Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Is democracy a failed experiment?
ROMMEL | 
Finland NationalSocialist 
Hello fellow HLTV users! I am here bringing you a question about democracy and whether it is a good system for running a country or not. I would like to hear your opinions on this topic as well. All comments are encouraged! Even in Ancient Greece, the birthplace of democracy as we know it, people questioned the effectiveness of Democracy as a governing format. One of the most famous people questioning this was the philosopher Plato, who thought that people in general were stupid and most of them should not be allowed to vote about what to do. I feel like this has been proven more and more the longer we have had democraties in place nowadays. I mean just look at twitter, it's full of retards. Democracies promise people that they can effect the decisions countries make regarding specific issues. This is the case, but only to a small extenct. Especially in a representative democracy, where the decisions are made by these represetatives, people don't actually have a lot of voice. An election circle lasts most often 4-6 years depending on the country etc. Most important decisions can't even be made during this one circle, but rather they have to be accepted by the succeeding government as well. That means that the opinions of people can't change over a 6 year period if decisions are to be made. And if the opinions change again at some point, all of the decisions could be easily reversed, so there won't really be any change at all in the long run as the opinions of people change. Is this productive in the long run? Democracies also create more clear divides between the members of a country, as evidenced by for example the United States. These divides make the countries weaker and less effective, because the people are more focused on fighting with each other rather than focusing on actually important things. What good does this divide do? And is it necessary? Any thoughts, opinions and comments are appreciated!
2018-10-20 18:57
Name checks out.
2018-10-20 18:58
Hey I didn't say what would be the alternative, just asking whether democracy works
2018-10-20 18:59
Better than socialism
2018-10-20 19:00
Democratic socialism
2018-10-20 20:32
socialism is a economical System where as demeocracy is a political System. cant really compare These two
2018-10-20 20:33
#106
 | 
India ShoXxieJesus 
+1
2018-10-21 13:04
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
2018-10-20 18:58
wow cool you stand above everyone with your deep quotes and stuff
2018-10-20 19:14
He is dutch bro, he is superior to everyone.
2018-10-21 00:05
hes a fucking retard who clearly has no clue what hes talking about
2018-10-21 00:11
He went to a liberal arts college and now he is enlightened...
2018-10-21 00:12
churchill hater spotted
2018-10-21 21:01
#3
 | 
Ukraine Edddddd 
If country has stupid people democracy is bad
2018-10-20 18:59
every country has atleas 75% stupid people. look how the nations treat the world.
2018-10-20 19:08
Leaders with no checks and balances will soon burn books. Those who burn books end up burning people too
2018-10-20 20:34
#6
 | 
United States TriHardSeven 
National Socialism best
2018-10-20 19:00
#7
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
Is the least bad I guess, the alternatives are worse.
2018-10-20 19:00
Honestly I think that a system like that in the Roman Empire would be best (e.g a person is ruler and chooses the best possible candidate in their opinion)
2018-10-20 19:03
#17
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
History has shown that dictatorships more often that not are very bad for the common people.
2018-10-20 19:05
Always have to remember that winners write history. Also, it's not really fair to compare dictatorships/ one ruler systems from 2000 years ago when the quality of life was lower either way. And latest dictatorships were really ruined because of war.
2018-10-20 19:07
#34
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
No, the 20th century has been full of failed dictatorships. And what societies today are considered the best to live in for normal people?
2018-10-20 19:23
Hitler, Mussolini were ruined by war. Franco did alright. Stalin, Lenin were pretty horrible, as was SU in general. So basically I am seeing that communistic dictatorships didn't work out.
2018-10-20 19:25
#40
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
Oh yes, and people were treated well and equal under the rule of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco...
2018-10-20 19:27
Hitler and Mussolini again had to deal with the war, which obviously lowered the living standards. As for Franco, give me some problems in their lives?
