Is democracy a dumb idea? Was it doomed to fail from the beginning? What is the best form of government?

Is democracy a dumb idea? Was it doomed to fail from the beginning? What is the best form of government?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

primogeniture monarchy

Limited democracy where tards, nigs and women can't vote.

A system with a man at the lead who loves his country

no, democracy has a flexibility. the issue, that maybe was difficult to foresee was
this is why 3/5th law, pushes for basic civil education etc. they all tie back to portions that vote with emotions, which is the antithesis of the intention of democracy. it's basically monarchy where you wave at a king/queen, or have 75% of the congress like putin, or an autocracy where you trade seats every few years

also jews and guys under 30

>implying the number of jew votes matter

Best system is one where a king is elected, serves maybe 10 years, then a new king is elected.

i like the concept of military or some service, and proof that you understand civics and the system itself. just turning 18 and not being a felon is a little odd.

In threads like this people often propose that you should have basic understanding of politics, economics etc to be able to vote, but the problem I'm seeing is that there are plenty of people who do have "basic" understanding and yet are very much in favor of unfeasible policies. Even limited democracy will not work, although it may make it less likely that certain parties can secure themselves the votes of the uneducated, poor, women, minorities, etc.

Making Democracy dependent on prior military service is the best.

Fascism and monarchism are over reliant on too few people with too much power and too few checks and balances.

Smaller tribes or clans are the best form of government.

>What is the best form of government?
Monarchy

this

the philosophical argument, which ties well with greece and the forums, the democratic incubator, is that a good democracy necessarily demands disagreements. the issue i tried to point out is that many argue from uninformed positions.

..autocracy :^)

Enlightened absolutism.

No government

Direct democracy

Eugenics and forcing parents to stay together through their children's development securely - with fears of imprisonment, or worse. That solves the majority of the worlds issues. People with personality disorders which were caused by their upbringing, primarily, are the bane of society: Criminals, CEOs, Politicians, etc. We must use our knowledge of evolutionary biology to shape our civilizations accordingly.

>rats worshipping a mouse
>white people worshipping a kike
>the superior race worshipping an untermensch
What an apt picture.

>People with personality disorders which were caused by their upbringing, primarily, are the bane of society

>tfw this is me

It's not my fault. I didn't ask to be born. ;-;

lil hill

...

If a bunch of people can't be trusted to make decisions, then why should one or a few people be trusted to do the same?

A Republic is slightly preferable in that there's recourse. But the public still has to select competent representatives.

youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8
youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8
youtube.com/watch?v=ViN7rzPuXq8

watch this shit you cucked shill faggots

answers op's Q

Yes exactly. Also consider the fact that those are real, living rats worshipping a fake cartoon mouse. Think about that.

democracy : 51% gets what they want 49% can fuck off.
couple that with 2 party system and now 25.5% gets exactly what they want and everyone else gets fucked , still better than authoritarianism where

Democracy is dumb for one simple reason: It always polarizes into two sides who devolve into eternal shitflinging where they think their side has all the answers, and the other side is literally subhuman.

So that aspect must be removed from democracy. Which means ideology has to go. Politics should be purely a fact-based profession, and any new proposal should be supported by scientific research. If none exists, a proposal should be made to start research, and people should vote on that to see if they think it's worthwhile.

Say you want to change the prison system. You gather literature on rehabilitatian, present that in a coherent fashion, and then allow a vote to see if people think we should spend money on that. If not enough literature exists, a vote should be made about outfitting a model prison that tests the theory.

Of course, the idea of applying science scares both parties. Because the lefties KNOW that their multiculturalism immigration bullcrap is a net loss to any country, and the righties KNOW their religious ideas can not be supported by science.

But fuck it, that's the best system. One shored up by fact and devoid of ideological parties.