Is Democracy the best system?

no, the best is neo-feudalism

This. Direct democracy is the best.
Fuck psephocracy.

...

It's not even a good system.

It's hard to beat for peaceful transitions of power and minimizing literal backstabbing, plotting in the shadows, etc. Far better that differing factions challenge each other at the ballot box than in a civil war.

>let the lunatics run the asylum

>asks this on Veeky Forums
>expects any answer that isn't "no, its monarchism"

Switzerland is doing fine

>Let lunatics run the asylum
>They only care about the rooms they get to use
>Rest of asylum now has to contest its budget
>Asylum is suddenly doing economically well again

In a Demoracy I don't get shot for writing
Fuck the *Current leader*" on a wall and don't go to jail for liking the wrong work of art. I'll take every problem that comes with that and work with those problems before I give that shit up. People that dislike governments are first world middle class cuckolds that have never lived in an authoritarian environment in their life

...

Small town Trump supporting sheriffs are actually a good example of why Democracy is good. Trump is failing BECAUSE he does not work in a democratic system and people regularly insult and demeen him on high with no consequences besides a failed criminal case like in your pic. if this was Russia and the dude was talking about Putin the driver would just get killed or violently assaulted immediately

Direct Democracy is only good if your populous is well educated and well informed. As soon as special interests take over your media and education, you're kinda fucked.

Albeit, it at least guarantees the people get what they deserve, in a "careful what you wish for" sorta way.

Representative Democracy, which is what we tend to actually be talking about when we say "Democracy", at least provides positions of power with delineated roles that, ideally, survive the whims of the people elected to those offices. Provided term limits are stiff, it also mitigates the damage they can do and encourages a tug of war towards stability. I'd argue those nations that have "elected" presidents in power for 40+ years aren't really democracies, as by that point, you've changed the system to consolidate your power and guarantee your re-election. Not that you can't conspire to do that collectively for your party (ie. legal gerrymandering), but there's at least room for change and mitigation of damage as politicians cycle out.

Why this board is so hard up for a system built on a single family that's inbred for however many generations and can only be put out of power by civil war, particularly in a world where the most capable leaders rarely make for good parents, I have no idea.

>I have no idea
It's probably all the soy in your diet.

Fuck soy, and the only salad I touched is Australian style, ala pic related. Only a cuck would wanna live under the rule of an inbred monarch.

Who the fuck wouldn't want a divine-right, pure-blooded monarch as a leader in a world full of shallow, copy-pasted three-piece suit weakling politicians?

The only faggot here is the one that longs to feel the whip of an oppressor on their back

The democratic process is a form of moral relativism, in which the majority is assumed to be right. Imagine a room with two men and one woman. The two men decide to 'democratically' vote on whether or not they should rape the woman. The results are in, it's 2:1. Does outnumbering the women justify the rape?

Cool
Instead of feeling the whip of an oppressor, you're free to feel the whip of a million oppressors aka the people voting for their interests against yours

WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE:

Representative Democratic Meritocracy. ie. A system with strict term limits where each elected office has STRINGENT educational qualifications that less and less of the population can qualify for depending on the number of people the office in question has influence over. The whole idea that "anyone and everyone" can be POTUS is repugnant to me, and just begs for disaster. That should be a position with ridiculous qualifications - not those of a manager at Taco Bell who happened to live to be 36 and won a popularity contest. Sure, let the people select from a pool, regardless of their status - they are affected by the resulting laws, after all, so it's only fair - but make sure they can only select from the best of the best for such high offices. Federal high office should be the top 1% of intellectuals, and the president should be in the top 1% of that 1%. At that point, it doesn't much matter if the final selection is a popularity contest put on for show and a smooth transition of power.

Granted, to retain egalitarianism of any sort, that requires free higher education for all, but that'd be a good, as it'd help avoid losing any diamonds in all that rough, among other things. Then there's the other problem of maintaining both the quality of the testing while avoiding bias, and how you go from a two party system to such a meritocracy without the inevitable... Though I suppose one could just rig it up so the candidates must past both party's tests, and that such tests must simultaneously remove a significant portion of the population, without doing so as defined by a constitution.

If you can't sway the crowd to your cause then perhaps they know what you best interests are better than you?

Best system

I wish we could mix US/British democracy with the Chinese meritocracy (sans the fucking horrific authoritarianism of course)

>this is your mind on communism

See The lamb doesn't know it yet but life is shit, better be devoured by the wolves right away

Maybe not, but that'd be the end result whether they voted or not, as in the end, sadly, might makes right.

