Was Democracy a big mistake? Was the idea of entrusting to everyone the right to vote good or bad?

The problem with democracy is that it is simultaneously overrated and underrated (AKA the Sgt. Peppers' Lonely Hearts Club Band Curse). It's the former because people raised to believe in its virtues treat it as a panacea for curing poor political conditions and creating good governance. It's the latter because, as bad as it is, oftentimes the alternatives can be even worse. Democracy all but ensures mediocrity and a slide toward less democratic societies over time, but dictatorships can swing between shining cities on hills and Hell on Earth.

Also, for example: Marcus Furius Camillus, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Caius Julius Caesar (and all the good emperors which followed), Pericles, Tsingis Khan, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, France-Albert René and Lee Kuan Yew.

>dictatorships can swing between shining cities on hills and Hell on Earth.

This, and more often than not the latter. Elected representation democracy is a terrible system but it out-competes all others because consistently mediocre >>>> wild swings between extremes of great and terrible.

>A true democracy, of the sort practiced by the Greeks
Yea, for sure. True democracy is when women, slaves and people whose both parents are not Athenian are not allowed to vote. In which case only 1/5 of the adult population can take part in politics.

There really isn't much of an upside to allowing anyone to vote regardless of their mental competency. All it does it allow demagogues like Trump or Hitler to reach power more easily.

>Lee kuan yew
When will the meme that he did everything end? His first cabinet was great for sure, but he subsequently lost steam in the latter eras. Also
>picking pre-Casear dictators
I don't you know what OP meant by dictatorship

>like Trump and Hitler
He's back

Stuff like women and slaves not participating doesn't apply today of course, but the basic premise of the system could certainly be implemented.

Whether or not you think Trump is suitable for ruler, you have to admit that he wouldn't have reached his current status under a more sane system. Certainly not like he did.

Yeah sure, whatever. I guess a "sane" system would be any system that would elect a candidate you shill for. Hope Trump starts gassing you people so at least your LITERALLY HITLER remarks aren't fucking retarded to listen to.

Trump is the symptom of the left, deal with it.

Thank God. Democracies are no different than mob rule, and as the saying goes, a mob is as intelligent as its dumbest member's IQ divided by the number of constituents.

He only reached his status because of the terrific job the "professionals" have been doing. I imagine a good chunk of the people who voted for him did so out of spite.

Yes. We need philosopher kings now more than ever. The proles cannot be trusted to decide their rulers.

>Trump is the symptom of the left, deal with it.
Exactly. God forbid you can have a sane, centrist president.

But he is a centrist, that's the hilarious part.

The rights to violate the rights of the people belong to the people. It belongs to no-one else.

>if Hillary got in, we wouldn't be worrying about North Korea, we'd be worrying about FEMA camps and potentially genocide of some sort of political affiliation, ethnic group, religious group, or ideology.
Lay off the Alex Jones

ever fucking heard of Rome?

But Hillary did not become president

>But he is a centrist

That is implying he has actual positions that he believes in. He is closer to apolitical, funnily enough.

Yup. Generalship, economics, and politics require special knowledge and intelligence.

> I imagine a good chunk of the people who voted for him did so out of spite.

Americans sure are well adjusted individuals.

But pre-Caesar dictators are dictatorship in its purest form. And it is absolutely beautiful. Dictatorship now days is largely misunderstood and it saddens me. Every time I try to explain it, people just look at me like I'm crazy.

define a "sane" system

Tito, Ulbricht, Ceaucescu, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung

Walter Lippmann, an early 20th century social and political commentator and editor for The New Republic, gave a scathing indictment of democracy.

In Lippmann's eyes, while democracy might have been well and good in a previous era where the questions of government rarely transcended the experience of the common man, in the modern era of specialization and distribution of authority even an intelligent man was hopeless to understand the leviathan complexities that made up modern society. Thus, questions about the state when presented to the people could never reflect reality since it was well beyond their capabilities. From there they devolved into the theatrical presentation of emotionally charged symbols and slogans, effectively degenerating the process into mob rule.

