Why democracy is a failure intellectually

Thought experiment: You have 100 people in a room trying to decide on something. 60 of them know basically nothing about what you're trying to decide about. 20 of them just want whatever choice gives themselves the most. 5 people are educated about the topic and make informed decisions. 5 people are experts and know which options will benefit everyone as best they can.

Is it better to give everyone a vote and weigh everyone's vote the same, or is it better to let the people who are educated about the decision make the choice?

So you agree with, OP? Democracy is tyranny of the uneducated, selfish masses.

Yes, it is an inevitability

So what's the alternative? What OP suggests, technocratic rule by educated elites a la Plato?

Thought experiment
You have 100 people in a room trying to decide on something
20 of them say that the other 80 dont know anything and forbid the other 80 from voting, then voting for the thing that benefits them the most.
Is is better to give everyone a vote and weight everyones vote the same, or is it better to let a small group exclude everyone else, themselves pick whoever they think are the experts to join them and make dicisions for everybody
?

TIL a republic can't be democratic
why is the "but it's a Republic!!!" always a go-to talking point of buttblasted rwers

vs. what? Why isn't it ok for the masses to be "selfish"?

so how does this line of reasoning go against something like a representative democracy?

It's better to let the small group exclude the majority if they are uneducated and selfish and the minority are educated and accountable.

HAHAHAHAH EPIC LE ML ARE RED FASCISTS AHAHHAHAHA UPBOAT

And who would decide who is trustworthy minority?

The American style of republic is not democratic in large part. It's really district-based majorities that then translate to a compitetion between districts. It's why we have 2 senators from every state, even though some states have way fewer/more than others.
who cares? they'll always come up with a way around their cogdis
because a democracy allows people to re-institute slavery if they hold an enthic or politcal majority in the population if they wanted to.

it's worthless is what it is. trying to oppose democracy is going against all evidence in history. entropy is a constant in nature.

replace "democracy" with "capitalism" and now you know how the enemy thinks

Democracy is a failure because it's a farce. We have authoritarian governments right now, the average person decides fuck all.

there's your democratic disease creeping into your thoughts again

dont you think the current systems of authoritarian top-down rule are preferable to a true democratic, egalitarian society?

So the smart people magically appear and everyone freely relinquishes their control?

when capitalism has everything going against it, it's hard to say that the failure of capitalism isn't also an inevitability.
if "the enemy thinks" that way, then he wouldn't defend the status quo so violently and harshly. on the contrary, I think that's the opposite of how they think/.

rep demo is letting uneducated selfish people vote between two, corprate funded, lobbyist owned stooge to "represent" them in a government that's designed to help the donor class.

in a society without class this wouldn't be the case.

except the whole massive increase in quality of life for many capitalist countries. most people in America are not bummed about capitalism, i assure you. it's a country drowning in its own tears of joy over materialism and standard of living.

No because if authoritarian governments have proven anything throughout history it's that no single person is qualified enough to lead a nation.

Most of africa and asia is.

maybe without economic class, but there are inherent differences betwen people that will inevetably stratify people into different circles

who said anything about a single person? this is rule by a small circle of intellectuals, not one despot.

Wew learn what class is, retard

lolwut.jpg

and it hardly matters what they think compared to the people of the world that surrounds them.

There are inherent differences in intelligence, motivation, and compitence that will cause splits between the plebs and the intelligencia. this happens regardless of economic system.

Not when the world runs on US currency and America owns and runs the world.

Different social circles arent classes, you absolute retard.

who said social circles? I'm talking about hard divisions between ethnic, religious, and other groups. deeply islamic or christian neighborhoods will not stand for homosexual parades etc. there will be cultural division that will restrict access, just as economic class does today.

And time and time again the small circle of intellectuals advising the despot have been proven to be laughably incompetent about their field of "expertise". I see no reason to favour "intellectuals" over democracy between experienced merit promoted workers.

