/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15449487]

Democracy is an inherently flawed system that selects soulless sociopaths willing to say and commit everything to gain power and recognition.

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.15449494]

>>15449487
I can't. I agree with this worldview.

[Anonymous No.15449502]

Nope thats pretty much right.

[Anonymous No.15449506]

>>15449487

this is only true in a nihilistic society where virtuous men are cowards and don't believe in anything beyond getting a good job at a nice law firm/hedge fund.

[Anonymous No.15449522]

>>15449487
Agreed. But what's the better alternative? Please also elaborate your argument.

[Anonymous No.15449588]

>>15449522
Aristocracy.
Elaboration: It literally means "rule of the excellent". How you choose the excellent, idk., but still, no one can be better than the excellent.
Also, you need to define the term "better". In what way better? For example, my grandpa and my dad both lived under communism, while I was born under capitalism. Grandpa learned to write and read, then left school at 9 yo, dad finished high school. They both had a house at 30 (without any debt... keep in mind that 2 of my gradpas brothers were executed as the enemies of the state, yet he still had a house). I'm 30 this year and about to get my phd in engineering, I'll have a house in about 20 years (at best).

[Anonymous No.15449614]

>>15449506
Those men aren't virtuous. You mean skilled/intelligent men.

[Anonymous No.15449646]

>>15449614

I mean otherwise virtuous

Men who would not have been cowards if they grew up in a healthy society

[Anonymous No.15449666]

>>15449487
I think democracy is the best way to run things at the local level, but not on any larger level.

[Anonymous No.15449678]

Democracy has scrutiny inherently built in, which significantly slows down the entropy of the state and systems of government.

[Anonymous No.15449700]

>>15449646
No you don't. Bankers are not, and have never been, historically 'otherwise virtuous' people in any way, shape, or form. :3

Now perhaps some could be, if that's your point, but I would actually argue that the system that lets them accrete power is corrupted or selects corrupted people based on this, similar to an argument OP is making, really.

[Anonymous No.15449701]

gay. sage

[Anonymous No.15449730]

>>15449487
low iq doomer failure to comprehend what "democracy" actually entails. A democratic system doesn't "select" anyone, that's the entire point, retard.

[Anonymous No.15449734]

If they lived today, Plato and Socrates would be tradcath anarcho-monarchist memelords. Aristotle would be a computer science professor who loves Bernie Sanders.

[Anonymous No.15449767]

>>15449700

democracy isn't the system that is corrupted here, though. It's capitalism.

Actually, it probably isn't even capitalism. Beneath everything is nihilism, which is why even the breadth and force of mao's vision has slowly eroded into chinese hyper-capitalism - people simply don't know what to do with their lives except contribute to economic growth.

You are likely correct that a large proportion of bankers are greedy, spiritually bankrupt people (and nothing can help that). But I promise that among them there exist totally broken men who have gone into the finance industry simply because they have nothing else to believe in, and they have been told since birth to "be comfortable and make a good living".

I don't see this as a problem with democracy, per se. But it creates a society of men unwilling to fight for anything except empty 'stability', 'civility', and economic luxury

[Anonymous No.15449794]

>>15449588
> How you choose the excellent, idk
But that's the critical part. Otherwise you already have it, since democracy chooses people who are excellent and making the masses want to vote for them.

[Anonymous No.15449806]

>>15449767
>people simply don't know what to do with their lives except contribute to economic growth
Almost like they live in a society which tells them their value is based on how much fiat currency they can earn for their betters.

[Anonymous No.15449807]

>>15449734
Aristotle would be an ancap who wears yellow and black bowties and gets beaten up by real anarchists.

[Anonymous No.15449812]

>>15449794
>since democracy chooses people who are excellent
define excellent. I don't deny that democracy can coincide with aristocracy, but it's a complete coincidence if it does.

[Anonymous No.15449849]

>>15449812
"Great at something".

