Agree or disagree?

I agree that this isn't our society's high point, but the fact that you think western society is "decaying" really just drives home how fucking incredible the past half century or so has been, in the main.

Even in, oh, I don't know, 1968, another low point, people overall were almost unimaginably better off than even a generation earlier. We're still almost unimaginably better off than much of the world is today, or is likely to be for a long time yet (Funny how almost all of the people falling over themselves to talk about e.g. how well China's doing have never actually spent much time in China outside the first tier cities.)

Provided the nukes don't start flying in the next couple years, we're fucking fine, dude.

I unironically wish there was a strict caste system in place so somebody could just tell me what to do all my life, I'd have my proper place and I could just throw my brain where it belongs

Strongly disagree, it baffles me how eager some people are to give up their freedom because of bullshit concepts like "moral decay". It's a projection of their own dissatisfaction with life, they can't stand their own unhappiness so they want to ruin things for everyone else.

>We're better off

Yeah no shit due to technological advances. Not necessarily due to Democracy and Liberaism.

See and consider the freedom to choose weather you want to pay for healthcare or continue being sick.
In a socialist commie hellhole, you MUST pay for healthcare. In a free state, you can choose not to.

Is this a free choice and expression, or is it another burden, another decision for you to mistake and ruin your life?

Too much freedom leads to:
>incompetent morons fail hard, because they are allowed to instead of guided
>young people have no direction, because they don't know who they are, where they stand, what they must do, who is beneath them, who is above them

Structure can be good. Too rigid, and you stagnate, too fluid, and you degenerate.

National Socialism when?

>Yeah no shit due to technological advances. Not necessarily due to Democracy and Liberaism.
Which I'm sure are completely inseparable in your mind, huh?

No, it's not a perfect rule -- democracies can fail and innovations can sometimes come from dictatorships -- but in general, liberal, democratic societies tend to outperform autocracies (of every flavor). They tend to be more economically prosperous, more scientifically and technologically innovative, and stabler and safer, in the long term.

Unfortunately liberal democracy isn't sexy anymore, unlike more extreme forms of government, so there will always be people (and by people I mean "young dudes with too much free time") who're eager to shit on it, forgetting that it gave them everything.

I like Roger Scrutons position on society and freedom:

>A free society is a community of free beings, bound by the laws of sympathy and by the obligations of family love. It is not a society of people released from all moral constraint–for that is precisely the opposite of a society. Without moral constraint there can be no cooperation, no family commitment, no long-term prospects, no hope of economic, let alone social, order.

>Conservatives believe that our identities and values are formed through our relations with other people, and not through our relation with the state. The state is not an end but a means. Civil society is the end, and the state is the means to protect it. The social world emerges through free association, rooted in friendship and community life. And the customs and institutions that we cherish have grown from below, by the ‘invisible hand’ of co-operation. They have rarely been imposed from above by the work of politics, the role of which, for a conservative, is to reconcile our many aims, and not to dictate or control them.

“The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted; precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.”
G.K. Chesterton

>but in general, liberal, democratic societies tend to outperform autocracies (of every flavor). They tend to be more economically prosperous, more scientifically and technologically innovative, and stabler and safer, in the long term.

>IN THE LONG TERM

How can you possibly claim that when liberalism and democracy is a very recent invention? It's very new in the grand scheme of things(how we've lived for thousands of years) and so far it's been spiraling into a pretty big failure with rampant social and moral decay.

And historically democracies and republics have been failures compared to Monarchies or other forms of government.

Yeah, no. Do you have any idea how unstable monarchies historically have been? How many succession crises and just plain shitty fucking kings there have been? It's rose-tinted glasses that are making you think it's such a successful and stable system.

But while there's relatively few functional monarchies left (there's a few, though -- why don't you go live in one of them?) there's plenty of autocracies that function like them. They are, almost without exception, worse places to live than countries that even PARTIALLY adopt democratic, liberal values.

>rampant social and moral decay.
We -- are -- fine. Yes, things have been better, but they've sure as fuck been worse. Again, it's rose-tinted glasses and your lack of historical (and cultural) awareness that's making you think *this* is so fucking terrible. There are plenty of countries out there that really do have toxic cultures that are seriously retarding their growth. By and large they are not western countries.

I don't know where you fall on the political spectrum so I don't know who precisely you're complaining about (although given where we are I can make a few guesses) but whoever it is, I promise you, we'll survive them.

>liberalism and democracy is a very recent invention

They aren't. Democracy has existed, though not continuously, since Ancient Athens, and there have been liberal (i.e. tolerant, pluralist) regimes since about the same time e.g. the Achaemenid empire, and many others since then.

