Popularity contest should determine who governs the country

It's amazing at a local level with a weak monarch at the top.

for the state

The representative oligarchy financed by us goyim.

So PLC? didn't end too well for them

It technically should be a meritocratic competition; people are just too retarded and tribalistic to follow through.

Attached: DH10.png (557x674, 522K)

How incredibly submissive

For the greater good, and for the state/society as whole. Not for the individual.

God

Getting gangraped by 3 major powers kind of does that.

>He thinks he has any sort of power and is anything more than a serf
propaganda does it's job

Attached: c84.gif (600x580, 436K)

>Greater good
What is that then ?

The greater good of the society as a whole is for the average guy

Why don't we give Santa Claus a cabinet position while we're at it. Fuck outta here.

What is society if not a group of individuals?

This is about how things could be, not how they are in this place at this time. Thoguht that was obvious.

they couldn't do anything against them because they meddled in their internal politics even before partitions and retarded law that made it very hard to make any sort of standing army. even their constitution abolished sejm and made king have absolute power

>Who the fuck came up with this shit?
the retarded did
only an intellectual ant would support such a brainlet idea as "democracy"

Attached: Plato.jpg (220x334, 20K)

I was thinking more Swiss Canton but instead of an assembly a monarch with very little power regarding the local assmeblies.

Not the USA thank God

Attached: 2016-11-24T00-52-39-633Z--1280x720.jpg (1280x720, 85K)

What is exactly the purpose of popular vote if electors elect the president?

>The greater good of the society as a whole is for the average guy
debatable

It is, but it's an entity itself. In the sense that it's better to sacrifice individual happiness to ensure the success and survival of the state. The individual is a tool, and a fundamental unit - but this doesn't imply it's anything more.

Decent chunk of states have "loyal electors" meaning the electors are required to vote for whom the majority wanted, they get fined if they don't I believe. Those who vote against the majority are called "Faithless electors"

> It is, but it's an entity itself. In the sense that it's better to sacrifice individual happiness to ensure the success and survival of the state. The individual is a tool, and a fundamental unit - but this doesn't imply it's anything more.

Then why have the state, if it only exists to keep itself in existence? Because it is good for its citizens? In that case, is not the function of the state to strive for the welfare of its citizens?

>cars are for the people therefore everyone is competent enough to be an auto mechanic

It was always a popularity contest. The only difference is that in the past, soldiers fulfilled the role of voters.

The "greater good" has to be somebody's good. What you're really saying is that society is for some individuals at the expense of others.

The average guy can get brutally raped or murdered by roaming packs of niggers in every major city, which is such a common occurrence that the media doesn't even bother reporting it. No, the populace is too interested in transgender bathroom rights to give a hoot about its own safety.

Fucking Tau get out reeeeee

Teachers take care of children but we don't let the children choose their teachers

>people are just to tribalistic

otherwis thy wouldn't be human. Transhumanists lik you get the rock

this isn't the same and you know it stop these fucking arguments

Not him but it's p much the same. Most people are idiotic and uneducated. You get absolutely nothing from allowing them to vote.

>morality should not be relative
Ok nigga lol

>Votes based on party membership only.
Hmm, really makes me think

>man joins party that he thinks represents his interests
>votes for them consistently
Oh noes!

>Most people are idiotic and uneducated. You get absolutely nothing from allowing them to vote.

exactly but the teacher argument is overplayd and a cope for democrats

In my country that's the only choice

Id you get angry about people bing tribalist thn OH BOY DO I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU

it's fucking essential for society

Cuckservatives like this get to vote. Schlonged!

edgy

Wtf?
Nowadays a non-democratic goverment that treats it people good enough and keeps itself away from negative foreign influences would most likely stay stable for the next few decades.
This what you are talking about, almost exclusively is true for feudalism.

>Joining/Voting for a party instead of analyzing each candidate's plan, political trajectory and morals
kys.

The average person doesn't know shit about economics, diplomacy, etc. Hell, the average person is barely even good at their own job. Appealing to the lowest common denominator is a recipe for failure or at least mediocrity in every arena. But in government we somehow think its great.

Parents don't take a vote amongst their kids over how the family will be run. When your on a plan do you want to take a vote over how to fly it, or do you want to leave it up to an expert?

I can't vote for candidates although it might be better, hav no experience with it

Well, supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, and democracy is a referendum on that mandate.

Attached: MontyPythonHolyGrail_036Pyxurz[1].jpg (1600x1071, 212K)

give me the ultimate enlightenment, bros.

why is moral realism better, what are the arguments for it that BTFO moral relativism?

to sway the electoral vote, plus the illusion of freedom

popular votes a meme anyway, only gives power to urban areas, the country would literally be a dictatorship under California if the popular vote was above the electoral.

Attached: nja8bnJ.png (1000x732, 258K)

>moral realism more or less requires god
>moral relativism doesn't require god

Seems an easy choice to make.
However, consider Darwinism in this context.
>whatever helps me and those with genes like mine survive and thrive is morally good, and whatever prevents it is morally wrong
Now thats my kind of morality. Both objective (expressed in genes) and doesn't require the deus crutch.