[Anonymous No.15449856]

>>15449487
>Democracy is an inherently flawed system that selects soulless sociopaths willing to say and commit everything to gain power and recognition.
Same with monarchy. But at least in Democracy you can vote them out if they are shit, you dont need an armed revolution every four years.

[Anonymous No.15449883]

>>15449487
Frankly Plato's main problem was with direct democracy. He probably wouldn't have minded representative democracy too much, although he wouldn't have liked universal enfranchisement.

[Anonymous No.15449893]

>>15449730
retarded post

[Anonymous No.15449896]

>>15449666
this

[Anonymous No.15449899]

>>15449806

yes, but the real problem is that no one can come up with a better solution. I claim even a communist society would be problematic in this regard. And in fact, it ALREADY is problematic in that regard. Consider the number of totally comfortable leftists in the United States who live a totally adequate material life, but who are willing to chimp out in an antifa mob because they feel they don't have quite ENOUGH material processions, and what is rightfully theirs has been taken from them by the rich.

[Anonymous No.15449909]

>>15449734
Plato would've been a tradcath in his youth, but a moderate liberal conservative in his later years.

[Anonymous No.15449927]

>>15449849
great at something or great at ruling? "aristo" when put next to "krat" would suggest aristocrat = great ruler. Just as auto in automobile is applied to the mobile, just like things work in any word, aeroplane, where aer doesn't refer to the air in itself, but as an explanation as to in which medium does the object stay plane, So aristocracy would be the rule of those most fit to rule.

[Anonymous No.15449972]

>>15449927

so are you just defining aristocrat as the system where the ruler is most fit to rule, and then turning around and using what "aristocrat" has actually meant historically?

because if you are doing the former, it is totally tautological and meaningless. If it is the latter, then the whole point of this discussion is that, historically, the best system of governance has never been clear.

[Anonymous No.15449980]

You forgot the part about these soulless sociopaths being able to commit crimes against the people they’re supposed to represent and then immediately slip back into the shadow of “the system”

[Anonymous No.15450007]

>>15449899
The amount of people in Murica who can afford to be comfortably is pretty low. Even middle class fags are a few bad months away from living on the streets, and the constant fear of the ruin is going to make enjoying what you have hard.

Besides the leftists is US of A are still affected by the obsession with dollars and their value being linked to their portfolio/bank account. Reading quotes from Capital on Insta won't fix the damage of living in a coonsumerist society.

Motivating people to seek motivations beyond material crap doesn't even sound that hard and conflicting with any system. Ideas like nationalism or worldwide communism seem like pretty obvious examples.

>>15449927
But one part of ruling is selling others on your ideas, so you can keep ruling, and leaders in current democracies do that just fine. The rest of ruling is tricky to rate beyond something very basic like listing the promises and seeing how well they fullfilled these. Not quite ruling but at least someone one can work with. Though in that case, democratic leaders don't seem too bad either, until orange man, most held about 60-70% of their promises. Some sports team with that winning rate would be top tier. Some product with 30% failure rate would disappear from the market.

[Anonymous No.15450017]

>>15449980
Because the majority people don't care enough about it. So in a way, working out as intended.

[Anonymous No.15450032]

>>15449506
So, real life, then?

[Anonymous No.15450068]

>>15450007

>Even middle class fags are a few bad months away from living on the streets

This has not been my experience at all, and is a total exaggeration. I've known friends whose families live paycheck to paycheck, but they choose that lifestyle. They consume too much.

But maybe that is your point, that capitalism has a psychological dimension? I would agree.

Nationalism can only take you so far. Same with social revolution. I don't think either have ever proven to be a more robust source of motivation than capitalism. They are just different expressions of the same problem.

