Why is democracy seen as a universal good and the system of government that all people should strive to reach, when universal voting can lead- and many will say has already led- to demagogy? Why should the uneducated, the unintelligent and the uninterested in politics have a say, an uninformed say, in how a country is governed? Any other job requires specialization, and rightfully so. You wouldn't expect a lawyer to build a bridge or an engineer to perform heart surgery, so why allow the masses, easily moved by bread and circuses, to have a say in politics?
I think the best system of government is a democracy, but not one in which everyone's ideas are equal. Let only the educated, and those capable of thinking critically, vote. And give every citizen the right to prove they should earn the privilege of voting by properly educating them. But suffrage by birthright is a mistake.
The mistake of universal suffrage
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
boards.4chan.org
twitter.com
Serious answe; because it's "fair". White people have always had an obsession with fairness. That's why Republican forms of government have always been sought after and why even when they were abandoned, kings pretended to be some sort of representative of the People.
This changed for a short period after the introduction of Christianity to Europe. What followed was a period of "devine rule" at the top but even so, the governmental bodies that affected the peasant more often than not had democratic elements rather than hereditary rule. At least in principle, anyhow.
Dunno. I wish I had a say in how my country was governed.
I agree with your opinion of democracy but I'll caveat this with a warning. Trying to end democracy might be impossible without a Bronze Age Collapse tire apocalypse. I can elaborate that terminology if you wonder why I said that. But short of this, it may be impossible to do. Even Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Husseign, Gaddafi, and Tito paid lipservice to the fundimental principles of democracy. All these men ruled "in the name of" the people. Populism is the end result of the "egalitarian" principles that created democracy. I say "egalitarian" but these ideals are much older. Even the earliest records of European governments show strong tendencies of involving regular people in government. Mycenaean Greece, Celtic Gaul, and the forests of Germania all incorporated democratic elements in the running of society.
Have you looked at Andrew Jackson's White Man's Republic?
Jackson removed property requirements to voting.
Democracy divides the nation up into warring political parties. A government of action is replaced by a government rife with opposition parties obstructing, filibustering, gridlock and squabbling. Instead of facing the world as a united block in pursuit of common goals, we fight among ourselves, leaving us exposed from without to organized Jewish power (or other enemies). The solution here is to end the party-system
This is one of the bedrock principles of modern democracy. The very notion of equality, however, is the practice of treating unequal things unequally. In a democratic system where all individuals have an equal voice, the voices of the ignorant drown out those who are truly knowledgeable. What good is a political system wherein the votes of two ignoramuses count for more than that of the educated man? On what basis do the intellectually inferior and ill-equipped members of society demand political rights equal to those who are truly worthy of them?
Democracy rests on the assumption that because someone / something gets more votes, it is the best choice. This is obviously incorrect
People are often able to vote on issues they have no firsthand knowledge on. This is especially true in representative bodies. People vote anyway, and the most votes wins as usual, regardless of if the opinions of experts in the field would advise differently. This is why some fascists advocate for a form of democracy to a non-political advisory body based on your occupation / skill rather than from where you live, which is completely arbitrary.
There is a whole section on this in Mein Kampf. Essentially the press is controlled by big moneyed-interests. These interests push certain agendas and political lines through the press, serving as the basis of public opinion. This is true today especially. People read an article or watch a video and then parrot this in discussions and debates blindly. They then vote for the figure that aligns with their carefully molded outlook. This same candidate is beholden to the same interests, he is in their pay as well. If he doesn't serve the whims of public opinion as shaped by the press, he'll lose his position in the next election, also losing his funding from his donors. He becomes the slave of the donors and their political line.
This obviously varies heavily depending on the country or location, but term limits are not conductive to stable, long-term policy-lines. It breaks them up into small chunks, no one will try to push for thoroughgoing change because they are so temporally constrained and don't see a reason to put in the effort for something that can be overturned as soon as he is forced to leave office.
If we want to pick the best, most intelligent and most capable individuals to rule, democracy is not the system to choose. Unlike in a democracy which elects puppets for short terms, the best of the best need to be chosen to lead as long as they are able. I've thought for a while now that leaders should be chosen from a pool of men who meet certain requirements. In my perfect system, a man who has completed his military service, behaves virtuously, attained excellent academic scores and demonstrated that he is a natural born leader should be elevated, regardless of his social position, to the highest of offices. The ultimate choice would be left up to a small senate who vote behind close doors. On how these senators would be chosen, I'm not sure, but likely appointed by the (past) leaders, but not able to be removed by the leader. I accept some limited forms of democracy, but not where it matters most in picking the leader of the nation. It's like having soldiers choose their generals, or members of a sports team their coaches as far as I'm concerned. I guess it would be like a sort of limited electoral monarchy in a way. I've always been a fan of the whole 'philosopher-king' shtick
While true, don't ignore the fact that factionalism exists in "non-democratic" systems as well. Particularly multi-ethnic states. For instance, say we combined Poland and Lithuania and put the Lithuanians in charge. You know exactly what would happen. And even if we returned Lithuania to its normal size and had a homogeneous state, factionalism would almost certainly develop around something.
