ITT: benefits of democracy and social-liberalism

ITT: benefits of democracy and social-liberalism

People get a greater say in their governance

It takes maneuvering for power out of the shadows and into a more predictable, restrained process. Different factions know when others will challenge their power, when the opportunities to take power are, and are encouraged to work within the system to obtain power. When an ambitious outsider wants to take control in a democracy, they build a campaign and run for office. When an ambitious outsider wants to take control in a monarchy or oligarchic clique they assemble forces.

Democracy also creates a regulated means by which unpopular leaders can be replaced without requiring a destabilizing coup, assassination or civil war. The stakes of losing power are also reduced. Getting booted off the top (or trying to assume power and failing) in a non-democratic system has a high likelihood of being lethal and/or bringing down serious physical retribution upon the family and supporters of the losers. In a democracy, the losers and their supporters can go home safely and try again in future elections, and are incentivized to continue working within the boundaries of the political system - again avoiding destabilizing internal wars.

Look at the Meji oligarchs of late 19th c. Japan for a historical example. The ruling clique ended up slowly ushering in a legislature, political parties, elections and a formal constitution because they grew sick of the destabilization, constant fear of the others plotting behind their backs and threat of conflict posed by every deadlock in agreement on how to proceed between the oligarchs. Fighting over it at the ballot box is a far better for everyone involved.

For social liberalism, avoiding religious wars. Non-secular societies practically guarantee conflict between differing sects.

...

Other people are having fun but I'm not having fun so it must be a degenerate system.

This right here is the right answer

...

So because some people will use their liberty to do stupid things you suggest we get rid of it?

None of that matters if a fat fuck who doesn't do shit gets to own the wealth I create through my work just becouse there is a piece of paper that's says he owns the tools I use.

Maybe if hitler won I would have a gf

/thread right goddamn here. Excellent work man.

Luckily for you there's many alternatives to that.

>People get a greater say in their governance
a) it doesn't
b) who says that's a benefit
This. Democracy is good for avoiding violence and disorder, not because it necessarily improves the quality of governance

>avoiding religious wars
Sharia law in europe will cause a civil war though

If your government is not responsive to the people who live with it, then it will fail. If the franchise is meaningless, then it is not responsive.

Free speech and civil rights are good for business. Any government will always ban the wrong thing if they get the chance. And if you don't have this then your vote doesn't mean anything, and you can know you are living in a doomed government.

Also I don't consider 'the elites are very wealthy and secure' to be the only true benefit, though obviously OP is going to argue this is.

Who knows? It will never happen.

why not start your own business then?

If you don't mind me predicting your response:
>but I don't have the capital to do that
Then find a partner who does, if you don't think you're special enough to get ahead in a system of free enterprise why do you think you'd have a high standard of living in a socialist state? You'd just be a bottom rung cog.

that seems unlikely to me

>Oligarchs get a greater say in their governance

FTFY.

Not really. Oligarchy is pretty much synonymous with aristocracy, and even an absolutist king has to act through bureaucrats and generals, and mollify his supporters. What do you propose that's better?

How can we remedy this by giving oligarchs power directly?

>Oligarchy is pretty much synonymous with aristocracy

Heh. Pic related.

>What do you propose that's better?
Khilifah.

>Bilderberg

>not rothchild

>when all the world's business's are owned by a tiny minority but nobody can complain because that'd make you a communist

And the communists also happen to be jews, which is funny.

You're allowed to complain, liberals gave you a small playpen to pretend to be a revolutionary in while you wait to be let out to be a useful retard in their service.

>There are people on Veeky Forums who have not read Professor Antony C Sutton.

Would recommend.

The ideal form of governance is the first four rightly guided calipha. Extreme oligarchies are practically impossible to manifest under shariah because usury is forbidden, and the major cause of financial inequality in the modern world is the result of usurious institutions and policies.

Just look at the way the original rightly guided calipha took care of the poor, the widows, the sick, the orphans, etc.. from the state treasury.

>usury is forbidden
oy vey anti-semitic

kek the real reason new atheists and secularists hate Islam. Also meant to say Veeky Forums. Getting my boards mixed up.

I can't remember the name of the caliph at the moment, but he was one of the Andalusian rulers. He sent his servants scouring the land for someone to give charity to and they were unable to find any one poor enough to take the money from the treasury. This was the level of wealth they possessed at that time.

Then why is wanting to destroy the play-pen a bad thing?

>only some people get to run all of society and you're an idiot if you think otherwise
>>I think all people should get a say if they live there
>rar derp that would only make it worse I'll pick the people who should run society

Thanks; the recent cheerleading for monarchy, fascism and similarly volatile systems is a sign of how much people take domestic stability for granted.

Still a lot less frequent in secular systems than ones where the state actively picks religions to promote and others to suppress and marginalize. Case in point, the US has a majority Protestant populace and a Supreme Court whose justices are five Catholics and three Jews. For most of human history, that would be a powder keg for sectarian bloodbaths. Still would be in some parts of the world.

>Sharia law in europe will cause a civil war though
The threat of that is really hyped up; Muslim people make up only around 6% of Europe's populace, and that's including places that have been majority Islamic for centuries like Albania. Continued terrorism from zealots is to naturally be expected, but any attempt by ISIS wannabes at starting a civil war would be doomed to failure from the start.

>being this bluepilled

>Supreme Court whose justices are five Catholics and three Jews
Sweet fuck. Whatever the hell happened to the old WASP elite?

Appointing the Supreme Court, usually.

>Soy boy

>Cardio advocates
>Plastic users
>Stimulant users
>Engineering, IT and CompSci majors

What the fuck is a soy boy and what the fuck kind of vegan straight edge heavy weight lifting sociologist do you have to not be one.

The internet. Youre welcome Russoslavic viral marketing intern.

soyboy is the new cuck

spbp

True, looking at a list of presidents sorted by religion they were almost all Calvinists, Baptists, or Anglicans.

Hmm... I'm not sure if I should trust an image that claims Bill Clinton is one of the two dozen or so people who controls the world's major corporations.
But of course stormtards are not known either for intelligence or honesty.

Wanting to destroy it is fine. Actually trying to destroy it is a bad thing because history shows that attempting to radically change society in such a way usually makes things worse.

t. Bat Ye'or

Nice meme. Jews suffered repression in the Soviet Union.

t. Amerimutt

The problem is, what if the government is stable but otherwise imparts dysfuction on society

>implying bolshevism wasn't a front for judaism

wew

>People get a greater say
Like this?

t. Schumpeter