really makes you think
>>1237054
oh man now that's really deep
>>1237054
He's not wrong, if you're trying to trivialize that idea by make it seem pedestrian or something.
>>1237071
Who is ruling in a democracy?
Philosopher kings are obvious solution
>>1237083
It's called the USSR
>>1237093
*tips fedora*
Why do you still post here? Nobody likes you and your opinions are stupid as fuck.
>>1237074
the quote wasn't to imply that everyone is a fool, if that's what you're aiming for.
>>1237101
Then the people democracy elects aren't fools, but rulers not popularly elected are fools?
really makes you sink
>>1237107
Really makes you twink.
>>1237104
What are you implying?
>>1237109
That you could just as truthful saying, "Democracy; the fools have a right to vote. Dictatorship; the fools have no say."
>>1237115
>Dictatorship; the fools have no say.
But that's laughably false.
>>1237109
Or, "Democracy; the fools have a right to rule. Dictatorship; the intelligent have a right to rule."
>>1237118
Obviously not if the dictator isn't a fool.
>>1237120
>Obviously not if the dictator isn't a fool.
Yeah, good luck with that.
>>1237119
It's not always the intelligent. Sometimes it's just the charismatic, the tenacious, or the lucky.
I think you people are really overestimating tyrants here. You're falling for the meme that somehow these people are "better". They're often deeply flawed individuals, those who would seek out that kind of power.
>>1237125
>Yeah, good luck with that.
How is a dictator any more innately a fool than someone popularly elected?
>They're often deeply flawed individuals, those who would seek out that kind of power.
Until the modern era, that's pretty much what ruling consisted of, where it didn't, it was seldom struggle with commoners, but struggles against other aristocrats.
>>1237132
>How is a dictator any more innately a fool than someone popularly elected?
Only in that if they are obviously an inept fool, they are more difficult to chuck out. See: North Korea.
>>1237134
North Korea has had fairly competent dictators so far, just not benevolent ones.
Kim Jong-Il was probably one of the more legit personally talented dictators of the 20th century.
>>1237134
And if they are extremely competent in a popular election, they are limited by terms.
>>1237139
>North Korea has had fairly competent dictators so far
O I am laffin
>>1237140
Term limits are their own issue that aren't really relevant. You can have a representative system with them or without them.
>>1237146
If he's so incompetent, it should have been easy for any of his rivals to overthrow him during the arduous march, right?
>>1237146
Kim Il Sung was very compentent and Kim Jong Un is reasonably competant.
Kim Jong Il was probably the worst of the three, however the fact that he managed to hold power shows he was doing something right.
>>1237154
>If he's so incompetent, it should have been easy for any of his rivals to overthrow him during the arduous march, right?
That's the kind of "competence" a system like north Korea promotes. Ability to keep your position at the top when others try to betray or usurp you. It doesn't select for the person best suited to bring the people of the country a good standard of living. Republic systems don't select for that either directly, but they at least select for the person the people BELIEVE is best for them, and the prospective leaders have to campaign to make their case why that is them, rather than just forcing everyone to call them "glorious leader", when they're shit.
So until such time as we can create a system that directly selects the actual best leader for the job, it's better to stick with one that promotes the person perceived as best, rather than the one who can kill, or back-stab, or oppress his way to the top.
>>1237151
Nope. For instance, Putin has managed to get around them through the loophole of switching offices. Though he has tremendous popular support, he is widely seen as a dictator for getting around term limits.
>>1237160
Not just hold power, but take power. Remember, Kim Song-Ae was the "official wife", and held political office herself, and hereditary rule was not a guaranteed thing.
I'd also point to Kim Jong-Il's work in propoganda as very real and very extraordinary, even from a technical artistic perspective. He didn't just order the cult of his father, he made that happen.
>>1237134
Democracy lead to the post notorious dictator of all time, Hitler, and populism against monarchy gave us the notorious Mao and Stalin. Democracy hardly guarantees it is easy to remove someone, it only lasts until someone has the notion to keep themselves in office through the military, we've known that at least since the Roman Empire.
>>1237181
So what you're saying is that the problem with democracy is that it sometimes ceases to be democracy?
Great argument.
>>1237188
No, my problem is that all of the worst dictators came out of populist ideology. Most other dictators could be good or bad, but they didn't hold a candle to the Biblical evil that came out of populism.
