Views on Democracy?

[Heloin]

Replaceing democratic governments with non democratic governments is inherently tyrannical.

Tyranny is tyranny. Cruel and unjust oppression and the systematic destruction of rights and liberties is tyranny. If an elected government is doing that, it is tyrannical. If a monarch is not doing that, they are not.

All monarchs by their nature of existing are tyrannical. You can have a bad democracy, every non democratic form of government will be as bad or worse then the worst democracy.

A decade singular is not decades.

What was your point here, or did you think I'd forgotten how numbers work?

Misread your post but your point is still really, really bad.

[Vistulange]

Replaceing democratic governments with non democratic governments is inherently tyrannical.

Tyranny is tyranny. Cruel and unjust oppression and the systematic destruction of rights and liberties is tyranny. If an elected government is doing that, it is tyrannical. If a monarch is not doing that, they are not.

What part of not permitting folks to choose their own government is not "unjust", or falls in tandem with "rights and liberties"?

[Necroghastia]

It's the best system we've come up with so far.

[The American Free States]

Well it’s simple.
D E M O C R A C Y I S N O N - N E G O T I A B L E!

[Nod and HYDRA Combined]

All monarchs by their nature of existing are tyrannical. You can have a bad democracy, every non democratic form of government will be as bad or worse then the worst democracy.

Thats not true. Many European and non-European nations have a constitutional monarchy. The monarchs are more often less tyrannical than the presidents of the United States are.

[Region of Dwipantara]

All monarchs by their nature of existing are tyrannical. You can have a bad democracy, every non democratic form of government will be as bad or worse then the worst democracy.

Thats not true. Many European and non-European nations have a constitutional monarchy. The monarchs are more often less tyrannical than the presidents of the United States are.

The monarchs aren't tyrannical because they aren't the ones running the country.

[Kragholm Free States]

Tyranny is tyranny. Cruel and unjust oppression and the systematic destruction of rights and liberties is tyranny. If an elected government is doing that, it is tyrannical. If a monarch is not doing that, they are not.

All monarchs by their nature of existing are tyrannical. You can have a bad democracy, every non democratic form of government will be as bad or worse then the worst democracy.

Well I think that's a really quite awful take, but since we're clearly operating on entirely different definitions of 'tyranny' at a fundamental level I'm not entirely sure there's much more I can say.

Tyranny is tyranny. Cruel and unjust oppression and the systematic destruction of rights and liberties is tyranny. If an elected government is doing that, it is tyrannical. If a monarch is not doing that, they are not.

What part of not permitting folks to choose their own government is not "unjust", or falls in tandem with "rights and liberties"?

Because the democratic system, by design (accidental or deliberate design I could not say, and likely varies), uplifts unscrupulous liars who are quite prepared to shit all over justice, rights, and liberties to climb to the top of the political ladder and then to stay there. The end of not being shat on justifies the means of not being able to choose the shitter.

[Antityranicals]

Is it?

Yes.

I'm pretty sure communism is pretty totalitarian. It still has a state that decides where people work, how they work, what necessities and goods they can get, and what type of jobs they will get in the future.

Which is a nice illustration of how people who oppose communism have a very different idea about what communism is than people who support communism.

I oppose communism as you describe it on the grounds that it is both impossible and undesirable, albeit nowhere near as undesirable as the Soviets' madhouse.

[Necroghastia]

All monarchs by their nature of existing are tyrannical. You can have a bad democracy, every non democratic form of government will be as bad or worse then the worst democracy.

Well I think that's a really quite awful take, but since we're clearly operating on entirely different definitions of 'tyranny' at a fundamental level I'm not entirely sure there's much more I can say.

What part of not permitting folks to choose their own government is not "unjust", or falls in tandem with "rights and liberties"?

Because the democratic system, by design (accidental or deliberate design I could not say, and likely varies), uplifts unscrupulous liars who are quite prepared to shit all over justice, rights, and liberties to climb to the top of the political ladder and then to stay there. The end of not being shat on justifies the means of not being able to choose the shitter.

And monarchy doesn't enable unscrupulous liars who care nothing for justice, rights, and liberties? You sure?

[Green October Z]

It's not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives.

[Antityranicals]

People are not given a ballot with two choices, liberty or tyranny. People are given a list of names. These names are more or less known to them based upon two things: advertising and campaign promises. Those who spend tons on advertising and offer the world have a distinct advantage. Since a century of public education has taught people that the government is their friend, people have no problem with asking it to do things for them. And those two things combined are an unmitigated disaster. Also, what kind of people spend tons on advertising and promise the world? Scam artists. So ultimately, the choice between democracy and monarchy is whether we want our country to be run by a political class composed mostly of scam artists, or by one person who is not really any better or worse than most people. And while both are bad options, I think monarchy is preferrable, because at least then many people will have the good sense to oppose the government, at least personally.

