If the average person is unfit to govern, should democracy be abolished?

greycel said:
100% true
And/or the very High IQ people of society will not care for the betterment of civilisation. It’s the only fault with finding somebody from an extreme

If you limit the sample size to only the most extreme, well them being extreme in one factor (especially something that is directly to do with the mind), will result in them being extreme in other factors
Which will not make them good judges for the objectively best option of entire society, as they will either be emotionally driven (despite their capabilities) or they cannot understand what they haven’t perceived (due to low empathy or a truly different life to an average dude’s - sufficient unfamiliarity)

It’s why I mentioned a person of good character. As I think it’s best to go a step above what society currently finds to be ideal ——> to what society should find ideal… mixed with somebody who’s capable mentally to understand cause and effect
Click to expand...
Agreed. :feelshmm:
 
  • +1
Reactions: greycel
wishIwasSalludon said:
I’ll look into it

But isn’t this water?

Like yea societies are ruled by elites but it’s who chooses the elite that changes

Like in monarchy power is inherited , while in democracy power is given to someone from the masses
Click to expand...
No, if the masses could actually change the elites by voooting they would have power.

But the truth of democracy is, no matter who you vote for, the elites stay the same and nothing will change.
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon and imontheloose
Beastimmung said:
No, if the masses could actually change the elites by voooting they would have power.

But the truth of democracy is, no matter who you vote for, the elites stay the same and nothing will change.
Click to expand...
Definitely. But what do you think the resolution is then? Do you agree with me, or do you differ slightly?
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon
Beastimmung said:
No, if the masses could actually change the elites by voooting they would have power.

But the truth of democracy is, no matter who you vote for, the elites stay the same and nothing will change.
Click to expand...
Yea there was a study done by Princeton and the amount of people who supported a bill had literally 0 impact on whether it becomes a law

Not a small impact but literally NONE


But in my opinion this is caused by mixing democracy with capitalism not necessarily a problem with democracy itself
 
  • +1
Reactions: imontheloose
@Gargantuan @Gengar @not__cel @psychomandible @Volksstaffel what are your opinions? :feelshmm:
 
  • +1
Reactions: Gengar, not__cel and psychomandible
imontheloose said:
If the average man is ruled by impulse, sentiment, and fear, why should he decide the fate of a nation? He is a follower by nature, not a leader. Democracy is nothing but an illusion, complete deception, where the unfit outvote the strong, where the lowest instinct becomes law; the herd essentially to dictate to the worthy, it completely enshrines quantity over quality.

People cannot be led by arithmetic. Rule belongs to the best. When weakness governs, the people will wither. When strength leads, the people will endure.

I'm asking, is it dangerous to give equal political power to both least, and most capable? And does universal suffrage lead to universal mediocrity?

@Jason Voorhees @DR. NICKGA @Nick.Harte @wishIwasSalludon @Snicket
Click to expand...
doesnt that make the masses who voted for them unfit to choose in the first place??
 
Absolutely
Read the republic. There’s no point in democracy if people are being manipulated
 
imontheloose said:
Definitely. But what do you think the resolution is then? Do you agree with me, or do you differ slightly?
Click to expand...
Its still bad cause public opinion still matters and and the elected leaders need to appeal to the masses, incentivicing short term-thinking and bad policies to get the votes, otherwise the faith in the institutions would falter.

Appearing democratic becomes a constraint and good govermence, leading to far less effective leadership then Monarchies for example.

Also I think the categorical imperative of the (current) democracy, namely egalitarianism, is wrong
 
  • +1
Reactions: Joka and imontheloose
Democracy just means your society is run by jews.
 
  • +1
Reactions: imontheloose
Beastimmung said:
Its still bad cause public opinion still matters and and the elected leaders need to appeal to the masses, incentivicing short term-thinking and bad policies to get the votes, otherwise the faith in the institutions would falter.

Appearing democratic becomes a constraint and good govermence, leading to far less effective leadership then Monarchies for example.

Also I think the categorical imperative of the (current) democracy, namely egalitarianism, is wrong
Click to expand...
Nice. I don't just oppose democracy for being inefficient, I oppose its very moral and metaphysical foundation. It's unnatural, destructive, and rooted in liberal-Jewish universalism.
 
imontheloose said:
If the average man is ruled by impulse, sentiment, and fear, why should he decide the fate of a nation? He is a follower by nature, not a leader. Democracy is nothing but an illusion, complete deception, where the unfit outvote the strong, where the lowest instinct becomes law; the herd essentially to dictate to the worthy, it completely enshrines quantity over quality.

People cannot be led by arithmetic. Rule belongs to the best. When weakness governs, the people will wither. When strength leads, the people will endure.

I'm asking, is it dangerous to give equal political power to both least, and most capable? And does universal suffrage lead to universal mediocrity?

@Jason Voorhees @DR. NICKGA @Nick.Harte @wishIwasSalludon @Snicket
Click to expand...
It’s a deeply flawed system.

The question is what would supersede it and would it provide superior outcomes?

Who are the best people to make decisions and how do we determine that?
Since no system is infallible, what failsafes would be in place when that system inevitably makes the wrong decisions?

I think there is an overemphasis on IQ on here.
Yes, it's very important but there are other important attributes when choosing effective leaders.
 
  • +1
Reactions: imontheloose
Snicket said:
I think there is an overemphasis on IQ on here.
Yes, it's very important but there are other important attributes when making effective decisions.
Click to expand...
Bingo! I agree exactly with that. See me and @wishIwasSalludon's discussion here. :feelshmm:
 
  • +1
Reactions: wishIwasSalludon and Snicket
imontheloose said:
Bingo! I agree exactly with that. See me and @wishIwasSalludon's discussion here. :feelshmm:
Click to expand...
I quite liked the idea floated in Starship Troopers of having to perform national duties to obtain the right to vote!
The book by Heinlein is quite entertaining and of course there's the film, which is a worse version of that.

Unlimited franchise without earning the vote leaves an electorate that can vote irresponsibly without thinking through the consequences of their decisions.

Here's a quote form it that was quite good imo:

Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”​

 
  • +1
Reactions: imontheloose
  • Love it
Reactions: imontheloose
Snicket said:
I quite liked the idea floated in Starship Troopers of having to perform national duties to obtain the right to vote!
The book by Heinlein is quite entertaining and of course there's the film, which is a worse version of that.

Unlimited franchise without earning the vote leaves an electorate that can vote irresponsibly without thinking through the consequences of their decisions.

Here's a quote form it that was quite good imo:

Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”​

Click to expand...
I agree, totally, sir. :feelsez:
 
Snicket said:
No, ripping something down without a good idea of what will replace it is worse.
Click to expand...
Democracy is terrible anyway, I'd prefer monarchy
 
imontheloose said:
@Gargantuan @Gengar @not__cel @psychomandible @Volksstaffel what are your opinions? :feelshmm:
Click to expand...
Obviously. Democracy is lowkey one of the most retarded concepts ever. It idolizes equality in an unfair situation. It is flawed by design.
 
  • Love it
Reactions: imontheloose
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (Looksmaxers: 0, Bluepillers: 3)
Back
Top