Imo its getting pretty obvious that general democracy is a mistake

Seems hot and probably would but I need a frontal shot to make a proper determination.

I've been looking for that pic for years, thanks OP, you pretentious animal.

Abolish the idea that we can't negotiate capitalism. Establish radical transperancy of elected officials. Abolish the idea that every parlamentary discussion needs to end in deliberation. Forget the idea that there is only one kind of (parlamentary) (liberal) democracy.
>Yours truly, Chantal

The right to vote should be connected to certain duties such as taxation and civil service. I don't see any reason why you should be guaranteed the right to decide what society looks like if you're not contributing.

Thailand is currently ruled by a Junta and is literally a monarchy so they should just go there

>authoritarian monarchies work out for thousands of years
>monarchies suddently get replaced by communist authoritarian regimes
>doesn't work out
Gee, authoritarianism sure is evil and communism did nothing wrong.

Kek. I once read a book about some soviet dude assblasted about communism and he said Plato's Republic was a form of proto-communism and that it was dumb and retarded (because it is). Horseshoe model is right guys.

Most people are shit and democracy just shows how 90% of us are selfish fucks who only have short term interests at heart.

That's why we need systems that incentivize good behavior. If you allow people to prosper while being productive you don't need to morally evaluate everyone.

Or just give voting rights solely to those who own land or are business owners.

Good thing most places don't have a general democracy

This. Most "democracies" in the world are Republics.

Democracy is fine, universal suffrage is the mistake.

Recognizing that aristocratic classes are inevitable and unavoidable in any system is a much better position than just saying they're unfair because of muh inherited privilege.

Hello Heinlen.

I think paying a certain threshold in taxes and military service should also qualify. Better yet make military service or some other civil service a requirement for owning.

Yeah I agree. Forgot to add that in there.

Literally who . I got the idea from Rhodesia and Goethe.

but this is retarded. The whole point of a constitutional republic is to establish rule of law and tell the ruling class that there are certain things they cannot do to the people at large, like imprisoning them for voicing protest against them (freedom of speech) and there is also the fact that the rulers are elected officials, which means if one is too imcompetant, or corrupted ect the people can vote them out. Theres also the checks and balances of the political system, which prevents anyone from becoming too powerful.

What you are proposing is that these ruling elite have NO checks on their power, NO rule of law that limits what they can do to the people, and basically guarantee they becoming ruling class for life. You are, in the truest sense of the word, a cuck. What benefit at all would happen from your proposed system user? What is this neo-feudal elite going to do the day after you create this system?

So why would you advocate formally entrenching them in a class system which actively discriminates against 99% of society?

This
It can start by limiting democracy slowly, like blocking people who receive subsidies from the government to vote

What would be a way to include women if that's even in the interest of a democracy. I think maybe charity or some sort of community involvement should be recognized.

Robert Heinlen underage fag

Nurses and doctors. Thats it.

Teachers?

>Calls me underage for not watching plebshit

I suppose all public sectors then. Encourages work in the community.

>Abolish the idea that every parlamentary discussion needs to end in deliberation.
What does that entail ?

I think this only works if publicly unions are banned. That way a civil servant really is a servant to the community.

>starship troopers is pleb shit
underage and retarded. are you the fag that was bitching about his history teacher?

Unions are a cancer so yes.

>What you are proposing is that these ruling elite have NO checks on their power, NO rule of law
>implying feudal societies didnt had checks and balances and rule of law
>implying monarchism was always absolutism

pick up a history book

who is this

The problem is dull and unintelligent people have the same say as sharp and intelligent people...

Having that much technology yet still needing humans to kill bugs.

>>implying monarchism was always absolutism
but that is what you are proposing user. And your only justification is that "there are always going to be a ruling class, so lets just make them as powerful as possible!" which makes no logical sense. You outright mock the idea of constitutional liberties which are laid out, as does Spencer and all his other cucked followers. Also What benefit at all would happen from your proposed system user? What is this neo-feudal elite going to do the day after you create this system?

Not him but I always thought them using their mouths to manipulate their exoskeletons was weird af.

>What you are proposing is that these ruling elite have NO checks on their power, NO rule of law that limits what they can do to the people, and basically guarantee they becoming ruling class for life. You are, in the truest sense of the word, a cuck. What benefit at all would happen from your proposed system user? What is this neo-feudal elite going to do the day after you create this system?
Who the fuck is proposing that? Literally all Spencer did was say aristocratic classes always realistically exist and Sargon sperged just like you because recognizing this fact is appearantly the same as endorsing fuedal lords with limitless power. Holy shit are you false flagging or something?

Any family that kept enough wealth not to need to labor over say 3 generations, probably fits into most definitions of aristocratic.

Who did that?

Universal suffrage is inherent to democracies, take that out and your regime isn't democratic anymore.

>Universal suffrage is inherent to democracies
So America became a democracy in what year?

This

What? The core topic is democracy not communism. And that specific statement was about replacing democracy with authoritarianism, not one kind of authoritarianism with another type. Your comment is so back-asswords it hurts.

*Reading
*Good books

You are definitely underage, kid. Everyone over the age of 22 has heard of Starship Troopers that has an even remote interest in history, space travel, or sci-fi. Just stop.

So define universal suffrage. Does it include the imprisoned? The incapable? Children?