What about direct democracy, though? In a direct democracy people would know exactly what they are voting for. In such a system, why would they vote for an option that is clearly more tyrannical?

Also: there's no less reason for people to oppose corrupt representatives than a corrupt monarch. Monarchs are just as likely to be corrupt, especially when they don't have to satisfy the people.

Under a direct democracy, people are voting on whether or not to violate the rights of other people directly instead of indirectly. Taking away the middleman may in many if not most cases make things better, but it will still not do away with tyranny. And any tyranny which it does not do away with will appear not to be tyranny to people, because the same "we are the government" fallacy remains. The benefit of monarchs is that they are chosen arbitrarily, and may or may not be corrupt, while politicians almost have to be corrupt to make it to power. Additionally, there is no "we are the government" fallacy, so people will view the government with more suspicion, which is always a good thing.

[Antityranicals]

Well I think that's a really quite awful take, but since we're clearly operating on entirely different definitions of 'tyranny' at a fundamental level I'm not entirely sure there's much more I can say.



Because the democratic system, by design (accidental or deliberate design I could not say, and likely varies), uplifts unscrupulous liars who are quite prepared to shit all over justice, rights, and liberties to climb to the top of the political ladder and then to stay there. The end of not being shat on justifies the means of not being able to choose the shitter.

And monarchy doesn't enable unscrupulous liars who care nothing for justice, rights, and liberties? You sure?

It certainly does, if such a person happens to take the throne. But there is no more reason why a monarch should be evil than that you or I should be. Politicians, however, can in most cases only succeed by lying and caring little for justice, rights, and liberties. They are both bad systems, but democracy is worse.

[Kragholm Free States]

Well I think that's a really quite awful take, but since we're clearly operating on entirely different definitions of 'tyranny' at a fundamental level I'm not entirely sure there's much more I can say.



Because the democratic system, by design (accidental or deliberate design I could not say, and likely varies), uplifts unscrupulous liars who are quite prepared to shit all over justice, rights, and liberties to climb to the top of the political ladder and then to stay there. The end of not being shat on justifies the means of not being able to choose the shitter.

And monarchy doesn't enable unscrupulous liars who care nothing for justice, rights, and liberties? You sure?

If you would care to read back a page or two I have already explained why I believe a bad monarch is far easier to truly replace than a bad elected government. The latter can be voted out, but it remains ready to be voted back in again, and in the meantime the next elected government will take good care of all its terrible policies.

[Kragholm Free States]

And monarchy doesn't enable unscrupulous liars who care nothing for justice, rights, and liberties? You sure?

It certainly does, if such a person happens to take the throne. But there is no more reason why a monarch should be evil than that you or I should be. Politicians, however, can in most cases only succeed by lying and caring little for justice, rights, and liberties. They are both bad systems, but democracy is worse.

This.

[Bear Stearns]

Political institutions are about as good as the people who run them. Eastern Europe is better off under democracy than it was under communism, but Eastern Europe under communism was better off than any democratic country in Africa.

[Antityranicals]

Here's a good way of putting what's psychologically wrong with Democracy: Under a monarchy, the American colonists rebelled against an effective 2% commerce tax. Under our current democracy, Americans tolerate taxes upwards of 30%, and call themselves free.

[Ifreann]

And people would also be opposed to that monarch. That's the point of Antityranicals' idea. To have a government that people are always opposed to.

People should certainly always be skeptical of their government and oppose any attempt it may make to deprive them of their rights and liberties. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they should always oppose the government itself in all cases - a truly good monarch would not be deserving of opposition, of course. Democratic governments should always be opposed, as there is no place for good people to rise in a system designed for charlatans and snake-oil salesmen.

Democracy is not exclusively practised in the United States.

Not being from the United States myself, I am well aware of that. The Tories have been in power for a decade here now, everyone seems to hate them but still won't get rid of them as they run the country into the ground, and there's only one semi-viable opposition party who are ultimately just as horribly authoritarian but couch their horrible authoritarianism in left-wing rhetoric.

Maybe you've noticed that there are other political parties. And that the history of democracy is a little longer than a decade.

[Garden of eve 2]

Democracy may be slow and not always end up with the results we want. But it does give the ability to have a say in how we are governed and in the end, it benefits everyone when as many voices a represented and are able to have a seat a the table.

[Norteno]

Depends on the System.

Representative / Indirect Democracy is Good.
Direct Democracy is Unstable in the Modern World and you would be lucky for it to work.
Presidential System (SMDP Elections) is Good for Stability but doesn't truly represent the people's will, especially in the United States.
Parliamentary System (PR Elections) is good for Representation but not for stability as its more easy to manipulate (in some cases).

