Wich is the best political system?

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

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 (247 KB, 1160x762)

All urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY
pnas.org/content/101/46/16385.full).
economics.mit.edu/files/10759
journalofdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/04_28.3_Berman (web).pdf

Emberburn
Emberburn

Global techno-fascism would be a utopia.

Evilember
Evilember

Why aristocracy?

FastChef
FastChef

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

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

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

Ignoramus
Ignoramus

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.

Illusionz
Illusionz

Stfu slavshit

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

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

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

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

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

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

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

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

Booteefool
Booteefool

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?

MPmaster
MPmaster

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

girlDog
girlDog

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

Inmate
Inmate

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

likme
likme

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.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

Monarchies cause constant civil wars
Good God you need help

Methshot
Methshot

You are a fucking idiot.

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

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

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

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Liberal autocracy with a benevolent despot.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

The one that gives us true space travel.

Supergrass
Supergrass

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/Führer/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 (173 KB, 1189x635)

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

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

Nude_Bikergirl
Nude_Bikergirl

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

Booteefool
Booteefool

this you should try to make your points more concise though

King_Martha
King_Martha

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

Evil_kitten
Evil_kitten

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.

happy_sad
happy_sad

Of the actual, viable forms of government

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

Fascism
Ballistic autism 2.0.

Aristocracy
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)

Democracy
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.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

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.

askme
askme

He still thingking that Democracy really works.

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

Gigastrength
Gigastrength

He thinks communism is a form of government
Brainlet, OUT

Methshot
Methshot

Methnerd
Methnerd

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.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

people cant make up their minds and make poor choices

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

Skullbone
Skullbone

what do you mean

Emberburn
Emberburn

Democracy
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.
Implying

inb4 go back to /pol/ you fucking paranoiac

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

Evilember
Evilember

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.

Flameblow
Flameblow

Democracies are best for growing countries

Since USA is a country from third world?

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

RavySnake
RavySnake

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.

WebTool
WebTool

The body could be elected. It could be Parliament.

RumChicken
RumChicken

No, It's against communism.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

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?

TechHater
TechHater

communism and fascism were also political systems

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

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.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

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.

whereismyname
whereismyname

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.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

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.

Supergrass
Supergrass

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

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

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.

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

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

MPmaster
MPmaster

are you saying that real communism has never been tried?

girlDog
girlDog

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?

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

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?

Bidwell
Bidwell

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.

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

it means he just got playing deus ex

Deadlyinx
Deadlyinx

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?

TreeEater
TreeEater

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

Snarelure
Snarelure

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?

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

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?

SniperGod
SniperGod

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

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

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

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.

RavySnake
RavySnake

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.

WebTool
WebTool

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

RumChicken
RumChicken

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

StonedTime
StonedTime

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.

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

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

DeathDog
DeathDog

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.

TechHater
TechHater

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

eGremlin
eGremlin

Look at the casualty rates, it speaks for itself

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

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

FastChef
FastChef

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?

JunkTop
JunkTop

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.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

Democracy.
Just don't let dumb people vote.

BunnyJinx
BunnyJinx

Republics are not democracies and work pretty well.

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

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.

StrangeWizard
StrangeWizard

there were FAR more successful monarchs than unsuccessful
name 200

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

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.

Stupidasole
Stupidasole

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

whereismyname
whereismyname

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

you can go to hell

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

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

who decides who is dumb

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

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

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

the people in power

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

Economic systems:
Capitalism
Socialism
Communism
Governmental systems:
Democracy
Monarchy
Etc. Learn the difference you autistic weeb fuck.

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

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

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

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.

Lunatick
Lunatick

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

Booteefool
Booteefool

all you authoritarians in this thread should give some good old American propaganda a watch, if this doesn't fix you idk what will
youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY

Lord_Tryzalot
Lord_Tryzalot

Dumb weaboo

Sir_Gallonhead
Sir_Gallonhead

how do you quantify that?

That's just not a workable system

Boy_vs_Girl
Boy_vs_Girl

Intelligent people.

