What are some books about the negative aspects of democracy?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
What are some books about the negative aspects of democracy?
What are some books about the negative aspects of democracy?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
The bible.
Gpbp
anything by carl schmitt
History
In 1747 Feudalism was ended in Scotland.
After this within 40 years 3/5 of people in Scotland were internally displaced to work in factories living in slums or forced continents.
During this period the average male height in Scotland reduced from 5ft11 to 5ft 7.
That is democracy.
In general, on big questions like power and wealth, history has a way of proving the right-wing correct.
What has every attempt at social revolution, from the English civil war onwards, striven to achieve? A broadly-shared wealth and power. Broadly-shared prosperity, and the ability of the average man to rule himself. For this reason revolutions have been fought, institutions have been torn down, kings have been killed, kulaks have been liquidated, and there has been almost 400 years of bloodshed, exile, and upheaval.
But now, after all that, where have we wound up? Right back where we started: with a small amount of people controlling most of the wealth and most of the power. And in miniature form that's what happens after EVERY revolution. You have the side that won out in the revolution settling into positions of power and wealth, and the aristocracy is reified. Oh, sure, the names and labels may be different. The Soviet Politburo wasn't EXACTLY the same as the Russian aristocracy under the tsar. But it served functionally the same purpose. All these "people's republics" were no better than the kingdoms and aristocratic republics of old.
And liberal democracy has proven to be no better. The people have no say whatsoever; the real power in the modern West lies in financial institutions, intelligence agencies, and the riches of the rich, who believe their wealth has given them the right to determine what befalls everyone else. The "common people" are manipulated, lied to, and outright ignored when their will goes against that of the true sources of power.
All those revolutions, all that bloodshed, all that trouble caused, and we're no better off than we were under the dukes, barons, and princes. We have the exact same unequal distribution of wealth and power, but everything is uglier, more drab, and more boring.
It's enough to make you wish for monarchy and aristocracy to make a comeback. At least back then things looked cool.
Are you ChudLogic
I agree with this.
A good book which is very technical about why our inherent nature is towards individual selection is Behave. It led me to realise that revolutions are always a form of virtue signalling. And by that I mean that we justify our existence through fighting. Only the small gaps of peace are when we see actual reality. And revolutions are actually pathetic in that way - the people leading them justify only their internal system and don’t think of the next 100 years
Those complaining about democracy, would be complaining under the rule of a monarch. Grass is always greener, right?
If we don't like our king we can kill him. There's nothing to do if you dislike your elected officials. Vote them out and they'll just be replaced by identical officials.
Flawless logic, there's no way the next king will be identical to the last.
He better not be if he knows what's good for him.
It seems like the easier answer is to simply kill elected officials
What does killing elected officials accomplish? Politicians are interchangeable. We have 100 senators and 435 members of the house, and they all answer to the 20 million millionaires and billionaires that make up our aristocracy. It would be like killing Ronald McDonald and expecting McDonald's to go out of business.
Gotcha. If you’re oppressed, just kill. If you are unhappy with government now, wouldn’t the same solution of killing apply? Everyone seems pissed off in America, but yet they haven’t tried to kill the officials. Better to daydream of the golden days when you were oppressed by a despot. Democracy was a natural evolution. It was always going to happen. Just like how democracy evolved into oligarchy in the USA. We are in late stage capitalism now. Nowhere else to turn.
>If you are unhappy with government now, wouldn’t the same solution of killing apply?
How would we do that? America is an oligarchy and our ruling class tens of millions of people scattered across the entire planet.
Yeah, and a king is just a rock in the middle of an ocean completely unaffected by any of that.
Kill them. No different than killing a king and having another tyrant replace them. And I did say that the USA is an oligarchy. We need progressive, not regressive ideas to fix this. I think we are towards the end of humanity though. Nowhere else to turn at this point
>Kill them. No different than killing a king.
How do angry American peasants
kill bankers from Europe and Asia?
Tell that to Louis xiv or Czar Nicholas.
>We need progressive, not regressive ideas to fix this.
What progressive ideas? You can't vote out oligarchs.