>implying democracy is inherently more stable than than authoritarianism.

Pure ideology my man. There are extremely stable and prosperous monarchies and shit hole democracies. Shitty administrative practices are not inherent to one or the other. Get your Eurocentric head out of your ass.

Name them.

>democracy has existed since ancient Athens over a thousand years ago
>the fact that it has only achieved widespread adoption in the past two hundred years somehow does not detract from the claim that it is a more stable political structure than monarchy

If we're strictly talking about authoritarian monarchies the Arabs states in the Persian gulf come to mind. China is extremely authoritarian but it's quickly becoming the most prosperous country in the world. It's pretty easy to contrast China with India, a true blue democracy. I may be stretching a little bit with this one but South Korea and Japan are very well off. But they have some pretty extreme policies that border on authoritarian.

And on the other side we have modern Brazil or Turkey which aren't doing so hot. Plenty of failed democracies in Africa. The early Republic of China.

I think most people perspectives are a little warped here. The most powerful and successful countries right now happen to be democracies but historically that's not usually how it works. Then you mix in some good old fashion propaganda and boom democracy can do no wrong.

I don't disagree. I think folks are taking untenable hardline positions because, well, that's what you do on the internet.

I think it's alarmist and a little hysterical to claim we're facing a crisis in democracy, or that 'society' is crumbling from out beneath us. We are in the midst of a monumental shift in human interrelations, and our political institutions are and will be evolving in turn. This isn't a new thing, though. The only real difference is rate and magnitude of change.

Not only are democracy and liberalism separable from technological progress, they are actively hindering it.

If you don't believe that, you just don't realize how much stuff we could do if ethical committees were just to take a vacation for a while.

>Democracy has existed, though not continuously, since Ancient Athens

Yeah, if I proposed a system today that is the carbon copy of ancient athens, nobody, literally nobody would call it democracy. Maybe patri-olig-ethno-state.

>I mean, I've received a punch from a teenager in the past, therefore facing 19 years old Tyson is going to be fine

>quoting the original Parasite settlers
literally who cares.

>I think it's alarmist and a little hysterical to claim we're facing a crisis in democracy, or that 'society' is crumbling from out beneath us.

Yeah we've been though a lot worse and come out clean. People just try to point out old historical patterns and force them on what's happening right now. Regardless of economic or social factors. Democracy and liberalism is here to stay. For better or worse.

>I had a newspaper guaranteeing me too, that I'd write a story, and I was still declined.
That's WHY you were declined, numbnuts. Just go as a regular tourist with one of the several tour companies and you're set. It's not at all hard, thousands do it every year.

It is of course a tightly controlled propaganda circuit, primarily intended to bring much needed foreign cash into the country. You won't be photographing at will, nor interviewing anyone not approved by your handlers. Going off the rails is a great way to be locked up in the slammer and used as a diplomatic pawn the next time the Norks need a favour from the west.

How is the witch problem?

Et ideo dico quod iudicium medium est apprehensionis et appetitus: nam primo res apprehenditur, deinde apprehensa bona vel mala iudicatur, et ultimo iudicans prosequitur sive fugit. Si ergo iudicium moveat omnino appetitum et nullo modo preveniatur ab eo, liberum est; si vero ab appetitu quocunque modo preveniente iudicium moveatur, liberum esse non potest, quia non a se, sed ab alio captivum trahitur. Et hinc est quod bruta iudicium liberum habere non possunt, quia eorum iudicia semper ab appetitu preveniuntur.

>Democracy and liberalism is here to stay

Fuck off fukuyama, nobody likes you.

It's a freedom to choose not to retard. Freedom is never a burden. Depriving man of a single decision involving his own interests is deplorable in every way and I have hatred for any message shacling themselves to the funeral pyre of collectivism.

China, prosperous? LOL.

Only insofar as millions have been lifted out of abject poverty... into the precarious middle-class. China is corrupt as fuck, and at some point, these millions of new 'rich' will not tolerate the boot on the neck principles anymore. China is basically stagnating now.

You are an ideologue and a brainlet, I won't engage in conversation with you.

shackling*

All this implies an idiotic conception of will, liberty and psychology in general which might have been fine 4 hundred years ago but certainly it's completely obsolete today.

Nice ad hominem. You call me a brainless, but say you can't bear the burden of a few extra decisions. The irony is incredible. When you'return the puppet of the state, expect them to manipulate you as much as they can.

