Do you agree with Democracy?

[Ragnarum]

In my opinion, democracy is for making decisions that cater to what people want so they don't violently shit themselves in rage, not about making logical, well thought out ones.

Like mentioned however, no form of government is perfect, although I think democracy is not exactly the least bad. There are systems out there we have not experimented with yet.

[Immoren]

But there are distinctions.

Yes, one refers to the system of selecting officials, while the other is the organization of the government as a whole. But they are not mutually exclusive.

They are as much mutually exclusive as "red" and "cube" are. 111

[Finland SSR]

You mean the country that is still run by representatives elected by the public?

Paid for by massive lobbyist, and corporate backing obviously.

Congratulations! You have succeccfully finished the School of Edgyness! Where are you going to study next?

[Apparatchikstan]

But there are distinctions.

Yes, one refers to the system of selecting officials, while the other is the organization of the government as a whole. But they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, but a democracy, especially one without a republican framework, if it has not degenerated into a statist technocracy, most likely already started as one.

[Distruzio]

Democracy, with the exception of direct democracy (which is practical in minute limited scales only) is not "self- government" as indirect democracy vests actual power in the hands of a few over the many. Thus the differences between oligarchy/aristocracy and democracy are gradual rather than fundamental and the democratist bleeting against the privilege of royalty in favor of the common man rings rather flaccid indeed. It is emotional, at best irrational, and often anti-rational and anti-intellectual - particularly considering the tendency of democracies to institutionalize compulsory education in the name of freedom for the masses in which, to accommodate everyone, intellectual standards are perpetually reduced and replaced with indoctrination that results in a sterilizing of the intellectual nature of the society in question. It is corrupting in most of its implications and applications and is, therefore, morally dangerous tending to - by the very nature of power renting - elevate to power the most depraved sociopathic narcissists who enjoy adoration for their skills in ineptitude, grafting, licentiousness, callousness, and democidal rhetoric. It coalesces individuals into an amorphous blob (the people) and thus treats citizens as human resources, dehumanizing them into corporate entities ("the gays," "the blacks," "the republicans," etc etc). It is historically bound up with Protestantism (which has, itself, become a liberal heresy as it considers human achievement what the traditional concept of religion considered divine gift, thus bestowing upon the individual the moral god-like supremacy to declare himself the perfect interpreter of religious concerns and, therefore, declare himself and those whom he favors "free" in a utopian and self-congratulatory stupor), the substitution of the traditionally held perspective of an objective truth (individual liberty) with a new subjective truth (corporate equality) and elevated that new truth to the status of nigh unattainable and thus perpetuating eventuality through militarism, ethnic nationalism and racialism. Democracy is, therefore, telologically incompatible with individual liberty. It seems to be the the modern political evolution towards tyranny. It prospers only with the support of strict, semi-totalitarian societies or totalitarian societies exercising control in the form of "horizontal pressure." It is collectivistic and anti-personalistic (personalism being the recognition of the individual as unique due to the influence of his personal culture - language, religion, and tradition - on his person rather than the atomizing rabid individualism).

[Apparatchikstan]

Democracy, with the exception of direct democracy (which is practical in minute limited scales only) is not "self- government" as indirect democracy vests actual power in the hands of a few over the many. Thus the differences between oligarchy/aristocracy and democracy are gradual rather than fundamental and the democratist bleeting against the privilege of royalty in favor of the common man rings rather flaccid indeed. It is emotional, at best irrational, and often anti-rational and anti-intellectual - particularly considering the tendency of democracies to institutionalize compulsory education in the name of freedom for the masses in which, to accommodate everyone, intellectual standards are perpetually reduced and replaced with indoctrination that results in a sterilizing of the intellectual nature of the society in question. It is corrupting in most of its implications and applications and is, therefore, morally dangerous tending to - by the very nature of power renting - elevate to power the most depraved sociopathic narcissists who enjoy adoration for their skills in ineptitude, grafting, licentiousness, callousness, and democidal rhetoric. It coalesces individuals into an amorphous blob (the people) and thus treats citizens as human resources, dehumanizing them into corporate entities ("the gays," "the blacks," "the republicans," etc etc). It is historically bound up with Protestantism (which has, itself, become a liberal heresy as it considers human achievement what the traditional concept of religion considered divine gift, thus bestowing upon the individual the moral god-like supremacy to declare himself the perfect interpreter of religious concerns and, therefore, declare himself and those whom he favors "free" in a utopian and self-congratulatory stupor), the substitution of the traditionally held perspective of an objective truth (individual liberty) with a new subjective truth (corporate equality) and elevated that new truth to the status of nigh unattainable and thus perpetuating eventuality through militarism, ethnic nationalism and racialism. Democracy is, therefore, telologically incompatible with individual liberty. It seems to be the the modern political evolution towards tyranny. It prospers only with the support of strict, semi-totalitarian societies or totalitarian societies exercising control in the form of "horizontal pressure." It is collectivistic and anti-personalistic (personalism being the recognition of the individual as unique due to the influence of his personal culture - language, religion, and tradition - on his person rather than the atomizing rabid individualism).

