Nearly every philosopher and political scientist since Socrates says democracy sucks

Keep in mind the alternatives proposed to Democracy were pie in the sky theoretical ideals like "Philosopher King" and "Enlightened Monarchy" that don't actually translate well into real systems.

Democracy makes every single person a stakeholder and involved in the political process, which works the best in a Westernized country with a robust middle class, where property rights are sufficiently protected to provide an environment that promotes new enterprises and investment, and institutions serve to mitigate any extremist influences and incompetence. People will follow the money.

If you and 499 people are on a boat, who would you rather have decide who the captain will be? Just everyone on the boat? Or a group of sailors and naval officers? I'm assuming you picked the later, so why would you let just everyone decide who should be in charge of the country?

If you're somehow on a boat without a captain, then voting on the new captain does in fact make the most sense. How exactly you'd end up one a boat with nobody in charge is the big question here.

Are you trying to argue for a technocracy here? Because those haven't worked out great either.

ups suddenly the captain dies and the first mate who is the new captain decides to kill 1/4 of the people just because he doesn't like their faces

Perhaps the former captain died during the trip, its theoretical

i wonder what socrates would've thought of marxism

desu i actually found a book on this and i'm probably going to check it out, but if anyone wanna give me a synopsis then thats fine

this

democracy breeds stability, but it also needs stability to breed. Take developing nations for example, and the difficulties democracy has there. This is because they don't have
>a robust middle class

democracy also deals well with the transferral of power, a major issue in governance

but stability is essential to economic growth, therefore, democracy is good

ups the random sailor elected forgot to ration food and now you starve

>so why would you let just everyone decide who should be in charge of the country

because a country is not like a ship

Because a country isn't a ship and you're making false equivalencies? I'm not sure if you know that it's a false equivalency and you're trying to push and agenda, or if you're just retarded.

Because, although centralized power without bureaucratic restrictions or incumbency to the masses is the most efficient form of government, modern Western society has solidified the values of individualism and the right the individual has not only to themselves but to the land in which they live and its laws.
Much of this has to do with the introduction of mandatory schooling and a more educated society, a modern Western-focused education shaped and molded by the powers which shaped the West at the end of WWII and the Cold War, and now also the internet.

I believe, ultimately, we are witnessing the downfall of the West because anything worth doing to maintain the values and cultures of the West is being exasperated both by the ease of modern travel and exchange of information, and the flaccidity of democracy. Because, although democracy might be a stable form of government, it's also the weakest in terms of bolstering up or protecting a nation. And of course, I think we can all recognize that most people should not be making important decisions in a country's direction.

>tfw you will never live in a fascist society

Not an argument.

No, obviously the captain would be whoever was the strongest or the one with a gun... on second thought democracy is best.

Good?

yes, i would love to live under fascism. Come home from military training to a traditional wife that was at home preparing me dinner. I'm not even some autistic NEET fat fuck, I genuinely want to live like this and do my part to be a strong individual piece of a larger more important well oiled society

>people actually think dictators have absolute control
No, they have a inner circle of "keys" that they have to keep happy else the dictator gets removed from power. In essence the government serves the best interests of a select few rather than the nation as a whole. That's why Nazi Germany's industry was hampered by cronyism and why the DPRK gives sports cars to its top officials while their people starve. Only ignorant children think that much centralization of authority works in all but the direst of circumstances.

Use democracy when you want whatever you're talking about to sound good

Use politics when you want whatever you're talking about to sound bad.

Whats democracy without politics?

Don't they mean the same thing but with the complete opposite meanings?

:Don't they mean the same thing but with the complete opposite meanings?

Opposite effect I meant.

I still have no clue about what the fuck you're saying

People use politics and democracy to refer to the same phenomenon, yet politics is a "bad" word yet democracy is a "good" word.

Listen out for it when you read the news.

Our society is well oiled. It's more well oiled today then any nation has been in human history. We have continent spanning road systems and flights going across the world in days. We have a global communication system allowing us to communicate with the other side of the world almost instantaneously. We all have computers in our pockets that can plan our daily agendas however we want and automatically communicate those agendas with our peers.

If you don't think the world isn't well oiled then that's because your life isn't well oiled, and that's on you. Get a job and get a daily planner.

The problem with democracy is that people have varying degrees of knowledge. The proper system would be to give voting power respective to the individual's knowledge. The immense problem then becomes how to decide the degrees of knowledge and who it is making that decision.

You'd bring them down and your wife would cuck you.

Magnesia in the Laws is pretty Communistic and is akin to early industrial Communistic religious societies in the US (more so than later Utopian). But I don't think that anything Plato has written about, even through the character of Socrates, and especially not in his later works implies he'd really care that much about a working class; especially an industrial one under which conditions he wouldn't quite follow

But in regards to the OP, the US isn't a democracy (in most regards) and Republicanism is quite different than a direct democratic system

So what's the alternative OP, communism?

