/pol/ - International /Pol/itics & /Bant/er

also old people shouldnt have voting rights if were really serious about this democracy thing

Representative democracy is a scam. The government does not reflect the peoples will. People are retarded so they keep voting for the next savior just to be scammed over and over and over again, and the media that is owned by the people running it gaslights the people into thinking everything is fine and normal and to get engaged with the next election to elect the next set up puppet politicians

>>3164460
mvssolini said this like a hundred years ago

>>3164460
I don't think reprensentative democracy is necessarily the main culprit. The issue is having full universal sufferage for all over a certain age. There should be more limits to voting. If we raised the voting age to 20, excluded all dual citizens, incarcerated, mentaly sick, demented, and had competency tests before elections it would fix most issues without normgroids caring.

who the fuck is even making retarded mash up of political ideologies that contradict each other such that as of picrel?

>>3164491
its not contradictory, israel should be only for askhenazi jews, the superior and white jews, while sephardic and mizrahi jews should get deported

>>3164491
because its funny

>>3164493
holy fuck that is the most disabled thing i have ever seen

>>3164500
*read

>>3164500
So fucking what if im a disabled tgirl who needs her diaper?

>>3164417 (OP)
Democracy is the greatest political system assuming that the population living under it is responsible, moral and competent. If you don't have this very important prerequisite established, then you get modern society, where an individual's informed vote based on months if not years of research and paying attention to geopolitical issues and their everyday life is just as valuable as the Boomer voting for the conservatives because he's not a progressive, thus incentivizing leaders to appeal to the low IQ parts of a society via empty promises that don't even come close to making up for the damage caused by their policies.
The question to such a problem isn't "What other political system is there that's better than democracy?" because quite frankly such a thing probably doesn't exist, as every other system often has to compromise on freedom. The actual question that should be asked is "How can we make people responsible, moral and competent again?"
>But le heckin' Byzantine Empire lasted 1100 years and that was a monarchy
Yeah, that was because they were united under the Christian faith, not because monarchy was somehow better than democracy. In fact, most of the Western world (US, Europe) was at one point in time united under theological faith (mostly Christianity). It sure is convenient that it started to go to shit when they rejected such traditional beliefs that actually had weight and meaning behind them because they required you to make tangible sacrifices (AKA don't be a degenerate gooner, don't be prideful, don't be a SLF) and replaced them with "Live and let live" neoliberal dogcrap ideologies which aimed to redefine the meaning of "freedom" for the sake of making room for their degenerate lifestyles, or worse, governmentalized morality (AKA Communism)

>>3164599
holy trvke

>Democracy is the greatest political system assuming that the population living under it is responsible, moral and competent.
<O
I'd rather say, 'assuming that the voting population under it is responsible.' Universal sufferage is not a must for democracy.

>>3164608
I wasn't speaking in favor of universal suffrage. However, immediately resorting to revoking the right to vote for certain individuals based on a set of criteria they may or may not be in control of (IQ, gender, general understanding of supply chains) wouldn't be wise. I severely doubt most young men of the dissident right would mind women voting if they didn't import 6 gorillion immigrants with every election cycle. Again, the goal should be making people better through education and informing them of how the world actually works. Not to mention, revoking rights from certain groups tends to go to shit, not because it doesn't work (at times it can) but because it is inherently authoritarian and gives more power to governing bodies. It's a fix, yes, but one that comes with a bigger long term cost.
I also included "moral and competent" under my requirements for a democracy to be functional because:
1. You need people capable of building things. Owning up to your mistakes is a good thing, but not improving despite doing them repeatedly is not great either.
2. Not having a moral civilization leads to the decay of social trust. It gives people a reason to act the correct way in spite of being totally capable of stealing from the system they live under and getting away with it. What's stopping you from staying a NEET and mooching off of your country's welfare system besides the fact that you believe that other people need those resources more than you do, since you're a young man perfectly capable of work whilst having access to employment (even if it's not what you studied for at university. Sure, working as a secretary isn't what you signed up for when you got your law degree, but it beats nothing at all)
Yes, doing all of that is hard, and it's supposed to be hard. We are never one policy change away from reaching utopia. That's a lie people continue to believe because the alternative requires you to actually do work. Yes, it's slow because such changes in culture come around decades after being implemented and enforced. It's also the only way we have a shot at avoiding collapse. Pick a pill, Neo. It's either live in fairytale land or get of your ass and do something with your life.

>>3164685
Doing any meaningful reforms to governance will always be adding a shiton of rules and rewrites of old ones, pooplak… And I'm not claiming it will be 'slightly less bad' I amd saying that it would be EXTREAMLY better, and much more stable than some shut-in authoritarian schizobabble.

>I amd saying
Holy ESL saar… I meant 'I am saying'

>>3164687
I think you misunderstood the extent of reforming sufferage I am speaking of. The examples I gave/proposed are nowhere close to excluding people based on uncontrolable factors. All non-dual citizens of a certain biological mature age and sound mind, who arn't incarcerated should be able to vote, and prove themselves by a simple test.

>>3164694
And what are these tests going to be? And who will be making them? I don't even see how this could anything.