Do you agree with Democracy?

[Arcov]

Repeating what you said before doesn't make you right. If you can't grasp the concept of an election then we're done here.

The right to vote in and of itself isn't representative. The franchise is just a societal placebo in the face of single party systems or systems that maintain bureaucracies that enact or propogate policy independent of the electorate's will.

That all compete with each other, and try to inform the electorate of their opponents wrongdoings. The country has too many competing interests for one party to dominate everything.

[Arcov]

We have also had more dictators than general publics.

Tito and Ataturk and the only two I can think of. Even then, Tito brutally killed off his political opponents.

Now, tell me, which democracies have done what dictators have done?

I'm unfamiliar with this claim of Tito killing off political opponents, and I question the validity given that near the end of his reign he tried to make Yugoslavia more democratic. As for Democracies doing this, they never needed to kill opponents, that would lose them votes anyways. Instead, we got things like the Watergate scandal, political manipulation (ie. spin doctoring), and an uninformed public that would have vote Hitler in if he promised to lower taxes.

He killed counter-revolutionaries, though he was much, much better than Stalin was. He reformed when he believed no such elements existed.

And, tell me, which is better? Political intrigue(which happened under the dictatorships too), or the deaths allocated with the dictators?

[Anollasia]

''Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.''

- Winston Churchill

[Merent]

Because I believe a system where the people that that make the laws do not listen to the people. The fact is is democracy the people (including me) are ignorant and a hereditary system of monarchy and nobility where they are raised to rule and commonors work and pay taxes works better. An system where the people in charge are trained from birth to rule. Democracy leads to people focusing on improving their own lot rather than the glory of the nation.

Do you have any valid reasons? This is all based on opinion, not logic or facts.

A monarch doesn't have to worry about elections, this leads to them being more focused on the long run. Democracies focus on the next 4 (or a little bigger or smaller number) years until the next election. Monarchies concerntrate power in a monarch and nobles (those who live to rule) rather than trusting voters plagued by rational ignorance. The division on labour is for governments too because a few people specialising will do better than millions who do not care alot, it's the same when it comes to the production of goods and the production of laws. No company would let an experienced boss be voted out or a bad boss voted in by an average joe with no experience, why should governments be based on the that?

[Arcov]

Do you have any valid reasons? This is all based on opinion, not logic or facts.

A monarch doesn't have to worry about elections, this leads to them being more focused on the long run. Democracies focus on the next 4 (or a little bigger or smaller number) years until the next election. Concerntrated power in a monarch and nobles (those who focus their life on public policy) rather than trusting voters plagued by rational ignorance. The division on labour is for governments too because a few people specialising will do better than millions who do not care alot, it's the same when it comes to the production of goods and the production of laws.

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

[Anollasia]

Given the past few hundred years of Democracy, we get the "right general public" about as often as we get the "right dictator". I can name Tito for a good dictator, not sure of anyone else though.

We have also had more dictators than general publics.

Tito and Ataturk and the only two I can think of. Even then, Tito brutally killed off his political opponents.

Now, tell me, which democracies have done what dictators have done?

Atatürk encouraged democracy. If it weren't for him, maybe Turkey never would've been democratic.

[Arcov]

We have also had more dictators than general publics.

Tito and Ataturk and the only two I can think of. Even then, Tito brutally killed off his political opponents.

Now, tell me, which democracies have done what dictators have done?

Atatürk encouraged democracy. If it weren't for him, maybe Turkey never would've been democratic.

Exactly. Even the best dictators encouraged democracy.

[Merent]

A monarch doesn't have to worry about elections, this leads to them being more focused on the long run. Democracies focus on the next 4 (or a little bigger or smaller number) years until the next election. Concerntrated power in a monarch and nobles (those who focus their life on public policy) rather than trusting voters plagued by rational ignorance. The division on labour is for governments too because a few people specialising will do better than millions who do not care alot, it's the same when it comes to the production of goods and the production of laws.

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

The British Empire was built on noblemen raising regiments, exploring territority and sitting in the house of Lords.

[Othelos]

Do you have any valid reasons? This is all based on opinion, not logic or facts.

A monarch doesn't have to worry about elections, this leads to them being more focused on the long run. Democracies focus on the next 4 (or a little bigger or smaller number) years until the next election.

Not necessarily, and I would rather have a democratic government than an autocratic one, because the former is accountable.

