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

[imontheloose]

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?

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @DR. NICKGA @Nick.Harte @wishIwasSalludon @Snicket

 

[Jason Voorhees]

There's something called wisdom or yhr crowd. The aggregating diverse, independent opinions according to studies often can lead to more accurate judgments than those made by individual, including experts. This phenomenon has been observed in various settings from estimating quantities to predicting outcomes. The group is always more far more intelligent and capable of making the right decisions compared to an individual even if he is an expert in that field.

Wisdom of the crowd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assembly bonus effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[mentally_ill_chad]

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?

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @DR. NICKGA @Nick.Harte @wishIwasSalludon @Snicket

Yes, a spartan like monarchy/society should be established

 

[incel-at-heart]

I'm asking, is it dangerous to give equal political power to both least, and most capable?

Yes. Democracy only works well if you raise the average capable-ness of the voters. Ancient Greece did not allow women or slaves to vote. Germanics allowed women to voice their opinions, but ultimately only high ranking males of the clan had proper discussion and decision-making power.

And does universal suffrage lead to universal mediocrity?

Mostly, but especially in parliamentary democracies, where accountability for bad political decisions is spread to a "party", so basically no single individual. And there are little consequences for bad governance, since a party can easily recover by retiring the biggest retards and putting up new retards for the next election.


If you allow everyone to vote, the statistical law of big numbers kicks in and you'll get a result that strives towards the average (= mediocre).

 

[vevcred2_0]

no lol

 

[incel-at-heart]

There's something called wisdom or yhr crowd. The aggregating diverse, independent opinions according to studies often can lead to more accurate judgments than those made by individual, including experts. This phenomenon has been observed in various settings from estimating quantities to predicting outcomes. The group is always more far more intelligent and capable of making the right decisions compared to an individual even if he is am expert

Wisdom of the crowd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assembly bonus effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This is true when pitting individuals against crowds, but not necessarily when you pit smaller crowds against larger crowds.

The larger the crowd, the more likely its average IQ to be 100. And 1 million midwits don't make better decisions than 10 geniuses.

 

[imontheloose]

There's something called wisdom or yhr crowd. The aggregating diverse, independent opinions according to studies often can lead to more accurate judgments than those made by individual, including experts. This phenomenon has been observed in various settings from estimating quantities to predicting outcomes. The group is always more far more intelligent and capable of making the right decisions compared to an individual even if he is am expert

Wisdom of the crowd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assembly bonus effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I've seen this argument before. It's a classic defence of democracy. It doesn't suffice to me tho. It limits scope.

Numbers don't guarantee truth. A crowd can estimate the weight of an ox, but it cannot protect blood and soil, or build a nation. Can it foresee not just the next vote, but the next generation? I don't think so. The crowd doesn't dream, it obeys.

This argument holds well in a market or a quiz show, but a civilisation is neither of them. A civilisation requires vision, hierarchy, and sacrifice, not averages.

 

[imontheloose]

Yes, a spartan like monarchy/society should be established

no lol

Why?

 

[vevcred2_0]

Why?

idk, what's better?

 

[mentally_ill_chad]

Why?

Because democracy sucks

 

[imontheloose]

idk, what's better?

This is the problem I speak of. You dismiss without understanding. I think a better system would be a political order built on the leader principle: the leadership of the strongest, most disciplined, the most racially aware, not a poll-winner.

I reject the chaos of 51% rule. Believing all votes and men are equal is delusional. Rule should flow from above, from those proven to lead, selected not by popularity, but by merit, heritage, and loyalty to the people.

The weak should follow the strong, not cancel their opinion out.

 

[vevcred2_0]

This is the problem I speak of. You dismiss without understanding. I think a better system would be a political order built on the leader principle: the leadership of the strongest, most disciplined, the most racially aware, not a poll-winner.

I reject the chaos of 51% rule. Believing all votes and men are equal is delusional. Rule should flow from above, from those proven to lead, selected not by popularity, but by merit, heritage, and loyalty to the people.

The weak should follow the strong, not cancel their opinion out.

Adds up

 

[imontheloose]

@heightmaxxing @IOS @itzyaboyJJ @Jonas2k7 @Mess what do you think?

 

[Jonas2k7]

@heightmaxxing @IOS @itzyaboyJJ @Jonas2k7 @Mess what do you think?

