Implying oligarchy isn't the best form of government

so america has the best form of government right now?

bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

Yeah, just look at Crete and Carthage, perfect examples of highly succesful societies.

>implying this isn't the height of civilization

The best form of goverment is democracy with a check on it.

Before people vote, they should be able to say the standing points of the party they're voting for. If they can't answer correctly, they won't get to vote.

>party

You're describing an oligarchy, in a democracy people don't vote for their rulers, the people ARE the rulers, either thru direct voting on every issue or by appointment by lot, like how we select juries.

no, he's describing deliberative democracy actually

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

>Democracy

>After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over --supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors --in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

>Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others --whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.

>Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he-is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.

Actually it is not. It's a confederation of cantons with each being very democratic and the federal government exercising minimum authority.

True Democracy is a myth

In the end, you're voting for a someone who will only pretend to represent you but ultimately fucks off to do what they feel

>confusing the efficacy of the political system with the failure to overcome one's own individual existential angst

Singapore is better

Except they're constantly having referendums.

No it isn't.

How so?

>higher GDP per capita
>higher PISA scorces
>more economic freedom
>easier to do business
>lower crime rate

>GDP
Meme
>more economic freedom
>easier to do business
Lies, just go to a different canton, don't go by national averages or what Zurich/Bern do it's irrelevant.

>PISA
>lower crime rate
At their levels it doesn't matter the differences would only be used for silly penis measuring, they're all outstanding and shit on everyone else with only marginal unimportant distinctions between them. Not to mention PISA is itself irrelevant as a measure of a country.

>How so?
It isn't a tiny Draconian tropical golden shitpile for one.

>higher PISA scorces
China's is higher too, I guess China is better country then Switzerland yes? Let's all move to China to burn computers for the gold in their chips! Yes clearly better life.

They are intertwined though user, it is self evident that the body politic or any system cannot exist without a population of human individuals with inherent flaws and philosophical outlook, the pattern without historical studies do support the quote that the poster has printed.

within*

>implying it's not Victorian monarchy

Because its so much better to pick and attempt to follow one of the world's countless retarded moral systems that give you shitty rules to live by because apparently humans are supposed to deny themselves what they naturally want.

He listed 5 reasons, not 1.
You are fucking retarded

>implying it's not carthaginian nor venetian nor british thalassocracies

>rules to live by because apparently humans are supposed to deny themselves what they naturally want.t.

Of course they are supposed to control their desires. This is obvious. This is what makes a civilization works. This is what makes you live a better life.

Can anyone explain where the bullshit ideology that you should never question your desires and you should go after all of them comes from?
Do you take a shit on the living room because you want to take a shit now and there?

The US is and was designed as an oligarchy. "the rich get what they want and the poor suffer" was baked into the constitution (only landowning men can vote) which was written by the performance business interests of the time. George Washington was the richest US president perhaps until Donald Trump.

>Do you take a shit on the living room because you want to take a shit now and there?
OF COURSE YOU DO! Fuck, why wouldn't you give in to raw primal desire! It feels great.

>only the rich owned land
>only the rich owned land in a fucking colony
Truly spooked I am

>Athenian oligarchy
>sues for peace with Sparta, overthrown by thetes when they start winning the war again
>Carthaginian oligarchy
>defeated by Roman
>Venetian oligarchy
>declines in power and relevance before being defeated by the Austrians
>Nazi/Italian Corporatism
>defeated by the Allied Powers
So in answer to your implication, "No."

This is where the thread should have ended.

For an imperialist nation, yes, yes it is. If you're going around conquering people with larger populations than you, you can't give them full rights or else they'll have more political power and it would be more like they conquered you since they have larger voting blocs. You can't give conquered peoples full rights unless you either outnumber them or not until they're fully assimilated (which could take decades or more, if it ever happens at all) but you have to give them SOMETHING so they don't feel worse off than with the old regime (best way to conquer someone is to make them think of you as liberators).

I think Rome really nailed it for imperialism done correctly.

Only thing is, Oligarchy, in a non-imperialist society, is kinda shit since you're keeping your own people, as opposed to conquered people, from participating in their own government. Small peaceful societies that don't intend upon conquering anything and lack ambition in general are better off with equal rights for all natural born citizens and a proper constitution.