/lit/ - Literature

>>13462669
I'd like a second car please.

>>13462669
>but chad, you'd at best be an auxiliary to the philosopher kings. just look at you. the real philosopher kings must be picked from a caste determined entirely by merit, not birth, according to plato's wise teachings. your genes best suit you for the battlefield. mine however, suit me to rule over you. wouldn't you agree?

>>13462669
I'll take a triple this is based with a redpill on top.

>>13462678
It's determined by merit but there is no class movement. You can only sleep and socialize intraclass

>>13462678
>picked by merit, not birth
>my genes
Pick one.

>>13462678
Did you even read The Republic?

>>13462669
your girl drove me around

>>13462713
Genetic (and epigenetic) makeup (as well as nurture) giving rise to good intelligence need not be exclusively hereditary and present in all your ancestors. The point is that bloodline alone doesn't determine that someone belongs among the philosopher kings in Plato's system. 'Birth' specifically means bloodline. Monarchism like Chad advocates is actually entirely bloodline and that's when you start putting inbreds with deformed jaws and blood diseases on the throne, just because they have the right ancestry. Plato wasn't into that.

>there was a brown person in my comic book movie, therefore democracy has failed

>>13462669
Kek

>>13462744
NPC

>>13462744
>why, yes, i'm obssessed with pop culture so much that people who complain about blacks in movies or whatever live rent free in my head 24/7, how could you tell?

yes, a good monarchy is better than a good democracy, hands down. I'll give you that
what you seem to forget is that a bad monarchy is FAR worse than a bad democracy. a bad monarch can accidentally wipe out his entire nation and culture due to his own stupidity. a good monarch may be more efficient than a good democracy, but the worst a democracy can get is stalemate
you also don't have the natural safety in numbers a democracy has. for a monarchy to be bad, one person must be ineffective. for a democracy to be bad, a majority of the entire population must be ineffective. and sure, you can specifically select your monarchs so that they're never ineffective, but by what manner and standards? if he is chosen by tests or mathematically, how do you make the tests or equations such that they encapsulate every trait a good monarch must have (i.e. your example, being a good philosopher does not necessarily make one fit for rule)? if he is chosen by the previous monarch, then how do you stop nepotism? if he is chosen by a council or by the general population, is this not tending towards democracy? if it is hereditary, then how do you deal with the sole heir (or if you're especially unlucky, all eligible heirs) of a good monarch being absolutely retarded? compare this to a democracy, which naturally has bigger sample sizes and better margins of error

>>13462744
>America is real democracy

>>13462743
I see where you're coming from.

>>13462678
Socrates idea of a philosopher king is much closer to an acual CHAD than any other philosopher meek beta faggot figure like Kant

>>13462678
the myth of the medals relates directly to birth; sure, two silvers can have a gold, but someone born silver can't become gold

>>13462669
Your perspective is that of perpetual insecurity that desires a Daddy figure to come and make everything better. Everyone can see it except those like you who are blind to anything else, and everyone is laughing at you.

>>13464390
See >>13462743

>>13462669
I've always understood democracy to be complete participation in the political game by all parties involved all of the time, meaning that a lot of activism should be involved (not always in the form of street protest), instead of vote once and bitch for 4 years.

>>13462669
How do you explain the disparity in quality of life under monarchies and democracies? It seems inarguable that the average person's life isn't better now than it was under kings. Speaking strictly of the west here.

Democracy works as long as you only let people who are heavily invested in the future of the society vote. Universal suffrage will kill any republic as we've seen time and time again. The very first political theory texts explicitly stated this but we keep letting oversocialized, effeminate people guilt us into letting them have a say

>>13462744
Nice bait. Imagine that some people actually think like this

>>13462669
*blocks your path and destroy your nation*

>>13462744
Sad that this might not even be bait anymore on here.

>>13464562
Booklist for this feel?

>>13464483
This is a 'my favorite author is Stephen King' tier opinion

>>13466025
The reddit migration needs to be stopped

>>13462744
based post
basedbois on suicide watch

honestly, being a DJ has red-pilled me on democracy because people are fucking stupid and don't know what they want to listen to or what sort of music will sustain the room.

>>13466071
>think about how stupid the average person is, now think that half of them are denser than that
A lot of people arent clever and with suggestion and messages and emotional control, can easily be made to vote for someone