Which form of government is best?

This

>not highly centralized primogeniture
It's like you want to fight your siblings it something

Ethnic syndicalism.

Different forms for different peoples, different environments, different levels of technology, etc.

The common "hurr my type of government is the best, all others need to be destroyed" shit is suitable only for teenagers and retards.

Constitutional Monarchy is objectively the best.

t. Sad American that wishes we still had loyalty to the crown. Fuck you George Washington.

Absolute hereditary monarchy within a 100% racially, culturally, religiously and socially homogenous polity is the optimal way for people to interact with one another.

>Another edgy tryhard thread about democracy failing

Like I know shitposting is the name of the game, but can we at least get some new material?

A city-state that is a republic.

>any opinion I don't share is shitposting
Ah to be 14 again.

> only applying this concept to one aspect of society is OKAY
> wah this concept failing for a small amount of time relative to human history and the existence of other ideologies means this concept stinks and isn't worth taking up
> getting to vote for what the house eats weekly is democratic but managing all house affairs as a group is like, gommunism and ebil

you, virgin liberal of all stripes unironically prefering political systems where you won't be the lucky one or few to hold power

> democratize everything, you ahistorical fuck

me, chad communist

>> wah this concept failing for a small amount of time relative to human history and the existence of other ideologies means this concept stinks and isn't worth taking up
The transition from republic to democracy always coincides with civilizational decline. This was understood in antiquity and its still true now.
>you, virgin liberal of all stripes unironically prefering political systems where you won't be the lucky one or few to hold power
I'd rather deny myself the vote than grant the unworthy the right to vote.

>this thread
>mfw I love liberal democracy

> The transition from republic to democracy always coincides with civilizational decline. This was understood in antiquity and its still true now.

you expect me to believe "truths" memed by wealthy elites who don't slave over the earth whenever they finally can't quell pleb rebellions by force or other means? I can go full autismo on this m8.

Moreover, if wealthy elites were actually intelligent and weren't just succ slaves to the dicc of wealth and power and didn't believe in ideas such as

> I'd rather deny myself the vote than grant the unworthy the right to vote

they'd see that the problem with democracy isn't that people are stupid. that has a solution. education, communal/community based care, and working for the group are all viable solutions (better when mixed) to democracy. what wealthy elite brainlets worry about is whether or not they get to keep muh wealth. and why should everyone else, who doesn't have it, care about what they ant?

The society envisioned by the Diggers.

benevolent dictatorship

you deserve cancer

>government

Why, a society build on the principles of theoretical communism as espoused by Carl Marx himself of course.

Karl Marx you retard.

No, I expect you to look at the electorate and see that almost everyone you see isn't fit to govern or decide who governs.

And that the fundamental reason why democratic states function poorly isn't that it's not inclusive enough, but that it includes the refuse of society at all.

sadly it is

everything else is worse

Actually, it's Carl Marcks

No, I think you spell it Carlitos Mercks

>refuse of society

even if we use piggie capitalist definitions of who is shit in our society, it is still literally better to spend obscene amounts of time, effort, and money into educating, feeding, and caring for everyone than ignoring said people of society or even deporting/killing/disenfranchising them.

you don't solve the problem by not helping them. literally brainlet if you think so otherwise. so again, I ask, why ditch democracy over a problem that we can fix? or, at some point, given how more efficient we are getting as humans, there will be a point (sooner than later) where it'll be even easier to tend to this problem than it is now, so, again, why?

no no it's Charles Marquis

Odd way to spell Carlo Marconi

>even if we use piggie capitalist definitions of who is shit in our society, it is still literally better to spend obscene amounts of time, effort, and money into educating, feeding, and caring for everyone than ignoring said people of society or even deporting/killing/disenfranchising them.
No it isn't because each person has a set capacity that no amount of training, education or rearing environment will raise them above.

Its a far better use of resources to 'fully' rear children that demonstrate a natural aptitude for something and 'partially' rear children that don't than it is to 'fully' rear everyone, regardless of aptitude.

It's also not useful to have every child reared in an academy and expecting to govern upon graduation when laborers are also required for a society to function. That creates resentment and pressures for industrialists to outsource labor.

Wew, I am not alone!

Some incarnation of democracy. You're having a hard time justifying why someone would give a shit about your government when it isn't at least in some day democratic.