Spamalot
Spamalot

Not democracy =/= authoritarian

Soft_member
Soft_member

dumb newfag

girlDog
girlDog

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

viagrandad
viagrandad

watch it anyway then

happy_sad
happy_sad

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.

haveahappyday
haveahappyday

alright then, 190

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

"Uhh my sweet korean bb ):"
Kill yourself

cum2soon
cum2soon

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

takes2long
takes2long

go away plato

askme
askme

God damned post-socratics and their neoplatonic crap.

massdebater
massdebater

The minute you list 190 successful democratic leaders I'd be more than willing to list 2,000 successful monarchs

iluvmen
iluvmen

so you'd rather have south korea be a backwards authoritarian shithole ruled by an incompetent mental dwarf like the north

lostmypassword
lostmypassword

that's not how burden of proof works retard

kizzmybutt
kizzmybutt

Trump lost tho, and he was only in the running because retarded selection system.

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

That's part of my point. Earlier I espoused that governmental systems were products of the environment that the people found itself in. Without that context, there can be no 'best' or 'worst' political system.

Burnblaze
Burnblaze

The point is your demand is fucking retarded, just like you.

Emberburn
Emberburn

People don't use that logic at job interviews.

Evilember
Evilember

Propaganda

Firespawn
Firespawn

Trump didn't lose.

WebTool
WebTool

Here, look! Satellites are biased.

Attached: 2586372F00000578-2946367-image-m-34-1423530148648.jpg (121 KB, 634x416)

BlogWobbles
BlogWobbles

feel free to move there then

VisualMaster
VisualMaster

Having a bedtime is bad
Typical teenage cuck. Do your homework or something faggot.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

kek. What delusion! Here, feel free to respond one last time.

Attached: 1517854087022.jpg (56 KB, 232x365)

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

that was clearly a joke user

Fried_Sushi
Fried_Sushi

he had less votes

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

Constitutional democracy in which suffrage is limited to land-owners, like the Founders intended.

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

what is dictatorship of the proletariat.

iluvmen
iluvmen

Whoever is the strongest.

Attached: 433px-AlexanderTheGreat-Bust.jpg (69 KB, 433x599)

hairygrape
hairygrape

So Somalia then.

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

should we still have slavery too?

TechHater
TechHater

Killing and/or sending all the poor people and criminals to colonies far away. Why do you think the British did so well?

Attached: 1510123242505.jpg (231 KB, 900x669)

eGremlin
eGremlin

The only other contender to the throne was a baby

GoogleCat
GoogleCat

The world should be rule by me

Raving_Cute
Raving_Cute

Some kind of post-scarcity socialist thing that we have no ability to achieve right now. Mixed-market capitalism with social programs is probably the best thing we have right now. Enlightened Monarchism is comfiest tho.

hairygrape
hairygrape

More like proliferation of nuclear weapons

SniperGod
SniperGod

Right wing parties do that too. It is almost as if it is a polite excuse to cover up ideological or self-interests ...

Attached: image.jpg (22 KB, 324x271)

StonedTime
StonedTime

The one best suited for the needs of the day. It not an accident that democracies become more autocratic in times of.war and great struggle. Or that autocracies often fall when their is no overt threat to put down.

Nojokur
Nojokur

immediate drop after 1945
That was when democracy started right???????

viagrandad
viagrandad

Democracy is so great because, when selecting a problem-solving team from a diverse population of intelligent agents, a large team of randomly selected agents outperforms a smaller team comprised of the best-performing agents (this result has been mathematically formalized by Lu Hong and Scott Page: pnas.org/content/101/46/16385.full).

Why is this the case? Let's suppose that we want to find the best possible policy, according to some objective criteria. Suppose too that there is bounded rationality and limited knowledge and that each individual selects the best option using his own information set and decision rule.

In these conditions, each individual, if s/he is moderately competent, will find a local maxmimum - the best option, given his/her information and decision rule.

But local maxima aren't necessarily global maxima. Even experts might well not find that global maximum because their decision rules and information sets might not be wide enough to encompass the best option: this might be because of déformation professionnelle, or groupthink or simply because their Bayesian priors limit the number of options they search for.

Instead, widening the population of searchers increases our chances of finding that global maximum, because doing so brings more decision rules and information sets to bear on the problem. Cognitive diversity - in the sense of different ways of thinking - can therefore beat experts. It increases our chances of finding the best option. This may explain why democratization increases GDP per capita by 20% in the long run: economics.mit.edu/files/10759

likme
likme

You can’t do it, liberalism unchecked by democracy easily deteriorates into elitist oligarchy: journalofdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/04_28.3_Berman (web).pdf

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit