Why is democracy more accepted than aristocracy?
Aristocracy is accepted as long as you call it democracy.
>inb4 all aristocrats are inbred and other retarded propaganda
Because everybody is a special snowflake and democracy gives the illusion that their voices matter.
0/10
Because even though I didagree with most of you guys i like reading your opinions
>>449390
rule by the people makes more sense, if a Government hopes to represent the interests of those governed, naturally the governed should have a say in their own governance, or better yet govern themselves.
this worked fairly well in Athens, and arguably the issue today with representative democracy is the representatives forgetting that they are not in fact noble or special in any way and being elected doesn't give them free reign to do as they please.
>>449390
Because I like to choose the asshole who's going to lie to me.
>>449390
In this age of populism where everyone fancies themselves a philosopher people would rather be enslaved to the will of the masses than be guided by a God-chosen man raised to rule.
>>449423
Yes, because people aren't raised to rule in democracies =^)
US elections have proven time and time again that people prefer aristocracy. It's not unknown for members of formally royal families to win elected office in some parts of Europe, as well.
People love an underdog story but when all is said and done they feel more comfortable with familiar names.
Democracy is an argumentum ad populum, basically, a belief that more popular = better.
In other words, Justin Bieber is inherently better than Shostakovich because he sells more CDs.
>>449402
how sweet of you
>>449390
>Why is democracy more accepted than aristocracy?
Because I rather have my vote count than my count vote.
>>449390
Because after the Enlightenment, it's hard to have an aristocracy unless you give it names like "democracy" in order to trick the populace.
>>449442
They're not though; it is literally a popularity contest.
>>449463
China manages well
they're even implementing a public score system where you get points for being a good loyal citizen, and loose them for being a bad one.
>>449452
>Because I rather have my vote count than my count vote.
This gave me a chuckle. Thank you.
>>449442
What's the point of being raised to rule if you lose a popularity contest to the nearest welfare queen?
>>449452
I'm a monarchist and still laughed
>>449487
> Implying a welfare queen can't be more fit to rule than someone being raised to rule
>>449390
gives people a fuzzy feeling inside and makes sure the shitty kids of a ruler doesn't rule, most of them are not shitty though but people like to think they might get there someday and if they dont someone they like does
>>449390
If you really want an answer to that you should definitely read Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America
>>449495
I'll make a sports analogy. Take for example NFL quarterbacks, they are raised to be quarterbacks from a very early age. Since early childhood they practice footwork and throwing mechanics, hone they eye-hand coordination, learn to recognize defensive lineups and coverage patterns, understand signal calls, practice throwing into blind routes, etc.
Now, you're making the argument that a random dude off the street who never participated in a training session can be as good a QB as someone who's been raised to be a QB. Technically it's possible, it's however very unlikely.
because majority rule pleases the majority
>>449395
>implying aristocrats aren't inbred/purebred
Slanderous lies.
>>449526
They aren't. A few examples of Habsburgs fucking their sisters don't apply to entire aristocracy.
>medieval count
>a descendant of German, Swedish, Polish, Hungarian, French and Spanish noblemen
>medieval peasant
>a result of isolated villagers fucking their cousins for the last 500 years
>>449390
Because democracy (except direct democracy which if I'm not mistaken only occurs in Switzerland) gives the plebs the illusion that they are in control of their country.
>>449512
>Take for example NFL quarterbacks, they are raised to be quarterbacks from a very early age. Since early childhood they practice footwork and throwing mechanics, hone they eye-hand coordination, learn to recognize defensive lineups and coverage patterns, understand signal calls, practice throwing into blind routes, etc.
And somehow this happens even though they aren't Dukes from a long line of football aristocrats.
Imagine if every position in a team was inherited from a quarterback by his son.
>>449547
Actually some of the best players come from football families. See Peyton and Eli Manning for example.
>>449423
>God-chosen
>implying divine right isn't bullshit
Oh yes truly the ruler heaven has blessed us with.
I'm not going to support some dickweed with a shiny hat that says hes a god just because the best reason he has is 'because I said so'.