Except for the Protestant bit, since American Protestant Christians were the original spokespeople of liberty in and for the colonies, I love this post.

[Merent]

Yes, one refers to the system of selecting officials, while the other is the organization of the government as a whole. But they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, but a democracy, especially one without a republican framework, if it has not degenerated into a statist technocracy, most likely already started as one.

The kingdom and dominions of Norway, Denmark, the UK, the commonwealth realm and Sweden are not statist technocracys.

[Merent]

Democracy, with the exception of direct democracy (which is practical in minute limited scales only) is not "self- government" as indirect democracy vests actual power in the hands of a few over the many. Thus the differences between oligarchy/aristocracy and democracy are gradual rather than fundamental and the democratist bleeting against the privilege of royalty in favor of the common man rings rather flaccid indeed. It is emotional, at best irrational, and often anti-rational and anti-intellectual - particularly considering the tendency of democracies to institutionalize compulsory education in the name of freedom for the masses in which, to accommodate everyone, intellectual standards are perpetually reduced and replaced with indoctrination that results in a sterilizing of the intellectual nature of the society in question. It is corrupting in most of its implications and applications and is, therefore, morally dangerous tending to - by the very nature of power renting - elevate to power the most depraved sociopathic narcissists who enjoy adoration for their skills in ineptitude, grafting, licentiousness, callousness, and democidal rhetoric. It coalesces individuals into an amorphous blob (the people) and thus treats citizens as human resources, dehumanizing them into corporate entities ("the gays," "the blacks," "the republicans," etc etc). It is historically bound up with Protestantism (which has, itself, become a liberal heresy as it considers human achievement what the traditional concept of religion considered divine gift, thus bestowing upon the individual the moral god-like supremacy to declare himself the perfect interpreter of religious concerns and, therefore, declare himself and those whom he favors "free" in a utopian and self-congratulatory stupor), the substitution of the traditionally held perspective of an objective truth (individual liberty) with a new subjective truth (corporate equality) and elevated that new truth to the status of nigh unattainable and thus perpetuating eventuality through militarism, ethnic nationalism and racialism. Democracy is, therefore, telologically incompatible with individual liberty. It seems to be the the modern political evolution towards tyranny. It prospers only with the support of strict, semi-totalitarian societies or totalitarian societies exercising control in the form of "horizontal pressure." It is collectivistic and anti-personalistic (personalism being the recognition of the individual as unique due to the influence of his personal culture - language, religion, and tradition - on his person rather than the atomizing rabid individualism).

Except for the Protestant bit, since American Protestant Christians were the original spokespeople of liberty in and for the colonies, I love this post.

They were not more free after independance.

[Apparatchikstan]

Except for the Protestant bit, since American Protestant Christians were the original spokespeople of liberty in and for the colonies, I love this post.

They were not more free after independance.

[Apparatchikstan]

Of course, but a democracy, especially one without a republican framework, if it has not degenerated into a statist technocracy, most likely already started as one.

The kingdom and dominions of Norway, Denmark, the UK, the commonwealth realm and Sweden.

I'll take "Are examples of what?" for 200.

[Conscentia]

Yes, one refers to the system of selecting officials, while the other is the organization of the government as a whole. But they are not mutually exclusive.

Of course, but a democracy, especially one without a republican framework, if it has not degenerated into a statist technocracy, most likely already started as one.

That is false.

[Merent]

The kingdom and dominions of Norway, Denmark, the UK, the commonwealth realm and Sweden.

I'll take "Are examples of what?" for 200.

Democracies with liberty under kings and queens, they've not degenerated into statist technocracies.