You could do that by
1. Joining the military
2. Finding a traditional minded wife
The reason you won't join the military is because anyone who likes having free time, not getting fucking barked at over a scrap of toilet paper behind the toilet, and getting paid enough to afford some niceties isn't going to join the fucking military. The pay, hours, and politics are dogshit and you fucking know it.

Literally nothing is stopping you from finding a traditional minded wife. You're just a picky retard who don't want a plain traditional girl because you secretly want Stacy.

I have a job. I need a sense of nationalism and purpose in life other than my own personal hedonism and self satisfaction. I'm an American, and while there's a lot of Americans that are super patriotic, there's too many that hate the place and shit on nationalism. I don't even know how to describe it. I'm not autistic enough to actually worship Nazis or anything like that, but the speeches of Hitler about unity and love for your country really interest me. The same with Italian fascism and Mussolini's speeches. I have no reason to dislike my life, like I said I'm successful with girls, I have a decent paying job, well groomed, educated. I just feel like I would appreciate a greater sense of purpose by improving the state in which I live in, one where everyone is on board for the same reasons and has the same desire to improve the state

Because elitism is totally nonviable today,
and proponents thereof act as if historical development of the general consciousness is not a thing, and try to distract how much of what they propose is entirely theoretical and totally lacking in immanency.
Reinterpretations of history that succeed as long as they narrow the scope just enough.
Further, they assume that accurate critique can be done with presupposed principles plucked out of the air of intuition, instead of what is actual and present in immanent reality.
Most anti-democratic notions I have found are based entirely on aesthetic principles, and lack ontological substance at the core.

i'm guessing its hitler

no because although the first mate is in charge he still has to abide by set of rules. Constitutional Monarchy best government

because in case you haven't noticed, people are generally retarded

I don't understand. You can do that today.

>Who is John Locke

If someone tells me do something, why should I do it?
If he forced me to do it at the end of a gun, it's immoral.
If I consent, it is moral.

Therefore, the only legitimate form of government is one that has consent from those that are being ruled.

Can anyone tell me why this is wrong?

Limited Democracy, 1 party system.
Singapore/Japan.

>I need a sense of nationalism and purpose in life other than my own personal hedonism and self satisfaction

Join a church, a community, that is the American way not some sort of authoritarian worship. I'm sick of seeing this thinking and how far it has taken over on this site. I enjoy my life and the freedom I have to choose different paths in it, I enjoy the modern world and our governmental system. Why do you want to change all of that because you want the whole country to play boy scouts with you?

So basically because you feel unfulfilled that justifies instituting a dictatorship that tells everyone in the country what to do and when to do it and will inevitably start killing it's own citizens just because they are dissenters or have the wrong skin colour?

Think about that for a second

I am God and you are immoral.

99% of those arguments are going to be invalid because democracy would describe something completely different for those people.

Pretending to be God lands you a place in Hell user.

Fascism is not perfect, however there are certain common practices utilized by fascists which should be adopted to improve our modern lives.

The sterilization of the mentally ill or mentally deficient for example, can only be a positive. The only genuine negative argument against being centered in a slipper-slope fallacy.

The reintroduction of authoritarianism/monarchism/generally centralized powers in the West.
Many genuine arguments against, however the most efficient, no doubt.

And the state-funded promotion of nationalism.
Unity trumps division, especially when grounded in pride for ones identity, culture, and society.

>The sterilization of the mentally ill or mentally deficient for example, can only be a positive

We tried this in the 30's. It didn't do shit.

>The reintroduction of authoritarianism/monarchism/generally centralized powers in the West.

Epic autism.

>muh trump

cringe

Lol @ everyone here who thinks that modern, Western governments are democracies. Seriously, pick up a classical text and try reading it sometime. It's called moderate oligarchy and modern propaganda, brainlets.

>Unity trumps division, especially when grounded in pride for ones identity, culture, and society.

American society already allows one to do these sort of things as a private individual, if you're too weak to maintain that pride without the state forcing it on you than maybe the issue lies solely with you

I don't want to sound like some sort of pseudo-intellectual or even rude but it is readily apparent that your desire for Fascism is out of some sort of inadequacy or lack of something. Maybe it isn't the system that's keeping you from attaining whatever that is but something about you.

God can't go to hell, Pablo.

>muh trump
Trump is garbage. Nationalism is not "cringe".

>Epic autism.
Everyone's constantly tired of their governments. Constantly dissatisfied with the lack of action, with the lack of mobilization. "Autistic" as it might be for me not to buy into the culture of individualism, I don't. And under the right conditions I'd be willing to support such a system.
>We tried this in the 30's. It didn't do shit.
It wasn't done properly, and when it was utilized, it DID do shit because it sterilized thousands with mental or developmental disabilities.
However the practice should've been run by the central government and not the states. It would be a far more effective program nowadays with the efficiency of technology.