Democracy is a luxury few countries can afford.

first off, you really need to understand that no one, other than alt-right faggots, cares about e-celeb youtube drama, so any references to this that you make will mean nothing to me or anyone else. Secondly, you arent answering the question at all and are just continuing to spout rhetoric (that is standard neo-nazi bullshit btw) about "theres always an elite class, so lets just make them all powerful" which makes no logical sense. You also didnt even attempt to lay out any real benefits of your proposed system

Most countries don't have general democracy, they are representative republics. This isn't just a semantic difference, either.
If by "general democracy" you mean the current standard political model in the West... well, it seems to be working fine to me. Of course it has problems, but to me it's obvious that it's leagues better than any alternative that has ever been tried on a large scale.
It's true that many voters are stupid and I wish they wouldn't vote. However, the strength of liberal institutions and the influence that money has on politics counterbalances this. Liberal democracies have broad bases of institutions that keep checks and balances on each other and provide a sort of stability and insurance against stupid voting. In liberal democracies, like in basically all systems, money also buys you political influence. I view this as a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it creates corruption. On the other hand, because the moneyed class tends to have a cosmopolitan outlook, be relatively well-informed (except maybe in the US), and generally wants stability, it provides a buffer against populist idiocy.
We don't really live in an ideological dictatorship, if by that you mean that one ideology completely dominates. Progressives, burger liberals, classical liberals, socialists, conservatives, right-populists... etc. These are very different ideological approaches, and no one of these groups monopolizes power.
As for armed conflict, I don't know why you think that's either likely or would move things forward.

Implement tests for voting, preferably on a tiered system so more knowledge=more votes.
It will be controversial, people will whine incessantly about it's unfairness to this group or that group but ultimately it's impossible to argue against on rational grounds and people who oppose will be exposed as literally thinking that knowledge and expertise is as good as ignorance and stupidity.

How is democracy a mistake?

Problem is, then you would have masses of angry disenfranchised people with a clear and obvious reason to oppose the political order. The current system at least gives them a release valve for their emotions.

So you want midclassers who vote for socialist regimes who tax them to death to appease the class who don't get to vote?

Stupid

Nobody is proposing to make them all powerful. Where are you getting that?

As long as poor education is directly in line with the interests of the people we vote, we can't have democracy. This is the problem of representative democracy.

it is imperfect therefore it is a mistake, even if we only end up replacing it with something even further from "perfect"

t. /pol/

>51% of the population could vote to take everything away from 49% of the population!

>better to let 0.01% of the population decide who owns everything
>I'm sure it's a coincidence that they already own everything

>calling Heinlein plebshit
Hello underaged fag

Yeah, because they're smarter. The smarter people should be the ones making the decisions.
Why the hell should some idiot living off welfare have the same say as a CEO?

The thing I love about anti-democracy libertarians is how close they sound to Marxist-Leninists.

>Plebs can't rule themselves! The successful job creators have the most merit and should be in charge.
>The people are not ready to rule themselves. We need a """temporary""" dictatorship of the best and brightest to guide them.

>wanting the successful to lead it libertarian
I mean, kinda?
It's kinda the otherway around though. Marxist claim they want people to rule themselves, but that's impossible.

WAH WAH, I NEED BIG DADDY LEADER TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

The problem is education, if you have educated society democracy works great like in Scandinavia or Switzerland, if you have every other bloke a 89IQ retard, who can be persuaded by bunch of youtube videos to turn into either a /pol/tard or SJW, there's no future for democracy there ofc, US essentialy are a fascist state now for a couple of decades from econoimcal POV, it's a government merged with corporations.

>people want...to have a say...in what happens to them
Are you implying that people have a say in democracy? If you aren't rich you don't have any more say about politics than some 1300 peasant under King whathisname IV.

>Imo its getting pretty obvious that general democracy is a mistake
It's more the populations fault than the system in general. Voters will never be perfectly rational, will never have access to all essential information and will never use this to make a fully informed decision of not only what policies should be enforced, but who should be leader to enforce them. Naturally the democratic system gives way to promises of endless free things in a bid to win votes. Most people aren't as ideologically principled as maybe you are, they're more interested in who's going to increase their welfare or give them free housing or what have you in return for a vote. You'll notice that often election campaigns mention how much 'we'll be spending' on various things. This has rightfully lead to a cynical view of many people surrounding democracy in that it sows the seeds for its own downfall. Most of these people aren't as intelligent as they think they are though, they'll be inline to vote for their favourite candidate as soon as he promises to spend more on them. The cycle goes on until collapse.

There's a 100% chance you're an underage American with no clue about the goings on in Scandinavia or Switzerland.

There's 110% chance that you are /pol/tard, who unironically believes you can't go outside your house without being stabbed by a muslim.

I'm not going to claim that democracy puts the power in the hands of the people or anything, because truth be told basically every system is just oligarchy, whether that oligarchy is hidden or overt. But, with democracy there is generally more demand for bread and circuses from the oligarchs, thus leading to higher quality of life for the citizens. Ergo democracy is the best form of oligarchy.

Hit a nerve I see

I can understand your frustration with letting stupid people have a voice equal to (or rather, by their numbers, greater than) the smartest people in society, but letting the elite have full power over the direction of society while giving the poor stupid people no recourse leaves the elite with no reason to make any decisions in the interest of the masses when they can just vote in the best circumstances for themselves even if its at the expense of the masses.

I'd agree in that it's generally better to live in a system where, at least theoretically, power comes from the people.