Monarchies concerntrate power in a monarch and nobles (those who live to rule) rather than trusting voters plagued by rational ignorance .

Monarchs and nobles can be ignorant and unfit to rule.

The division on labour is for governments too because a few people specialising will do better than millions who do not care alot, it's the same when it comes to the production of goods and the production of laws.

A tiny percentage of the populations in democratic countries are legislators.

[Arcov]

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

The British Empire was built on noblemen raising regiments, exploring territority and sitting in the house of Lords.

And establishing economic empires, assassinating other nobles, repressing natives, and repressing the common man.

[Othelos]

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

The British Empire was built on noblemen raising regiments, exploring territority and sitting in the house of Lords.

and look where it is now, no longer an empire.

[Merent]

The British Empire was built on noblemen raising regiments, exploring territority and sitting in the house of Lords.

and look where it is now, no longer an empire.

Thank democracy.

[Dalcaria]

I'm unfamiliar with this claim of Tito killing off political opponents, and I question the validity given that near the end of his reign he tried to make Yugoslavia more democratic. As for Democracies doing this, they never needed to kill opponents, that would lose them votes anyways. Instead, we got things like the Watergate scandal, political manipulation (ie. spin doctoring), and an uninformed public that would have vote Hitler in if he promised to lower taxes.

He killed counter-revolutionaries, though he was much, much better than Stalin was. He reformed when he believed no such elements existed.

And, tell me, which is better? Political intrigue(which happened under the dictatorships too), or the deaths allocated with the dictators?

Well American's supported Batista in trying to kill Revolutionaries in Cuba, so I'm not sure I see a difference here, except for Tito wasn't a bad leader, where Batista kind of was (so I've heard).

I don't think either is better, which is why I support Non-Sovereign Monarchy with a constitution to uphold the law and protect the people. Also, might be worth noting the deaths allocated by US Presidents. Hope you haven't forgotten the Natives, or some of the anti-war protestors during Vietnam. For every kill Tito made, the US probably had a hundred more that weren't even necessary. Now compare that to other countries that are "democratic" as well, and you probably see slightly similar events too, for instance the French Revolution. Hate the aristocracy all you want, but I'm sure a prison sentence would have worked just as well, especially since the army wasn't going to bother working for them anymore.

[Othelos]

and look where it is now, no longer an empire.

Thank democracy.

actually, it's because colonies broke away.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

The British Empire was built on noblemen raising regiments, exploring territority and sitting in the house of Lords.

Yes. And the British Empire was a despotic, racist, Eurocentric, intolerant, aggressive and altogether terrible institution that should be confined to the dustbin of history. So your point is what exactly?

[Shilya]

I do, not despite living in a world full of idiots, but because we live in one, and one of them is inevintably going to end up on top.

To that end, I'm not for pure democracy - that is, mob rule - either, though it's preferrable to a dictatorship. Republics and constitutional monarchies are where it's at. They're slow, which is the point - slowness washes out the idiocy, or at least takes its edge. Idiocy can still happen and brilliance, too, is washed out, but the brilliance doesn't make up for the full-on stupidity that you could get.

A king just about ruined my nation with his stupidity, a dictator brought it to worldwide infamy, chancellors led us to prosperity and peace.

[Leritorius]

Personally, I do not agree with National Democracy.

What I mean by that is, I do not agree that the course of the nation, (foreign policy, trade, military, etc) should be up to mere citizens.

However, I believe direct democracy can only work on a small, local level.

Sort of how the USA has set up its Federalist system, although what I had in mind is substantially different.

I do not agree with a President and Vice President System. I am more in line with the Roman Republican model of a Consul, Proconsul, and a Senate, to guide the national affairs.

The thing is, we meet dumber people than we do smart people, and as cruel as this sounds, it is a reality, and I do not think that with all the stupid people around, it would be safe to entrust the nation to these people, and give them a voice.

Therefore, you're a monarchist.
You agree with direct democracy on a local level, we do.
You follow the consulate model. Ours is only different by names, and are even somehow more democratic as we entrust elected deputies from society corps instead of party.
You know the power cannot be entrusted into people, we see it every time we try to explain to uncaring citizens why monarchy is better than republics.

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

Those who were of noble souls actually did. But I can't blame you for not knowing that, soul & heart noblesse are very rare these days...