I thought about that too, I agree

 

[imontheloose]

I thought about that too, I agree

Nice.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

To say democracy should be outright abolished seems a bit extreme

And I say this because letting a small group of people have too much power would be very dangerous

Look at what our leaders do now, they repeatedly screw over the people even in this democratic system

So imagine how much worse it would get if they had absolute power

Instead I think there should be conditions you need in order to become a leader, like say you need an iq of 130 minimum to be eligible for president

And there should be conditions to be able to vote, like you need to take a test that shows you understand the policies you’re voting for.

 

[trench]

This is the problem I speak of. You dismiss without understanding. I think a better system would be a political order built on the leader principle: the leadership of the strongest, most disciplined, the most racially aware, not a poll-winner.

I reject the chaos of 51% rule. Believing all votes and men are equal is delusional. Rule should flow from above, from those proven to lead, selected not by popularity, but by merit, heritage, and loyalty to the people.

The weak should follow the strong, not cancel their opinion out.

fully agree on this

51% is no way to choose anything regarding politics/system in general, the most disciplined and the person that clearly fits the requirements should be chosen, not a poll-winner decided by other people

 

[obscuredusk]

democracy is overrated. we would be far more developed as a society if we chose some sort of leadership

 

[greycel]

Agreed

There's something called wisdom or yhr crowd. The aggregating diverse, independent opinions according to studies often can lead to more accurate judgments than those made by individual, including experts. This phenomenon has been observed in various settings from estimating quantities to predicting outcomes to electing leaders and policies. The group is always more far more intelligent and capable of making the right decisions compared to an individual even if he is an expert in that field.

Wisdom of the crowd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assembly bonus effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Is it?
Then why have ”we” imprudently created a society where rates of depression, divorce and suicide are higher. Where everybody has strayed further from God and doing what’s right

I do think you’re right but it has to be to some degree which it’s sufficient. Beyond this sufficient range it becomes insufficient QUICkLY, to the point that I believe after the peak range it will nosedive far far below what the initial view of 1-2 experts would’ve been (and quicker)

(not actual peak, entire graph should be shifted to the left)

So if this is a gradient spectrum, and 1-2 is too few, and everybody in society is TOO much… then begs the question where is the perfect balance?


Previously, a better balance than today used to be half of the population (the men) used to vote. Civilisation then was better, more focused at growth, people valued religion and issues today such as gender politics would’ve never existed.


But is this the optimal range? Intuitively I’d still say no.
I’d say to get close to an optimal range where you will find a perfect balance of both:

1. Enough people (for the opinion to be varied)
2. People to be capable to produce an opinion with the best “objective” outcome

You’ll have to seed out the people who are capable of doing so, whilst making sure it isn’t only for a very select few (subjective on what you decide to be “few”).
For me personally, I think everyone should take an IQ test or a test of character (ideally both).. and only the top 15% (overall - depends on how much you contribute both towards final score) should be allowed to vote.

Reason I say this is because 15% is roughly equal to “slightly higher than above average”, which tends to be the most ideal metric for everything for life quality - looks, height, dick size, etc… it only makes sense that this should extend to the thoughts of those in the top 15%


Or you can go a step beyond this, and have it in tiers. And everybody gets a say but the higher your score is in the test, the more of a say you will have.
The government don’t even have to release what your score is, or else you’ll be pressured by those close to you, and people would reduce each other to a number (similar to today’s looks) for how much they are truly worth - I.e. what tier.

@imontheloose thats my answer. I was planning on making a thread on this.
I still might tbh..

 

[imontheloose]

To say democracy should be outright abolished seems a bit extreme

And I say this because letting a small group of people have to much power would be very dangerous

Look at what our leaders do now, they repeatedly screw over the people even in this democratic system

So imagine how much worse it would get if they had absolute power

Instead I think there should be conditions you need in order to become a leader, like say you need an iq of 130 minimum to be eligible for president

And there should be conditions to be able to vote, like you need to take a test that shows you understand the policies your voting for.

I have also seen this and thought of it. I do like it, but isn't the problem a bit deeper? The most dangerous traitors throughout history have been very intelligent people. Do you think it's solely about IQ?

I think a man with a high IQ who serves no higher purpose is more dangerous than a fool. Absolute power is dangerous only in the hands of the wrong men, that's why power must be held only by those proven worthy, not by just passing a test, but I think living a life of service, sacrifice, and racial consciousness.

I do really understand this view, and in the past have aligned with it, and still tussle with it. Really good stuff.

 

[mentally_ill_chad]

letting a small group of people

No no no no this, this is an oligarchy and US is an oligarchy now. That's ehy we need a monarchy. One king to rule it all

 

[mentally_ill_chad]

No no no no this, this is an oligarchy and US is an oligarchy now. That's ehy we need a monarchy. One king to rule it all

It doesn't need to be an monarchy, bit monarchy (like louis the sun king) was perfect

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Do you think it's solely about IQ?

IQ was just an example of what a good condition to be set might be

It was to get you to understand the idea I’m thinking of

What actual conditions I think should be set I don’t know I would have to think about it for a while

And I’d like to get more educated on certain topics if I ever wanted to decide

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

No no no no this, this is an oligarchy and US is an oligarchy now. That's ehy we need a monarchy. One king to rule it all

The problem with monarchy is all it takes is one fool and then your entire country is fucked

Also I think society should be meritocratic

 

[imontheloose]

IQ was just an example of what a good condition to be set might be

It was to get you to understand the idea I’m thinking of

What actual conditions I think should be set I don’t know I would have to think about it for a while

And I’d like to get more educated on certain topics if I ever wanted to decide

Sounds good. I do agree in that sense then.

 

[mentally_ill_chad]

meritocratic

Meritocracy doesn't exist. If you're born with the right genes, you make it as far as your genes allow it. If your genes are shit then there is no meritocracy for you. Meritocracy is the system that only favours the ones with good genes imo. The worse your genes are in meritocracy, the more fucked up you status is

(Edit: I worded it wrong, it exists but it's unfair af)

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Sounds good. I do agree in that sense then.

But I do think at the very minimum voters should be required to understand what theyre voting for

For example after trump won the election one of the top searches here was “what is a tariff”

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Meritocracy doesn't exist. If you're born with the right genes, you make it as far as your genes allow it. If your genes are shit then there is no meritocracy for you. Meritocracy is the system that only favours the ones with good genes imo. The worse your genes are in meritocracy, the more fucked up you status is

(Edit: I worded it wrong, it exists but it's unfair af)

Fuck I’m trying to take what you say seriously but my eyes keep going to your avi

 

[Hernan]

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?

Spoiler

@Jason Voorhees @DR. NICKGA @Nick.Harte @wishIwasSalludon @Snicket

Democracy is retarded in general, basically a society run by Jews.
Imagine your vote being equal to that of a literal nigger with 80iq.

 

[mentally_ill_chad]

Fuck I’m trying to take what you say seriously but my eyes keep going to your avi

Sorry but that's the love of my life, my future wife

 

[mentally_ill_chad]

vote being equal to that of a literal nigger with 80iq.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Sorry but that's the love of my life, my future wife

It’s hot tbh

 

[imontheloose]

Agreed


Is it?
Then why have ”we” imprudently created a society where rates of depression, divorce and suicide are higher. Where everybody has strayed further from God and doing what’s right

I do think you’re right but it has to be to some degree which it’s sufficient. Beyond this sufficient range it becomes insufficient QUICkLY, to the point that I believe after the peak range it will nosedive far far below what the initial view of 1-2 experts would’ve been (and quicker)
View attachment 3704636
(not actual peak, entire graph should be shifted to the left)

So if this is a gradient spectrum, and 1-2 is too few, and everybody in society is TOO much… then begs the question where is the perfect balance?


Previously, a better balance than today used to be half of the population (the men) used to vote. Civilisation then was better, more focused at growth, people valued religion and issues today such as gender politics would’ve never existed.


But is this the optimal range? Intuitively I’d still say no.
I’d say to get close to an optimal range where you will find a perfect balance of both:

1. Enough people (for the opinion to be varied)
2. People to be capable to produce an opinion with the best “objective” outcome

You’ll have to seed out the people who are capable of doing so, whilst making sure it isn’t only for a very select few (subjective on what you decide to be “few”).
For me personally, I think everyone should take an IQ test or a test of character (ideally both).. and only the top 15% (overall - depends on how much you contribute both towards final score) should be allowed to vote.