A Representative Parliamentary Democracy is good if you want representation over stability or a Representative Presidential Democracy if you want stability over representation. Of course, in some Nations such as the UK or the United States Stability isn't a Issue but in 1920's Germany or Syria, These Ideas Apply More Since You Dont Want Your Nation To Become a National Socialist Dictatorship or Turn into The Hunger Games for an entire Decade.

It also depends on a nations history, Russia isn't going to be a Liberal Paradise, its been Authoritarian since its conception so its not going to be a "stable system" as the West says its going to have some government intervention in politics.

[Major-Tom]

In most countries, it's the best form of government, albeit with flaws. I'm sure that tired "democracy is the worst form of government except all others that have been tried" quote has already beaten into the ground here, so I'll save it.

I would argue that there is a strong correlation between development and democracy, both of which share a correlative relationship (IE higher levels of development tend to spur greater demand for democracy, higher levels of democracy tend to lead to better levels of economic development.) There are exceptions to the rule, and in some cultures, democracy just isn't feasible in the near future because of a myriad of factors. It's why opting to democratize a lot of states (particularly in the Middle East, Africa, SE Asia) never works. The demand/culture for democracy just isn't there.

Overall, TLDR, huge fan of representative democracy, but it's not for every nation-state.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Democracy is pretty neat.

[Kragholm Free States]

People should certainly always be skeptical of their government and oppose any attempt it may make to deprive them of their rights and liberties. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say they should always oppose the government itself in all cases - a truly good monarch would not be deserving of opposition, of course. Democratic governments should always be opposed, as there is no place for good people to rise in a system designed for charlatans and snake-oil salesmen.


Not being from the United States myself, I am well aware of that. The Tories have been in power for a decade here now, everyone seems to hate them but still won't get rid of them as they run the country into the ground, and there's only one semi-viable opposition party who are ultimately just as horribly authoritarian but couch their horrible authoritarianism in left-wing rhetoric.

Maybe you've noticed that there are other political parties. And that the history of democracy is a little longer than a decade.

Maybe you've noticed that I specified 'semi-viable' opposition. As much as a sudden Lib Dem ascendancy would be a refreshing change, it's not going to happen. And yes, it's sadly been going on for far, far longer than a decade, and it doesn't really have a great track record anywhere in the world (except maybe Switzerland, but even they had eugenics) when it comes to blatant disregard for rights, unjust wars, atrocities, corruption, and a whole host of other evils.

[The Cosmic Mainframe]

What about direct democracy, though? In a direct democracy people would know exactly what they are voting for. In such a system, why would they vote for an option that is clearly more tyrannical?

Also: there's no less reason for people to oppose corrupt representatives than a corrupt monarch. Monarchs are just as likely to be corrupt, especially when they don't have to satisfy the people.

Under a direct democracy, people are voting on whether or not to violate the rights of other people directly instead of indirectly. Taking away the middleman may in many if not most cases make things better, but it will still not do away with tyranny. And any tyranny which it does not do away with will appear not to be tyranny to people, because the same "we are the government" fallacy remains. The benefit of monarchs is that they are chosen arbitrarily, and may or may not be corrupt, while politicians almost have to be corrupt to make it to power. Additionally, there is no "we are the government" fallacy, so people will view the government with more suspicion, which is always a good thing.

I agree that it would not be true that "they are the government," and it never will be true unless the State is totally abolished. Nonetheless, the point of any form of democracy should be that the people are ultimately in control. Tyranny would still most likely be perceived as bad, even if it doesn't have the name "tyranny," and a popular initiative could reverse it easily.

More often than not monarchs aren't in fact chosen arbitrarily, and are instead chosen by their predecessors or by some rule of succession. This has an effect of keeping any existing corruption in place.

Direct Democracy is Unstable in the Modern World and you would be lucky for it to work.

I advocate for the popular initiative system present in Switzerland and several US states. This allows for a form of direct democracy without too much instability or inefficiency.

[Necroghastia]

And monarchy doesn't enable unscrupulous liars who care nothing for justice, rights, and liberties? You sure?

If you would care to read back a page or two I have already explained why I believe a bad monarch is far easier to truly replace than a bad elected government. The latter can be voted out, but it remains ready to be voted back in again, and in the meantime the next elected government will take good care of all its terrible policies.

Oh yes, because a bloody coup is sooooo much better.

[Antityranicals]

If you would care to read back a page or two I have already explained why I believe a bad monarch is far easier to truly replace than a bad elected government. The latter can be voted out, but it remains ready to be voted back in again, and in the meantime the next elected government will take good care of all its terrible policies.

Oh yes, because a bloody coup is sooooo much better.

What's wrong with coups?