>huur rich people have more influence in society, therefore not democracy
That ''argument'' is so stupid.
>modern propaganda
Oh, but you with your shining intellect and force of will are able to see through the propaganda. Blessed are we to be graced by you.

Today we have the ability to get our information sources from the most varied, different and independent locations and people than anytime before. Name any stance and I can find a whole organization that lives to convince people of the opposite stance.

I don't desire fascism necessarily, but I acknowledged that centralized power, and sterilization are effective tools for the betterment of a society.

I'm satisfied in my life, honestly. I have a decent and stable teacher's salary, a fiancé, and I'm moving soon to a city which I've always loved.

The only thing I'm "unsatisfied" with is the state of the modern West.

you may want to go back and reread the republic

>No one knows who their kids are
>Censor everything lmao
>Philosophers should be kings, not because I am, just cause their teh best evar

No thanks, once was enough.

>Democracy is mob rule.
Says a rich elite.

>centralization for centralization's sake
you sound like a communist

>sterilization are effective tools for the betterment of a society
and you also don't seem to know how unpopular this policy was to the German people when the Nazis tried it. Imagine if one day you came home and found all your neighbors were shot on their lawns because their second cousin once removed was born with a hereditary disease

>The only thing I'm "unsatisfied" with is the state of the modern West
So go organize a militia and fight in the streets like every other populist movement in history. It seems the Muslims are doing it pretty well.

Were those philosophers talking about all democratic forms of government or were they talking about the goofy direct democracy where everyone has a say on policy directly?

Because a lot of philosophers seem to be fans of the republic.

>centralization for centralization's sake
Nope. Centralization for efficiency's sake.
>Imagine if one day you came home and found all your neighbors were shot on their lawns because their second cousin once removed was born with a hereditary disease
Are you stupid? Who's talking about murder? Especially murder by way of some vague connection to someone?
Sterilization. Making those that should not reproduce impotent. That's it.
>So go organize a militia and fight in the streets like every other populist movement in history.
Nationalist ideologies are gaining traction at least, but half of them are filled with brain-dead idiots, and the Trump brand of "nationalism" is a joke.
I could find myself involved in a political and intelligent brand of nationalism, but I could never involve myself in something radical or fringe-like for risk of losing my job. I'm not young anymore, and it's not like marching on the street would sway the minds of Americans. Suddenly they'd be "enlightened" because of my involvement in some march or activism.

>eugenics in the age of genetic engineering
Do you have autism?

>Our society is well oiled.

no it isn't

Actually yes. Only through communism is authentic democracy possible.

Porque no los dos?

>Democracy fags literally have to appeal to unpredictable bouts of insanity to make their case
What if the fag you elect is insane too?

Everything that guy said had merit and if you disagree you haven't really thought about it that hard

>Think about that for a second
Ok.
Now what, I still think it's a great idea.

>military training to a traditional wife
military wifes are usually whores desu

None of what that guy said had merit as he confused technological achievement for governmental effectiveness. Status quo fags have a tendency to do that.
>Democracy just works! Like my iPhone!

name one thing wrong with our political system, and I am going to assume you are also an American. Please inform me if that isn't the case

begin by telling me what ideal you're trying to achieve first, and how our current governmental structure does not facilitate this ideal

Most people are dumb. If every country was an autocracy most of the division and civil conflict would disappear.

The enlightenment was the worst thing to happen to humanity. It turned the average dumb pleb into someone who is not only dumb but also a raging ideologue.

Nah.
I like to keep /pol/ on /pol/.

>I won't actually defend my nonsensical beliefs
>I'm just going to stick to the cliche that /pol/ tells me where "democracy" is weak and our government is broken

wow I can really tell you know what you're talking about right there

Precisely because it sucks.

The Modern man is a masochist.

I'm against Democracy but that example is terrible as that example is precisely centered around the running or operation of a boat whereas the desired direction of a 'country' so to speak isn't so simple.

What does it mean to say the most 'qualified' to run a country? It's not the same as a Captain and a boat as these are more clearly defined roles.

You don't know what my "nonsensical beliefs" are as I have yet to explain them. All I have done in this thread is rightfully point out that technology is not government, a statement whose validity is so self-evident you didn't even bother to rebut it.

Sorry pal, I'm not talking contemporary politics with you on Veeky Forums.

no

thisposter replied to your statement that society isn't well oiled in an adequate way, pointing out the effective infrastructure and tele-communications systems we have. You shifted the goal posts to talking about government effectiveness which is a such a vague concept that it's meaningless. Our society is facilitated by these which while "technologic" are still an aspect of government "effectiveness" whatever that means. Which one is the perceived tasks of the government to facilitate and protect commerce

Now you're refusing to actually engage in a dialogue because I know that you can't. You can't defend your belief that there is anything wrong with the government because you've simply adopted this view from other people and regurgitate it

You clearly have never read a classical text, and therefore have zero idea of what the term "democracy" means.