Reason I say this is because 15% is roughly equal to “slightly higher than above average”, which tends to be the most ideal metric for everything for life quality - looks, height, dick size, etc… it only makes sense that this should extend to the thoughts of those in the top 15%


Or you can go a step beyond this, and have it in tiers. And everybody gets a say but the higher your score is in the test, the more of a say you will have.
The government don’t even have to release what your score is, or else you’ll be pressured by those close to you, and people would reduce each other to a number (similar to today’s looks) for how much they are truly worth - I.e. what tier.

@imontheloose thats my answer. I was planning on making a thread on this.
I still might tbh..

Good stuff. Very smart, well-grounded point. Well done.

Meritocracy is closer to truth than democracy to me, but it is still rooted in the idea that man can be ranked like livestock. I think intellect is to be demanded, but blood, destiny, or character are equally as valuable.

Check my response to @wishIwasSalludon, I do agree with this to quite a large degree. We would mostly be debating about what value is a more important trait.

Nice stuff.

 

[TitusA]

To say democracy should be outright abolished seems a bit extreme

And I say this because letting a small group of people have too much power would be very dangerous

Look at what our leaders do now, they repeatedly screw over the people even in this democratic system

So imagine how much worse it would get if they had absolute power

Instead I think there should be conditions you need in order to become a leader, like say you need an iq of 130 minimum to be eligible for president

And there should be conditions to be able to vote, like you need to take a test that shows you understand the policies your voting for.

We dont have democracy though. In the western world we have a two party system where both parties essentially run with the same policys (Despite whatever bs they spew during the pantomime pre election campaigns). The reality is western politics is based on nepotism and most of our politicians are bought out with a lack of transparency/lack of care for the countries/the people of the countries they run. We essentially have no options.

Also our short election cycles mean they kick the can down the road and avoid taking tough decisions (which can cause bad results in the short term but are necessary for the long term development) and this is a must to win the next election. We need radical changes in western countries as the world is changing from being unipolar towards a multipolar world and we have dumb losers who are mainly bought out and even if they are equipped to make drastic changes needed wont do so because of short election cycles.

 

[CEO]

All rigged by these kike satanic elites as it is. To be fair, only subhuman & normie copers care about politics. It's all a losing game, all politicians are whores. Chad doesn't give a fuck about any of this crap. Life is too short, life your life to the fullest and die. This Earth is a fallen realm. God bless

 

[Nick.Harte]

you need an iq of 130 minimum to be eligible for president

And there should be conditions to be able to vote, like you need to take a test that shows you understand the policies you’re voting for.

.

Didn’t read it all lol
nvm

 

[KT-34]

There's something called wisdom or yhr crowd. The aggregating diverse, independent opinions according to studies often can lead to more accurate judgments than those made by individual, including experts. This phenomenon has been observed in various settings from estimating quantities to predicting outcomes. The group is always more far more intelligent and capable of making the right decisions compared to an individual even if he is an expert in that field.

Wisdom of the crowd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Assembly bonus effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That's actually the first good argument for democracy I ever heard

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

In the western world we have a two party system where both parties essentially run with the same policys

That’s in america

In Europe they have a shit ton of parties

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

That's actually the first good argument for democracy I ever heard

Based reverend insanity enjoyer

 

[imontheloose]

You don’t need to take a test for that imo
If you’re 130+ iq, you’re more likely to make better decisions.

Don't you think intellect also increases your ability to be a fantastic traitor too?

 

[KT-34]

Based reverend insanity enjoyer

Masterpiece of literature tbh, I like it when stories dive into concepts removed from morals not cause I like edgy evil stuff (I do), but cause it offers new points of view to storyline we already saw

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Don't you think intellect also increases your ability to be a fantastic traitor too?

It’s high risk high reward

Yea a high iq person could be incredibly destructive more so than a low iq person

But they could also contribute far far more if it goes right

 

[Beastimmung]

To say democracy should be outright abolished seems a bit extreme

And I say this because letting a small group of people have too much power would be very dangerous

Look at what our leaders do now, they repeatedly screw over the people even in this democratic system

So imagine how much worse it would get if they had absolute power

Instead I think there should be conditions you need in order to become a leader, like say you need an iq of 130 minimum to be eligible for president

And there should be conditions to be able to vote, like you need to take a test that shows you understand the policies your voting for.

Look up italian elite theory, every society is led by a small people of elites, no matter the system.

Democracy is just an illusion of choice

 

[Nick.Harte]

Don't you think intellect also increases your ability to be a fantastic traitor too?