2018-10-20 19:29
#49
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
Before the war, plenty of people were put away without proper trial in all those countries. Anyway, I think you really need to think things through again if you believe that dictatorship is better than democracy. You didn't even mention the most obvious "successful" dictatorship and listed some of the worst...
2018-10-20 19:33
I listed the ones in the 20th century that most people come to think of when thinking about dictatorships. The most succesful system and the one we should strive towards is the one Ancient Rome had for some time in place. And I do realize that there is basically no chance of us changing the system back to monarchies/dictatorships, I am just pointing out that it would be benefitial for us to consider alternatives for democracies.
2018-10-20 19:37
#54
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
Yes, and all those dictatorships were failures as a society that was good for common people. And you haven't thought it through properly or are just too stupid. You would strive for a system where an idiot son can take over from his idiot father? Surely you can see that is worse than people elect someone bad, who will at least only be there for a few years, or at worst for a long time, ending up as a dictator...
2018-10-20 19:42
No, that's why I said that only a part. I am refering to the golden age of Ancient Rome, when the current emeperor chose their successor based on ability and merit, which secured that the most competent people did become the emperors. This was obviously broken when Commodus became the emperor, which indirectly started the downfall of Rome in some senses, although the start is often pointed to being when Hadrian decided to stop expanding.
2018-10-20 19:49
#61
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
Then how do you explain all the crazy emperors before Commodus? And they more often than not didn't select the most competent, they selected their favorite son or family member. So you would prefer a crazy dictator select the next crazy dictator... And you think that is better than people selecting a candidate themselves?
2018-10-20 19:54
fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoninus_Pius fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrianus fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajanus fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerva These were basically the five emperors that got to choose their respective followers without there being a war. 4 out of 5 of them were able to choose a very competent follower for them and this caused the Roman Empire to flourish. And no, I don't think it is better than people selecting a candidate for them, because people are stupid as fuck and would make stupid decisions. There is a much higher chance for a good leader to make good decisions regarding their succesor than a bad person being elected and surviving without people revolting especially since they know what democracy is like.
2018-10-20 19:59
#67
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
And you can find a lot more bad emperors...
2018-10-20 20:01
Yes, but those bad emperors weren't chosen by their predecessors but rather they took power by force or by inheriting the title, which is not what I am advocating for.
2018-10-20 20:06
#71
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
No, but that's what often happens with dictators, they often get killed and another one takes over...
2018-10-20 20:07
That's what happens with elected leaders as well, what is the difference? It is acceptable for them to not do anything because you chose them?
2018-10-20 20:09
#77
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
No, dictators get killed a lot more often than elected leaders. Also countries with elected leaders also wage a lot less war than dictatorships.
2018-10-20 20:17
#68
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
Also, those "good" emperors werent really good measured by modern standards. What do you think they did with dissidents?
2018-10-20 20:03
Measured by modern standards no one was good until about 50 years ago, so your logic is flawed. The empire of Rome was ridiculously huge, and there were no means for communicating as there are now, so expecting the emperors to be able to satisfy the needs of all their dissidents in the same way that elected people do today is dumb.
2018-10-20 20:07
#73
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
And yet you wan't to advocate for a system that didn't even work back then...
2018-10-20 20:08
It didn't work back then because it had no means to work back then as it has to work today.
2018-10-20 20:10
#78
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
It didn't work back then because it was a failed experiment...
2018-10-20 20:17
+1
2018-10-20 20:34
they weren't "ruined" by war, they idealized it. mussolini romanticized war as an extension of radical nationalism while hitler needed it mostly for "practical" reasons for the lebensraum. war was a core principle in their ideologies which was also their demise.
2018-10-21 21:11
I do understand that they did have a taste for war, obviously. Especially in the case of Hitler, his need of war was tied very closely to the climate of the world at that moment, because Germany lost WW1 and was heavily punished for it. In my opinion if circumstances were other than what they were, Hitler would not have necessarily gotten the support he did, yes, but also if elected, we can’t realistically say that he would’ve caused another war. I think that blaming WW2 only on Hitler is lying to oneself, and there were a lot of other factors in play, with him obviously being one of them. If a Fascist country did rise to power in todays world, I refuse to believe that it would run around starting wars.
