Historically...

Historically, how is a system of government that sends its entire country into a frenzy of national hysteria and media sensationalism/propaganda every 4 years better than one which only sees a new ruler ever 50 years or so?

I know we can't talk about current events but looking at it historically, the election cycle is fucking cancerous. Every 4 years it's just absolute soul sucking cancer perpetrated by the MSM that leaks into every facet of your life then you have to repeat the frenzy another 4 years(well more like in another 3) to elect another useless faggot.

Somebody give me a reason why democracy isn't anything but a fucking meme and why we shouldn't just have emperors like Rome did.

>marcus aurelius
>leftypol

The ruled are the rulers
peaceful transition of power
power to elect out a bad leader
maximum distributon of power
kill yourself

Pic related.
/thread

Aurelius onstantly made poor decisoons in military regards. Military command being separated from executive power would be a net positive for the entirety of Rome. Nice arguing against yourself you meme level moron

ok, I'll give you a few reasons

1. peaceful transition of power. If you have a president who is doing a bad job, you wait a few years and elect someone else. If you have a king who is doing a bad, (funny you should use Marcus Aurelius as your pic because look how much of a fuckup his son was) your only options are to either A. wait until he dies which could take decades and will cause incredible damage to the state, or B. start a revolution and replace him by force which will kill many innocent civilians and implode the economy. And with both of them there's no guarantee the next person will be any better, or the country won't just rip itself apart in a scramble to become king, as happened to Rome every 3 generations or so.

2. In a democracy the power of the leaders comes from the people. If they offend the people through poor policies or corruption they will be thrown out of office. In an autocracy the leader's authority comes through their control of force. So the leader can be as corrupt as they want, and indeed do whatever they want, so long as they still have the support of the military to kill anyone who speaks out against it. This is why autocracy, and arbitrary rule of law almost always goes hand in hand. I don't know about you, but I rather like having institutions where people are equal before the law, instead of people who are the king's friend being allowed to rob the state blind.

3. The idea that autocracies produce better leaders because they don't have to worry about public opinion is complete nonsense. Not everyone is cut out to lead, which is a serious fault of hereditary leadership. Even in the first dynasty of the roman empire we had Caligula and Nero. Looking at modern autocracies would you say that Venezuela for instance has benefited from its dictatorship? Note how political instability has not gone away, they just lock up anyone who wants to move the country in a different direction, and shoot protesters.

Democracy is stable, but prone to being captured by cliques and interests and quickly turns into an oligarchy, which does kill its opponents too - do you think people don't disappear under mysterious circumstances all the time in the US for example?

It is no better than other political system with the exception of it being the accepted norm currently, but no better than a focused dictatorship/autocracy. The benefits of constant political struggle every 4 years are outweighed by the social and cultural decay and the constant race to the bottom to find new voters, including involving immigrants or expanding bureaucrac so they vote for you in the next election.
I would go as far as to say that modern liberal democracies are far worse in that they are toxic and insidious in their results but they work under the guise of an "ideal" system since they are designed to placate the masses and give them an illusion of being involved in the political system.

Yeah, that is why Tiberius sent Germanicus to command the legions and Belisarius was Justinian's chief general.
Your argument is invalid.

>do you think people don't disappear under mysterious circumstances all the time in the US for example
as a matter of fact I do think that people aren't being murdered by political cliques in the US

>peaceful transition of power.
You called the 2016 media election frenzy circus "peaceful"?

Not him but yes? A few protestors going to jail and people saying "fuck trump" on social media hardy count as a violent transition. Charlottesville was the mlst violent part of the whole thing with a single confirmed death and that was more morons celebrating their guy won than part of the actual process.

What's it like having an IQ below 45? I'm genuinely curious.

I guess the question becomes how do you keep the positive effects of republican democracies without the problems of it. Namely, the race to the bottom for votes. As an example, Taylor Swift came under fire recently for her implicit support of Donald Trump. It's not that she particularly supports him, or spoke in favor of him, but rather she didn't speak out against him, and as such she was unused (social) capital and she needed to be goaded into responding in some manner, any manner, so that her voice could be used as fuel for the political fire.

I guess the question is if this phenomenon occurs democratic republics outside of the West (South Korea, Japan)? Does it occur in autocratic democracies outside of the West (Singapore)? What about in non-democratic states, such as China? Or is this just a problem that's occurring because the forces of Global Neoliberalism feel themselves threatened from below?

>a celebrity was pressured into giving their opinion on the presidential race
The horror! Well, that settles it. We better abolish the elections and crown a king to stop this madness.

>What's it like having an IQ below 45? I'm genuinely curious.
so all you have are insults? You made an extremely bold claim, back it up with evidence.

>REEEEEEEE why are you people discussing things?!
What did he mean by this?

absolutely, the fact that you think otherwise says just how out of touch you are with what life is like in an autocracy

that is not at all what he said, wtf?

