Defend democracy

Eh, no.

*blocks your path*

It provides an effective political pressure valve between competing social, and economic groups. Coups or armed insurrections are almost nonexistent. Politicians are accountable due to having be elected every few years. Also, democracies don't go to war with other democracies. There's lots of benefits to democracies. Not every dictator or king will be an ideal, moral one. History shows their are too many examples of tyrants who abuse their power for their own gain at the expense of the majority when it is left unchecked. Not only does bloodshed have to be spilled to remove them from power, but the political vacuum can lead to different competing groups to fight amongst themselves for power. The leader who wins may even be worse than the last.

Monarchies and dictatorships are inefficient and unstable by nature because a significant amount of resources need to be directed at preventing uprisings.
Democracies have the advantage of holding simulated, bloodless civil wars every few years, so that the people have a clear idea who would have the advantage in numbers, were said wars to break out, and refrain from initiating uprisings in the first place. That is, as long as the electoral system can still be said to accurately represent the inclinations of the general population.
It's not perfect, but it's an improvement.

Also the very fact that autocrats have power draws plotting both corrupt people and those who simply disagree with them, creating the need to defend their throne from usurpers. That's what a king being a minion to the throne means: they let political expediency influence their decisions to a great degree, or they lose the throne (and likely their life).
There are few benevolent dictators because dictatorships actively discourage benevolence in their head minions.

A theocracy is the objective best system of ruling on earth.

It's usually the least awful sort of government.

Imagine this hubris.

>secret police & political imprisonment
>wars of aggression driven by ruler's egos
>no limit on taxation or theft of citizens' property by the state
>cults of personality
>your life is worth less than the rulers' lives
>your personal liberty and safety can be rescinded at any time
Howling reading this. You just described most democracies. Try reasoning with something other than hubris.

I won't, it's shit.

Two most important WWII armies were the Germand and Soviet one, neither was tied to a democratic regime.

And democratic decision making never had a place in an army. Only commie Albania attempted some weird experiment with decentralised military leadership, but it never saw any use.

Here's a real defense instead of memes, straight from John Locke.

If someone tells me what to do (a ruler), why should I do what they say?

Well they could coerce me with violence - however, this is immoral, they are forcing me to do something I don't want to do.

The only legitimate ruler is one that is given consent to govern. If they are not given consent, they are just a tyrant who happens to have more power.

In a democracy, rulers are given consent by the people to govern. Now if they pass a policy that I don't like and it's forcing me to do something I don't want to, it is now no longer an arbitrary whim of who's in charge, but instead the whims of the populations of neighbors and citizens.

A democracy is the only way to give consent to be ruler, otherwise it is immoral, action being force on you. Who can give a good argument against this?

>cracked.com/quick-fixes/6-hilarious-cases-online-voting-contests-gone-awry/
Need I say more

Why is it not amoral?

>Cracked
Disgusting.

I can't. Literally nothing more than a bunch of shadow Oligarchies that give people the illusion of choice.

So, you simply oppose representative democracy and support direct democracy?

>Implying the US could not have taken both of them on at the same time, if on a total war footing
Even just with the US industrial output in our time they produced 2/3 of entire allied production including Soviets. They could produce 100,000 planes a year, tens of thousands of tanks etc etc. People don't quite understand how powerful US money and industry was and is, and this is coming from a Yuro (with a healthy contempt for the American people)

If Germany and the USSR weren't trying to kill each other, then their production would be much higher. I will agree that the two countries combined would probably fail trying to invade the US, but at the same time I'm not convinced the US could've conquer a europe taken over by a german/russian alliance.

democracy only works when it has healthy decentralized model

>Vietnam

Technically democracy won every battle, but the war was lost in trying to prop up the sham government of south Vietnam.

Reminder that America is a Republic amd mot a Democracy, and that "democracy" isnt mentioned once in the deceleration of independence nor the constitution and the founding fathers regularly shit talked democracy for how retarded it was

No measure to hold the leader accountable in an autocratic system

Also, despite what people assume, democracies generally have lower rates of crime and corruption than authoritarian states (the exception being Singapore)

...

>0.05 rubbels has been deposited into your account

>thinking the terms republic and democracy are mutually exclusive
>confusing the terms "democracy" and "direct democracy"
>thinking America isn't a representative democracy
>being this dumb

>America is a Republic amd mot a Democracy

The only country I consider to be a "true" democracy is Switzerland.

Democracies aren't great because the people of a country are reputated intelligent/capable enough to lead their country.
Democracies are great because people are so vain, base and capable of atrocious things, that it would be horrible to live in a system where a human being isn't opposed to counter-powers.

>I'm a proud cuck, I love serving my oligarchical overlords!

>le republics and constitutional monarchies aren't democracies meme

you are confusing democracy with direct democracy.