Mind you I'm not shitting on your points which are valid. Just pointing out other factors that might destroy "your perfect system"
As for your perfect system, that sounds somewhat like the HRE's system whereby unelected lords of an electorate selected the next Emperor. Doubtless you know how that turned out.
measure ethos objectively and tier voting rates based on these tiers
Should we return to one vote per household? When every legal age person can vote, you get individualism "what will they do for me?". With the former, the vote is for your family.
For the newfags: this is why you need to lurk two years. This seemed extreme to me then but today only white male landowners deserve the franchise… as our forbearers knew.
When you vote for any woman you vote for the jew, and when you let women vote they WILL ALWAYS vote for the most kiked people and positions.
t. five years next month
Guenon explained it as a question of quantity vs. quality. Modernism prioritizes the former, Traditionalism the latter. As a consequence, democracy/egalitarianism is championed by modernists because it reduces each human to an equal, interchangeable vote and then whoever has the highest quantity wins.
where should the people who live under a goddamn building housed meters away from a shelter made by terrorists take cover there have a say in? I'd say death and nothing else.
democracy is considered a prevention of tyranny, when it is only a form of participatory government as solution to the problem of non-participatory government
it springs from the enlightened view that royalty and nobles are as human and flawed as their subjects ("all men are equal"), even to the boasian view that primitive cannibals are only different to us by nurture (cultural relativity), though it all reeks of the same assumption of equality, policy of redistribution, application of theft and punishment of success that communism was and what forever will be mere pseudointellectual excuses for parasitism upon civilization the dysgenic classes have always tried
if a man lawfully acquires land and demonstrates ability to maintain it, he is a good landowner and has say of land ownership
if a good landowner acquires a wife and demonstrates ability to support a family, he is a good family man and has say of family
if a good family man lawfully runs a business and demonstrates the ability to produce value to industry/commons, he is a good businessman and has say of business/industry/commons
if a good businessman lawfully runs a territory/area and demonstrates ability to manage the territory/area, he is a prospective 'lord' of the area and has say of territory/area
if a lord lawfully runs a nation and demonstrates ability to manage a nation, he is prospective 'king' and has say of running a country
why did you pick that picture? except for crying alot at the begining of phaedo , xanthipe didn't do anything too bad? if anything she was probably a cool chick for her day, she could put up with and love socrates.
this chick is no xanthipe. found the video on 4 - lol.
the US is exactly like The Republic except jews took it over and run the sex lottery.
There's nothing wrong with that system as long as every man regardless of status is expected to follow the same set of laws.
Simple:
I have no issue with tiers of citizenship, we already practice a soft form of it with permanent residents and felons being unable to vote.
We should let the lower tiers have something like non-binding plebiscites during elections to ensure their concerns are heard and to train people who are moving to higher tiers to actually vote/learn our system.
The Chinese have a decent model for defacto ethno states, but they developed theirs with Chinese characteristics
For normies I find it useful to frame it as a "limitation of the administrative capabilities of their time in determining who had their lives invested in the wellbeing of a region".
"White landowning males"=Taxpayers
Only educated people should vote!? WTF. So people with a masters degree in gender studies and dog psychology should vote but a farmer with 8 kids shouldn't?
How bout this. Go fuck yourself.
Only people with a stake in the future should vote.
Men with families they actually live with and support that own land. These men understand the future better than any entitled 23 year old college faggot ever will.
I agree with OP completely and will say for good measure that I believe, currently, we are given the illusion of self governance and we are living under commumism disguised as democracy. (For the lurking man)
And another kosher slide.
I agree and have also thought about this a bit. I think of it this way:
Consider the IQ distribution. There are people at the average, and there are people near the high-IQ end. What reason do the latter have for supporting democracy? It is almost inevitable that those people will try to subvert democracy, which from their point of view is simply the retarded masses destroying society and in turn putting the future of the species in jeopardy. If people of average intelligence elect our government, they will either elect people who are like them (i.e. not that smart) or they will elect the most manipulative candidate (who may be very intelligent but whom I would argue is inherently corrupt). From an intelligent person's perspective, it is almost certainly better to select a high-IQ dictator than to implement democracy.
Do we have a choice at this point? idk. Democracy is just mob rule after all and now that the stupid masses have taken the wheel, they won't give it back. They are more likely to genocide the most intelligent people in society, who they (perhaps rightly) perceive as a threat. Bye bye humanity's future.