[Anonymous No.15450076]

>>15449972
actually probably both is true. Primarily it's former, but you can't deny that historically more significant progress was made by aristocrats. In physics, philosophy, or virtually any field (except of course in computer science or anything that didn't exist until recently). Would you rather be ruled by people who are 10 times more educated than the rest of the population or would you rather be ruled by those less or equally educated than the regular person? When you look at society today, it's still true that mostly aristocratic (in a historic sense of the word) shit defines things. For example, when I do science shit I have extremely small funds compared to the americans or the british. So although we are "equal" under democracy, I can produce shit, because I can't do real stuff. It comes down to me just doing bare minimum shit that I know won't make any sense just to keep my job. So why pretend? Why is it better for the world if I'm (hypothetically) more educated or capable if I can't produce nearly as much as half as educated or capable man can with capital? I say we just give up on the idea that it's better to have human rights, at least then I'd have something worthwhile to live for (my freedom or some stupid shit like that).

[Anonymous No.15450089]

cool

[Anonymous No.15450121]

>>15450007
Sure, they have some qualities, but that doesn't mean that they are excellent. Certainly it's hard to measure, but I'd disagree that keeping up your promises is enough. Churchill promised only sweat and blood, if i remember. Any old idiot can fulfil that promise, a slaveowner fulfilled it.

[Anonymous No.15450163]

>>15449734
>Plato and Socrates would be tradcath anarcho-monarchist memelords
based

[Anonymous No.15450164]

>>15449883
No, he wouldn't have liked that either. He would maybe think higher of democracy if voting wasn't granted to just anyone and you needed to take a rigorous test on politics and virtue before voting.

[Anonymous No.15450179]

>>15449487
Contemporary democracy is defined by moralism rather than sociopathy imo.

[Anonymous No.15450199]

>>15450179
Moralism where? When we tolerate a few fucks earning a few more bucks at the cost of our future environment?

[Anonymous No.15450217]

>>15450199
>muh environment
This is one of the many contemporary moralisms.

[Anonymous No.15450225]

>>15449856
What? The point is that in a democracy rulers must actively seek power, while in monarchy they do not.

[Anonymous No.15450234]

>>15450217
Moralism would require something else like concern for the third worlders who will get fucked the hardest. Being concerned with the environment getting utterly fucked is no more moralistic than being concerned about setting a fire in your living room.

[Anonymous No.15450240]

>>15449487
Democracy only exists in the mind of people, democracy is not the issue exactly, its the mindset that creates ideologies

[Anonymous No.15450272]

>>15450234

moralism is detached from if a particular policy is reasonable or not

it means that a particular policy is held up as the only moral choice, but in an almost religious way. no dissent is tolerated

[Anonymous No.15450350]

>>15450272
But moral is rarely even mentioned, it's not a good seller. The discussions warmed up again when zoomers realized it's their futures that are in danger. Actions to make the mess milder are the only reasonable choice due the reality not offering too many outcomes outside of different levels of fucked.

Unless you want to argue that other basic problems like vaccines or the state not killing or locking up citizens randomly suffer from moralism ...

[Anonymous No.15450358]

>>15449487
>>15449494
Democracy is actually against the constitution and was forced on us in 1917 (with the 17th Amendment).
The Senate used to be chosen by State Legislators, whose quality was guaranteed by competition with nearby states, and thus the quality of their appointed senator.
Democracy forces people to vote directly for senators, just going blindly

[Anonymous No.15450411]

>>15449588
>>15449522
Ai constitutionally monarchy along vritush lines. There is a human elected prime minister, but the head of state is an AI whoes programming is known to all. It is hyper autistic and its primary concern is a mix of virtue ethics and aesthetics in a hegelian sense. The point is to create a world for spiritual and intellectual freedom without the human bias from the top down, however, the human prime minister will have some say in government for transendental democracyand some popular freedom. The AI’s opinion of course will also be given if it disagrees with the ruling party.

[Anonymous No.15450514]

>>15449588
>comparing a modern first world house to the shack your grandfather lived

[Anonymous No.15450548]

>>15449856
is the illusion of change any better than a revolution?

[Anonymous No.15450560]

>>15449487
The Republic was meant to be written like a sitcom script. How did you not figure it out?