2018-10-21 21:24
#24
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
Only in communism, otherwise they weren’t that bad for the common people unless you were a commie degenerate who fought against he system
2018-10-20 19:08
#37
Friis | 
Denmark baitzera 
Not true, the 20th century has been full of failed dictatorships that weren't communist.
2018-10-20 19:24
#91
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
Most of the Facist weren’t too bad and mostly failed due to communist terrorirsts funded by other nations. Except for Hitler and Mussolini who really failed cause of WW2 which Germany would’ve won if USA joined their side like we should’ve
2018-10-20 20:47
+1
2018-10-20 19:27
0/8
2018-10-20 19:01
Did you even read my post? Hint: Check your name
2018-10-20 19:02
0/8
2018-10-20 19:02
Did you even read my post? Hint: Check your name
2018-10-20 19:02
#11
ropz | 
Germany VeryNoGuy 
Well, most successful nations are democratic nowadays, it seems to work better than other systems
2018-10-20 19:02
There are too few alternative systems to really make a case for the differences in my opinion.
2018-10-20 19:04
There have been and there are still tons of dictatorships and alternatives to democracy around the world. The vast majority are unsuccessful. The idea that these dictatorships are corrupted by war, religion or other circumstances is fine, but at some point you have to start looking at the actual system as a problem. Honestly I could just as easily argue for communism, yes communism has proven to be a terrible political and economical ideology, but none of history's examples show "true communism" because true Utopian communism would work. (note that I'm not actually arguing for communism, rather just following your logic)
2018-10-20 19:23
I see what you mean. I could however argue that monarchies are/were basically dictatorships (in the sense that there is one king who rules), in which case throughout history there have been more succesful than not succesful implementations of governing systems with a single party making the decisions.
2018-10-20 19:27
But then I could argue that vast majority of people living under these systems were dirt poor and lived harsh unforgiving lives. Which is more a consequence of the time than the political system, but you're not going to really get anywhere with this arguing. Instead look at the system itself. Do you believe that a rulers ability to rule should be legitimized by inheritance, or even worse, as a gift given by whatever god society subscribes to? The legitimization of power is honestly one of the core concepts of democracy, why should you rule over someone else?
2018-10-20 19:59
No. I think that leaders shouldn't be legitimized by inheritence or as a gift of a god. I think that leadership should be passed by the leader choosing the best possible successor based on merit, ability and competence, as Ancient Romans did for a short while until Marcus Aurelius chose his son, which proved to be a mistake. As to how the first leader would be chosen, that could be some kind of a public vote. I think that legitimization of power by the masses is troubling, because they really do make bad choices in general, and I feel that one person would be able to make a better choice compared to the public as a whole more often than not, as long as they'd choose fairly, which can be a problem.
2018-10-20 20:04
Then how are you going to get competing ideas out there? Do you really think any ruler will choose a successor that hasn't been completely vetted and chosen to carry on his specific vision? We already have this problem in countries like Angola, where the next president is just a disciple of the former. I can appreciate your concern with allowing everyone a vote, but the systems you are proposing seem even more prone to corruption and especially the suppression of ones own people. What if the government is terrible and needs to be changed? How do you peacefully remove someone from power and choose their successor. The Roman empire is a great example of a system where this simply didn't work. During the crisis of the third century, emperors averaged two years in power before they were killed in mutiny and whoever had the most soldiers took over power.