100% imo

It’s easy to deceive most people and you’re smart enough to manipulate different situations to your advantage.

 

[Nick.Harte]

It’s high risk high reward

Yea a high iq person could be incredibly destructive more so than a low iq person

But they could also contribute far far more if it goes right

This

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

every society is led by a small people of elites, no matter the system.

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

 

[imontheloose]

It’s high risk high reward

Yea a high iq person could be incredibly destructive more so than a low iq person

But they could also contribute far far more if it goes right

Intellect magnifies power, I absolutely agree. It has double-edged nature. A man with a blade can kill, but a man with a theory can collapse a civilisation. That's why I think as a safety net, intelligence alone is not enough a qualifier. It must be bound by race, duty, and service to more than the self.

High IQ traitors may build machines, or destroy nations. By far more dangerous than a thousand fools.

 

[imontheloose]

100% imo

It’s easy to deceive most people and you’re smart enough to manipulate different situations to your advantage.

Agreed. That's why I say the following:

Intellect magnifies power, I absolutely agree. It has double-edged nature. A man with a blade can kill, but a man with a theory can collapse a civilisation. That's why I think as a safety net, intelligence alone is not enough a qualifier. It must be bound by race, duty, and service to more than the self.

High IQ traitors may build machines, or destroy nations. By far more dangerous than a thousand fools.

Nonetheless, I do understand this point. We fundamentally agree. We have niche differences.

 

[greycel]

I have also seen this and thought of it. I do like it, but isn't the problem a bit deeper? The most dangerous traitors throughout history have been very intelligent people. Do you think it's solely about IQ?

I think a man with a high IQ who serves no higher purpose is more dangerous than a fool. Absolute power is dangerous only in the hands of the wrong men, that's why power must be held only by those proven worthy, not by just passing a test, but I think living a life of service, sacrifice, and racial consciousness.

I do really understand this view, and in the past have aligned with it, and still tussle with it. Really good stuff.

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

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

Agreed


Is it?
Then why have ”we” imprudently created a society where rates of depression, divorce and suicide are higher. Where everybody has strayed further from God and doing what’s right

I do think you’re right but it has to be to some degree which it’s sufficient. Beyond this sufficient range it becomes insufficient QUICkLY, to the point that I believe after the peak range it will nosedive far far below what the initial view of 1-2 experts would’ve been (and quicker)
View attachment 3704636
(not actual peak, entire graph should be shifted to the left)

So if this is a gradient spectrum, and 1-2 is too few, and everybody in society is TOO much… then begs the question where is the perfect balance?


Previously, a better balance than today used to be half of the population (the men) used to vote. Civilisation then was better, more focused at growth, people valued religion and issues today such as gender politics would’ve never existed.


But is this the optimal range? Intuitively I’d still say no.
I’d say to get close to an optimal range where you will find a perfect balance of both:

1. Enough people (for the opinion to be varied)
2. People to be capable to produce an opinion with the best “objective” outcome

You’ll have to seed out the people who are capable of doing so, whilst making sure it isn’t only for a very select few (subjective on what you decide to be “few”).
For me personally, I think everyone should take an IQ test or a test of character (ideally both).. and only the top 15% (overall - depends on how much you contribute both towards final score) should be allowed to vote.

Reason I say this is because 15% is roughly equal to “slightly higher than above average”, which tends to be the most ideal metric for everything for life quality - looks, height, dick size, etc… it only makes sense that this should extend to the thoughts of those in the top 15%


Or you can go a step beyond this, and have it in tiers. And everybody gets a say but the higher your score is in the test, the more of a say you will have.
The government don’t even have to release what your score is, or else you’ll be pressured by those close to you, and people would reduce each other to a number (similar to today’s looks) for how much they are truly worth - I.e. what tier.

@imontheloose thats my answer. I was planning on making a thread on this.
I still might tbh..

Very interesting response this seems quite similar to what I propose check here

To say democracy should be outright abolished seems a bit extreme

And I say this because letting a small group of people have too much power would be very dangerous

Look at what our leaders do now, they repeatedly screw over the people even in this democratic system

So imagine how much worse it would get if they had absolute power

Instead I think there should be conditions you need in order to become a leader, like say you need an iq of 130 minimum to be eligible for president

And there should be conditions to be able to vote, like you need to take a test that shows you understand the policies you’re voting for.