Because people have this thing called bodily autonomy and, by definition, if someone is forcing me to do something I don't want to do, it's bad. So I call that 'immoral.'

t. emotional brainlets. America isnt a democracy. Have you ever wondered why the pledge of allegiance has "...and to the republic, for which it stands..." as one of its lines?

They hated even the idea of calling their form of government a certain type of democracy user. The whole "democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to eat" meme

Ehh, more like 40% if you do the math.

America's not a democracy, but that's why it sucks. A democracy would be a lot better than the corrupt, oligarchic republic it has now.

yeah, a bunch of angry mob retards who get their news from john oliver clips with unchecked power in politics would sure be better than elected officials all slip up through the three branches of government. Its only lasted 250s years and resulted in America being the single super power of the world

> a bunch of angry mob retards who get their news from john oliver
hurr durr liberals are the only one destroying politics! god bless my oligarchic cuckpublic because it protects me from libruls!

first off, youre not a liberal and I clearly wasnt targeting them. Second, a hurr durr response is shit posting and not a real argument. Youre clearly an emotional retard who thinks 51% of the country should dominate the rest with unchecked power and for no good reason other than arrogance on your part.

Elected officials are either multimillionaires or funded by big corporations, they don't serve the common people. Picking between two rich people with money to finance campaigns doesn't change that.

The common people may not all be geniuses (although it's not like brainlets necessarily lose elections) but at least they have their own interests at heart.

If you think watching John Oliver is the epitome of "mob rule" YOU are the brainlet here. If you further claim that these people represent 51% of the country are John Oliver watchers and can somehow magically impose authoritarian rule over the other 49%, you're, again, showing yourself to be laughably ignorant as to how government works. That isn't how authoritarian governments or democracies works. You're magically equating majority rule with tyranny. That is a huge and unaccountable leap of logic. Your thinking is laughably sloppy and unsystematic.

>Elected officials are either multimillionaires or funded by big corporations
good thing they are ELECTED as in, you can vote them out at any time+they are limited in power due to the checks and balances of the system and the constitution.
How is a mob rule NOT going to result in the subjugation of the minority user? Can you name one succesful democracy?

>Your thinking is laughably sloppy and unsystematic.
no its not and I know this because you are only able to respond with incoherent sophistry rambling. The type of people who watch john oliver clips on youtube and think they know everything are arrogant borish retards and they are the EXACT reason democracies dont work.

Make me.

Essentially it is the easiest way that pressure inside the system can be dealt with - why do you think democracies don't have violent revolutions overthrowing them? (I am not counting actions of agents)

They have ways of airing their grievances before things turn nasty.

Ordinary people can't finance a campaign, voting one elected official out and replacing them with someone from the same upper class, equally entitled to serve for a period of years regardless of what they do, doesn't change anything.

Worse, elected officials have a long history of subjugating all sorts of minorities, and the very system of election of representatives inevitably divides society into a 51 vs. 49% tension; there's no reason to assume these problems would persist in a genuine democracy.

>there's no reason to assume these problems would persist in a genuine democracy.
yes there is because now there is literally no stoping the 51% from fucking over the 49%. You also didnt answer my question about naming a successful democracy

I know I'm a peasant. That doesn't stop me from wanting a Godly monarchy.

>a republic cannot be a democracy
>the opinion of the Founding Fathers is relevant

>democracy and republic are interchangeable words for the exact same thing
>the opinions of the guys who created the government are not relevant when discussing the system they created

>the opinions of guys that almost exactly mirrors the pretensions of late 18th century british landowners, slaveholders and gentry who hardly understood the future social economic and political changes to come in their country in the following decades should be held up as the epitome of republican political philosophy.

> incoherent
hardly.
> rambling
reread the definition of "rambling"
> sophistry
no

>arrogant borish retards
quite the generalization. i don't even like the drumpf show but i don't know why your singling out this demographic who happens to watch a comedy sketch. and anyway, why do our oligarch overlords know better than the average pleb? you know your basically conceding that states and politics should be governed by a bureaucracy that colludes with oligarcical politicians? minority rights often is impossible to disentangle from the idea that the criminal plutocratic minority should be protected.

>yes there is because now there is literally no stoping the 51% from fucking over the 49%.
and the opposite is equally true. 51% is equally liable to get fucked over by the 49%, except this time the injustice is greater because the minority imposes its will on the majority. This is the case with the Slave states before the American Civil War- they had disprorporationate influence on the American national government because of the 3/5th's compromise, because the electoral college favored southern presidents, because the nature of the senate favors smaller states against the larger ones. The result was that slave states could block NATIONAL projects because national projects threatened slavery. They could thwart the sectional interests of the north because their structural advantage made them contemptuous of northern interests. Perhaps most damningly, they had the gall to impose pro-slave measures on unwilling northern states, such as the fugitive slave acts, and the right to march slaves through free territory. This doesn't, of course, make Northern interests more "righteous". It just goes to show that tyranny of minorities (of which I can name countless more examples) is just as bad as tyranny of majorities.

...