What book can convice someone that democracy is not the best form of government, but probably one of the worst?

this, Aristoteles wrote about problems with Democracy (although he meant a slightly different kind of Democracy than the one most countrys have now)

As long as they have no knowledge of history and the developement of political structures (as well as no Strong emotional attachment to the idea).

Democracy: The God That Failed
The Green Book
The Republic

I'd like to say After Virtue and Whose Justice? Which Rationality? by Alasdair MacIntyre, but that's more about how liberalism is the worst ideology.

youtube.com/watch?v=MOYoou3genk

It depends on the person. Describe this person.

Kantbot, please leave.

no

The book of Life

Just read Plato.

>Trump is going to complete the system of German idealism

How many layers of irony is this guy IRL shitposting from behind?

you don't need books, you just need a conversation with the average voter

The point of any political system isn't to be the best ever, it's to be the best system for the particular situation in which a society finds itself.

For the people who hold this opinion: name a better form of government. I don't give a shit if you don't like democracy, just tell me one that is better.

aristocracy
neo-cameralism

...

absolute monarchy with me as king

Would you still consider an aristocracy better if you were born into the lower classes?

>better

Define this.

Adding to this, Enlightened Despotism.

Your ressentiment is, or rather in this hypothetical, would be showing.

>they'll just see it as Nazi propaganda.

In the case of Hoppe it pretty much is pseudo-Fascist, so yeah you're right.

Read Patria by Filmer. He was a contemporary of Locke who argued for the legitimacy of monarchical rule. The essence of his argument is that it is impossible for people to elect leaders because sovereignty cannot be derived from those below the leader (that would make those people sovereign, and the state where everyone is sovereign is called anarchy). This means that democracies are really run by other institutions in society in what he calls a "justice sharing agreement." He uses biblical exegesis in a few places to make his point, but so did Locke. Read Locke's Two Treatises on Government afterwards, and realize how, outside of the 5 page photocopy you read for school, it is complete shit that bases half of its arguments on a "state of nature" which is completely ahistorical and at one point Locke writes that monarchies will lead to people eating their children.

>Define this
One you would prefer to our current western democracies without assuming anything about where you might end up. For instance, if you suggest a monarchy or aristocracy then you should prefer it regardless of what class you might end up in.

Just to add, to dispel any idea that I'm some hypocritical Stirner-poster, my idea of 'better' is generally limited to longevity. Whatever system ensures the state's continued existence for the longest amount of time is superior. Stability is the wellspring from which all else springs.

Rome certainly didn't have democracy in any meaningful sense, yet existed for at least thousand years with impeccable continuity. Western Liberal Democracy/Democracies, by contrast, are practically babies - and in their infancy, they have consistently proven themselves unstable.

whatever form of government is best suited to a state, given its history and its culture.

nation state liberal democracy with universal suffrage has been an utter failure

t. Edmund Burke

potentially

yes. also, youre too dumb to be posting in this thread.

t.Alexander Dugin

you misspelled joseph de maistre

Gee asking questions about someones opinion sure is dumb huh. I didn't assume anything or even take a contrary position. I was just curious.

Yes, because I can see the bigger picture.

Greatness, whether literary/architectural/military/etc, is only achieved not in spite of, but BECAUSE of, the fact that there are lower classes whose toil ensures great minds can work and act in comfort.

why would someone do this? just go on the internet and tell lies?

I think that's a good argument, as long as the
>great minds
part is actually accurate. If brilliant minds can rise above their class and incompetent minds can be pulled down from their class then I'd be more open to it (not that you said this wouldn't be the case).

Not necessarily disagreeing with this, but nation-state liberal democracy can be and was viable for a long time in certain countries. However, the capture of the governments in these countries by large multinational corporations and financial institutions through neoliberal reforms, as well as their virtual ownership of the mass media to shape public opinion, has greatly damaged liberal democracy. Strong labor and trade unions, as well as vigorous enforcement of competition law to prevent concentration of economic power, could really help strengthen liberal democracy. This requires a vigilant citizenry to ensure compliance, though, which is one of the problems liberalism has because of its encouragement of permissiveness.

Enlightened Despotism doesn't exactly guarantee longevity in my mind.

The capture of the democratic machinery by an elite could still occur. Instead of financiers, in the scenario you laid out it would be union bosses.

>Edmund Burke
>against lib-democracy

Just stop.

I believe city-state democracy is more viable, but still deeply flawed.

direct democracy is obviously a no go, and representative democracy inevitably brings about the creation of political parties- artificial categories of identity that fracture a population.

ethnocultural (including religious) homogeneity is beneficial to any state, but is particularly vital to a Democracy. it is easier to obtain on a city-state level than a nation-state level. i earnestly believe that to a large extent shared values are necessary for a democracy to 'work'. The only way to maintain this in a representative democracy is through some kind of sedition act, which would be nearly impossible to enforce.

Even Athens fell after the death of Pericles. Sophistry and demagoguery won (and lost) the day.

>Hoppe aims to show that both monarchy and democracy are deficient systems compared to his preferred structure to advance civilization—what he calls the natural order, a system free of both taxation and coercive monopoly in which jurisdictions freely compete for adherents. In his Introduction, he lists other names used elsewhere to refer to the same thing, including "ordered anarchy", "private property anarchism", "anarcho-capitalism", "autogovernment", "private law society", and "pure capitalism".

youtube.com/watch?v=HpA4ldGoHRQ

the question you asked lacked depth
i bet you also wonder why any poor white person would vote republican when the democrats offer them more gibs.
try reading sometime. if you're such a materialist you could give John Rawls a go.

