Wich is the best political system?

Wich is the best political system?

I think is the Aristocracy or Fascism(one ruled by good people)

>in4 muh democracy!11

The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Trump in the white house is the best example of this, that's you get when you let the plebs(the majority) be part of important decisions.

Attached: 023-malcolm-in-the-middle-theredlist.jpg (1160x762, 247K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Global techno-fascism would be a utopia.

Why aristocracy?

Monarchism. We're literally wired to look for a singular leader to follow, democracy is unnatural. If not Monarchism then Mosleyite Democracy.

Plato's enlightened despot philosopher-king utopia. We just haven't had a despot that's enlightened enough yet. We might never.

Facism is the most failed ideology on the planet, fuck that noise.

Oligarchy's are fine and they have been working fine. Western developed countries and doing great and will continue to do great.

Stfu slavshit

A well organized single party government probably has the highest likelihood of succeeding, but there are a lot of external factors to take into account to make that work. Eventually, once society reaches a point where it is properly applicable, a dictatorship of the proletariat would replace it

Communism is the 2nd biggest failure on the planet, with monarchies coming in a close third

>The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Quoting Churchill for some but ignoring him for the rest is kinda dumb

Attached: 1519929527461.jpg (500x500, 54K)

>with monarchies coming in a close third
Yes, monarchies were around for 5000+ years because they were shitty means of governance. Do you even read what you typed before you post it?

Communism is a proven failure I will not even debate you on that.
You have to be a 12 year old to think monarchies could still work.
Getting autists after autist king will decimate a civilization, then you have the constant civil wars.
When have monarchies worked out for longer then 100 years for a specific country

How many civil wars does it take to prove monarchies suck? 100? 200? 1000?

>Civil wars don't happen in other forms of government
>Civil wars happened because they were monarchistic and not because of the eras economic and development status
You truly are a brainlet

Yeah capitalism worked so well for you slavshits, thats why half of ur population comes to germany to either clean toilets or suck cock for a living.

>Monarchies cause constant civil wars
Good God you need help

You are a fucking idiot.

Attached: 1522263670622.jpg (500x548, 129K)

>ruled by good people
There's the problem right it's a perpetually on whether your ruler is a good guy or an inbred lunatic wielding ultimate power

Liberal autocracy with a benevolent despot.

The one that gives us true space travel.

I think Churchill really hit the nail on the head when discussing this question
>Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

The real advantage of an electoral system is peaceful transfer of power. Let's compare system A, an autocracy, to system B a democracy.

>system A
>your king/F├╝hrer/president for life/etc was doing an alright job, not great but good enough
>one day he dies
>the next guy then takes over, maybe its his son (like in NK) maybe its his a lieutenant (like in Venezuela)
>new guy is extremely corrupt and starts running the country into the ground, anyone who protests his bad decisions gets thrown in jail or shot
>your only options are to either violently overthrow him, which will kill many innocent people and implode the economy, or wait decades until he dies. For both options you have no way of guaranteeing the next guy will be any better

>system B
>a demagogue who really only cares about enriching himself is elected based on promises to "drain the swamp" or some other nonsense that is promptly abandoned once in office
>wait a few years
>vote him out before things have really gone to shit

Which system do you think works better? I'd rather have to deal with Trump for a few years than Maduro for a few decades. And in an autocracy what guarantee do you have that you won't end up with a Maduro? You're not electing the leadership. One party systems don't select their leaders based on who is the best at governing, they select based on who is the shrewdest operator of party politics. How else do you think a monster like Stalin was able to get a hold of a whole country?

Attached: the benefits of one party rule.jpg (1189x635, 173K)

What does that even mean? Care to explain this a little?

how do you guarantee the despot will remain benevolent? You know what they say about power.

this you should try to make your points more concise though

Liberal autocratic *constitutional* benevolent despotism.
Have an authority that scrutinises the behaviour of the monarch and has the power to force abdication, like impeachment.

The thing with democracies is they're prone to be corrupt to the extent that you never get to vote in a good guy, they're all shit. See America, Britain, Germany, France, etc. today. No one votes for the person they want in office, they vote for the lesser evil. Also, peaceful transfer of power isn't unique to democracies. That's just fear mongering.

Of the actual, viable forms of government

Just ballistic autism. "Why not just give everyone free stuff guys and people will work for free right?"

Ballistic autism 2.0.

Outmoded by other forms of government. Not inherently 'bad', but leaves too much room for error. One thing breaks, the whole thing crashes down (look at 17th century Spain)

Every shithead and his cousin gets a choice, but it's a lot better than no one but a permanently sitting family getting first comings.

Yeah, key fact OP: one ruled by GOOD PEOPLE. It's easy to have a fucking utopian system when by that logic, the PRIME CONDITIONS are in effect.

