elected governments were oligarchical because the richest always win because they're better organized. The most democratic form of election is drawing lots; that's how most offices in the athenian system were chosen (alongside a vetting system). representative """democracy""" in other words is nothing more than oligarchy desu.

what makes you think the current politicians will want to create tests that rule them and their buddies out of government? The tests for cops and doctors involve a lot of objective knowledge and practical expertise. You can't create objective criteria for government because it can be done in so many different ways and like we already established, a lot of politicians are already lawyers so they understand the objective part of it.

>representative """democracy""" in other words is nothing more than oligarchy desu.
then so is republicanism since it's practically synonymous with "representative democracy"

>implying republics aren't the most common form of government today

not only that but there isn't a single direct democracy on earth, they're all representative. So people describe the ubiquitous system as good and the non-existent system as an evil that must be purged

I'd say so yes. the republic that the renaissance humanists (bruni, salutatti, machiavelli) was synonymous with an oligarchical system, though unlike our own system they wanted a closed off elite group to fill the top positions (though in practice this happened in our own system).

>what makes you think the current politicians will want to create tests that rule them and their buddies out of government?
Well that is part of the problem - you'd basically need a revolution and a new constitution to instigate such policies (though you might be able to pull it on local levels and work your way up). But it's strange that it's never been rigged up that way historically, so far as I can recall.

>You can't create objective criteria for government because it can be done in so many different ways
This is among the reasons I suggested having different parties provide different tests - but it isn't as if we don't have tests for various political and economic and philosophy degrees, large swaths of which just objectively test whether or not you've retained the knowledge. If those tests were staggering enough, you could at least make sure your politicians were among the top 1% of those capable of retaining and processing that knowledge. It's also a lot simpler, more efficient, and more just than laying down such requirements on your voters at large.

Does create a certain intellectual elitism, but meh, provide free education and that problem is more or less solved.

your acknowledgment that the current politicians wouldn't create a fair test brings us back to my original point, which is that even after a revolution, you'd have a fat chance in finding benevolent sages to create your tests

and the different parties making the tests will just make "are you from our party" tests, this is clear. Humans are corruptible creatures and trying to impose some moral criteria (which they'll have to self-regulate by and maintain) is fantasy

I assume the tests would be designed by the revolutionaries rather than benevolent sages.

Yes, such tests will always be biased to the political views of those that design them, but the simple fact that political runnings require funding and support from the established parties already guarantees that to a much greater degree, without doing anything to vet the quality of the representative.

Though, in the case of a multi-party system shifting to such requirements, I'd assume that both parties would make the tests, and subsequent politicians would be required to pass all of them.

>implying liberal democracy is not the best system that can ever be concieved

communists, fascists and monarchists have deluded themselves.

I suppose direct democracy is more specific for you? Don't be retarded and think this is the same as a republic.

direct democracy doesn't exist in the real world so what does OP want to end then?

Victrix causa deis placuit sed victa Catoni

The blood will tell