Trump's diary desu

Assume there's a form of government that is stabile and prosperous beyond what we know, but it is built upon having a very small minority suffer extensively. Some people would say that is better because they don't consider if they would be part of that minority.

You can argue from total objectivity and just point to which government would be more effective without regard to anything else, but that's inapplicable to our reality and therefore completely useless.

I can only respect your opinion if you can say that you would prefer a specific form of government even if it put you in the most disadvantaged position. A dictator's opinion on dictatorships is useless to anyone else.

Is that really Kantbot? I haven't been on twitter since the election

A minority will always suffer regardless though.

yes

Not to the same extent. And obviously if you prefer our current systems then you should be able to defend it on the same terms.

Yes.

You have to unfollow him now that he has been revealed to be fat, ugly and not a nudist fascist bodybuilder that vapes a gram of tren per day.

The guy in the red hat is also Я Caм.

I didn't know who kantbot was before this video, but he's pretty cute

Fascist shitposting should be a game for handsome men with sculpted physiques. Law of physiognomy demands you unfollow

Shit, cam looks like a skinny jewish sam hyde

We don't live in a democracy.

I'm sure that was what he was aping in terms of fashion.

I'm not surprised he's a skinny dweeb, but I somehow expected more from Kantbot.

Here is a representation of what I think should be expected from content creators.

>at one point Locke writes that monarchies will lead to people eating their children.
But in actuality, 'republics' and gommunism have been the governments to cause this.

those fags are too busy banging whores and lifting

counterpoint: mena, BAP

HEGEL COULDN'T DO IT

?

Aesthetic twitter posters who have posted physique but still manage to create high level content at fairly high volume.

wtf i hate women now

My. Fucking. Diary. Desu.

>twitter 'content'

You can't be serious, I'm outta this thread.

twitter is literally the modern salon, you are missing out.

Twitter is very open and democratic, much more like a modern public latrine than an exclusive meeting between aristocrats and elite cultural figures. However, salons and Twitter are similar in the sense that they're both incredibly superficial and completely irrelevant to history

You need to only read certain cliques of elite shitposters.

literally John Rawls the post
anyways yes if I could reformulate society any way I saw fit I would gladly accept the "lowest" station.

Democracy is good when everyone is educated and goes beyond their feelings. We don't have a democracy here in America. We have a corpocracy and idiot voters who think you have to vote for who is on the ballot. They also think if you don't like Trump then you must like Hillary and vice versa.

Nuke America.

you don't need a book to convince someone, just look at what happened with Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. This proves democracy is BROKEN.

Isn't that called capitalism? Please explain to me how this differs from our current American system

Leave. Even if you're just being ""ironic"".

Democracy is always the best form of government. It works best when people are well educated but even when things are bad they can be counteracted by checks from within the populace.

Someone brought up LOGH as an example that convinces people that democracy is broken but the overall message of that is that democracy is the best system even when it fails, similar to what Machiavelli wrote in The Discourses on Titus Livy. In the series Yang Wenli opines that by being lazy and failing to participate in their government the people have brought about their own ruin and they deserve the suffering they have wrought but that ultimately people should learn from it and be more civic minded in the future.

>reading books purely to reinforce your worldview

>And certainly it were a very idle occupation for private men to discuss what would be the best form of polity in the place where they live, seeing these deliberations cannot have any influence in determining any public matter. Then the thing itself could not be defined absolutely without rashness, since the nature of the discussion depends on circumstances. And if you compare the different states with each other, without regard to circumstances, it is not easy to determine which of these has the advantage in point of utility, so equal are the terms on which they meet. Monarchy is prone to tyranny. In an aristocracy, again, the tendency is not less to the faction of a few, while in popular ascendancy there is the strongest tendency to sedition. When these three forms of government, of which philosophers treat, are considered in themselves, I, for my part, am far from denying that the form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David.

>And as I willingly admit that there is no kind of government happier than where liberty is framed with becoming moderation, and duly constituted so as to be durable, so I deem those very happy who are permitted to enjoy that form, and I admit that they do nothing at variance with their duty when they strenuously and constantly labour to preserve and maintain it. Nay, even magistrates ought to do their utmost to prevent the liberty, of which they have been appointed guardians, from being impaired, far less violated. If in this they are sluggish or little careful, they are perfidious traitors to their office and their country. But should those to whom the Lord has assigned one form of government, take it upon them anxiously to long for a change, the wish would not only be foolish and superfluous, but very pernicious. If you fix your eyes not on one state merely, but look around the world, or at least direct your view to regions widely separated from each other, you will perceive that Divine Providence has not, without good cause, arranged that different countries should be governed by different forms of polity. For as only elements of unequal temperature adhere together, so in different regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best. All this, however, is said unnecessarily to those to whom the will of God is a sufficient reason. For if it has pleased him to appoint kings over kingdoms, and senates or burgomasters over free states, whatever be the form which he has appointed in the places in which we live, our duty is to obey and submit.

We have to have a democracy, first.