Is democracy, in any of its forms, the penultimate way on how to govern a nation?

Is democracy, in any of its forms, the penultimate way on how to govern a nation?
Is this the top? It doesnt get any better does it?

>pic
yes, if the democracy puts in politicians' hands the capacity to intervene people's freedom it gonna have instability and social conflict. The ideal democracy that is the best way to govern a nation is the one that doesn't intervene people's freedom.

Where does one draw the line of the people's freedom?
What about rogue politicians?
What about people who cater to populism even if what they promise hurts the country?
Wouldn't democracy create a system where the politicians goal are to get (re) elected instead of serving the wishes of the people?

Democracy is a buzzword. The US is run primarily by entrenched interests whether they be special interests or anonymous bureaucrats, Elections are largely ritualistic and the issues brought before the people are largely procedural (how to go about something) rather than substantive (what actually gets done).

democracy provides a line of incredibly easy legitimacy for the government, allowing them to get away with really anything

>Penultimate.
Democracy has so far only have 200 years under its belt. It has yet to show the same lifespan Monarchies did.

Democracy by definition includes every person in the society. Not every person has the same intelligence or the same values. Democracy then is an average society built for average people with average standards of living.

Confucianist Meritocracy is where peace lies.

You do realise that you don't live in a democracy, right? Modern Western governments are all moderate oligarchies. You lack any authority or responsibility that would be expected of a citizen in a democracy; you're closer to an ancient metic, paying taxes to work and reside in a state.

It depends on what your aims are.

I've seen the word oligarchy thrown around a lot and mostly consider it overly dramatic mostly, why do you consider the US & Europe an oligarchy ?
Establishing such a system would cause probably right? wouldn't those who ''contribute'' more be spited by those that contribute less?
Democracy seems to be showing cracks, people seem to have more loyalty to their parties(s) and/or candidates than the state itself it seems.

people feel that the winner in democracy can impose them their believes if they lose, and the inability to impose their believes to the rest cause frustration and need to liquidate the opposition

Literally count the number of work hours each human has, distribute power. Meritocracy is easy.

In this Society would a nanny who works ten hours a days have more power than a nuclear physicist who works 8?

>What about rogue politicians?
>What about people who cater to populism even if what they promise hurts the country?
>Wouldn't democracy create a system where the politicians goal are to get (re) elected instead of serving the wishes of the people?
the only goals that a politician should do is not doing anything (laissez faire), and to protect our freedom: constitution and if it fails, guns

It is like capitalism. In so far as capitalism refers to a free market and property ownership, everyone wants it. General critiques against this are always predicated on the current status quo being the only way to do capitalism, they are based on the argument from the establishment that the status quo is the only possible way to implement free markets and property ownership.

In so far as democracy means that you get consulted on decisions that affect you, everyone wants it. You can get people to oppose it if you convince them that other people voting cancels their vote, and so they start to vote in anti-voting measures that hurt them, and they blame the other people for it so they vote in anti-voting measures.

In a meritocracy, everyone would be educated, children would do the small jobs.

>person A creates automation program in 2 hours, the program proceeds to work at 1000 times the speed of a human
>person B inputs data by hand for 8 hours
>person B has a 4 times higher "meritocratic score"

it's just silly really....

You're average citizen has no bussiness being anywhere near the government. The best system makes people believe they have power, and only does what is minimally required to keep them pasified.

How can they be educated when their doing small jobs when their young?

So we have the perfect system already?

If by democracy, you mean the original definition which is when poor people kill all the rich then absolutely.

If by democracy you mean the new definition which is when Western countries bomb the fuck out of every economically weak nation that dares to oppose their global domination then not really.

Natural selection of businesses
If you worked in a sweat shop, and someone else worked in a coffee shop, regardless of how the employee intends to conduct business, workers will flock to jobs with lower workload, because everyone gets the same merit. It also depends on whether you want merit and currency to be one in the same or not.

In the same way that a teenager has a part time job and can go to college.

But factory work tend to be higher paid ( in the west) then coffee shops (if you're not the owner) work where more people flock too tend to be indeed low skill and low workload but also not financial great

Give a child a part time job would lower their educational progress as they would be more stressed out second how are you expecting children to work in factories and agriculture and make enough hours to produce enough for society while going to school and socializing? would these children have an option or is it forced upon them?

>If by democracy, you mean the original definition which is when poor people kill all the rich then absolutely.

?

You still haven't explained away the fact that it disincentivises higher productivity when it only takes into account hours worked. And increasing productivity has been a cornerstone of human technological and social complexification for the past 12000 years or so...

What do you mean increasing productivity?
Do you mean higher workload on workers and lower workloads for the employers?
That's not productive. That's cutting corners.

>What do you mean increasing productivity?

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp?

>person A creates 100 units of item per hour
>person B creates 110 units of item per hour (due to some unknown manner of increased productivity)
>at the end of the day, the both get the same "merit score" even though person B is 10% more productive

And these differences are only getting more pronounced as jobs continue to become more about complex problem solving like programming as opposed to manual/factory labour.

Employers have enough power without that nonsense, user.

read a book retard.

All societies are oligarchies dude, no matter who the government appears to be.

You can't educate morons and you can't reeducate the strong.
Bitch.