Your worship of partisanship is irrelevant.

That wasn't my statement being responded to you dumb fuck, stop assuming that everyone who doesn't unthinkingly accept the status quo is the same person.

>You shifted the goal posts to talking about government effectiveness which is a such a vague concept that it's meaningless
Right, and "well-oiled society" is totally a precise unambiguous statement with clear meaning huh?

The fucking roads and your fucking iPhone are not "society" and the existence of these attributes do not make "society" inherently "well-oiled", as it is entirely possible for a "well-oiled" society to exist without advanced communications and global commerce. Or do you disagree with this statement, and genuinely believe that "society" was never "well-oiled" prior to the mid-20th century?

You won't clarify the ideal you seek government to strive for so any argument is pointless and you're hiding behind political science being off-topic for this board. If you truly believed that and wanted to abide by that then you wouldn't be in this thread

my request stands and any back and forth is pointless until you proceed with it.

>begin by telling me what ideal you're trying to achieve first, and how our current governmental structure does not facilitate this ideal

>You won't clarify the ideal you seek government to strive for so any argument is pointless and you're hiding behind political science being off-topic for this board.
Nigger, all I came here to do is to point out the the red-herring of using the state of modern telecommunications as an argument to shut down critiques of the system.

>Hey I don't like this car it's too slow.
>You're wrong to feel that way, because you can use your car to buy cheap and readily available bread.

I don't need to present my political views to critique this obviously flawed counter-argument. Now about you stop trying to shift the argument to me and get back on topic.

I believe a benevolent dictatorship is generally recognized best.

GRAND DAD

TODOKETE

>Because all the others are demonstrably worse.
For the masses yes.

There is no political system that makes everyone happy, either the masses suffer or the nobility does.

The irony is that even with democracy, the masses aren't satisfied.

The masses are feminine and democracy is the biggest failed shittest in the history of humanity.

Akin to feminism, females still aren't satisfied with "equality" and will continue to complain about every single aspect of suffering in existence until life becomes so boring its not worth living anymore.

Youre a fucking feminine slavish cuck if you think democracy is better than the alternatives, its like instead of doing the hard work and developing an alternative which one must be responsible for, lets let everything go to shit for the sake of never being responsible because responsibility is hard and god forbid we do anything hard in our modern sheltered piece of shit culture we have today right?

The problem is that we are looking at political systems absent the major looming effect of exponentially increasing technology.

What is the political system in a country where each child is massively smarter than their parents? What is the political system when there are (genetically modified) children made for rearing and when there are (GM) children for the use of pedophiles? What is the political system when sex robots and artificial wombs supersede the societal need for women?

CONT

It'd be a great irony if the singularity AIs decided to simulate human history and, in the process, creates a singularity within that simulation where an AI decides to...

You get the point. This isn't even going into the issue of "moral and evaluative experimentation". Maybe an AI tries to gamble by creating a million sims with different (and pseudorandomly) chosen quirks, strengths, weaknesses, and life histories. The AI might see what "tablet of values" promotes the highest and most intense form of life...

What the fuck are you talking about? You sound like a weird LARPing asshole who wants to live in the middle ages.

LARPing is relative you moron, your "democracy" in the past would have been laughed off by Men who could kill you 10 times over.

Now, you can scoff comfortably in your chair and drink your latte with no one to punch you in the fucking jaw for what you say.

Freedom of speech my ass.

>Why?
Nobody with a brain shills for pure democracy. The modern world lives off constitutional republics, which strongly limit the capability of the public to fuck the state up.
That said, you're making a shit argument to begin with: something that would work 2000 years ago doesn't necessarily work now, and viceversa. Modern societies are simply too large and complex to be administered by monarchs or be denied certain freedoms: the power gap between organization and rabble shrinked in the extreme simply due to how much larger the rabble is now compared to 2000 years ago and the equalizing effects of technology.

>your "democracy" in the past would have been laughed off by Men who could kill you 10 times over.
so fucking what?
>Freedom of speech my ass.
what's wrong with that?

>The problem with democracy is that people have varying degrees of knowledge.

Kek this is the exact same problem with free market capitalism. It only works fine when people are perfectly rational omniscient actors.

that's why meritocracy socialism is the best system

Benevolent dictators exist only in theory though.

1. You've never been in a fight
2. The rule of law was created long before the Middle Ages and the idea that you need to hit people because they disagree with you is literally the reasoning of a child
Be honest, are you over 16 years old?

>all this rage at females
lmao someone never got tugged in high school