2018-10-20 20:16
I mean my vision of this system is obviously always going to be an ideal version of what would happen. That said... I do think that the rulers would necessarily have to have the same kind of ideas about everything, so I think that the specific vision of a ruler would always be similar in some aspects, but not nearly all, at least not necessarily. Even if the person is vetted as showing similar sort of opinions regarding key topics, the actions could be different. A way to fix this problem would be to have the same sort of a re-election every for example three emperors. This would mean that a system would really be given a chance to rule, and after more than likely 100+ years there could be another decision made to judge fairly how the leaders did. I agree that the process of removing someone would be difficult in this system. Again my proposition stated before could in the long term fix this problem, but it would be a problem in the short term. I don't really have a good fix for this, at least a nonviolent. Of course the public has always the option of revolting if the ruler is trurly unbearable, but it wouldn't be a nonviolent way. The Roman empire is also a great example of how the system can be great, as shown by the five good emperors, who did exactly as I suggest, selected their candidates, before Marcus Aurelius' fatal mistake.
2018-10-20 20:26
#13
KRIMZ | 
India EosTheMG 
Forsaken messed up during democracy so yes it is faulty
2018-10-20 19:03
Problem is women are allowed to vote.
2018-10-20 19:04
#27
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
+1 Women and poor people are the problem. Women tend to vote with emotion instead of logic and are easily manipulated. Poor people are usually stupid and just get manipulated by thinking they will get free shit.
2018-10-20 19:10
Being rich does not make you smart. Just look at Trump, Kanye, the Kardashians, Paris Hilton, etc..
2018-10-20 19:32
#93
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
Trump is very smart Kanye is the smartest rapper Kardashians are geniuses that play dumb You do realize they put a dumb act up but they are actually way smarter than you will ever be. But you are right being rich doesn’t make you smart, but being smart keeps you rich. Look at NFL players and NBA players so many who earn millions in their career end up living broke by the time they retire cause they go out and spend stupid money on cars, Jewelry, houses they can’t afford, etc. instead of investing and creating family wealth. Smart people become wealthy, kinda smart people become rich, and stupid people stay poor.
2018-10-20 20:53
by your logic you must be very poor because that is the most retarded thing I have read all week
2018-10-21 00:01
#103
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
What did I write that was retarded? Can you point out exactly what I said or will you just use emotional insults like typical poor liberals?
2018-10-21 01:21
Yeah I'm not gonna argue with an obvious baiter
2018-10-21 13:03
#107
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
Expected, no points just emotions get out of here
2018-10-21 16:47
lmao kys
2018-10-21 18:22
#109
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
And it continues expected from actual low iq retard
2018-10-21 18:54
> murican flag > saying other people have low IQ lmao the hypocrisy. It's well known that the average american IQ is inversely proportional to the BMI
2018-10-21 19:31
#111
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
And the pointless emotion filled insults continue
2018-10-21 19:31
> actual low iq retard and how would you call that ?
2018-10-21 19:41
#115
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
A return to your insult, that you started and kept pushing. Yet you still never answered my first question.
2018-10-21 19:47
wat question. All I see is retarded ramblings from a lunatic
2018-10-21 19:49
#119
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
#103
2018-10-21 20:50
Is that your BMI ?
2018-10-21 20:55
#122
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
And here we go again...
2018-10-21 20:58
here we go what
2018-10-21 21:03
Poor parents are an inverse role model. Only rich people should be allowed to reproduce. Thanks to their parents' selfish decision, poor people have to either go back to wage cucking one day or kill themselves (the self-preservation instinct in humans is very strong. This is why very few humans manage to complete suicide). Or maybe try their luck getting their money to stretch in a third world country. If you are working class and you're not willing to kill the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production, you should not be allowed to reproduce. It is selfish to birth your children into wage cuck slavery. My friend's dad (poor loser) thinks my friend (pretty smart dude acutally) is an ungrateful brat. But he dropped a nuclear black pill on him the other day. "You gave all those decades to your employer and now you are retired and what did you get out of giving so many years to your employer?" But he's like "I know but that is life. Your life could be much worse right now. You should be grateful for what you have." People like his dad would be virgins in 2018. And they deserve to be virgins. It's a good thing that none of these faggots are reproducing. They would just create more miserable people like themselves. My friend is now in debt because of university. He might live a slightly better live than his parents, but chances are he'll never escape the slavery. What if a year from now he's diagnosed with Stage IV Cancer or some shit? What's the point in wage cucking for a future that might never be there for you? If he was diagnosed with Stage IV Cancer tomorrow and only had a few months to live like his mom did when she was diagnosed, he would feel like he wasted my life and never got to enjoy his money fully. I thank my grandparents daily for "making it", they were actually the 1 in 100 of poor people who make it. Most of the suffering I see comes from poor people. As you said, they really are stupid and make the wrong the decisions.