>to claim we're facing a crisis in democracy
>88

We are though. It didn't start with Trump and probably won't end with him, but he is the most blatant example of the illiberal cancerous threat that has developed in American politics of either stripe. Different analysts have different points of shift, but I favour the view it more or less started with Reagan. A free market fundamentalism mixed with an apocalyptic ghost story fetishes.

That's why the earliest stable liberal democracy is the only world power? If the system works, don't change it.

>That's why the earliest stable liberal democracy is the only world power?

If you think the US achieved its power because of liberalism and democracy, you're literally delusional.

It's huge gdp allowed for it, which is the product of liberal democracy.

I'm sorry if the truth triggered you

What people don't realize is that before the 70's and 80's China was literally Africa tier. People talked about starving Chinese people like we talk about staving Ethiopians or Congolese. I mean sure they aren't at western standards of living but they're getting there.

> China is corrupt as fuck
Every country is corrupt in it's own special way.

>China is basically stagnating now.
10-8% quarterly GDP growth doesn't really sound like stagnation to me tbqh.

Try to prove that assertion.
Pro-tip: You can't

>I'm sorry if the truth triggered you

>the truth
>this [type of thing that never lasts forever] is going to last forever!

Let me rephrase: we are not facing a dissolution of democracy, but a transformation of its operation and effect. I don't think the future form of democracy is decided as yet, but I do worry with you that we're probably looking at a 'soft' totalitarianism, a diffuse managerial state.

>Something works in short term, therefore it will work forever!!!

The degeneracy is coming to a boiling point in the United States. There really isn't much glory left.

I've never said forever. I mean all of the most powerful countries in the world with the execution of China and Russia (sort of) are democracies. They aren't just go up in smoke. Seems pretty obvious to me.

*exception

If your parent had the freedom to not send you to school, you may not have learned to write.
Luckily there are state institutions that prevented them from taking that bad decision.

ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/ReferenceDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&u=alli1510&jsid=f4289c8ac8bbac4466d2edd84c70d78b&p=UHIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|CX2876200015&zid=b582f79f2ad42bb9cec171187322a220

Take either assertion, and it demonstrates that the U.S. and its superior production allowed it to outlive the Soviet Union. After the Cold War the U.S. became the only world power, so this demonstration proves my assertion that it's economy allowed for its Imperialism.

The rich part of the world embargoing the USSR, and supporting USA, allowed it to outlive the USSR.
Superior military power, and toppling any let wing government anywhere to replace it with a USA friendly dictator allowed it to outlive the USSR,
WWII being fought in Russia, and destroying Russia, and killing many millions of Russians, allowed the USA to come out better than the USSR.

So many reasons other than the one you and that website cite, completely ignored.

Something has never worked, so we should do it!!!!!!!

The only degeneracy that affects the state is the weakening of the nation, which can easily be fixed. "Degeneracy" is a baseless meme used to suit any argument but the status quo and does not support your argument.

You're a brainlet because you don't recognize that most people are too stupid to make decisions.

Example: over 70% of the US is LITERALLY eating themselves to death. How can you trust these people to make any decisions?

The first cars couldn't go a mile, and needed a horse cart to come carry them back to the workshop. You are wrong.

>It's worked for thousands of years

>It's not recent (last century) or so therefore it doesn't work!!!!

>Only weakens the nation
>ONLY

OH it just ONLY weakens the nation? No big deal right?

That's not an individual's freedom. That's the parent exerting authority over the child. Parents are a unique situation, and I'm only commenting on the state.

It'seems the primary reason it happened. History is never clean, but GDP is the best answer.

>parents are a unique situation

Yeah, I guess rape and murder also are unique. And slavery. And animal cruelty. And 999 other things.

When your ideology needs more patches than words it takes to define it, its shit.

>it seems
To your biased eyes.
>GDP done did it
Yes, but the question is what helped achieve that GDP.
Protip: Russia being in ruin, demographic crisis, the civil war and purges, the 1/3 of the world embargo on it and so on certainly did not help.

I'm not saying what you call "degeneracy" weakens the nation, just that true degeneracy does that. Very few things today weaken the nation, everything else is fair game.

No, parents are unique because it is the only acceptable time for an individual to exert their will over a person and ignore their feelings on the issue. Everthing else should respect a person's wishes.

Autocorrect is annoying it corrects it's to it'seems

>Russia being in ruin, demographic crisis, the civil war and purges,

These are all because of Stalinism, and they didn't happen in the US because of democracy.

So slavery and pedophilia too should respect the person's wishes?
Good, I'll go find some desperate hobos to offer them 30 days worth of food in exchange for eternal slavery.
The early 19th century factory child labor will make a return, this time as child prostitution.

Ahh, the joys of liberal utopia. Now I will go back to not responding to you. Meditate on your views.