But that's direct democracy, which doesn't currently exist on scale, aside from a few laws annually, which must also go through a vetting and approval contest before arriving on a ballet - not a representative democracy, where each office has limited powers and duties, and a "wise leader" (ideally, more often "relatable man") is elected to said office by the masses (again, ideally).

Meh, Authoritarianism pisses me off more than anything.

Really, 99% of the populous should never have to interact with the government to lead their daily lives. There should be lines of various thickness to either side of the road that you can't go too far outside of (start murdering people or what not), but leading a normal life should never require you to do anything.

Only as you volunteer for more responsibilities and affect more people, should you become subject to more regulation. If you decide to have a child, you become subject to the responsibility for said child, fine. If you should decide to found a business, as more people come under your umbrella, yes, to some degree you should have an equal amount of increased responsibility. Same with a corporation, and so on. Even owning a car means some regulation to ensure it is safe for the people around you.

But day to day living shouldn't require a potential law violation by neglect. Income tax should be the responsibility of the employer, in a society where the employee requires a job just to survive - the employer has taken on extra responsibility beyond himself - the employee has not. I similarly find a fine for not buying into private healthcare fundamentally repulsive, as that's a penalty just for a combination of inaction and breathing. That sorta shit should not happen. And when it comes to drugs, if it only affects you, there should be no regulation, only when it affects others should the law enter into it - the increased potentiality of shouldn't apply.

The base social contract should have as few strings attached as possible, and only expand as you volunteer to become responsible for more individuals.

Constitutional Republic is the best system. In under 200 years the United States managed to gain control of the world using it with only one civil war.

>Inb4 butthurt monarchist and others.

>the US will balkanize before the end of the century
>has third world tier levels of crime and non-whites
>lacks culture
Great system you got there el goblino.

>he United States managed to gain control of the world using it with only one civil war.
No the US gained control due to its lottery of intelligent white genetics leading to brilliant engineers creating weapons and warfare to one day bring it into geopolitical relevance.

Yes, a constitutional, ethno-nationalist democracy is the best system, for the western and northern European peoples.

No, Antediluvian forms of governing are the best.

No. It’s a system that is meant to divide the people.

the system doesn't matter. so long as it creates a functioning state and enjoys a high legitimacy from the people.

Look at the USA. elected representatives. yet politicians get low approval ratings and people distrust the government. While China is an oppressive fascist system. They generally get good approval from the people because the state actually gets things done.

I like this

No, arguably the worst

the masses making stupid decisions that jeopardize national security is only an issue because there are other states to worry about
no states = no national security to jeopardize

If by democracy you mean representative democracy, then yes.

Representative democracy makes direct democracy look good.

only because universal suffrage is a mistake.

Merit Suffrage should be implemented. Where the civic franchise is earned through service to the state.

No, National Socialism is

>Still
It never was

I think you're proving point. As American I would read that as - you can't have profanity written all over your vehicle for the same reason you cannot sit in public swearing in front of children just because you want to. That said, political expression is sacrosanct so we should come to an agreement that allows you to maintain the integrity of your message without being such a bore about it.

if states don't exist, city states will. if city-states dno't exist tribes will. at some point in history, no matter how far you go, excepting literally going as far back as pre-human evolutionary history, you're gonna have humans involved in some 'collective' group where they may have to make difficult decisions. you think Grok, Trok, and Brok didn't worrry about whether or not they should attack the enemy tribe first?

Democracy without Philia is just cannibalism waiting to happen

Strasserism > Führerprinzip

depends on the country.

constitutional monarchy appears to be best for Jordan and Oman, for example.

Only if you're country is small or a city state, or exists on local levels in large countries
anything else dosen;t really work long term

Yes
Retards who complain about it not working don't understand it's because it's so messy it's so stable.

better a constant manageable mess than keeping a lid to tight until bursts

Name 1 example of authritarian/totalitarian regime that provided more longterm (2+generations) stability than democracy
Pro-tip:you can't

Even the Chinese toned in down starting in the 80's, and they're the best counter-example I can think of

Jordan isn't a Constitutional monarchy, it's an absolute monarchy but the king allows the Parliament to exist.

t. B. Lavrentiy

this better be bait

I think a lot of the people here who reflexively hate the idea of monarchy are mostly Americans, who are culturally ingrained with a deep dislike of the concept.

>Name 1 example of authritarian/totalitarian regime that provided more longterm (2+generations) stability than democracy
Err, most absolute monarchies? The Ottoman empire was a brutal tyranny and lasted 7 centuries...

>implying an totalitarian organic corporate state isn't the best state

It was also wracked with internal conflict. Do you know how many sultans were deposed or assassinated? By the end of the 16th century it was mostly semi-autonomous regions run by the pashas and beys. Longevity perhaps, but all of the regions ruled by the Ottomans were arguably damaged beyond repair or fragmented severely. It doesn't seem preferable.