2018-10-20 19:41
#126
 | 
Finland Jansk1h 
It's pointless to worry about what ifs. YIf you keep worrying about the future youll never start working today, and working today is what makes the future better. Your friend is in debt now but if he gets a job he should be able to pay back his student debt relatively easy. Your friend has gotten important knowledge and hopefully he finds a fulfilling job where he can implement and utilize the knowledge in a meaningful way. I agree that "wage cucking" as you say can be very soul crushing, but thats why o ne needs to have something else in ones life that gives meaning to it, like a hobby or a family. And look on the bright side, modern people have shorter work days than say 100 years before.
2018-10-21 21:23
Imo it's the best system we can have. It's slow and sometimes ineffective, but it keeps most of the population happy. Much better than autocracy anyways
2018-10-20 19:06
I think that an autocracy could be better if the ruler was chosen carefully.
2018-10-20 19:08
Definitely not. Public opinion changes extremely quickly, and it's impossible for a leader on the very top to keep in touch with the population.
2018-10-20 19:10
But that's exactly my problem with democracy. Public opinion changes extremely quickly. How do you think that kings etc. were able to run countries before the concept of democracy was implemented? There were only a handful of actual riots, mainly in France and then in 1848.
2018-10-20 19:24
Times were so different back then. The majority of the population didn't have a pot to piss in. This was way before centralized governments, so it's ridiculous to make that argument bro.
2018-10-20 19:26
Times were different, yes. How exactly does the wealth of the population effect how good of a system democracy is? All I am saying is that kings could make decisions more efficiently than our centralized governments, and most of the political parties in the end drive same sort of things, with very minor differences in their policies, with a few exceptions that don't really get any votes and even if they were voted in wouldn't do anything different.
2018-10-20 19:33
Dude are you crazy? Times were HORRIBLE back then. Vast majority were dirt poor and all the power and wealth were at the elites who controlled everything. It was cruel times. Just because the kings could make retarded decisions efficiently, while 95% of the population suffered, doesn't make it a good system.
2018-10-20 19:41
What are you basing those numbers on? There was next to no wealth in the world anyway at that point, and while the kings were taking wealth for themselves, yes, what part of being a king requires that. For example in the 1800s or the 1700s in France or Austria there weren't really these sorts of problems anymore. And again, democracy has not started to share the wealth equally, it isn't the doing of democracy.
2018-10-20 19:47
"akshutally according to austrian kingdoms in the 1700s" dude you are out of line
2018-10-20 20:25
#128
 | 
Finland Jansk1h 
95% of the population didnt suffer because of the king, they suffered because the times were like that. There was no cure to bad crops or disease or whatever. Medieval and feodalist systems didnt help the poor man tho tbh, actually probably made the calamities much worse
2018-10-21 21:28
I'm talking about wealth inequality bro.
2018-10-21 22:10
problem is stay-at-home voter
2018-10-20 19:06
in democracy the law works only for poor people not for the rich...they can get away with any kind of crime they have money they have freedom.
2018-10-20 19:06
#28
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
You mean law only works for rich in democracy?
2018-10-20 19:11
100%
2018-10-20 19:50
yes. dictature of majority taxationistheft!
2018-10-20 19:10
+1 And the majority is easily swayed by the medias. Essentially making democracy a minority dictatorship.