Lippmann believed in the desirability of a rational and technocratic society. That modern problems with their highly specialized nature demanded qualified experts. Leaving important state decisions up to public debate would only ever by pure chance meritocratic results, so then why take that chance? For Lippmann, only procedural questions should ever be left to the people to decide, while substantial decisions were carried out by experts beyond the reach of the ballot box.

lippmann sounds like a faggot

Democracy is better than the alternatives.

It's not a lot better, but it's better. It's better if people have the choice to destroy themselves or ennoble and enrich themselves, than not, because choice means freedom, and freedom means the existence of morality.

A slave has no responsibility for himself, hence morality doesn't exist.

Trump is not a fascist is a communist

I feel like the larger the system (the number of people) the harder it is to be functioning. China manages to do it because its so iron-fisted, but it can really fall apart hard.

I don't think any political system can really handle the complexity of modern life very well. I'm sure even some of the worst political ideologies could have worked back in the past, but not even the best can work in the future unless something happens that changes things.

> Rome
> first emperor is competent
> next four emperors:
A murderous old pervert
A murderous young pervert
A stuttering simpleton
An insane murderous incestuous pervert

I don't know who said this but it goes something along the lines of 'under dictatorship there is either Marcus Aurelius or Nero, under democracy there is only Nero'.
Democracy is a weird system. It's difficult to imagine a hospital in which doctors are selected based on their looks and charisma rather than their qualifications. Yet this is how statesmanship works.
Real politics is too difficult for the average voter to comprehend, thus the hot one, or the cool one win votes, the plebitariate cry about how they've been lied to, and they vote for the same candidate again in 4-5 years time. The system rewards the liar and the fraud more than the just and capable man. Thus the democracy engulfs itself in endless debts as the frauds try to fulfil their promises to the electorate, passing the debt on to the next generation. It's a time bomb. When a leader is freed from the pressure of the electorate, perhaps then they could take the decisions that must be made, but this removes any modicum of accountability.
>inb4 someone says I copied these vague points from The Republic
I know I'm just answering OP.

It's the worst system...
except for all the others.

>It's the worst system...
>except for all the others.
Churchill was an noble Aristocrat who supported Imperialism and started the Bengal famine and hoped Gandhi would die from starvation so India won't gain independence from Britain. No wonder he considered Democracy the least bad system. It gave people the delusion of choice and allowed for the establishment of Oligarchy and Plutocracy.

>Churchill was an noble Aristocrat who supported Imperialism and started the Bengal famine and hoped Gandhi would die from starvation so India won't gain independence from Britain.
wtf I love Churchill now

...

Lack of voter participation and a general ignorance or apathy to civic duty is what kills Democracy.

>Trump is the symptom of the left, deal with it.

Oh look it's this bullshit again. Trump is the literal result of a angry largely blue collar population who are victims of economic circumstances in which globalization and technology has made them virtually redundant and irrelevant. In turn, they're angry and desperate, willing to look for anyone to blame for their shitty lives. Hence the role of Fox News and radio in helping to inform their World view that blacks are raping their women, hispanics are taking their jobs, and snotty college students and Jewish college professors are emasculating their sons.

They want to be anti-establishment but end up being redirected towards a multitude of scapegoats who, in the grand scheme of things, aren't going to improve their terrible economic circumstances if they magically disappeared.

In short, Trump just rehashed the Southern Strategy but to a wider Northern industrial class with the support of old Reagan Democrats.

>helping to inform their World view that blacks are raping their women, hispanics are taking their jobs, and snotty college students and Jewish college professors are emasculating their sons.
At least some american media still speaks the truth.

Thanks for bringing hope back.

Thats why o don't vote unless I have done a longevidad study of the candidates wich is autistic because my country forces me to vote because they think our citizen are equal and its "our duty " so I should be getting a fine or time in jail for not paying the fine soon. At least i know this awful place is going to Hell with that idea

Here in Argentina we don't have freedom since we are forced to vote, you can be Juan son of a shoemaker and the law tells you "Juan you don't know shit neither you care time to decide wich candidate face you like more " This is the average vote here btw

Franco.

ayy