>Destruction of the nuclear family
>Unbridled immigration such that no one feels a connection to their people
>Little cultural identity

>Ridiculous amounts of materialism as a result of capitalism

I could go on.

>better geography is the result of liberalism
>stalin was at fault for russia fighting 2 world wars and 1 civil war on its own turf

You are very wrong, brainlet.

Your analogy is unclear.

The actions themselves don't respect the harmed party's wishes. Why are you obsessed with pedophilia? It's a non-issue, and you're acting like a doomsday cultust. We have the highest standard of living ever, the system today works.

>Destruction of the nuclear family
>Unbridled immigration such that no one feels a connection to their people
>Little cultural identity

I agree these are problems, but we should only encourage these things, nothe enforce them. Otherwise the individual will suffer for the nation, which is wrong.

I think materialism is a good thing though and would argue that materialism and culture are not diametrically opposed.

Why is it that after America's civil war they recovered very quickly then? Russia was also struggling with manpower because of forced internal industrialization. These huge losses of life were the fault of communism. Loss of population -> loss of GDP -> loss of resources -> loss of war.

>The individual will suffer for the nation, which is wrong

I don't believe that this is wrong.

I disagree, but since that ultimately is something we both have beleifs, not facts on, I won't accomplish anything by arguing with you on this count.

>implying the South recovered quickly

The industrial north was spared. The American civil war was a lot tamer. Democracy doesn't give you magic powers to recover from problems.

>Democracy doesn't give you magic powers to recover from problems

West Germany / East Germany

Communists have trouble meeting demand, so when reconstruction supplies are in demand Capitalists provide much more readily.

After more research, you'really right that the American Civil War and Russian Civil War are not good comparisons.

>10-8% quarterly GDP growth
Not as impressive when you're starting from the bottom, and especially considering the rampant corruption you just waved off.

Xi is cracking down on corruption, but not in a deep moral sense, more in a "I'm the boss, don't steal from ME" sense. There's still plenty of corruption. Xi is in fact a classic Maoist, probably one of the few bonafide old guard still around. His commitment to 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' is uncertain.

>West Germany / East Germany
What do you mean by this exactly?

The former East is still generally behind the former West (there are pockets of success, but also large fields of stagnation). If East/West Germany were East/West Poland, or North/South Italy (i.e. less industrialized economies), the results would be even worse. Incidentally, this is why South Korea would shit a brick if the Norks ever actually lost. Reunification is a goal, but it would destroy the South Korean economy. And probably China would want some o' dat.

That said, of course capitalism is, in our era, the most capable alternative for transforming formy commie states. But it's also like arguing the Borg are most successful at assimilating other species into Borg. Derp. The magical baseless creation of funds (debt) is easy enough.

Still, if the "Communist" system was better, would be not see a deterioration of life in the East from the adjustment to capitalism? Instead, we see East Germany slingshot. The same thing does not happen when Communist governments take control of territories.

human progress explodes the moment that monarchies fall out of favor in the west

Depends whose goalposts you're using.

Not everyone in former commie territories believes everything is now better.

Anyway, I'm not arguing communism is good, just that capitalism isn't a silver bullet.

>the moment the industrial revolution happened*

FTFY.

Just because you live in a country where you are happy doesnt mean you should be content
Of course there will almost always be a country that is shittier
"Always try to achieve greatness", Jesus Bonaparte

>starting from the bottom
But they aren't starting from the bottom. I mean you could've claimed that like 30-40 years ago. But now not so much. On the whole China is on par with Latin America or Eastern Europe. The coastal regions are bordering on western tier development. I don't mean to wave off the corruption because it is a serious issue but it clearly isn't slowing down their growth all that much.

> His commitment to 'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' is uncertain.

If he fucks with the golden goose that is growth he will be booted out so fucking fast. They may be corrupt but the Communist Party knows where their priorities are. They make other dictators look like grade schoolers.

In a lot of cases, corruption is directly fuelling that growth. You can piss people off and ignore it only so long.

>le technology therefore freedum is better
Plebian detected

Yes.

>But they aren't starting from the bottom. I mean you could've claimed that like 30-40 years ago. But now not so much. On the whole China is on par with Latin America or Eastern Europe.
I had to bow out of this thread for a while because it got late where I was. Look, I realize I'm being condescending, but -- I wrote this above and I'm pretty sure this describes you:
>(Funny how almost all of the people falling over themselves to talk about e.g. how well China's doing have never actually spent much time in China outside the first tier cities.)
Most of China is NOWHERE NEAR the level of development of Eastern Europe. Maybe some of the shittier parts of Latin America, sure (but most people who write things like that have never spent any time there, either, although they might have visited some of the successful regions).

