Maybe democracy can't work unless it's by a public show of hands. Can't work well, anyway, without being subverted by ill-intended groups of cronies.
No system of government will run without issues.
True, but not all systems are equal. Some, such as monarchy, are a great deal better.
The history of monarchies don't support that statement, since the very premise of them is basically a warlord who was so amazing and suppressing everyone else that they forced their progeny down everyone's throats for generations.
That wouldn't work either in a community of substantial size.
Democracy always advances the most pompous and boastful.
There's a canton in Switzerland where they vote by show of hands. Men carry a weapon to the voting place because you have to show you're ready to fight if called on, and women got the vote only recently.
Every system of government starts with armed force being used to establish it. There's literally never been any state that came into being otherwise.
The benefit of monarchy is that the ruler is trained from birth in how to rule, and that the ruler is not required to actively seek out rule, and thus is free to be humble.
Democracy advances the most boastful, since in order to win elections you have to be able to convince others of your own virtue, which is something that the vicious are better at.
I might also add, that if you look at the record of Christianity, its pretty unequivocal how it is aligned. Christianity used the imagery of monarchy even though Rome was legally a republic (and that was the case until after it became Christian). From the fall of Rome until the enlightenment, Europe's Christian governments were almost universally monarchist, and the secular forces of the enlightenment were democratic.
The difference is that one doesn't do it in perpetuation and expense of the following generations.
It's the difference between dispersion of power and consolidation of power.
Because monarchs were totally defined by their humbleness and doesn't breed entitlement and contempt for the lower castes...
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
Read more: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say | Why the Best Candidate Never Wins | Psychology
Interesting.
But the arguments against democracy are still applicable.
True, but not all systems are equal. Some, such as monarchy, are a great deal better.
I don't think most people are too stupid, because we have people on tv, radio, and online that break down complicated things for us. I think we have a hard time finding good candidates because so many of them lack the integrity and/or ability to do what they say they they're going to do. We leave them in office until there's a catastrophe or massive scandal because we don't have faith that the next politician won't do the same.
I would prefer a Christian (read conservative Protestant) Theocracy.
Despotism is never preferable to even the worst form of democracy. Democracy at it's worst concentrates power in the hands of a few wealthy, powerful people but despotism puts power in the hands of one. Society under despotism is best where it's least touched by the dictator/monarch/mogul, whatever you want to call him. You and Ignatius J. Reilly may long for a benevolent medievalism where a paternal feudal system and stern religious authority maintained strict order but that ideal has never been any more real than Ward and June Cleaver and the myth of the '50's.
I would prefer a Christian (read conservative Protestant) Theocracy.
Autocratic power is in principle better than oligarchic, because while the oligarchs must engage in all sorts of shady dealings to obtain lower, the autocrat need only be born.
It's not a myth, it happened. You seem to be making the mistake of interpreting me as a utopian. I've never claimed that the Middle Ages were a utopia, just that they were the best era to have actually happened in reality.
Since Protestantism doesn't have a central hierarchy, literal theocracy (rule by clergy) would be impossible. So I assume you mean a Protestant confessional state, but then the question is still, what form of government?
Interesting how the PEOPLE who constantly point out how stupid PEOPLE are typically think this statement does not apply to them.
Even more amusing is how they also tend to believe that if they were in charge things would be so much better. :roll:
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies.
Read more: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say | Why the Best Candidate Never Wins | Psychology
Every system of government starts with armed force being used to establish it. There's literally never been any state that came into being otherwise.
The benefit of monarchy is that the ruler is trained from birth in how to rule, and that the ruler is not required to actively seek out rule, and thus is free to be humble.
Democracy advances the most boastful, since in order to win elections you have to be able to convince others of your own virtue, which is something that the vicious are better at.
I might also add, that if you look at the record of Christianity, its pretty unequivocal how it is aligned. Christianity used the imagery of monarchy even though Rome was legally a republic (and that was the case until after it became Christian). From the fall of Rome until the enlightenment, Europe's Christian governments were almost universally monarchist, and the secular forces of the enlightenment were democratic.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Lenin, Robenspierre, the list goes on of bad democratic rulers.
Uh.....you have a very interesting idea of democracy, seeing as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc were all dicatators......
They all ruled over democratic regimes.
No. No they really didn't.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Stimmzettel-Anschluss.jpg
I'm surprised anyone honestly thinks ****ing Hitler lead a "democratic regime"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?