[Anonymous No.15451035]

>>15450225
That's completely irrelevant, monarchs are grown up as entity!ed to rule

[Anonymous No.15451063]

>>15450548
Revolutions have their place too but you can't have a revolution every time the monarch does something bad, voting him out of office is better

[Anonymous No.15451072]

>>15451063
>but you can't have a revolution every time

[Anonymous No.15451124]

>>15451072
Based.

[Anonymous No.15451144]

>>15451072
You can't refute an argument with a shitty meme I am very sorry anon but logic doesn't work that way

[Anonymous No.15451146]

>>15449588
>Idiot chooses to go to school until thirty and complains he can't afford a house.

If you would have gotten a job out of high school or college and saved money you'd have a house. Instead you've given yourself the opportunity for an even better job at the cost of delayed gratification.

t. Got a job out of college and bought a house within a year (last month, actually )

[Anonymous No.15451150]

>>15451072
based

[Anonymous No.15451171]

>>15451144
>You can't refute an argument with a shitty meme I am very sorry anon but logic doesn't work that way

[Anonymous No.15451193]

>>15451063
Cringe and not heavenpilled

[Anonymous No.15451198]

>>15450411
>ai
>letting a machine rule over me
No. Man must be free to make his own decisions, regardless of if they are right or wrong. Having a permanent babysitter quite literally castrates humanity and removes the mist basic levels of freedom

[Anonymous No.15451234]

>>15449487
Fine, but it's the most reliable system. It appeases the masses, preventing violent uprisings and facilitates economic growth and development.

Don't think anyone is under any illusion that the hoi polloi are non-experts and retards who are unable to elect the most qualified candidate without being led astray by simple illusions or fallacious behaviour, although so far this "rule of the masses" (which might be considered an illusion in itself anyway) is the only system of government that has given the degenerates enough of a feeling of control that they don't sperg out and destroy the "muh undemocratic state", even when it's against their best interests - see the results of the democratic uprisings in Soviet Union and the state of Africa-tier poverty in Russia and Eastern Bloc in the 90s and all the depraved oligarchic kleptocracies you can see today. Democracy is pretty poor, although we've yet to find anything else that keeps societies cohesive reliably.

Sadly, I suspect even philosopher king Xi Jing Ping and the Chinese regime will eventually yield to the growing pressure of the mob, although we'll have to see. Think Communist China is the only viable alternative we have to the Democratic model

[Anonymous No.15451857]

>>15451234
Chinas model is interesting in theory but the current corrupt mess isn't the best example. Or maybe it's just the logical outcome.

[Anonymous No.15451867]

>>15451063
>you can't have a revolution every time the monarch does something bad
You sure about that?

[Anonymous No.15451879]

>>15450560
Even if you don't take the Republic seriously, Plato also talks about his hatred of democracy in the Statesman.

[Anonymous No.15451881]

>>15451867

It didn't end well for us though.

[Anonymous No.15451913]

>>15451857
Out of curiosity, in what way is the current Chinese situation a corrupt mess? It was my assumption that the CCP was fairly disciplined in its approach towards official corruption, or do they just use the charge of "corruption" as a sham to get rid of difficult bureaucrats

[Anonymous No.15451927]

>>15451144
>You can't refute an argument with a shitty meme I am very sorry anon but logic doesn't work that way

[Anonymous No.15451957]

>>15451881
It did for the English. They got romanticism and gothic lit.

[Anonymous No.15452031]

>>15451913
It's basically their school system ^10. People paying their way into it, constant ass kissing and dick sucking for positions/privileges, plus the usual all are equal but some more equal crap. From what I've seen they actually do surprisingly well against the more (soviet style) forms of corruption of the small time workers and their top tiers aren't as decadent in displaying their power but overall it's a system closer to your average police state than the meme of calm planners who got shit under control due their competence. Also they are fucking obsessed with reputation on all scales ... data that makes our region look shit compared to another? Gotta fix that.

