Is this true?

Technically, the advantage of a Republic is that it's the most stable form of government that allows individual freedom and enterprise to express itself.

You could construct this as "the elites controlling the people" but in fact a strong establishment is not a bad thing because it provides institutional stability.

I do not see it as a bad thing.
The OP post's seems to stem from a communist viewpoint of the world.

users.erols.com/mwhite28/govt2000.htm
>Democracy has seen some notable failures. The fall of Weimer Germany to the Nazis is the mythic example, but there have been plenty of other democracies that fell to (more or less) homegrown tyranny: Italy in 1922, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973, India in 1975, Argentina in 1976. The problem with stringing out a list like this is that it's been a busy century. There has been a lot of turnover in regimes over the past hundred years, and you can easily find examples of any kind of transition you want.

>Consider this instead: Nothing lasts forever, and almost every nation on the planet has seen at least one violent or unconstitutional change in leadership over the past hundred years. In fact, there are only a handful of countries that have had an unbroken chain of legitimacy since 1900 -- the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, probably Canada -- all democracies. In theory, it doesn't have to be this way. Monarchies, for example, are supposed to pass father to son, but none have survived the past hundred years without surrendering power to liberal parliaments. (The only absolute monarchies still around are younger than the 20th Century. [q.v.]) Single-party states are supposed to have orderly transitions of power, but here too, none have managed to go a full century without collapsing. Compared to all these failures, democracy looks a bit tougher.

...

>le Churchill quote!

Rome

Your grammar is terrible, learn to structure sentences and when to use plural nouns.

Also democracy is essentially a good thing. Ultimately power has to be transfered to fallible human beings and while the mob is difficult to reason with, a tyrant has only their power in mind.

the churchill quote is right and should be quoted over and over everywhere until people learn

>allows individual freedom and enterprise to express itself
Individual freedom for whom and to do what? Bourgeois Republics could not function if the vast majority of individuals were not under institutional compulsion to rent themselves in order to survive. No right minded person would claim a Republic isn't better than some antiquated tyranny but it most certainly is run by a middle class elite.

>I should repeat an unsubstantiated maxim over and over and hope it'll convince anybody with historical perspective and critical thought

Off yourself human cattle 2bqh

>ad nauseam fallacy

XD

The compulsion to work stems from the very nature of our existence on a world where resources, time, and goods are finite.

If you were alone on a desert island, you would have to work to sustain yourself, too.

Capitalism simply organices this necessity to work according to market allocation. Price signals give us a notion of what goods and services have more demand or are more scarce.

Communist societies still force the individual to work, and in a much more innefficient and brutal fashion.

Your post is nothing more than Marxist drivel.

I love the way in your world paraphrasing one of the greatest conservative politicians in history is plebbit but arguing for a form of governance based solely on your personal sexual fantasy of being a twink slaveboy fucktoy is totally legitimate.

That's unsocial

I'll rather destroy my country in a democracy than live peacefully under a dictator

give me liberty or give me death

I was just proposing Rome as an exemplary illiberal republic. I did not pronounce an opinion of it one way or the other.

>paraphrasing one of the greatest conservative politicians in history

"Why think for myself when I can use quotes so other people can articulate my opinions for me"

>being this fucking spooked

Except if you were on a deserted island, you would be the sole beneficiary of your labor. There is no way to do this in the modern world, because there are laws designed to force you into wage slavery.

IMO, rule by democracy just puts the power in the hands of whoever run the media/popular culture.

>hahaha I call any opinion I disagree with a spooky!! Aren't I a little intellectual

You benefit in a myriad other ways by being part of a society. A lonely man on a deserted island won't have computers, or modern medicine, or basically none of the complex goods that require a modern industrial society to build them.

Start a business. The only one exploiting your labour then will be the state. If not, nobody's going to stop your from living in the woods.

You're clearly still a massive leftist faggot.

>communist societies still force the individual to work, and in a much more innefficient and brutal fashion.
what is a strawman? Nothing about my post was an endorsement of Stalinism.
>The compulsion to work stems from the very nature of our existence on a world where resources, time, and goods are finite

Marx would agree with you. We're not productive to be completely free. The question being who appropriates the products of individual labor?

>being """"""""""free""""""""""" in some libertarian utopia enjoying your $3/hour 60 hour workweek
>living a comfy life off govt fashstate gibs and spending your free time studying history and literature, revolutionaries get splattered on the ground on first offense

I know which one I'd rather live in

>Mindless LEL PLEBIT shitposting rather than acknowledging the substance of the quote ant attempting to refute it

oh baby here we go

>claim dictatorship is needed to keep order
>can't keep order
>THIS IS ALL THE FAULT OF DEMOCRACY
go back to bed Assad
>">le Churchill quote!" isn't a fallacy
>dude, reddit! lmao
nice logical rebuttal

>a form of governance based solely on your personal sexual fantasy of being a twink slaveboy fucktoy
kek

Yes, look how well WWI worked out.

Whoever made this image needs to learn how to use commas and periods

>Le social contract may may
I didn't sign shit.

>nobody's going to stop your from living in the woods.
They will, though. I would be trespassing on someone's property, my residence wouldn't be built by a licensed contractor, and my children wouldn't be attending their compulsory schooling.

The recognition and support for an established upper class/Aristocracy, as well as the advocation for traditional beliefs and rejection of liberalization.
Just with people's voice in politics.