[Dalcaria]

The British Empire was built on noblemen raising regiments, exploring territority and sitting in the house of Lords.

And establishing economic empires, assassinating other nobles, repressing natives, and repressing the common man.

And the US hasn't established economic empires? I haven't heard about assassinating nobles, unless this was pre-1800's, when the empire hit it's golden age. They did repress natives, but nowhere near as badly as Americas, or possibly the French, and perhaps even the Germans (they actually committed a pseudo-genocide in one of their African colonies). And repressing the common man? No more so than America had been doing at the time.

[Merent]

Not necessarily, and I would rather have a democratic government than an autocratic one, because the former is accountable.

Kings and Queens were always accountable to nobles even when they were the most powerful.

Monarchs and nobles can be ignorant and unfit to rule.

Insane monarchs have their duties taken care fro by other people. For example the Prince of Wales did the royal duties when King George III was nuts.

A tiny percentage of the populations in democratic countries are legislators.

But are judged by ignorant voters like you and me.

[Dalcaria]

Thank democracy.

actually, it's because colonies broke away.

Actually actually, it's probably primarily because WW1 and WW2 wrecked the UK economically and they couldn't keep the empire together any longer. Had WW1 and WW2 been won quickly and efficiently, with as little American support as possible, Great Britain would most likely still be an Empire today.

[Arcov]

Well American's supported Batista in trying to kill Revolutionaries in Cuba, so I'm not sure I see a difference here, except for Tito wasn't a bad leader, where Batista kind of was (so I've heard).

And Britain did the same. Democracies aren't better for citizens outside their country, but they certainly are domestically.

I don't think either is better, which is why I support Non-Sovereign Monarchy with a constitution to uphold the law and protect the people. Also, might be worth noting the deaths allocated by US Presidents. Hope you haven't forgotten the Natives, or some of the anti-war protestors during Vietnam.

The UK massacred the Africa natives. The US killed people it did not consider it's citizens. The anti-war protestors were only killed in one incident, when the police, separate from their order, fired on them.

For every kill Tito made, the US probably had a hundred more that weren't even necessary. Now compare that to other countries that are "democratic" as well, and you probably see slightly similar events too, for instance the French Revolution. Hate the aristocracy all you want, but I'm sure a prison sentence would have worked just as well, especially since the army wasn't going to bother working for them anymore.

And for every kill Stalin or Hitler made, the US killed much less. For the French revolution, I'll bring this delightful little quote from Mark Twain.
“There were two ‘Reigns of Terror,’ if we would but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the guillotine, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

– Mark Twain, “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”"

[Othelos]

Not necessarily, and I would rather have a democratic government than an autocratic one, because the former is accountable.

Kings and Queens were always accountable to nobles even when they were the most powerful.

Nobles =/= the public

Monarchs and nobles can be ignorant and unfit to rule.

Insane monarchs have their duties taken care fro by other people. For example the Prince of Wales did the royal duties when King George III was nuts.

ignorance=/= insanity

A tiny percentage of the populations in democratic countries are legislators.

But are judged by ignorant voters like you and me.

I am very well aware of the issues atm, I am not ignorant.

[Arcov]

actually, it's because colonies broke away.

Actually actually, it's probably primarily because WW1 and WW2 wrecked the UK economically and they couldn't keep the empire together any longer. Had WW1 and WW2 been won quickly and efficiently, with as little American support as possible, Great Britain would most likely still be an Empire today.

"With as little American support at all?"

The UK couldn't have won either by itself. It still needed allies, be they France, America, or the USSR.

[Merent]

The British Empire was built on noblemen raising regiments, exploring territority and sitting in the house of Lords.

Yes. And the British Empire was a despotic, racist, Eurocentric, intolerant, aggressive and altogether terrible institution that should be confined to the dustbin of history. So your point is what exactly?

Ended slavery, spread liberty, gave colonies self rule for most practical purposes, gave stability and unity to the colonised peoples.

[Othelos]

actually, it's because colonies broke away.

Actually actually, it's probably primarily because WW1 and WW2 wrecked the UK economically and they couldn't keep the empire together any longer. Had WW1 and WW2 been won quickly and efficiently, with as little American support as possible, Great Britain would most likely still be an Empire today.

doubt it. They gave Hong Kong back to China. Britain would face significant pressure to let go of its other colonies.