Autocracy
>60/40 chance of getting a good ruler for the next 50 years
Democracy
>90% chance of getting a bad ruler every 4 years

its not really that much worse

it was more peaceful than the 1860 chimpout

Now include third world dicatorships

That brings up what I was going to say about . Can you really compare government systems with huge cultural disparities and in some cases large IQ differences? The Chinese are fine with autocratic systems because of cultural reasons but Americans throw hissy fits over "muh freedom" at the drop of a hat.

The one made by individuals to kill individuals

>60/40 chance of getting a good ruler for the next 50 years
yeah, no

of all the dictators in the world would you say that 60% of them are "good rulers"? Do you think its a coincidence that they're all third world shitholes?

Can we also include third world “““democracies”””?

sure

>60/40 chance of getting a good ruler for the next 50 years
just give me a quick list of some recent "good rulers"

I get the ferling that the more recent a leader is the more scrutiny they have, just a gut feeling. This might slant your view in favor of earlier rulers, who often ruled autocracies while now rulers are often in democracies. Don't get me started on how much more is demanded from leadership now and how much more complex the world is now.

Care to provide some citations and definitions?

feeling*
the more scrutiny they have to endure*

>peaceful transition of power
>power to elect out a bad leader
Yeah these are really big. Monarchy is cool and all but I don't want civil war to be frequent and I don't want retards to rule over anything other than Veeky Forums

Twitter War =/= Civil War

Now include third world democracies. Pro tip: third world people are responsible for third world conditions. Stop thinking immediately of third world shitholes when you think of autocracies, third world shitholes are third world shitholes because of demographics.

There have been many successful European and roman emperors and monarchs. To pretend there weren't any is stupid.

>Caligula and Nero were bad
How do you expect to be taken seriously by taking historical falsehood at face value

>germany was better off under the weimar republican than the kaisers

imagine believing this

The dictatorships have to spend massive state funds to prop themselves up and to afford that they have to cut on spending on their populace. Often looking for lucrative ways to get money without handing any power to the populace(as they might oppose the regime) often by exploiting natural resources.
This was an issue for older autocracies too, slowing development. although they didn't have to deal with the problems of being a gatekeeper state. Often ancient governments didn't have to worry too much about things like standards of living and economic growth because of the malthusian trap so that is a huge weight off their shoulders
Now what authoritarian government's policies ushered in the Weimar Republic :thinking:

This Nigger supports Kim Jong-Un lmao

Would rather have a Caesar or Augustus instead of some stupid fuck that doesn't accomplish anything

>roman empire
>new ruler every 50 years

Ahahahaha

It would be nice for federal governments to back off. Federal governments all over the world are constantly in their people's faces and it's really annoying. Anyways OP you're right political apathy is becoming more common as less people are actually using their vote.

Are term limits too short? Would raising it to 5 years help?

this tbqh

I would rather have an incompetent buffoon in office for a while where he has a formalized exit and limited powers rather than an incompetent buffoon that can't be removed bloodlessly in a position of power where he can fuck up the entire state apparatus for good with his wide reach over the state's institutions

Which Jordan Peterson lecture is this

There were more competent emperors than incompetent ones and generally the ruling elites dont let incompetent people get the throne

Why not just have elections every 10 years instead of 4? You are painting a false dichotomy.

oh that's a good one. No emperor can be that good when he can't fix a system where any army can proclaim an emperor. Because guess what? He's one of those emperors who was proclaimed by an emperor too. The thing is that these problems run deeper than personal capabilities. Also not sure if I accept your claim, there were a lot of poor emperors but there were more emperors that were just screwed by the system.

elections every 10 years kind of defeats the purpose of a democracy

>He's one of those emperors who was proclaimed by an emperor too.
He's one of those emperors who was proclaimed by an army too.*
damnit

military prowess is the backbone behind every nation.

Might makes right can wreck any system of government and leaves any ruler with a lot of challenges to his legitimacy, which is suboptimal to say the least, as the government now has to spend a lot of resources combating these challenges while having less of a mandate to pass policy.

how were they good?

Actual current Classics student here, YOU are the retard.

t. roman history 101 pro

Hussein, Assad, Ghdaffi, ho chi minh

It is not the leader, it is the system.

Authoritarian leaders in East Asia proved that you can be very successful, even more than democracies, with the proper advisors and bureaucrats to implement policies.

I’ve always seen democracies as more stable at a high level of development but less so at a lower level. And vice versa for authoritarian systems, although at a low income level the relationship breaks down (it is chaos for both systems).

There is a reason nearly every developed nation is a democracy. And there is a reason many developing democracies fall behind authoritarian nations.

Last I checked we didn't have to round up and murder Hillary voters for being subversive to the new regime.

This entire post is filled with errors, strawmen, and chronological mistakes.

Sorry, not going to correct them all.

Let’s just start with Venezuela though... not a dictatorship by any means.

>Let’s just start with Venezuela though... not a dictatorship by any means.

This. I don't know why we can't call it what it is; democratic socialist.