Democracy

Democracy is not a good system, and it isn't the best we have, either. Allow me to explain why.

The democratic leaders have limited terms. After (usually) four years, they're gone. In these four years, they can freely loot and plunder the nation, whereas a monarch has to make its resources last him for an entire lifetime, as well as that of his children. That the state isn't regarded as their property amplifies this effect. They can dispose of its use value, but not its capital value, so they will not have an incentive to take care of the latter. This is shown in how taxation exploded after 1918, with the downfall of monarchy in Europe. Before 1918, taxation tended to be around 10% of your income, now it can be as high as 50%.

When the state can freely take away your earnings and savings, then you will not earn and save that much. This tends to make people more shortsighted. Instead of planning ahead, they will live in the moment, and will not be interested in starting families, acquiring useful skills or making informed economic decisions. A process of devilization occurs. Crime and deviancy increases, which the state takes as an excuse to engage in ever more social planning.

With the voters becoming more and more shortsighted, with honest work becoming less profitable, and with the state giving them the tools to engage in plunder, the voters and the lobbyists will do just that. Interest groups will spring up and demand their "fair share" of the wealth of their nation. This is the tragedy of the commons all over again: It's like you had a limited grass field, and ten cattle herders letting their cows grace on it. Cooperation is a losing game; the most profitable course of action is to only look after yourself.

Democracy is not just a threat to the citizens, but one to the entire world. With the behavior of the state being a public affair, the frequency and the scope of war becomes worse. In old times, the kings had to fund their armies themselves, and when they conquered a region, they had to make use of the resources in it. They had no interest in conquering barren land, which is why collateral damage was unheard of and the lifes of their soldiers had a value. The people in conquered regions often stood by and watched as the armies fought. It was like entertainment for them. Driving the enemy off his land was usually the goal of the lords, not to vanquish him.

We can see the failure of democracy daily. Laws become more and more invasive, the people more dull and shortsighted, respect for the life and the property of others decreases. The only long-term solution is to abolish democracy.

Democracy is not about giving one man the power to control, it's about giving one man the reigns of representation, to put your problems forward on a grander platform than just your neighbours.
Those senators are your representatives, not your rulers.
Your President is your signatory, not your emperor.
You can stand up and be counted in a democratic state, unlike with other political ideaologies.
Start realising you can enact change, that those is Parliament work for and represent you, start making them listen, or be lost in the foreboding facist statist regime that will follow.

k

K.

The alternative is ditatorship. Or anarchy.

You are every different kind of idiot.

How do you make sure he represents you? Behind every representative, there's a few hundred thousand people he has never met which he is supposed to represent. There's absolutely no reliable way of making sure he actually does represent their interests or their will. Even if there was, legitimate minority interests could still be ignored by the majority. In a global democracy, the west would be plundered into oblivion by China and India.


Dictatorship is not monarchy. And both monarchy and anarchy are better options than democracy. Same with aristocracy.

Is that pic for real, or is it a falseflag from the chans?

Yes, idiot. Monarchy is literally ditatorship.

how did i make the same typo twice

*diCtatorship

Nope. The monarch owns his country. The dictator is its humble servant. Historically, monarchs and dictators acted nothing alike, because the former acted in their own interest, the dictators in the public interest, meaning that they can basically get away with everything.

No it's real. Google ciscrimes and see more shit.

I won't link it for obvious reasons.

A dictator unilaterally controls their country.

A monarch unilaterally controls their country.

You are an idiot.

Dictatorship is a good system, and it is the best we don't have.

any system where anyone rules over others without their consent is bad

Heil Hitler

Not really. Monarchs traditionally regarded themselves as bound by law. Until the 17th century, law was discovered, not created. The role of the king was to uphold this law and protect his realm. That meant respecting the property and the person of his subordinates. He acknowledged this duty, even if he failed to uphold it, but no dictator ever even went this far. Half-assing your obligations is better than denying them.

Besides, with the state as his property, the king was inclined to respect property per se. Again, no dictator does that. The state isn't their property, it belongs to "the people". There was even a notion that if the king abolished what was seen as the natural order, then his own claim to his kingdom fell.

...

Found the sauce.

From what I've read of Hoppe, he seems to say the decline really started when monarchs convinced everyone that the monarchy had the right to tax people without their consent.

Does this mean that prior to that monarchs taxed people with their consent?

good thing we don't live under a democracy

You do though

the pubic thinks we live in a democracy, officially we live in a Republic, but really we live under an oligarchy.
Don't be part of the general pubic, user.

What does it tell you about democracy when it always dissolves into oligarchy?

Dictatorship works in the middle east and Africa where as Democracy certainly doesn't.

But in the west where we have close to 100% literacy rate I think democracy can work quite well but only when it has the proper limitations on what the government can do. So it doesnt end up being two wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner.

It reminds us that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

...

One good limitation of government would be to make it so they cant remove the limitations of government.
But even that isnt going to be perfect.

Here in the UK it was during WW2 that many of our liberties were taken away for the good of the war effort. During that time the nation was in serious peril.

After the war ended of course no politician said anything about giving them back. And since then its just grown and grown.