I hope you don't unironically think that's what capitalism is.

wtf are you talking about, are you drunk, user?

nigger if it's the 21st century and someone comes up to me defending economic classes, I'm going to assume they are defending capitalism.

Because a legal or economic scholar makes more informed decisions than lever-pullers in a factory.

Economic classes are defined held in place by capitalism. If you abolish capitalism, it's not as if everyone becomes an amorphous equal. There are many things that cause some to be professors while others become dish washers - outside of economic pressures etc. There are religious, cultural, racial, and intelligence differences that will inevetably give some more access and control, even if everyone is economically on the same page a la socialism.

division of labor =/= classes either. try again.

...

this is the same consequence as class, regardless of what narrow definition you subscribe to.

as opposed to what? a war demanded by 51% of the uninformed retards? and who's to say a given war won't be good for that society? not all war is a loss for every society involved.

...

The educated minority would be just yet another ignorant group making choices that most benefit them personally.
Ever notice how "smart" people always have these "common sense" solutions to problems? Drug addicted? Just stop taking drugs! Single mother struggling? Ya should have had the ability to see the future! Dumb and poor? Just be smart and awesome like me! Educated elites are just as clueless as any hood rat.

made me think of pic related

He types on his computer over the internet. You think hood rats are contributing valuable things to society?

If you have any basic knowledge about the history of war it's pretty much universally propgated by authoritarian governements and is especially popular in small intellectual ruling circles.
and who's to say a given war won't be good for that society? not all war is a loss for every society involved.
Name one(1) modern war that has not been a complete shitfest for both sides involved? How will taking labour away from production and wasting resources on war material going to help your society in anyway?

t. whines about an "uneducated" and "selfish" mass
maybe you should make a non-fallacious argument if you don't want to get one back in return.

Tell me about all your hidden assumptions behind educated, progress, and constitution user.

Whatever happened to the revolutionary socialist critique of democracy, my dudes? For shame.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm
>Political liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible slavery; the appearance of liberty, and therefore the reality of servitude. Political equality is the same; therefore democracy, as well as every other form of government, must ultimately break to pieces: hypocrisy cannot subsist, the contradiction hidden in it must come out; we must have either a regular slavery — that is, an undisguised despotism, or real liberty, and real equality — that is, Communism.

archive.org/details/al_Errico_Malatesta_Neither_Democrats_nor_Dictators_Anarchists_a4
>This is why we are neither for a majority nor for a minority government; neither for democracy not for dictatorship. We are for the abolition of the gendarme. We are for the freedom of all and for free agreement, which will be there for all when no one has the means to force others, and all are involved in the good running of society. We are for anarchy.

lacan.com/conceptsym.htm
>If democracy is a form of State, what preordained philosophical use proper can this category have? With Lenin the aim – or idea – of politics is the withering of any form of State, democracy included. And this could be termed generic Communism as basically expressed by Marx in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. Generic Communism designates a free associative egalitarian society where the activity of polymorph workers is not governed by regulations and technical or social articulations but is managed by the collective power of needs. In such a society, the State is dissolved as a separate instance from public coercion. Politics – much as it voices the interests of social groups and covets at the conquest of power – is de facto dissolved.

LMAO Bordiga literally makes the same critiques

Why OP is a failure intellectually: You make a basic logic mistake of the following form: B follows from A. A is not the case, therefor B is not true. You have not established that B only follows from premise A. Presupposition of
would be a good reason for democracy if it were true, and it isn't true, and therefor making that sort of argument is wrong, but it doesn't actually prove that democracy is unworkable. A roughly equal ability to fuck shit up if things don't go your own way would be also a reason for going with the majority. Reminder that some groups traditionally voted by raising swords, you simulate the violence instead of actually doing it, and the minority goes with the flow since that beats getting slaughtered. And have you never heard of the principle-agent problem? Even if it can be established who an expert is, it doesn't follow that the expert will do act better in your interests than you would, just because he is able to.