2018-10-20 19:12
#30
 | 
United States Pinkcow88 
I agree
2018-10-20 19:12
Your life would be trash without taxation. No streets, no public transport, no healthcare.. Yeah good luck with that
2018-10-20 19:33
lmaoooooooo. u forgot internet, food, housing
2018-10-20 19:54
Oh yeah, democracy definitely has major flaws (like the ones you mentioned) but a lot of countries probably keep it because we have already seen in the past with kings and such that the majority of citizens doesn't feel represented (and they want to feel represented) by a king or a small group of aristocrats for example. Also, what other system could we both use and realistically change to?
2018-10-20 19:14
I agree on your point of the people not feeling represented, and I agree that there isn't really a way to change the governing system to a more favorable one now that we have tasted the power of voting so to say. In my opinion the best option would be to have a single person as the ruler with the ability to choose their successor based on merit. None of the heriting shit, that causes good and bad leaders, which isn't really useful
2018-10-20 19:35
I'm with you man. I think that I would be prepared to give up my right to vote (feels like voting does nothing anyway) IF and only IF a strong and competent leader that doesnt believe in ancient bullshit like war and racism could be appointed. Someone who is logical and rational. If a person has those two things, I dont think that he/she can fail, at least not by their own hand.
2018-10-20 21:18
democracy never really existed, it was just a bait from the elite to better control the sheep...
2018-10-20 19:24
Decentralized monarchy feudal style is the best system. Mob rules are divisive and promote the lowest common denominator.
2018-10-20 19:28
it would work better if ppl would just vote aligned to their financial interests but they rather vote based on personality of politicians and debates and other nonsense which doesnt matter
2018-10-20 19:32
#55
 | 
Germany Delf1n 
I guess a simple one-man leadership can work with the right human because its much much more efficent than democracy, but the problem lies within the person who has such a high position ,who will most likely abuse his power and create a dictatorship which would be bad for the normal inhabitants. Thats why democracy is maybe not perfect but better than a one man leadership.
2018-10-20 19:43
democracy is a fking joke it's just a form of milking stupid people that governments made
2018-10-20 19:50
Was it plato or socrates ? Questioning democracy i mean .
2018-10-20 19:54
Democracy isnt perfect. It is just better than the worst.
2018-10-20 19:55
#64
 | 
Finland BOMBDOGE 
Democracy is a dictatorship of the moral majority… and the majority is manipulated and ruled by the state mafia. Modern western democracy has nothing to do with freedom or justice; it is totalitarian and corrupted system. Laws are made over the heads of the people and people are being brainwashed to support the system and connected to the institutional structures immediately after their birth. Societies are being ruled by manipulative and charismatic politicians who only care about the interests of majority, and who do not base their decisions on reason but emotions and feelings of the masses. These masses let the authorities of state to make all the important decisions for them. The masses will get an education, they study, get a job, go to work and vote in elections. They think they are free and don’t criticise or question the system. They have become robots. It is like a constructed mechanism in mind, that leaves little choice for an individual to think, talk and act independently.
2018-10-20 19:57
Democracy is the best system possible, what one can argue is about ways to make it more effective and disruptive to corrupt powers. I think that the american system is pretty legit, people can vote in the middle of the presidential mandate for parliament, so if the president is doing a bad job, they can bring in more people to the opposite side. Democracy is the only system that can guarantee power rotation, that gives new ideas power to grow and be effective. We should always be critic about these stuff, but political history has shown us that nothing can regulate better the society than popular vote. With all its problems, democracies are still the best option. This is why the best countries in the world have solid democracy institutions, pro-market policy, respect human rights and are aiming towards the reduction of enviromental destruction.
2018-10-20 20:20
democracy is stockholm syndrome...