Political systems are products of the environment that the people are in.
Democracies are best for growing countries, socialism is best for stable countries, monarchism is best for unstable countries.

>He still thingking that Democracy really works.

The people who cast the votes decide nothing.
The people who count the votes decide everything.

He thinks communism is a form of government
Brainlet, OUT


I felt giving a real world example would make my point have a little more weight to it. When you get these threads of people saying "autocracy is great guys!" they never actually compare them to the many examples we have right now of real world autocrats who have created failed states, instead they just think of their perfect hypothetical autocracy that's never been tried.

Like this fellow who gets to control this non-elected body the monarch is supposedly beholden to? That's exactly the kind of system that exists in Iran, but the Guardian Council is staffed with hacks who do whatever the Ayatollah says, despite them constitutionally having the power to remove him.

Having an unelected institution exist to check another unelected institution is pointless. And if this authority is elected, then what's the difference between this and democracy? You just created a democracy with an exceptionally powerful executive, so why is that superior to what exists now?

>you're always voting for the lesser evil
see the Churchill quote. I'd much rather have a mediocre president that I can protest, than a corrupt murderous chairman who sends me to the gulag if I dare speak out against him, or even just for no reason at all.

>people cant make up their minds and make poor choices

Plato's Philosopher king seems like the only viable alternative right now

what do you mean

>Every shithead and his cousin gets a choice,
>but it's a lot better than no one but a permanently sitting family getting first comings.

>inb4 go back to /pol/ you fucking paranoiac

Attached: pay-no-attention-the-man-behind-curtain-gorgeous-portrayal.png (372x237, 175K)

>see the Churchill quote. I'd much rather have a mediocre president that I can protest, than a corrupt murderous chairman who sends me to the gulag if I dare speak out against him, or even just for no reason at all
Repeating blatantly incorrect propaganda and completely ignoring others points doesn't win you any brownie points and makes you out to be retarded. Stop trying.

>Democracies are best for growing countries

Since USA is a country from third world?

Attached: 1000 nigga wuats.gif (211x213, 1.68M)

Communism and Fascism are economic systems, Aritocracy and Democracy are means of government. They are not mutually exclusive. Try to be educated on a subject before you make a fool of yourself, American.

The body could be elected. It could be Parliament.

No, It's against communism.

You feel I failed to address your argument? Restate it please.

why is it superior to have an unelected executive who can be removed by an elected parliament?

communism and fascism were also political systems

I think it's better to have an executive that isn't subject to the whims of the uneducated masses and that is above partisan politics associated with this mob rule.

No they weren't. Communism itself has no set means of governance. Marx believed in a communistic nation run by a democratically elected body. Stalin led by dictatorship. If you truly wanted you could have a Communist Monarchy.

Facism isn't half bad if you consider how much Italy improved under fascism. Universal education and literacy became a thing in Italy, with many public works suching as draining malarial swamps and the crack down on the mafia.

This. Fascism only fell in Italy because the war wasn't in their favor. Had italy never entered the war they'd continue to boom.

I thought communism was supposed to get rid of social classes?

And what if he does things that are not to the interest of the republic, but rather his own corrupt self interest and those of his friends? What if he passes laws that he thinks are good but the populace doesn't like? What if he raises new taxes to pay for foreign wars that have minimal support? What if he is deeply moved by the plight of Syrian refugees so declares that all households in the country must take in at least one family of refugees (like what the monarch of The Vatican City did)

Will people march in the streets and demand that their elected officials in parliament remove him from office, under the threat that if they disregard the electorate they'll be thrown out in the next election? If so then what's the real difference at all between this and a parliamentary democracy without the unelected institution, other than pointlessly removing one degree from their government? If not then what's the benefit of this form of government at all? Just because an executive has the mandate to do whatever they want doesn't mean what they want will be beneficial to the country as a whole.

Communism preaches economic equality but it's very evidently never achieved because there's always a ruling class. Stalin and his friends, for example, were the ruling class of the SU. Had he named himself Tsar nothing would change, it's merely a title

are you saying that real communism has never been tried?

and yet they did enter the war, kind of shoots down that whole "giving one person unlimited power is a good idea" thing, eh? It turns out dictators don't have a supernatural ability to only make good decisions, and have a habit of getting their countries into ruinous unwinable wars.

Weird, huh?

Where knowledge is deep, it is also thin. Where it is wide, it is also shallow.
Maybe humanity doesn't have the capacity to govern itself best?

>the republic
It's a monarchy.
>passes laws that he thinks are good but the populace doesn't like
Parliament would still exist, but the monarch would have a more active role as head of government.
I think it's preferable to having an elected executive as the head of state as I disagree with democracy. It is tolerable that people have local representation, but not that people determine who is ultimately in charge, who their representatives address.
Also you should note the use of the word "liberal". A lack of democracy is balanced by a reduced state that cannot trespass against the rights of the people.

it means he just got playing deus ex

what is so special about the decision making ability of the monarch that they should have the authority to make laws rather than anyone else? Why should we hand over the keys of state to someone just because they have the right last name, what the hell kind of qualification is that?