For some context, China's GDP per capita (measured by PPP) is lower EVEN TODAY, after several DECADES of massive economic growth, than the GDP of the Soviet Union right before it collapsed, after several decades of relative economic stagnation.

And even that's a little misleading. Aside from the air quality, life in Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen, even some of the nicer 2nd-tier cities like Harbin, is pretty comparable to life in Seoul or Hong Kong or Taipei or any of the other 1st world Asian megacities. And there's quite a few such cities in China. So what does that imply about the rest of the country?

It's not hellish by any means. But they started (and are still at) a very, very low baseline. If you don't believe me ... get sick and go to a hospital in a tier III or even some tier II cities. It'll become pretty clear pretty fast how backwards things still are. Ride the public transportation or visit a restaurant and ask to see how they prepare food (if they let you -- it's not like I've ever asked, I know what sort of shit goes on back there).

>this time it really is decaying

>lives in the wealthiest, most comfortable, stablest, safest, and most prosperous society in history
t. letzter Mensch
>implying any of these things have value

Then why can't I marry a 14-year-old? Answer me, ideologue.
The average chinaman is basically a p-zombie. It's disturbing to see.
Why?

As for this, the early RoC was not a democracy by the remotest stretch of the imagination; despite their quirks, SK and Japan are democracies; and as regards Africa and India and even much of Latin America, while many of those countries have quite progressive systems IN THEORY, it's safe to say their adoption of democratic/liberal values in practice varies from "flawed but getting there" to "no fucking way."

It's funny -- I'm not even trying to argue that democracy *always* performs better! We're talking social sciences here; if your pet theory has no exceptions that just means it's unfalsifiable. But those are not good examples.

As for the authoritarian states you named that are doing well, yes, oil money is very nice, but again, I recommend hanging out there for a while if you think they're such nice places. But you have to make an effort to actually see the fucking country as the locals (and in some cases the millions of nonwestern foreign workers) see it, you can't stay in your western expat bubble and conclude, "yes, this government is doing great!" That's a real suggestion, not an attempt to establish superiority and prove I'm oh-so-well-traveled. It is very easy, but not very meaningful, to criticize democracy and liberalism (in the classic sense) when you've lived your life in a bubble without seeing many places where they would be able to make concrete improvements.

>Why are you obsessed with pedophilia?

This was the first mention of pedophilia in the thread, and your ideology of MUH FREEDOMS can't solve this "non issue".

Brainlets like you think you can make a short, simple, sweeping general rule and from it everything follows. This is simply not the case.

It's always amusing to see the authoritarian try to pass off their desire for control and conformity as altruistic paternalism. When you talk about how modern folk have too much freedom so they make the wrong choices and hurt themselves, the unspoken implication is that you would use the coercive threat of government violence to correct their errors.

So people are "eating themselves to death", does that mean if they don't eat properly you'll punish them financially, what if they don't listen. Will you arrest them, shoot them, throw them in jail? It's a bit rich to pretend you want to help people when your only methods to force compliance will hurt them even more.

It's just like gun control advocates trot out suicides as a justification for more laws. I mean, obviously, who wants people to kill themselves? But laws require force to be enforced, otherwise they're useless paper. If a man you call suicidal or at-risk doesn't want your help, what are you going to do? Throw him in an asylum, mark him crazy, strip him of his rights, steal his property, throw him in jail, or if he resists kill him? Are you sure you simply don't hate guns instead, and suicides are simply a 'politically correct' but still duplicitous excuse to go about your plans?

The same goes for those who claim to want to end 'degeneracy' for the good of the people who've given into it. You say you want to help them, but you'll only punish them even more greatly by involving the power of state institutions and the violence of enforcement. Which is worse, dying of heart disease at 57 or dying from a police bullet at 32? What's worse, taking a bad loan or having any career hopes dashed and permanently ruined from being a criminal?

Stop trying to mask it with altruism, you don't want to help people, you want to punish them.

That's talking about too much freedom from God being bad, in a literal sense Satanic. Their laws and "rule" were based strictly on their understanding of the Scripture, the word of God Himself. Too much deviation from it leads to stagnation, and they believed the land of Jerusalem and the Jews to be the principle demonstrator of this.

We're talking about freedoms from the power of the state, nothing more. Some outside, human force trying to control you ultimately because it sees some gain or security in doing so is much more questionable and lead you to terrible places than the word of God.

To believe otherwise means you truly wish the State to be God.

more people=less freedom

when you're around a group of people, you will have some cunt telling you you can't do something.