>Western elites manipulate policy for their own ends
>manufacture consent of the governed to justify their actions
>some people misinterpret this as mob rule
>as a result they advocate oligarchies, dictatorships, fascism, and absolute monarchies
I will never understand this line of thinking

>Chile in 1973
>democracy falling to tyranny
>not the other way around

None of those are 'benefits' you stupid fucking liberal

>democracy is good becuz i sed so
>a tyrant only has power in mind but a mass of tyrants tyrannized by ideology doesn't
Liberal nonsense

All government is bad. Abolish government. Find God and return to the Oikos.

There is no substance, liberal.

Authoritarian empires breaking down forcefully into liberal democracies after WW1 led to all sorts of fuckery

>three constitutional states and a monarchy square off against three monarchies
>at the end of the war, all of the monarchies get fucked, including the one that was on the winning side
>this is supposed to be an endorsement of monarchy

And yet Hillary Clinton is not the US president.

One should not mistake the culture controllers' high profile for actual power.

If you think about it, America hasn't been won by the right by a long stretch, just because they took federal government for the next four years says nothing.
The left has the media, the education system, even the military only moves to the left.
We are not at all right wing yet, society is dominated by the left.

>the (((left)))

He was aware. He was using a Chad strategy called "Agree and amplify."

Trump was an outlier. If he hadn't been willing to spend his own money, he'd be fucked. Not to mention that it's the mass media who made him popular prior to the election.

>a liberal republic leans to the left
Woah

>Authoritarian
Multiethnic*
the fundamental problem was the lack of clear cut ethnic demarcation lines that didn't lead to endless revanchism, to say nothing of reactionary feelings in the losing countries (and Italy, but they're special). It was really only solved with WW2 and population transfers, and even then you'll still find asshurt Hungarians about Trianon today
t.bh the right made the worst Faustian bargain imaginable in exchange for power as well. They picked a senile oligarch who has no ideological foundation and only panders for what gets him votes, who has failed to push through anything you wanted (the right is as fault here too but I digress), and who is rapidly retracting Nixons path and the only reason he's still at 35% is the economy has been floating along. They better start practicing black magic sacrifices to keep the economy booming or 2018 will be an absolute slaughter

As a Democrat, I'm expecting the GOP to do better in 2018 than anyone is expecting them to.

This being due to

>GOP voters being more active in congressional elections than presidential ones
>gerrymandering
>(possibly) Russian interference
>the left wing doubling down on idpol, at a time when identitarian politics benefits the right wing
>why the fuck would anything nice ever happen

polite sage for /pol/

Yes. Absolute monarchy combined with honest devotion to the Catholic faith is the patrician's government of choice.

>Russian interference

Do you really think that this had any significant effect?

In the 2016 election?

It helped to reinforce the fact that Hillary was a corrupt establishment politician.

But she was, which is the primary cause of her losing.

In the 2018 midterms?

Maybe.

There's a lot of different races going on, so it'll be a lot more complicated, both in terms of attacking the elections and in terms of defending them.

No.

Each system has it's elites. This system's elites feel comfortable with this system. Complicated, right?

strawman greentexts, I provided an explanation in my post, my argument is that in the real world you have to make realistic trade-offs, not that democracy is flawless

>Liberal nonsense
wrong, I oppose liberals with the same line of reasoning, they imagine capitalism is the root of all evil yet despite its flaws it does a better job than attempts to "collectivize" the economy

No, because Hitler never won an election. He was appointed.

>Senile
>Oligarch with no ideological foundation

I stopped reading there because I could tell you don't know what the fuck your going on about.

>i oppose liberals
You don't know what a liberal fucking is, because you are one if you in any way support democracy
>real world
No such thing exists, ideologue. Exactly that is liberal nonsense.

No that user but by your logic, Pericles and Classical Athens were liberal. Which they weren't.

>you are liberal if you in any way support democracy
>the real world doesn't exist

>substance of the quote

Imagine being so dull you cannot formulate an argument by yourself

Why would you opt out of society though? Even lower class life in the developed world beats the state of nature in terms of propriety to human life

I mean democracy as it is, not as it was.

>he said, while spamming formulaic, dull and mindless ad hominem

"ad-hominem" necessitates that an argument was replied to.

>haha dude why think for yourself let another person "argue" for my favorite form of government, I love the fact that democracy enables me, the average voter, to effect his personal conclusions and individuality on the system

...

There was an argument made to start with, which was spammed by a ladyboy calling everyone else 'reddit'.

"It's good because I said so" is not an argument

Unironic thought-terminating cliches belong on reddit.

>I can't be bothered to have a decent democracy so I'll just blame the rich and the elite instead

Fuck off. Nobody said democracy was "easy".

No, it's just garbage.

>dude not dying from dysentery at the age of 13 isn't benefit ayyy lmaao

Aka asocial, like how atheism is a- plus theism.

Good post, my man.

there is literally nothing wrong with basing your government around a twink slaveboy fucktoy economy my man

>liberals
>anti-capitalist
nigga liberalism is fundamentally rooted in capitalism. It's socialists who are anti-capitalist

Never happened. Try again, propagandist Antichrist.

>containment board
why does reddit insist on using this term?

America is not a Democracy, thank GOD.

>Dogmatic establishment of a false premise
Is there any proof that this is happening?

All that is done on compulsion is bitterness unto the soul.

You deserve to die in anarchy for being such a retarded spooked faggot 2bqwh

the nazis never had more than 37% support

they staged a coup and alienated their conservative allies that worked with them to form a government

37 can be a lot of support

Only in America do you have D Vs. R dichotomy

>hurr good versus evil

When frenchies wake up they have a surprise