Democracy is tyranny

Democracy is tyranny

mobocracy* is a tyranny

Define democacy
Also, what alternative do you propose?

imperium beneath a socratic king

Correct

Divine right of Kangz

Radical anarchism

democracy is when the people overthrow the oligarchs, and, at the same time, the form of government that precedes tyranny

How would a socratic king be guaranteed? I've been trying to come up with ways that would make sure that the king would be intelligent, reliable and honest among other things. A corrupt king would blow the system wide open.

I'd prefer our shitty democracy over this m8

Isn't an oligarchy by definition tyrannical, in the sense that it's oppressive, despotic and in other ways a system in which power is being unfairly used to control the people?

Agreed. God save the Queen, and God bless Ancap.

Every person gets a vote on every leader/every policy. The best way to mitigate this is through improving the Electoral College.

The only thing required for something to be an oligarchy is that its run by a small group of people. Only if you have a philosophy grounded in some axiom where democracy is good can you argue that its tyranny by definition.

Through a pious populace. Brought about through suffering, sacrificing, and killing during just wars and conflicts. Adopting a legalist basis for the government to pursue and protect. Enshrining religious ceremonies and domestic production of goods and services.

We could try Roman adoption for the throne.

>I'm the victim
no one cares about you, fucking faggot

What the hell are you talking about?

Democracy does work if everyone is a nationalist and puts their country ahead of themselves.

Plato

nazi germany lasted about 3 and a half minutes

12 years*
That is a really shit example when war tore their country apart.
The literally got invaded by 3 empires thats why it collapsed.

Name one nationalist country that has succeeded as a democracy.

>hate democracy
>think slavery is great
>teach monarch who enslaves your city

mission accomplished

America preWW2

America. lol

Why elect a leader, then?

good point

Wouldn't you agree that these criteria were met by a lot of ancient civilisations, like the Athenians, Egyptians and early Romans? The legalist basis could've been more pronounced but still. If so, how come that these states where still often corrupted or ended up with bad leaders?

How would that help?

That's true, but how would this be guaranteed? It can not be assumed, as shown by modern democratic states.

NatSoc Germany fell as a result of external forces, not because the people lacked a nationalist spirit. Hitler was not a philosopher king, as shown by some of the mistakes he made. Hitler was in a lot of ways a better leader for his people than most modern ones, though. No, I'm not a nazi.
>inb4 /pol/ comes to shit this thread up

What would you say happened and how could this be prevented?

How could what be prevented? Nationalism?

>If so, how come that these states where still often corrupted or ended up with bad leaders?
they became impious. They no longer worship the gods. Or respected the law. Their rituals became barbaric. And they turned to trade to fix their broken economy.
>Hitler was in a lot of ways a better leader for his people than most modern ones
he was icarus. Icarus is the opposite of a leader.
the USA is not a democracy. It is a republic. And the american nation was not adopted by the populace in a majority to this day.

>people from every class allowed to vote
>thsoe votes go towards who gets elected as their leader
>all their votes are equal
>not a democracy

The USSR had votes for their leaders too you fucking moron. Read the constitution for what kind of government we are, it says it in black and white.

>all their votes are equal

>USSR
>Communist
>being able to vote

America before WW2 is put up as an example of a working democracy (despite it being a republic, but allright). What changed?
Assuming that's the reason why, I wonder how this could (have been)/be prevented. It seems that this degeneration is a recurring theme. The preservation of a pious people requires some control from a government, who should be prevented from turning into tyranny. It's a feedback loop that seems so fragile and could spiral down real fucking quick

>not knowing the difference between a democracy and republic

the nobility block the impiety from coursing through the country.

This nobility too would be required to remain pious. All it takes is 1 impious king, a group of impious nobles or a mob of impious citizens to wreak havock. Even if this system would have sustained itself, in the modern age this would be near impossible to balance

the nobility are not necesarily pious. They are just given a job. To basically torture and teach people. Like a gaoler.

I agree OP.
Freedom > Tyranny of the majority, tyranny of a minority, tyranny of bureacrats, tyranny of kings & dictators. Basically Freedom > Tyranny.

>how would that help
A benevolent dictator chooses a successor that is not a relation, and teaches him the what's, how's, and why's of whatever government and law their country has. Ideally, this would undercut the nepotism, corruption, and spoiled brattiness that befall hereditary monarchies.

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era

Democracy isn't tyranny, you just ain't doing it right.