2018-10-20 20:24
#83
 | 
Poland ez271 
ofc democracy is bad but it's fair and the average citizen has the impression that he has an impact on the fate of the country
2018-10-20 20:31
0/8
2018-10-20 20:36
a good dictator makes Democracy unnecesary
2018-10-20 20:36
The best system but its not perfect in its current shape right know.
2018-10-20 20:38
#92
 | 
Japan hirohito 
monarchy>>>democracy
2018-10-20 20:48
#95
 | 
France mintzz 
I actually agree with Plato, I've been interested in his point of view for some time. Voting should remain within a smaller sphere. Intellectuals, who are properly informed about the world around them. Philosophers, scientists, and other people who have proven their intellectual abilities by becoming leaders in their own field. These would be representatives, successful people who are able to gather data from each field and think of ideas they would put in front of a council which would take votes for the best of the country first, and the people next (a strong and succesful country may not be in the interests of people today, but it certainly will be tomorrow). The regular people are usually too stupid to make the right choices. How many vote and yet don't know anything of the economic and political situation?
2018-10-20 23:47
democracy is a dictatorship of stupidity.
2018-10-21 00:05
I didnt know there were any countries who were a democracy. All countries went to federalist republic a little bit ago.
2018-10-21 00:08
No it's not. It's the best system possible. Democracy with an uninformed population turns to tyranny though.
2018-10-21 00:09
i read all. i hardly understand some things that u said but....................In general: what I THINK is: The problem is that we (humans) jsut try to find the good. (I mean) we want comunism-capitalism..... absolutism-liberalism......And we wanna think that theres only one valid..... that there is GOOD or BAD. And thats the problem, because all of us have opinion and an opinion is DIFFERENT, my opinion is different to yours. So in my opinion ONE THING is good but if YOU think ISNT GOOD. (thats the problem) So life is not good or bad white or black men or woman. And the real problem is that when we talk about this, when we "argue" we wanna BE RIGHT.I dont know why but its what i think. I mean, we wanna be right and share with others....i dont know why...maybe because it makes us feel good, differents,, unique..... So thats my idea..... (not all) but right now i dont know how to continue explaining it)
2018-10-21 01:31
Just fuck off, literal Nazi -_-
2018-10-21 19:32
xaxaxaxaxa
2018-10-21 20:56
Non't
2018-10-21 19:43
The reason why democracy fails is because of the people controlling and exploiting it, such as rich people, politicians, governments, etc etc
2018-10-21 19:51
Hoppes agree Physical remove lul
2018-10-21 19:51
you approach the problem incorrectly. the problem is that humans are deeply flawed and are easily corrupted. the whole idea of modern democracies is to redistribute as much power as possible in order to make the "leader" incapable of causing too much harm. the same is true for the lawmakers and the judges. some systems do a better job than others. democracy is undoubtedly flawed for the reasons you've mentioned. the best scenario would be to have a single ruler or perhaps an elitist government composed of people who are the best in their field while being completely altruistic and caring only about their country and citizens. the difficulty is to create a mechanism that would ensure that person or people are incorruptible. if you can't do that you are bound to fail and end up as another corrupted, dystopian shithole. i've toyed with some ideas in the past of how ensuring incorruptible leadership could work. you'd prolly need a closed system of sorts where the leaders are being trained from young age similarly to what you have in ender's game. there a lot of problems with it though. firstly, how do you ensure the system is closed? as in, how do you ensure the teachers or some external actors won't influence the process and corrupt the next generation of leaders? creating the first generation would extremely difficult and im not even sure how you'd go about selecting and training the teachers. secondly, is being incorruptible even possible? can we be certain that the will to dominate isn't hardwired within us? how do you evaluate a future leader and ensure they are "the best" and altruistic at the same time. those two are hard to combine. being such a leader would be a self-sacrifice of sorts. this would require almost a zealous dedication which in itself is extremely dangerous. democracy is a much safer solution because instead of attempting to get an optimal solution and risk ending up with a really awful solution, it settles for the least worst solution. as the saying goes: democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
2018-10-21 22:04
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.