Xi getting his lifetime position was probably when any hope for it to develop in some new and FUNCTIONAL system died.

[Anonymous No.15452061]

>>15449487
Most have safeguards against corruption and lying. You can bend the truth and act duplicitous about your values in an electoral campaign, but deliberately about factual circumstances in the legislative chamber and most democracies will force you to resign

Second counterpoint: sociopathy and lying are good traits in leadership

[Anonymous No.15452526]

if sum siht from the vat wanst two cum oen andd peinece beuy buice som ideological throey pasetd tughuter buy sumpre pubehtual ropey hasieban junkball tehurm floate about by a tuimeing guspe when odoent st he have aclearier look at hte s000tate of the caridgan wuring nathion than pick fights with acutaly gopic reuders than fighting with a plinth hued

[Anonymous No.15452576]

>>15450089
i kant agreed any more with you. from the bottom to nirvana its pure cool.like ice in a frreezer or meta water on skates

[Anonymous No.15452628]

>>15449506
This, but I doubt the men that would be virtuous back then would be in law firms today. There's no need anymore for virtuous people as it is. Maybe once crisis comes and creates a demand for a new kind of system that values something else other than crude material possesion, but who knows. People get the governments they deserve.

[Anonymous No.15452644]

>>15449588
Sure bro, I bet you think you'd be part of the aristocracy. What about if you wind up as a peasant with no rights?

[Anonymous No.15452663]

>>15449487
Bruh Plato literally compliments the character of the democratic man in The Republic; he might not think that it's the Ideal form of government, but in his own words, the ideal government would be pretty hard to achieve anyways. Also stop doing anachronisms, using ancient arguments to talk about modern concepts, like indirect democracy in nation states, is really dumb.

[Anonymous No.15452692]

>>15451927
what's d89.png

[Anonymous No.15452714]

>>15449487

Democracies are led by beta males, and do not tend to elective warlike men which is their main fault imo

[Anonymous No.15452744]

>>15452644
>peasant with no rights
show me an example of this. a peasant with no rights would be a slave. even serfs had traditional land rights (couldn't be decoupled from their ancestral land) and right to their property (produce and money).

[Anonymous No.15452796]

>>15449588
problem with aristocracy is a mistake of traditional mentality clashing with increased centralisation of civilisation. you have no guarantee of making excellent men just because their forebears were excellent. in fact, you're more likely to make a weak and impudent man who plays with frivolities instead of the habits of a ruler.

the traditional mentality says that blood and soul, which are developed over generations and compounding, make the man high quality. but this isn't true once decadence sets in. the rulers of our day are the only form of aristocracy modernity can produce. that is to say, our time cannot make traditional excellence or virtue and be able to recognise and elevate it to its rightful position. in large part exactly because of what OP describes.

[Anonymous No.15452811]

>>15449856
>Same with monarchy.
Uh no. Monarchy doesn't select anyone. Instead the person specifically raised to be the monarch and fulfil his office politically and culturally (and even today militarily) is used.

[Anonymous No.15452815]

>>15449506
You may disagree with his politics, I disagree with some of them, but Bernie was one of very few (perhaps the only) people in the running who actually gave a shit, and what did the DNC do to him, even after he WON most of the primaries they claimed he lost? American politics have been a corrupt joke for decades.
We also live in a very nihilistic society. The prevailing world-view is one of nihilism among the young generations. A good portion don't even bother to vote, and it's understandable given the state of things in politics.

[Anonymous No.15452986]

>>15449487
Cicero has already addressed this in the Republic.

[Anonymous No.15452993]

>>15451927
>>15451171
kys

[Anonymous No.15453127]

>>15449646
If you are a person of ability and choose to only enrich yourself then you are not virtuous. Is society to blame? Partially. But ultimately the individual makes the choice to turn his back on his fellow man.

