Democracy is overrated. But I don't think monarchy or dictatorship is the answer. How would you design a better political system? I was watching Starship Troopers and Terran Federation is a system that limits voting rights to veterans. Could that be it?
>>56643516
Those who pay taxes should have right to vote. Those who don't - shouldn't.
>>56643777
Thats still a form of democracy
>>56643880
Still better than the shit we have right now.
i think a consitutional republic is still the best way to go
>>56643777
But majority of taxpayers are dumb. We need a way to determine what kind of voter is a smart voter. And then limit voting rights to him. Or maybe give more votes to certain people? Taxpayers get to vote twice, non-payers once.
>>56643516
Look to the old Singapore, the Roman Republic, the Victorian era Westminster Parliament etc etc
>>56643777
I have always liked this idea, people who contribute to the state are the only ones who have a say.
Here's a fun fact pol, exit polls were done during South Africa's last election and 85% of tax payers didn't vote for the winning party.
>>56644398
Maybe only those who create more for the state than they take from it should vote. Still, "only taxpayer allowed to vote" would reduce policy making to economic sphere. This is where we are today and it kinda takes life out of life.
>>56643516
Constitutional monarchy could work. Not like the faux monarchy that Britain has now, one where the monarch actually holds power and is limited in action only by the constitution. Pair it up with a parliament and bill of rights and I think you have an effective government.
>>56643516
Monarchy
>>56644967
While I agree that a strong ruler with a vested interest in the long term well being of a country is needed, the only thing that would be able to juggle the variables of the modern world on its own is an above human level AI and we are a few decades away from something even approaching that.
>>56643516
>Basel Poledouris
:P
>>56644967
>>56645025
Romans always prided themselves on the fact that they are ruled by laws, not by men. So yeah, you need a rule of law. But monarchy? I'm not sure, it's overly idealized here on /pol, I think. Considering that with modern technology, a dystopia that hundred years ago no one could imagine is possible now actually is, then that could actually be a dangerous thing.
>>56644179
could you give me some links?
>>56645610
Basil*, and yeah that music gives me shivers every time.:)
>>56643516
Luminati system is the best !
Few famillies deciding for the rest of the world with 99% of people not even imagining them to exist...
Deploy ways to think through differents secret societies competing each other
Organize votes between parties you control zvery single in/out...
Organise crisis / cartarsistic events to manipulate people
Novus ordo ruling earth for centuries now
Stable, profitable, sustainable...
Let's have some things straight.
1. What is money and its original purpose, untainted by the modern stigma? Money is the equivalent of labor. Imagine Diablo 2: you didn't really have money there. You could sell you cool uniques, sets, runewords etc for like... 1 %itemname% for 5 %itemname% or 3 %runename%. Like in the most primitive societies of the old. Later, gold was implemented as a more easy way to see this. In our world, a person A provides some labor or help using his own skills to person B, who can't do that labor as well (or fast) as A. Person B pays person A for that labor and time. So that person A could now see how much 'help' exactly did he give, and will be able to receive the exact same amount of help from person C, using those money.
2. Who decides the ratio between some labor and the money it corresponds to? That's where the answer to why socialism is retarded lies. The only ones who can decide it are everyone involved in it; it can't be decided by some politician that was voted in by simple majority rule, with everyone having a vote right.
3. What is free market economy? It's the idea that there are two vectors in our situation: the vector coming from the person willing to pay for labor (demand) and another one from those willing to work (supply). Obviously, none of those two can have any idea of the 'real' price of that labor; but they always have the ceilings and floors for those. And where the vectors meet, the lowest price the labor-giving is willing to sell his labor for, and the highest price the labor-receiver is willing to pay for it. That's the market price. Obviously, if the supply is high, the labor-demander has an option to negotiate with another labor-giver if he couldn't find the common ground with the previous one. That's called competition - this situation would not allow for something 'unfair'.
(cont)
>>56645969
4. What is government? All in all, its main duty is to collect and redistribute taxes. However, the enthropy of that system isn't maintained; simply because some of the money we give them goes to pay for THEIR labor of redistributing our taxes. What does it mean? It means that we need as little government and taxes as possible: only for the absolutely required stuff.