>>449390
I'll accept whatever one gets that cat the fuck off my pancakes
>>449553
>Actually some of the best players come from football families
So they do, without needing to legislate any privileges for our football aristocrats.
It happens naturally thanks to the meritocratic, competitive nature of the sport and probably a healthy dose of nepotism, present at all levels of our society (including, of course, politics.)
So why do we need aristocracy again?
>>449564
Especially when said dickweed is the offspring of the most incestuous family of the entire continent.
>>449578
They are players with pedigree who get carefully selected by football experts. There's no democracy in football.
Now imagine if the starting quarterback position was decided by a fan vote / popularity contest. Basically an entire league full of Michael Vicks, Johnny Manziels and Tim Tebows instead of boring dull guys like Manning.
Because the people who have to power to make ideas "acceptable": journalists and intellectuals, have more cultural, social, political and economical power in a democracy, where they are basically the ruling class, than in an aristocracy, where they are merely servants of a military caste.
https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/democracy-and-the-intellectuals/
>>449582
I can't believe it took this many posts for that picture to be posted.
>>449592
Oh, you naive fool. Do you think the American people elected Hillary Clinton to be the Democrat candidate when she was born? Yet she was groomed to reach the halls of power since she was a child. So was every Bush or Kennedy.
Obama, with no pedigree and little preparation but with more natural talent and charisma, was spotted early on by the headhunters, they tapped him on the shoulder and informed their Super PAC clients that they found a good investment. Of course Obama was still processed in the same factories as other politicians (Harvard, Law, etc)
>>449634
Hillary Clinton was a nobody until she married Bill, though.
>>449600
Journalists and 'intellectuals' basically behave like a military caste.
The former lacks the intellect or temperament to challenge (or even be aware of) authority. The latter forms repressive and stagnant moral cultures, which are little more critical of their own ideology and customs than bumpkin reactionaries are of their own.
>>449448
This, democracy sucks because the argument is that the "people" has the truth, or that the majority should rule, but what he majority think it's easy to manipulate by lobbys. Just see all that multiculturalism bullshit. Plus if people vote wrong, then who pays the consequences in terms of responsibilities? Shouldn't the majority be punished as well as the rulers who made bad decisions following the majorities will? At least if there's only one ruler or a small group of people ruling which wasn't elected, then people has the right to blame them.
>>449654
As a child, Hillary Rodham was a teacher's favorite at her public schools in Park Ridge.[10][11] She participated in sports, such as swimming and baseball, and earned numerous awards as a Brownie and as a Girl Scout.[10][11] She attended Maine East High School, where she participated in student council, the school newspaper, and was selected for National Honor Society.[2][12] For her senior year, she was redistricted to Maine South High School, where she was a National Merit Finalist and graduated in the top five percent of her class of 1965.[12][13] Her mother wanted her to have an independent, professional career,[8] and her father, otherwise a traditionalist, felt that his daughter's abilities and opportunities should not be limited by gender.[14]
Raised in a politically conservative household,[8] Rodham helped canvass Chicago's South Side at age thirteen following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election, where she found evidence of electoral fraud against Republican candidate Richard Nixon.[15] She then volunteered to campaign for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.[16] According to a biography by McGill University professor of history Gil Troy, Rodham's early political development was shaped most by her high school history teacher (like her father, a fervent anticommunist), who introduced her to Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative,[17] and by her Methodist youth minister (like her mother, concerned with issues of social justice), with whom she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962.
In 1965, Rodham enrolled at Wellesley College, where she majored in political science.[19] During her freshman year, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans;[20][21] with this Rockefeller Republican-oriented group,[22] she supported the elections of Mayor John Lindsay and of Senator Edward Brooke.[23]
>>449734
In contrast to the 1960s current that advocated radical actions against the political system, she sought to work for change within it, according to an article in The Boston Globe.[25] In her junior year, Rodham became a supporter of the antiwar presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[26] Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty.[26] In early 1968, she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association and served through early 1969;[25][27] The Boston Globe describes her as having been instrumental in keeping Wellesley from being embroiled in the student disruptions common to other colleges.[25] A number of her fellow students thought she might some day become the first female President of the United States.[25] To help her better understand her changing political views, Professor Alan Schechter assigned Rodham to intern at the House Republican Conference, and she attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program.[26] Rodham was invited by moderate New York Republican Representative Charles Goodell to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller's late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.[26] Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami.