I never said vote them out. Frick voting. Drag people out of their houses and shoot them and their families. Revolution. Frick it, I’d give communism a shot at this point. At least it’s something different. The same can’t continue. Change is needed in someway, and it ain’t going back to monarchism, especially with population sizes the way they are now
>Drag people out of their houses and shoot them and their families.
Again. How do we kill bankers from Europe and Asia, or the American ones that will immediately fly to Europe and Asia when your revolution starts. The people that control America aren't the politicians, the politicians are just puppets. The people that control America are the rich people scattered across three continents.
Start all over, from scratch. Rebuild after the revolution. It will be like the Great Leap Forward. There will be a culling of the population inevitably for a while. I’m guessing you want to hear that things can’t change, though. It’s easy to find problems without proposing solutions. If there was a solution with no negative downsides, it would already be proposed and unanimously agreed upon. No moronic solutions like going back to monarchism. Lol.
>If there was a solution with no negative downsides, it would already be proposed and unanimously agreed upon.
Your idea is literally impossible. The rich can control America just as easily from another continent as they can from America. You might as well try to shoot the ocean or stab air.
Liquidate corporations and banks. Get a new form of currency. Let’s see your ideas. At least I’m putting forth something instead of acting like an arbitrator and dismissing every possibility. That’s easy. As I’ve said before, I think we are at the point of no return; we need new ideas and radical measures. Not trying to introduce monarchism in an era with way different variables. This is why conservatives will continue to lose. They don’t have any new ideas, and new ideas are sorely needed. If they had new ideas, they would be progressive. This is why /misc/tards are moronic. There ain’t no going back to the way it was before. Conditions have changed too much. I’m done posting after this. I have shit to do
You're moronic. How did destroying everything to create something new work out for Misc Pot? Do not be so quick to disregard the potential of what already exists.
>Liquidate corporations and banks. Get a new form of currency.
How does the new US liquidate a Swiss bank or a Chinese corporation?
>Let’s see your ideas. At least I’m putting forth something instead of acting like an arbitrator and dismissing every possibility.
Your ideas are literally impossible. I hate banks too but the more you talk the more naive you sound.
This is the most midwit response you could have gone with
All democracy did was replace the monarchy and aristocracic classes with merchant classes. Both orders all had major israeli advisors. So it doesnt really matter. They jumped ship like the rats they are but its a different convo
one notable difference is that democracy is significantly more tyrannical in the way it discourages dissent. when the king is bad people can say "the king is bad" and rise up and solve the problem. in a democracy when people get screwed they just say "guess ill vote for the other guy next time" and even if you have a direct democracy dissent is stamped out by the extreme moral taboo of anything considered undemocratic
i never thought of it that way anon. there aren't many changes in democracies. i guess maybe in france they changed governments a few times but yeah it seems that way.
>we'll vooote our way out this time
and its just the same shit every time. i will think on this in the future
Every political philosophy text prior to Locke (although definitions of democracy vary widely)
Alain de Benoist's The Problem of Democracy.
De Tocqueville Democracy in America
>ctrl+f Plato
>0 results
Proof IQfy are all pseuds. Socrates was the ultimate anti-democrat.
Anon...
.
Democracy in America half way through part 1 and part 2 is basically a pro con list for Democracy Vs. Aristocracy
TL;DR - democracy is bad for public virtues and needs religion more than aristocracy. Additionally, it tends to elect idiots and have bad art compared to aristocracy, but people are overall harder working so it offsets for bad govt. It's a great book - recommend the full one strongly.
Myth of the Rational Voter
10% Less Democracy
Democracy and Political Ignorance
The Ethics of Voting
Xenophon's Apology
Books on economics.
The world is the most democratic it has ever been throughout all of human history.
Wealth is the most concentrated at the top it has ever been throughout all of human history.
>Wealth is the most concentrated at the top it has ever been throughout all of human history.
Source?
>The world is the most democratic it has ever been throughout all of human history.
>Wealth is the most concentrated at the top it has ever been throughout all of human history.
your second premise makes the first impossible. and if by democracy you mean people put a piece of paper in a box to vote for one in a series of wealthy elites then yeah, maybe. but in terms of power of the "people", ie the demos we probably havent had less democratic times in human history
Please, India alone has more people who get to vote than the entire world at any point before 1950.