If we werent pussies we would have took them out decades ago.

and who's gonna police that?

da people :-DD

Non cucked people.
There arent many left in the modern era.

you're right, there is no limit on the power of the state. Thats part and parcel of special moral authority the state has by definition.

not what I said

my point is that any restrictions on the state are worthless, and that the only solution is to not have a state at all

You could join BLM with that type of logic.

Only because people now are so cucked.

Look back at what the French did to their leaders when the power of the state got out of control.
They were all introduced to madame guillotine.


For fucks sake Ive just realized that modern people are more cucked than the French were several generations back.

Thanks internet. Now im sad.

tells me that when humans mix with scarcity, no systems, besides the most manipulative and aggressive systems, work

BLM is all about having a state to support their lazy asses

Nah Soros does that.

Their main argument is to get rid of the police and just have mob rule because the police arent perfect.

Serious question here to everyone

Why is anarchism such a bad choice?
The only real problem I see is people trying to murder and rob each other. But if there was like just one authority that would keep track of that, kinda like police, wouldn't that be possible?

Its the age old problem of who gets to decide the laws that the police enforce.

In our current system we can at least vote the politicians out of office if they make bad decisions.

Without an electoral system in place you are just hoping that the person who decides what the police can and cant enforce is not a deranged lunatic.

Imagine if some crazy SJW was given full control over what the police do. We would all be arrested for being white.

Sadly true.

What if the police would just enforce basic laws, which are based off of the simple idea of "live and let live"?
But if the police exploits their power? idk about how to easily fix that, without giving the population weapons to rebelate against that

...

gomunism best

So, you've allowed BLM to have a monopoly on bitching about the police brutalizing the population? When the police is targeting white people almost as bad, despite us committing far less crime? That's fucking pathetic. BLM may want to abolish the police, but these are the same people who want to expand the welfare state, and who have been influenced by fullblown commies like Eldridge Cleaver and Malcolm X.

A decentralized system works just as well. We answer that question once a week on >>>/liberty/, so you're welcome to join us there if you're interested. Or you can check out "The Machinery of Freedom" or "For a New Liberty", they both deal with that question. Bottomline is, the police really doesn't do a whole lot instilling respect for the law in the population. Private police has almost always worked better. The railway police did, for example. And the Wild West? Wasn't actually that violent. The homicide rates weren't extraordinary, and most victims were men in their prime who chose to battle.

This is probably incoherent as guck because I'm writing from my phone and I'm damn tired. Fuggg xDDD

If everyone could somehow agree on a basic set of laws that would work at first.
But as you pointed out its susceptible to the same issues because the problem here is power. We need to give someone power to stop the niggers rioting and taking everyone shit. But power always seeks to gain more power.

The founding fags of America were on to a really good thing when they created a limited government, with a finite amount of easy to understand rules that were difficult to change in any significant way. Im not an American by the way but lots of people like me admire the original US system from the outside.

The problem is they expected the whole thing to be torn down every generation or so because they knew about the power creep issue. But nobody bothered so now its grown in to some gigantic monster thats nothing like what was intended.

Benevolent dictatorships ftw.

Interesting thoughts.Thanks for the suggestions. Definitely going to check them out.


I touched the original US system only briefly. Will go inform myself over it deeper. SOunds like they were onto something, thanks.

benevolent dictatorship when?
we just need to find a person that is undeniably good
surely someone is right?

The only thing I would truly trust to rule humans, would be a machine.

but that machine was made by humans

But if it was a self-learning machine. It could absorb all knowledge and determine the best way to rule.

Now tell me how that is worse than "demo"cracy, fuckwit.

This, free bleeding and cucks are three things I wish we all had never invented.

No, user. That's just a modern american meme. Centuries ago, the French were hardcore.

Rapture was made by men.

kek, please.

If there was any modern ethnic group of people that were based as fuck it would be the dutch.

The dutch fought a rebellion against the spanish habsburgs in 1560-16?? a 80 year war in which they created probably the first republic in over a millennium.

They adopted modern systems of economy and manufacturing and defeated the British in two wars and in the third war they took over the British crown.

Read some history pal.

But keep on discussion how good the french, british/english and germans were. At least I know you were always inferior.

...

Have a bump!

I dislike democracy for a different reason, democracy is good in concept but the problem is that the majority of people are not good at making decisions when they are brainwashed by the media. All the disinfo fed to majority makes them very unreliable, if democracy is to work we must put an end to the mainstream media as we know it.

Democracy is one of the reasons why we have such shitty media to begin with. The other reasons are lower production costs (why produce only quality-material if you don't have to make a choice between shit and quality?) and a bigger demographic (why pander to academics when everyone else can read, too?). But democracy is responsible for late-night comedians in particular, the final boss of public reason.

We know, and I'm in America and I know.

...

...

...

...

Great false dichotomy there user, we already live under a dictatorship if you live in democracy your oppressed by a mob and a oligarchy that naturally comes to power because the mob relies upon them. It may not be a single person but you can bet your ass that they unilaterally own the country you live in and will get you to do whatever they please in there own interest because the mob will let them. The entire system that was supposed to save us from monarchy was a scam i dont like monarchy either but i would take a benevolent monarch over countless malevolent oligarchs any day.

welcome to the national socialist camp
next you need to study genetics

what would even be wrong with a monarchy if all were treated justly? benevolent kings are theoretically not bad options
also pic related