>Do you know how many sultans were deposed or assassinated
That was just the Ottoman tradition of succession. Whenever a sultan died all the pretenders would fight to the death.

>Longevity perhaps, but all of the regions ruled by the Ottomans were arguably damaged beyond repair or fragmented severely.
Now you're just moving the goalposts because you got btfo.

What is the difference between a Roman-stlye republic and a Greek democracy?
Are there more than one types of Greek democracy?

Greek democracies were mob rule, in that citizens voted on everything. Republics, as a concept, delegate power to a small group of rulers (who, in a democracy, are voted in by the people, but are then free to rule without the people's approval)

Would a Greek republic work in today's world, considering the circumstances
What about the Roman republic?

best system for what? It's the best system for peaceful transition of power and for guaranteeing a somewhat steady course, without powerful madmen undoing everything in a matter of a few years

it's certainly shit for other things like quick decisions, quality of the executive body and informed policymaking

>magine a room with two men and one woman. The two men decide to 'democratically' vote on whether or not they should rape the woman. The results are in, it's 2:1. Does outnumbering the women justify the rape?

Nice subtle sexism. Do you believe all men are rapist?

this

Higher education doesn't necessarily mean fit for leadership or even that it's a "good" person who will make all the right decisions

Democracy is the worst system, save for all the other ones yet tried

That is less about democracy and more about how decentralized power is in USA. It is not as if Obama didn't have go through hurdles to get his way

What a weak analogy, a justice system exists to handle this situation.

Best one is the one that serves my interests.

>Churchill

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

>implying the justice system is anything more than another system where the majority are assumed to be right

Mob rule gets fucked by uneducated masses and by mass media. The Greek method had quit right requirements on who could actually vote; increasing the decision quality

Quite tight**

>cultural continuity is political stability

wew lad

It works best if voters are educated, if they are not then it won't do that good of a job

In the US, at least, it's quite often used as a mechanism to "fix" things when nine old legal scholars decide the majority is wrong, or at least in conflict with constitutional principles - often to much disconternation.

Granted, I suppose you're right, in that it's a majority of those nine old fogies.

Well, at least if they are evil, they'll be good at it.

I suppose you could also do psychological stability testing, but a simpler filtering mechanism might simply be to work your way up the ranks. A president should, for instance, have to serve as a congressman and/or governor first, and those should have to serve as state congressmen or mayors, and those as city council, etc. etc. That way you at least have a tried and tested record of leadership and experience to look at.

It certainly give you better odds than "anyone who wins a popularity contest".

And pray tell what good political stability is if you have to twist your culture into something unrecognisable to achieve it?

And pray tell what good is a culture that constantly leads to social instability?

Seems if culture twists politics beyond recognition, or visa versa, but both are more stable as a result of the transformation, so long as it doesn't end up in stagnation, more power to it.

Everything changes - not everything changes for the better.

It's the least worst because it provides you with non-violent means of getting rid of an unpopular ruler.

Underrated
top kek

pretty much Italy
but hey i guess we are cool since we have the sun, the sea, the beauty of landscapes, great culinary culture and something like 80% historical and artistic heritage

Only by comparison with the rest. It's been best at getting the state out of people's lives so that's perfectly good. But of course on Veeky Forums you have to be an authoritarian bootlicker to seem edgy and cool.

>Why this board is so hard up for a system built on a single family that's inbred for however many generations and can only be put out of power by civil war, particularly in a world where the most capable leaders rarely make for good parents, I have no idea.
LARPing faggots who think they would be on top.

Democracy always fails.

Just an fyi that woman was arrested and she had an outstanding warrant.

Pic related it's the dyke.

rule by populace
depends heavily what kind of populace you've got.
It reminds me this argument about public transport - what is bad/good about the public transport. The worst thing in many places is that it is public. -> webm related to the transportation example.

No, a system that gives power to the uneducated can't be best anything.

>Direct Democracy is only good if your populous is well educated and well informed. As soon as special interests take over your media and education, you're kinda fucked.
>Albeit, it at least guarantees the people get what they deserve, in a "careful what you wish for" sorta way.
this it is both a very good and very bad. btu yeah the people really get what they deserve i guess. I think there should be taken great care not to try "democratize" places not caring what is going on there or who lives there. The democracy should not always be seen as a major good in itself - some places and times it might be nessesary to wait with it if the populace is too illiterate or actually opposed to self rule as to give some examples.

I hate black people.

>black """""""""people"""""""""