>say that democracy is an evil and inefficient government
>all prosperous and powerful governments in the modern day are either republics or constitutional monarchies

The economist Hans Hermann Hoppe actually did a study on the comparative economic growth of modern monarchies vs democracies and concluded that Monarchies have triple the average economic growth rate of democracies

I'm talking about raising the minimum, not making have a law degree.

Moreover

> No it isn't because each person has a set capacity that no amount of training, education or rearing environment will raise them above.

not really true.

if we're stepping into the whole nature/nurture/environment/genes dance, the environment holds everything, inner/raw/genetic/what-have-you potential does not hold the environment, therefore environment is king. And guess what? We can CHANGE the environment. Shit, that's probably the most human thing to do.

I mean shit, the quality of your environment impacts any "raw" or "genetic" potential people have (zip codes being a good indicator of success, place of birth directly effects your health more than we thought as shown in recent studies, etc) proving that environment is king.

So why, I ask again, do you blow over democracy over the problem of scum/degenerates not being fit to govern in society when it is mainly a result of environment and socioeconomics (if it isn't, environment still supercedes genes/raw inner potential, and therefore isn't static and can be changed), a problem that we as humans have, over time, been able to change more and more and more to our liking?

Just admit it. You don't care about people. And so, why should we care about you or how you think society should be organized?

Yeah, everybody knows that, but you are on the arsehole site of the net on a board that is right between /hc/ and /int/ did you seriously expect to read a reasonable answer here? Instead enjoy the freakshow parade of extreme worldviews and absurd political systems.

Then in reality you get places like France you lost their monarchy because its economy fell and countries outright trying to become democracies/constitutional monarchies for economic reasons.

constitutional monarchies have the same growth rate as democracies. Otherwise the UK would outperform the rest of Europe in economical terms.
Feel free to post your "sources"

Its Karlo Markić nigger

The source is Hans Hermann Hoppe

I think the book is "Democracy, the God the Failed"

Cool:
mises.org/library/introduction-democracy-god-failed
Now please show me were Monarchies grow faster than democracies. Were is that in the text?

Genetics are always expressed in an environment, its actually illogical to define the situation as nature vs nurture and take a side.

However, you can have multiple sets of genetics expressed in very similar environments and get very different results which points to innate differences being very influential in life-outcomes.

When we observe vast differences in modern sociological research, upward adjustments for economic status, school quality, home situation is baked into the cake. Raw scores are typically lower than what's published.

>The economist Hans Hermann Hoppe actually did a study on the comparative economic growth of modern monarchies vs democracies
No, he didn't do a study. He wrote an article, he didn't present relevant numbers.

Its in the book
That's an introduction to his book

Its been a while since I read it (on paper) so I'm not going to be able to provide you an academic citation.

riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf

here is the full book. now please show the "study" about growth rates.

Hans Herman-Hoppe is a mindless edgelord whose only talent is shilling for idiotic policies abandoned by just about everyone in the past two centuries. Have fun living in a society with no representation, no trial by jury, no free speech, questionable freedom of religion, indoctrinating education (if you're lucky enough to get any at all), and no human rights. Even if we buy that there's more economic growth, it'll all be going to the top echelons of society (ex: France and the Three Estates).

Celestial monarchy with a meritocratic bureaucracy.

Benevolent dictatorship by an immortal supergenius.

>daddy issues
>likes anal stimulation

how a literal welfare queen is suppose to make a country run better

So long as it doesn't affect his policy decisions, who cares how he spends his free time?

This with a backup system in place for a republic system with votes cast by military units in the case of non-benevolent dictators.

By providing stabilizing and unifying social and cultural continuity that helps inspire the masses to something greater than individuality, namely, the greater good. The monarch, if they are just and dignified provide the people with inspirations and a reflection of third own collective greatness.

Even though the monarch doesn't exercise direct governance, she can provide a bedrock upon which all other government can be formed and weathered. Thus individual swings if governance left ir right do not feel as threatening and apocalyptic. Ministers can come and go and power change hands from party to party, but the Queen is the Queen of the realm, and all its people. They can weather any challenge because she can.

A benevolent and just monarch is the height of civilization and governance when presiding over a sanctioned body elected of the people. There is no other way to provide power to great individuals and at the same time hold them to a great standard.

Obviously national socialism

obviously!

Well at least its an ethos.

Democracy makes no sense because most people don't understand anything about production. How can people democratically make a decision on say, coffee production, when the vast majority of them have no understanding of how coffee beans are grown, how they are ground up, how they are turned into coffee? People simply cannot even conceive of what goes into the production of any of society's resources, so it makes no sense at all to put anything under democratic control.