>A lack of democracy is balanced by a reduced state that cannot trespass against the rights of the people.
ridiculous, it can and will

what possible guarantee do you have that it wont

Yes, but not because I'm a retarded college kid. Real communism has never been tried because it's literally impossible to impliment. That's why all historical "communist" nations varied in their idea of communism. They each tried to impliment communism, found it's literally impossible, so they make alterations.

>democracies don't also get into stupid wars
What is Vietnam? Afghanistan? North Korea?

An elected official is usually elected because he is the most convincing, most popular or the lesser evil, not because he is the most skilled. A monarch is born into power most of the time, and is raised and educated with that responsibility in mind.
What right does an uneducated moron have to vote for the party their parents voted for (this actually happens in the UK) like its some tribal system?

None of those are nation ending continent wide destruction
See chart for democracy promoting peace

Attached: 1522002541251.png (3000x2145, 192K)

If we are playing that game, then any system is corruptible, even democracy that can eventually drift into a non-democratic system, or abruptly turn into one.
I didn't vote for the surveillance laws, or the anti-free speech laws, yet they were thrusted upon me without my vote being considered, even in this democracy.

This. Elections are not battles of whit, they're battles of charisma. Whoever can make the most jokes or woo the most people with vague promises gets elected. Not the smartest. Monarchs are educated from birth to do one thing: rule.

>Universal education and literacy
Done first in a Soviet Union, all without fascism.

Why are there a large amount of totally incompetent monarchs then?

you feel that UN intervention in Korea wasn't justified? Why, it was an unprovoked war of aggression by the North Koreans.

I do concede your point there about autocracy not having a monopoly on getting into stupid wars, thinking about Iraq upsets me greatly. But it wasn't really my point that it only happens in an autocracy. Just that you shouldn't put your faith in one man, eventually you'll be disappointed.

Political system doesn't matter it's all about the quality of the people in power.

No, they're not nation ending but they were horribly stupid wars. America not coming to it's end because of the wars proves nothing, all it does it show a repulsive lack of geopolitical knowledge.

>A monarch is born into power most of the time, and is raised and educated with that responsibility in mind.
[unsheathes Charles II]

Look at the casualty rates, it speaks for itself

monarchs aren't Hobbesian leviathans though, they depend on people to do the things they say. So monarchy depends on popularity as well.

you have the right to protest them and elect people who promise to repeal them. Would you have that right if they were decreed by dear leader?

Simple American propaganda, there were FAR more successful monarchs than unsuccessful. The only monarchs they teach you about are the corrupt absolute monarchists, there are thousands of years worth of successful monarchs.

Just don't let dumb people vote.

Republics are not democracies and work pretty well.

North Korea wasn't our war. It's not our job to play God in global affairs. The South Koreans didn't even want a fight, the second a battle started they'd flee and leave our boys alone to be slaughtered.

>there were FAR more successful monarchs than unsuccessful
name 200

Why are large amounts of totally incompetent elected officials? I'm not calling for 100% royal power, there should absolutely be limits to the monarch's power.
Surely you mean Charles I, who reigned prior to the UK's status as a constitutional monarchy was made certain.

Name a democratic reformer of the same calibre as Peter the Great.

if America did not fight in that war then this wouldn't exist

you can go to hell

Attached: kpop.jpg (1200x900, 107K)

who decides who is dumb

This isn't a dictatorship. The monarch wouldn't have absolute power and can be forced abdication (impeachment).

the people in power

Economic systems:
Governmental systems:
Etc. Learn the difference you autistic weeb fuck.

I think people who vote Labour because "it's truhdition in are famileh to vooat Laybah" are dumb.

No, it really doesn't. You posted a vague, non-alligned graph. It implies a lot but doesn't take thousands of factors into count. It proves nothing.

Democracies rely on people to do things too, that's kind of the idea of any government.

all you authoritarians in this thread should give some good old American propaganda a watch, if this doesn't fix you idk what will

Dumb weaboo

how do you quantify that?

That's just not a workable system

Intelligent people.

Not democracy =/= authoritarian

dumb newfag

>Name 200 monarchs off the top of your head who were successful
I hate using ad hominems but you're genuinely retarded

watch it anyway then

Exactly, so nobody should vote since the vast majority of people aren't experts on administration and economic matters and shouldn't have a right to dictate the executive.

alright then, 190

"Uhh my sweet korean bb ):"
Kill yourself

just because someone's an expert doesn't mean they're right

go away plato

God damned post-socratics and their neoplatonic crap.