Rodham wrote her senior thesis, a critique of the tactics of radical community organizer Saul Alinsky, under Professor Schechter.[28] (Years later, while she was First Lady, access to her thesis was restricted at the request of the White House and it became the subject of some speculation.[28]) In 1969, she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts,[29] with departmental honors in political science.[28] Following pressure from some fellow students,[30] she became the first student in Wellesley College history to deliver its commencement address.[27] Her speech received a standing ovation lasting seven minutes.[25][31][32]
>>449741
She was featured in an article published in Life magazine,[33] due to the response to a part of her speech that criticized Senator Brooke, who had spoken before her at the commencement.[30] She also appeared on Irv Kupcinet's nationally syndicated television talk show as well as in Illinois and New England newspapers.[34]
Rodham then entered Yale Law School. There she served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.[36] During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[37] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973).[38][39] She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale–New Haven Hospital[38] and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor.[37] In the summer of 1970 she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. There she researched migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.[40] Edelman later became a significant mentor.[41] Rodham was recruited by political advisor Anne Wexler to work on the 1970 campaign of Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Joseph Duffey, with Rodham later crediting Wexler with providing her first job in politics.[42]
In the late spring of 1971 she began dating Bill Clinton, also a law student at Yale. That summer she interned at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.[43] The firm was well known for its support of constitutional rights, civil liberties, and radical causes (two of its four partners were current or former Communist Party members);[43] Rodham worked on child custody and other cases.[nb 3]
>>449746
Clinton canceled his original summer plans in order to live with her in California;[47] the couple continued living together in New Haven when they returned to law school.[44] The following summer, Rodham and Clinton campaigned in Texas for unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.[48]She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973,[29] having stayed on an extra year to be with Clinton.[49] He first proposed marriage to her following graduation but she declined, uncertain if she wanted to tie her future to his.[49]
Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[50] Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[51] The article became frequently cited in the field.[54]
During her postgraduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[55] and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[56] In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[57] Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[38] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[57] The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.[57]
By then, Rodham was viewed as someone with a bright political future: Democratic political organizer and consultant Betsey Wright had moved from Texas to Washington the previous year to help guide her career,[58] and Wright thought Rodham had the potential to become a future senator or president.[59
And then, she married Bill Clinton.
>>449734
>>449741
>>449746
>>449749
By the way, this isn't meant to be supportive of Clinton. She's an insufferable bitch, even if she certainly deserves praise for the impressive effort and enthusiasm she put into her political career.
I'm just showing that it's absolutely no accident that she became a major presidential candidate or married into the Clinton family. Her life from age 13 onwards was entirely dedicated to politics, and I assume she was steered on that path even earlier because you don't naturally develop that sort of attitude in your rebellious teenage phase.
>>449582
>they were all inbred
>one example
Like clockwork.
More demos than aristos
>>449390
because of all the pleb cucks that dont want alphas like you and me to have the influence we deserve
>>449390
if im going to be governed by fuckers (dont try to prented aristocrats arent fuckers too) at least have the fuckers change every once in a while. Besides, the bureaucracy inherent in a democracy makes the fuckers in power less effective, which is ultimately a good thing for the people since their need to be governed has been historically overstated.
>>449390
Aristocracy (classes) replaced monarchy, then democracy (lower classes) replaced upper-class rule. Now dictators replace democracy.
They are the same.
One you are ruled by people with "noble" blood.
In the other you are rule by the merchant class.
>>449390
Because because mass access low skill weapons like firearms did completely away with any means an aristocracy might have to openly keep the majority under control.