>>1237203
I think you've defined "populism" so loosely that you are able to carve any point you want out of it. Stalin's rise had nothing to do with democracy.
>>1237093
Kill yourself you moron
>>1237181
Hitler wasn't democratically elected, he was appointed by von Hidenburg and the NSDAP had to seriously manipulate the system in order to hold onto power until Hindeburg died and they were free to go mad.
>>1237206
It was inextricably tied to the populist disposal of the monarchy, which led to the rise of Lenin.
>>1237212
And Lenin did nothing wrong.
>>1237212
I never argued in favor of "populism", please try to stick to the issues that are actually in question. There are immediately obvious reasons the Soviet model was shit. Just as there are immediately obvious reasons monarchy decided by descent, which it kind of seems like you're arguing for, is shit.
>>1237221
Well, you could argue the same for Stalin, if you are to accept their ideology in its entirety.
>>1237222
What is democracy other than an attempt to compromise with populism? Some populists see this compromise as workable, but still expect to gradually give more and more to populism (reformists), while others demand everything at once (revolutionaries).
You can call the monarchy all sorts of things, but I see it as entirely preferable to the populism which took its place. And I'd say Queen Elizabeth would be an entirely preferable ruler to what democracy presents us in America. And I see the Kaiser to have been an entirely preferable ruler to Hitler, and King Charles entirely preferable to Cromwell.
it's true, but also pretty obvious, not really worthy of a quote image macro.
From what I've seen from him so far I'm starting to think Bertrand Russell only pointed out the obvious and was only relevant to average plebs who neeeds direction with thinking.
>>1237238
>but I see it as entirely preferable to the populism which took its place
Well I disagree, and I think you're taking a very idealistic view of monarchy, focusing on only the leaders you think best, as your unnecessary tripcode suggests. Not every monarch was Queen Elizabeth.
>>1237251
I'm not taking an idealistic view at all. Nicholas II wasn't exactly a great monarch, in fact just the opposite. But he's certainly preferable to Lenin or Stalin.
>>1237255
>But he's certainly preferable to Lenin or Stalin.
But you forget: I don't care. I'm not trying to prop up one form of absolute rule by a dictator or monarch over another. I view them as both crap.
>>1237255
Nicholas II lost the Ukraine, the Baltic and a shitload of other territories.
How is that preferable to marching all the way to Berlin?
>>1237278
because he was useless not because he was a nice guy
>>1237238
You're such a fedora.
>>1237278
>the lust for freedom from monarchy
Misdirected lust, not unwarranted, and not mistaken. They put their faith in a system that idealized a single-party rule, and pretended that the future could be in the hands of "the proletariat" as some kind of single, monolithic entity. True freedom of self-governing has to come with the understanding that it will be messy, and there will be internal fracturing and disagreement. That disagreement is essential for the ultimate health of the country though.
>>1237286
He's a tripfag, you can't expect much more from them.
>>1237290
Literally the only reason this doesn't happen in all democracies is because the bourgeoisie maintain enormous undemocratic power over the political system.
>>1237296
'psychopath'
maybe for the wrong ppl
>>1237299
That's pretty much a blatant guess on your part.
>>1237309
>It is extremely difficult to become a contestant for major leadership without a lot of money and press coverage.
That's not what I doubt. You said the only reason democracies don't collapse into something like what I described with the Soviet Union is BECAUSE of the elements that corrupt the democratic process. That really does seem like just a guess.
>>1237309
tripfags are psychopaths
>>1237314
Name a single time where the commoners had the most power (which is proper democracy, they always would, since they are by far the most numerous class), and it didn't devolve into pointless bloodshed.
>>1237321
Stalin would use a trip.
>>1237327
you know what? you are OK constantine.
>>1237054
What a smug fuck. I have some strange hatred of Russell.
>>1237326
Most political systems, when they devolve, end in pointless bloodshed.
>>1237221
>People actually think this
>>1237347
Name a single time where commoners had the most power and it didn't devolve/evolve into pointless bloodshed.
>>1237355
Why? We were talking about turning into something like the Soviet Union before. That's not "pointless bloodshed", that's turning into a repressive dictatorship. The bloodshed , the purges at least, had a point, it was to preserve Stalin's rule.
>>1237370
A great deal of the bloodshed perpetuated by both Lenin and Stalin was conducted upon "class enemies".
>>1237093
*Rome
>>1237355
American frontier.
>>1237272
Brest-Litovsk was a treaty signed with the Soviets
>>1237376
So you think if you took the average background of members of parliament, it would be working class?
>>1237388
A: No scarcity of land, and where the was, it often lead to much bloodshed, such as with the sheep wars.
B: Very little urbanization.
C: Considerable slaughter of natives.
>>1237401
And stabilized out at a society that is not at war, and has the power in the hands of the people.
>>1237407
A: Shifting goalposts
B: Shifting goalposts
C: Slaughter of native preceded the advancement of settler society.
>>1237402
That undoes your argument against the Soviets.
>>1237402
>So you think if you took the average background of members of parliament, it would be working class?
What does that have to do with anything at all?
>>1237418
No, not at all. Your conditions are comparing commoner power in the environment of land surplus and lack of population density, to conditions with land scarcity and urbanization. Conditions in the West would have had less bloodshed of the commoners *didn't* have power. The only reason it didn't turn into a massive bloodbath is because of lack of urbanization coupled with land surplus.
>>1237420
The leaders of the soviets largely came from the working classes.
>>1237421
Quite a bit, since those are the people with the power. Do you think commoners would stand a fraction of that chance in gaining leadership?
>>1237418
You example could also be the Australian penal colonies to show rule by felons is a reasonable mode of governance.
>>1237432
>Do you think commoners would stand a fraction of that chance in gaining leadership?
That isn't the point of a Republic or Parliament anyway. The point is people being able to CHOOSE their leadership, which I have been arguing for this whole time. You would hope they would choose people smarter and more qualified than them to lead.
>>1237432
>Your conditions are comparing commoner power in the environment of land surplus and lack of population density, to conditions with land scarcity and urbanization.
Too bad. Name one time that a lack of commoner power DIDN'T result in 1/4 of the population being killed in 100 days? I promise, I won't shift the goalposts on this one, same as you.
>>1237452
>But most members of parliament didn't even specialize in ruling in school, so your statement doesn't really make sense.
Sure it does. Maybe didn't specialize in "ruling", but some studied law, others majored in political science, etc.
And the monarch who is supposedly more qualified because of his upbringing is nonetheless, still not answerable to the people, so if that intent of making him qualified fails, the only way to have a popular referendum on things is if they become so bad that a violent overthrow of the political system happens. What a republic does is ensure that the people can have their "revolution" in a bloodless way, getting rid of the unwanted rulers, and replacing them, with minimal strife and mess.
>>1237452
>Most monarchies.
Those
A) Didn't happen in Rwanda
B) Didn't happen between April 7th 1994 and July 15th 1994
and
C) Were loaded down with loads of atrocities on top of that.
>>1237054
That's literally the dumbest quote I ever saw.
>>1237463
>Maybe didn't specialize in "ruling", but some studied law, others majored in political science, etc.
Very few are political science majors. A good number study law, but politics is meta-legal, since it's generally about changing law, whereas implementing of current laws happens in the courtroom and in enforcement. They seldom take courses devoted to understanding the implications of adding or abridging laws in depth, at most they just know the process.
>What a republic does is ensure that the people can have their "revolution" in a bloodless way, getting rid of the unwanted rulers, and replacing them, with minimal strife and mess.
This only happens if you have a ruler willing to step down. If you don't, and that ruler has recourse to the military, he won't go anywhere
>>1237473
The frontier, relative to its quantity of free land and population thinness, did indeed devolve into pointless bloodshed.
>>1237488
>Under the surface were other tensions aggravating the simmering distrust. Most of the Cowboys, including the Clantons and McLaurys, were Democrats and Confederate sympathizers from Southern states, especially Texas. They considered the business owners and the lawmen, especially the Earps, to be Northern Republican carpetbaggers. The Republican Earps were politically oriented as well. They also disagreed fundamentally about the use of resources and land. Northern-style capitalism was contrasted against the traditional, Southern-style, "small government" agrarianism of the rural bandit Cowboys.[17]
Here gang-driven murder and pillaging was allowed free reign in large part because of populist sympathies.
>>1237480
what else can you expect from old bertie "fuck my wife please" russell
>>1237083
Every faggot with an opinion is a philosopher.