[Anonymous No.15453170]

>>15450068
Cost of living goes up and wages have been stagnant for decades. The middle class is an illusion.
>>15450076
At least on the national level if you define aristocrat by level of education than we are already there. Congress is full of Ivy League grads.

[Anonymous No.15453420]

>>15452811
And he is raised up with a giant ego, an entitlement to rule and a huge boner for power. And even if he is not a complete piece of shit the unrestricted power will corrupt him. I am sorry anon but monarchy is a completely shit system, there is a reason the priests had to make up the divine right of kings to justify it.

[Anonymous No.15453425]

>>15449487
Can't prove the truth wrong.

[Anonymous No.15453433]

>>15453425
It's objectively the least shit system, your desire for a big daddy to dominate you doesnt translate well to a rule of government unfortunately

[Anonymous No.15453434]

>>15452663
Read the Statesman. He clearly has nothing but disdain for democracy.

[Anonymous No.15453438]

>>15451063
Some roman said that republics were only functional so long as there were constant insurrections. Think it was Marius.

[Anonymous No.15453447]

>>15453433
>the only alternative to democracy is totalitarian malevolent dictatorship

[Anonymous No.15453459]

>>15453438
Then he was a huge moron, thinking that having a civil war every 10 years is a desirable thing is the epitome of imbecility, and an intelligent 16 year old should be able to tell why

[Anonymous No.15453462]

>>15453447
Throw your favorite system at me big boy

[Anonymous No.15453465]

>>15453462
Union of Egoists

[Anonymous No.15453492]

>>15453465
So anarchocapitalism?

[Anonymous No.15453496]

>>15453462
The one where me grug in woods everyone fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15453503]

>>15453496
Interesting

[Anonymous No.15453520]

>>15453459
>an intelligent 16 year old should be able to tell why
>can't even tell why in his post

[Anonymous No.15453523]

>>15453503
The very reason I hate democracy is because it's the illusion that the world isn't this >>15453433 when it clearly is.

[Anonymous No.15453536]

>>15449487
Voting=/=democracy.

These modern liberal states are NOT democracies.

[Anonymous No.15453538]

>>15453520
Wait do you unironically need me to explain to you why having a civil war every 10 years is probably not a good idea?

[Anonymous No.15453543]

>>15453536
Technically there has never been true democracy except in "primitive communism" societies.

[Anonymous No.15453552]

>>15453523
I am not sure I follow but sure

[Anonymous No.15453583]

>>15453538
>do I unironically need to state the point I'm trying to make?

[Anonymous No.15453594]

>>15453583
t. Has never experienced anything worse than a stubbed toe let alone living through a civil war

[Anonymous No.15453633]

>>15453594
t. Thinks significant change has come from democratic elections

[Anonymous No.15453678]

>>15453583
Because having every generation grow up with the expectation of multiple bloodlusts and uncertainly for their lives and those of their loved ones lives is not a very good way to keep a nations faith in themselves, they will just get sick of all the death and murder and seek stability at any cost, which will inevitably lead to a dictatorship. The country will be in a continuous state of poverty, criminality will be rampant, and the quality of life will be nonexistent due to the country getting destroyed all the time. Here you go.

[Anonymous No.15453687]

>>15449487
idk if you’re gonna have a hard time convincing anybody on 4chan that democracy is a bad idea

[Anonymous No.15453693]

>>15453687
4chan is minarchist, not democratic

[Anonymous No.15453705]

>>15453678
Name one fair election that caused the same instant political change that is brought about in an insurrection.

[Anonymous No.15453716]

>>15453705

that's completely not his point though. Why do you avoid the argument you forced him to make?

also, if you want to see an irl example of this falling flat on its face, see Turkey

[Anonymous No.15453721]

>>15453705
Adolf Hitler, 1933

[Anonymous No.15453743]

>>15453721
His support came due to violent action from both parties.

[Anonymous No.15453764]

>>15453693
K nice vocab word but I did’t say 4chan was democratic, now did I?