[Immoren]

I guess this is how ,language affects ones perception and or understanding because statist resembles Finnish word for extra so I am not sure? If I should be amused or not or be serious towards or not.

[Merent]

They were not more free after independance.

Thousands dead, taxes actually increased to pay for the war debt and later fund the new government under the US constitution, slavery prolonged, the war of 1812 caused many dead and heavy taxes and native americans were treated much worse than they ever would be treated under British rule.

[Distruzio]

Democracy, with the exception of direct democracy (which is practical in minute limited scales only) is not "self- government" as indirect democracy vests actual power in the hands of a few over the many. Thus the differences between oligarchy/aristocracy and democracy are gradual rather than fundamental and the democratist bleeting against the privilege of royalty in favor of the common man rings rather flaccid indeed. It is emotional, at best irrational, and often anti-rational and anti-intellectual - particularly considering the tendency of democracies to institutionalize compulsory education in the name of freedom for the masses in which, to accommodate everyone, intellectual standards are perpetually reduced and replaced with indoctrination that results in a sterilizing of the intellectual nature of the society in question. It is corrupting in most of its implications and applications and is, therefore, morally dangerous tending to - by the very nature of power renting - elevate to power the most depraved sociopathic narcissists who enjoy adoration for their skills in ineptitude, grafting, licentiousness, callousness, and democidal rhetoric. It coalesces individuals into an amorphous blob (the people) and thus treats citizens as human resources, dehumanizing them into corporate entities ("the gays," "the blacks," "the republicans," etc etc). It is historically bound up with Protestantism (which has, itself, become a liberal heresy as it considers human achievement what the traditional concept of religion considered divine gift, thus bestowing upon the individual the moral god-like supremacy to declare himself the perfect interpreter of religious concerns and, therefore, declare himself and those whom he favors "free" in a utopian and self-congratulatory stupor), the substitution of the traditionally held perspective of an objective truth (individual liberty) with a new subjective truth (corporate equality) and elevated that new truth to the status of nigh unattainable and thus perpetuating eventuality through militarism, ethnic nationalism and racialism. Democracy is, therefore, telologically incompatible with individual liberty. It seems to be the the modern political evolution towards tyranny. It prospers only with the support of strict, semi-totalitarian societies or totalitarian societies exercising control in the form of "horizontal pressure." It is collectivistic and anti-personalistic (personalism being the recognition of the individual as unique due to the influence of his personal culture - language, religion, and tradition - on his person rather than the atomizing rabid individualism).

Except for the Protestant bit, since American Protestant Christians were the original spokespeople of liberty in and for the colonies, I love this post.

I take compliments where I can get them. That is an excerpt from one of my many anti-democracy posts/threads.

[Distruzio]

Thousands dead, taxes actually increased to pay for the war debt and later fund the new government under the US constitution, slavery prolonged, the war of 1812 caused many dead and heavy taxes and native americans were treated much worse than they ever would be treated under British rule.

Indeed. It's a shame that loving my country means that I have to implicitly support the secession started by traitors to a just and proper government.

[Othelos]

Thousands dead, taxes actually increased to pay for the war debt and later fund the new government under the US constitution, slavery prolonged, the war of 1812 caused many dead and heavy taxes and native americans were treated much worse than they ever would be treated under British rule.

those continued as problems, but the US after independence had more freedom in the form of self-determination.

[Distruzio]

Thousands dead, taxes actually increased to pay for the war debt and later fund the new government under the US constitution, slavery prolonged, the war of 1812 caused many dead and heavy taxes and native americans were treated much worse than they ever would be treated under British rule.

those continued as problems, but the US after independence had more freedom in the form of self-determination.

Not really. The established elites enjoyed a more self-determinative reality but the citizens did not.

[Merent]

Thousands dead, taxes actually increased to pay for the war debt and later fund the new government under the US constitution, slavery prolonged, the war of 1812 caused many dead and heavy taxes and native americans were treated much worse than they ever would be treated under British rule.

those continued as problems, but the US after independence had more freedom in the form of self-determination.

Tell that to the slaves, the mothers who lost their sons in wars, the merchants and sailors that suffered heavy taxation. And I would inform you that Britain let the colonies practically govern themselves.

[Valkalan]

Ah democracy. The least worst system of government where the masses have a possibility of affecting policy whether or not they actually qualified to do so. Yet in most of its incarnations, it is at least far more palatable than its alternatives.