And that's just coffee, when you get into more complex stuff like machinery, electronics, the internet or meats it's just worse. Having people be democratically involved in production would be a disaster and make everything worse.

Yeah but all that happens, like you say, when you get a benevolent and competent monarch, which isn't the case most of the time.

Do it again

I'm Swiss, I democratically vote on 3-7 different issues every 3 months since I turned 18. I never voted on coffee. I asked my parents, they didn't vote on coffee either. Apparently you don't vote on coffee in democracies, at least not often. Instead you just buy whatever fucking coffee you want.

protip, you don't need to vote about consumer decisions, because that's not a legislative question.

Neoliberal democracy.

But that's kind of the point. Would you WANT to vote on coffee? No you wouldn't. So democracy is not always the best way to make a decision or to handle production

I would argue that this extends to pretty much anything

>that's not a legislative question

Are most questions of legislation not just questions about production and resources?

Thats what markets are for retard. Supply demand and price determine production and consumption.

Go away commiefaggot.

What? Im making the exact opposite point of a commie. Nothing about production should be decided democratically.

>gay
Fuck off cretin

Capitalism is basically democracy except you vote with your money.

>Big Brothers knows what coffee is good for me
>free market is a sin

Well it gets decided by the free market and not by parliament you dumb fuck. Your argument has nothing at all to do with democracy.

The market is a kind of economic democracy if you think about it. It's true direct democracy, because all actors in an economy change the equation.

Yes, exactly, capitalism is actually the most pure and effective form of democracy there is.

In democratic socialism most of the production would indeed be under democratic control.

Thats not Dresden, the Elbe does not split up like that,

Its actually Tokyo after the firebombings

democratic socialism is an oxymoron and has nothing to do with a liberal democracy.

>doitagain.jpg

Is it a coincidence that wars became far more bloody and involved far more causalities under democracy?

If we were to judge ideologies by their success, National Socialism would rank among the worst of them.

Is it a coincidence that populations became much higher under democracy?

is "liberal democracy" just a meme term? What the fuck makes it different from just normal democracy? I swear I didn't start hearing the term until like 3 years ago then it became used everywhere

Yes, because democracies popped up during the time of the industrial revolution, a time period where wars got much bloodier. As a reference take the later totalitarian regimes which took it to the extreme with the kill counts

I suppose that a constitutional monarchy would be closest to my ideal system.
The monarch would maintain substantial powers, yet their overall power would be limited by both the constitution and the imperial diet.
The imperial diet itself would be comprised of an equal number of members from different important societal institutions (members selected by the military, clergy, guilds, provincial governments and a group comprised of people elected by the general public.), there would also be one member selected by the Imperial household the be its representative in the diet.

Local governance would be handled by provincial, prefectureal and finally city governments.
All of which would function in quite a similar manner to how such governments function today.
The only real difference being that each level of local governance would have a special member with veto powers selected by the government above it e.g. each provincial government would have a special member selected by the imperial diet and each prefectureal government would have a special member selected by the provincial government.

It's generally referring to our current economically centrist, socially liberal, globalist democratic system that dominates most of the 1st world.

democracy is a generic term for different forms of democracy, liberal democracy is a modern form of a democratic society based on civic and human rights.

gross
kill yourself proto-commie

except thats bullshit. liberal democracy is defined by its free markets, limited government with checks and balances, and the rule of law.

But countries like Germany and Canada are known as the main examples of liberal democracies today

they generally have free markets, limited government, and the rule of law. They aren't without their flaws though.

Yes, they are liberal democracies, just like the US or Sweden or France or South Korea.
Your point?

They are not more liberal than the US or Swizterland or Belgium, so "liberal democracy" doesn't just mean liberal, it has come to mean something else

Anything with monarchs because Im going to be joining the 1% any day now and only special snowflake people like me should have human dignity.

careful with those semantics

liberal democracy is a standing term, quite the opposite to use of the world "liberal" with guys like you. Liberal democracy is a classification of a political system, not how many people vote middle-left parties.

You're actually pretty stupid, terms have very specific meanings, especially inside of fields of study.
But you're the personification of the dunning kreuger effect, so what's the point.

okay lol
please tell me how you would define "something else" you fucking retard.

>dunning kreuger effect
the projection is real

Guy that thinks Canada is not a liberal democracy calls other people stupid
wew lad