[Anonymous No.15453766]

>>15453705
The Americans voted for Trump, and he successfully aggregated the issue of climate change. For better or worse, they got what they voted for. I am sure you think many other examples yourself.

[Anonymous No.15453767]

>>15453716
The argument doesn't need to be addressed because it's completely presumptuous. You can observe nearly all civilizations pre 19th century and see how wrong his statement is. His statement would only apply to African nations essentially.

[Anonymous No.15453772]

>>15453766
lmao do you really think Donald Trump is that far off from Hilary Clinton?

[Anonymous No.15453849]

>>15453764
I thought that was what you implied, it's not hard to convince channers that democracy is shit because 4chan is democratic, and here chaos, ignorance, and shit uneducated opinions reign supreme. But in reality, it is minarchist, since there is minimal governance/moderation and you can do whatever you want for the most part without interferance. If it was democratic we could vote and change how the moderation worked.

[Anonymous No.15453889]

>>15453772
That's irrelevant, the voted for him and masnaged to aggrevate the Climate change issue. That was all I needed to prove, it's a policy change that was achieved through voting. I am not saying that voting can do everything but it can do some things, which is better than being unable to affect any change (monarchy) or having no stability (constant revolutions) - which is not to say that revolutions don't have their time and place. What policies do you want to pass and you want armed uprising so much?

[Anonymous No.15453901]

Democracy is as only good as it's constitutions

See how most of them were written in 1700 they don't reflect new innovations for sociopaths to utilize

[Anonymous No.15453908]

>>15453889
It's not a policy change on par with the American Revolution that's what you needed to prove.

[Anonymous No.15453931]

>>15453705
Huey Long

[Anonymous No.15453942]

>>15453889
>What policies do you want to pass and you want armed uprising so much?
Also I don't care about any of this. I don't want any policies. I don't care what policies they pass because they don't enforce any of them fairly. I don't want any insurrection. I'm saying if you want a system that can make real change, it's not democracy. It's war.

[Anonymous No.15453949]

>>15453908
That's was never my argument though - democracy can for the most part deliver incremental change only. Your proposed alternative is destroying the country and building it from the ground up every time someone doesn't like the guy calling the shots.

[Anonymous No.15453980]

>>15453949
>incremental change
Incremental change is meaningless. On par with apathy.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.15453999]

1.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.15454001]

2.

[Anonymous No.15454004]

>>15453980
Incremental change is not meaningless when it can change the lives of millions. Do you have any other points to make besides making exaggerations to the point of falsehood and proposing deranged alternatives to the best (some will say least bad) political system we have?

[Anonymous No.15454011]

>>15454004
There hasn't been one significant change that has altered our way of life in our lifetime. The only one that comes close is airport security. Even under quarantine everything is the same. And it stays like this forever.

[Anonymous No.15454027]

>>15453999
Aristotle also said roasties like you should stfu.

[Anonymous No.15454043]

>>15454011
Politics almost never have an immediate impact in your day to day live unless you belong to a very specific group and for example a welfare program saves your life because you previously couldn't afford healthcare. You don't get into politics because you want your personal life to change, you do because you have a certain vision for the future.

[Anonymous No.15454054]

>>15454043
Why should the future suffer the consequences out our present will?

[Anonymous No.15454106]

>>15454054
What are you even asking?

>Why should we try to make the future good if the present is bad?

[Anonymous No.15454121]

>>15454106
Our attempts at making the future into our vision of good will ultimately make the future worse. That's how it's been for a few thousand years. Make the present good for yourself because your children's view of good will be different than your own. It'll be up to them to do the same in time.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.15454290]

>>15454027
No god, no masters, no gurus.

[Anonymous No.15455457]

>>15453901
This
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet and the the right to bear arms doesn't apply to assault weapons :^)

[Anonymous No.15455499]

>>15449678
That just leaves a larger window of time during the decadent phase for thousands of grifters to carry out their cons and swindle the people.