If you combine everything I've mentioned in these 4 points, you get Anarcho-Capitalism, also know as Libertarianism.
Did you know that almost everyone in the Mensa and Tripple Nine Society are libertarians? That says quite a lot.
Nothing will ever work but pure communism, which will never happen because humans are greedy. That's it folks, we failed as a race. Literally 10.000 years and we still kill each other for made up money and territory when alien races are all united under one flag and are playing wayyyyyy better vidya than us humans
>that last part
>>56646217
Libertarianism isn't sustainable throug time...
It would work for one generation maybe two but in the end it would collapse...
>>56645823
your post actually makes me think, China is a very sustainable country. But really oppressive. So by what standards should we judge a political system? Sustainability? Individual freedom?
>>56645969
>>56646217
I am familiar with libertarian philosophy, negative rights, non agression principle, etc.I think libertarian society is an ideal to strive towards, but it's logical conclusion, anarcho-capitalism doesn't sound very practical to my. I believe that we need a state.
>>56646221
You sound like a leftie. What the hell are you doing here?
>>56646464
Nice double-digit tripples there. Care to explain why?
In my opinion, libertarianism would be a launch-pad for the good times where humanity simply won't need labor anymore. That's where the ideas of absolute equality might kick in and socialistic ideas will be relevant. Simply because right now the main reason why socialism is retarded is that there are NO free things on our planet yet. Most of the things required for a good easy life do require labor yet.
>>56643516
Monarchy
>>56644155
early days of US - federalism where state reps are appointed and still have power, only property owners and military can vote.
people like to shit on America as degenerate because of "democracy" but it started out as a limited franchise republic until the you-know-whos had to ruin it with the Civil War.
>implying anyone has the right to make decisions for me period
>>56644096
Agreed.
>>56646634
Every society organisation were invented for their sustainity before anything else...
Monarchy during antic and middle age
Roman republic and democray in greece
All were model to keep a group together through time
>>56646952
>you-know-whos
Jewkies?
>>56647218
big part, but not the only problem. the Northeast elite in general (including plenty of anglo industrialists) had a big stake. And so did the secret societies of the Vatican, who succeeded in pumping millions of Irish immigrants to the US (while the native-born farmers protested this - look up Nativist movement)
>>56643777
Nice trips
>>56645644
>then that could actually be a dangerous thing.
Arent we already fucked as fuck? White genocide, fucking of the third world, feminism, faggots... Be Careful with democratic brainwashing.
I recommend reading the blog unqualified reservation (google moldbuggery for convenience and where to start).
>>56646753
>simply won't need labor anymore
m8
what are you a fucking commie?
Resting your ideology on the fantasy that magically we'll achieve a no-scarcity economy if only we did things a certain way?
>>56646753
I dont think so. Societies that dont need to work turn to degeneration. See rome with slaves or western millenials with east asian, machines and immigrant cheap labor
>>56647578
I forgot. This guy from this blog shill and ignores for kikes a bit. Rememnber to remember the jews whrn reading it.
>>56647016
But if it was inevitable that someone will make decisions for you, what kind if political system would you want?
>>56647082
But look at china. It is more sustainable, but would you actually want to live there? watch this at 2.44: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JXk3jASHJs
>>56647451
Are you familiar with E. Michael Jones?
>>56647578
Yeah, I'm familiar with Mencius and the cathedral and all that. Will look it up more.
Great nobody here anymore. Fucking slide threads.
>>56648702
still here.
>>56643516
Yeah, it's called a Constitutional Republic.
>>56649093
Constitutional republic can be democratic. Yours is.
>>56646952
We don't shit on you because of democracy but for the following combination of factors:
- First past the post voting system
- 2 party system
- Poor public education --> dumb voters --> easily controlled by media
- Gerrymandering
- Extreme corporate influence over senate
- Extreme corporate influence over the presidential election process
No government.
>>56649571
Considering that there is no advanced society on this planet that doesn't have a government, I'm gonna assume that anarchic ones were inferior and disappeared.
>>56649093
>>56649476
The problem with a democratic system is that the second people stop paying attention (or they eat up the media narrative), then corruption begins taking its toll.
When politics becomes a popularity contest instead of a leadership contest then its only going to go downwards.
>>56644967
So basically Imperial Germany?
>>56650023
So what could work better?
>>56643516
meritocracy/technocracy
>>56650023
The issue with America was the 17th amendment which made States have near zero say in the way the nation is run and the Federal government being the only real.power.
Remove the 17th amendment 16th amendment and the Federal reserve act and this nation will quickly recover.
1913 was a really bad year for America
>>56650259
Imperial Germany's constitutional monarchy
>>56643516
we dont actually practice true democracy, we let women vote.
>>56643516
It works for some countries, it doesn't for others. There is no universal "perfect government" and you should know that by now.
>>56650349
>meritocracy/technocracy
and how would it be organized? Decision making power would be given to individuals according to merit. But what is this merit? who decides whether an individual is worthy? We can all agree that power and decision making should be given to those that are most fit for that, but how to make sure that happens? No one is disputing desirability of such a system, but HOW can we organize a society that does that?
>>56650835
How did that work?
>>56650961
Yeah, maybe that's the whole problem. "VOTE FOR HILLARY, SHE HAS A VAGINA, VOTE FOR OBAMA, HE'S BLACK, VOTE FOR TRUDEAU, HE'S CUTE!"
>>56651034
Not asking for perfection, just what could work better than what we have now.
>>56651460
well until AI happens, we base the merit on fields and work experience.
not sure who should get to decide, possibly some sort of mass online voting, or a committee from a neutral country?
tough questions
>>56651460
>meritocracy/technocracy
>and how would it be organized?
For me the population should be seperate into 3 state, and completely sepereted form each other beside high collars évaluating the capacity of one other state
And that evaluation go in circle but that would maybe only work with an unified world
>>56651926
>we base the merit on fields and work experience
So you need some objective standards by which you can determine who has more experience. But the more I think about this the more my head hurts. Imagine that you would have to design a constitutional meritocracy. What would that constitution look like?
>>56652204
>beside high collars évaluating the capacity of one other state
No offense, but I didn't quite get what you meant by this, could you explain?
>>56643516
Read democracy: the God that failed
>>56643516
all systems of government rely on the abilities of those making decisions. Therefore a democracy is only as good as its voter base, which is why first world democracies function so much better than third world democracies and competent dictatorships function so much better than dysfunctional dictatorships.
this is why this question is ultimately pointless.
>>56651460
>According to the constitution, the empire was a confederation headed by the King of Prussia, who had the title of German Emperor. The Emperor appointed the Chancellor, the head of government and president of the Bundesrat, the council of representatives of the German states. . Laws were enacted by the Bundesrat and the Reichstag, the Imperial Diet elected by male Germans above the age of 25 years.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_German_Empire
TL;DR, chancellor of was head of the nation foreign policy was (and was appointed by the Emperor), while laws were passed through the Congress (who the people voted in for on the Reichstag, the Bundesrat was different), but ultimately the Emperor had a major say in pretty much everything
>>56643516
Democracy is shit but it's still by far the best system.
> churchillquote.jpg
>>56652682
High diplomated and rich I would say
>>56652682
>determine who has more experience
yep it would be a pain, honestly i don't think it matters about getting the best candidate.
just getting anyone with experience in the field is better than the current way most governments work.
>>56652804
>Read democracy: the God that failed
Is an alternative offered in this book or is it just another critique?
>>56652846
>all systems of government rely on the abilities of those making decisions
That is obvious, but profound at the same time.
>this is why this question is ultimately pointless.
Well, I can still ask another one: Is democracy the best way to get an able man into decisionmaking process?
>>56652941
I wonder what germany would look like today if WWI didn't happen.
>>56652948
perhaps.
>>56653414
>just getting anyone with experience in the field is better than the current way most governments work.
Yeah, I can agree with that.
>>56652941
>general suffrage for men above 25
Is that the best way to define who gets to vote or what?