No, I do not agree with democracy to the extent that I do not believe that majority opinion amounts to a good decision. However, I am content that most people find most aspects of tyranny unpalatable and as a result democracy is often conducive to liberty and prosperity.

[Apparatchikstan]

Thousands dead, taxes actually increased to pay for the war debt and later fund the new government under the US constitution, slavery prolonged, the war of 1812 caused many dead and heavy taxes and native americans were treated much worse than they ever would be treated under British rule.

those continued as problems, but the US after independence had more freedom in the form of self-determination.

This

[Othelos]

those continued as problems, but the US after independence had more freedom in the form of self-determination.

Not really. The established elites enjoyed a more self-determinative reality but the citizens did not.

Right, but the country was controlled by people inside of it, which was my point.

[Arcov]

Democracy, with the exception of direct democracy (which is practical in minute limited scales only) is not "self- government" as indirect democracy vests actual power in the hands of a few over the many.

And yet they are given the consent of the people who elected them. Even if it is the "rule of the few", it is at worst, the same aristocracy you wish to enslave yourself to.

Thus the differences between oligarchy/aristocracy and democracy are gradual rather than fundamental and the democratist bleeting against the privilege of royalty in favor of the common man rings rather flaccid indeed. It is emotional, at best irrational, and often anti-rational and anti-intellectual - particularly considering the tendency of democracies to institutionalize compulsory education in the name of freedom for the masses in which, to accommodate everyone, intellectual standards are perpetually reduced and replaced with indoctrination that results in a sterilizing of the intellectual nature of the society in question.

So you seriously relive that the people should not be educated, and should be limited to mundane and laborious tasks while their masters rule over them? I had thought you were a constitutional monarchist, I did not know you were this reactionary.

It is corrupting in most of its implications and applications and is, therefore, morally dangerous tending to - by the very nature of power renting - elevate to power the most depraved sociopathic narcissists who enjoy adoration for their skills in ineptitude, grafting, licentiousness, callousness, and democidal rhetoric.

Something monarchs and aristocrats still have to do. They need support from the special interests, they need the support of at least the majority of the people, to get there will done.

It coalesces individuals into an amorphous blob (the people) and thus treats citizens as human resources, dehumanizing them into corporate entities ("the gays," "the blacks," "the republicans," etc etc).

Compared to "the peasants" or "the lower class" that comes about in an aristocracy.

It is historically bound up with Protestantism (which has, itself, become a liberal heresy as it considers human achievement what the traditional concept of religion considered divine gift, thus bestowing upon the individual the moral god-like supremacy to declare himself the perfect interpreter of religious concerns and, therefore, declare himself and those whom he favors "free" in a utopian and self-congratulatory stupor),

And yet one of the most important and crucial Republican nations was Catholic.

the substitution of the traditionally held perspective of an objective truth (individual liberty) with a new subjective truth (corporate equality) and elevated that new truth to the status of nigh unattainable and thus perpetuating eventuality through militarism, ethnic nationalism and racialism.

All has been proven to exist in monarchies and aristocracies. Do you think aristocrats can carry the country on their own?

Democracy is, therefore, telologically incompatible with individual liberty.

How can one be free if consent is not given to the service which monopolizes force and the judiciary?

It seems to be the the modern political evolution towards tyranny. It prospers only with the support of strict, semi-totalitarian societies or totalitarian societies exercising control in the form of "horizontal pressure." It is collectivistic and anti-personalistic (personalism being the recognition of the individual as unique due to the influence of his personal culture - language, religion, and tradition - on his person rather than the atomizing rabid individualism).

And, yet, all attempts at reactionary social stratification like you support have ended in the development of a clear underclass. Instead of a collective society for all, it is a collective society for the few. Instead of personal liberty, you get aristocratic liberty. Without limitations, the aristocrats are no better than corporations or populists you hate.

[Merent]

Not really. The established elites enjoyed a more self-determinative reality but the citizens did not.

Right, but the country was controlled by people inside of it, which was my point.

Britain let the colonies govern themselves aslong as they swore loyalty to the Crown, all they wanted was a very small amount of taxes to pay for the defence of the colonies.

[Othelos]

Right, but the country was controlled by people inside of it, which was my point.

Britain let the colonies govern themselves, all they wanted was a very small amount of taxes to pay for the defence of the colonies.

Britain didn't allow the colonies complete independence.