Why do We Pretend Democracy is Possible?

[wvwvw]

Democracy is outdated. It was an Enlightenment fad. Democracy is based on equality and there is no such thing as equality

On the equality of ideas and opinions. Everyone is free to voice their opinions without fear, even stupid ones. And from those competing opinions the best prevail. That's the point of democracy, and why societies advance in democratic environments. Science, philosophy etc thrive best in democratic environments.

[TEUTORIGOS]

Democracy does not pass all people just like Capitalism does not pass all nations.

It impossible for example, to apply Communism to a country like France, which lives from the wealth of others - that is, fashion, cosmetics, tax havens (Monaco) , from casinos, from tourism and so on. On the other hand, it is difficult to govern differently, democratically and liberally, a state like China - so everything is relevant.

Only Anglo-Saxon countries can do democracy. The natural state of human society is despotism. If you tally up all the human lives that have ever been lived on this planet under organized systems of government, no more than five per cent were lived under consensual systems. Even to get up to five per cent, you have to include places like ancient Athens and Tudor England, which wouldn’t pass muster as “democratic” by modern standards. In the last couple of centuries, practically all consensual systems have been Anglo-Saxon. Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren’t really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along

[Arduti]

Democracy and elections cause partisanism and civil strife.
Doesn't matter if there is a dominant culture, because partisanism will always exist within the majority if there is freedom.

Modern democratic leaders do not lead. They simple make way for their moblike constituents.

It is the nature of the populace to be against something. I think only a weak system would allow its citizens to be against each other, instead of against the system itself. The system can withstand the pushback. Civilians shouldn't have to withstand the pushback of other civilians. An authoritarian would control the majority and minorities.

[PostOak1]

I just think that we are at the dawn of a new era and at the end of the one that was kickstarted by the Protestant Reformation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro