/lit/ - Literature

>>6815385
no

literally /pol/

We already have a global Zionist aristocracy you hopeless knuckle-dragger. Keep being a brainwashed goyim, the shekel meters are rocketing with every post you make.

>>6815388
What is so wrong with aristocracy, assuming it is one of merit rather than wealth?

Plenty of people have been advocating for a landed aristocracy over global liberal democracy

>>6815385
Yeah I think our society is more aristocratic than people make out. There is a global elite class which is transnational which governs most of the general trends in world society.

In terms of alternatives to democracy as we know it today, maybe some form of enlightened protective republicanism, or localized direct democracy where power is devolved to communities.

>>6815401
No.

Cause nepotism happens either way.

>>6815385
enjoy being ruled by inbreds, OP

>>6815401
Aristocracy and meritocracy arem't the same thing, friendo.

dribble

>>6815468
>>>/pol/

>aristocracy is the only sustainable form of government under which it's people can flourish?
Wrong. Aristocracy can't even compete with Socialism with Chinese characteristics (e.g. Confucian capitalism)

We should have a meritocratic technocracy where important posts are staffed according to universally ministered IQ tests.

>>6815385
>Now that democracy has certainly failed and the west is crumbling around us,
okay. . .
>may we finally admit that an aristocracy...
No, it needs to be based on intelligence not inherited wealth.

You don't allow someone to drive a car unless they can demonstrate that they know how to drive a car and understand 'road theory' like traffic signs, speed limits, etc.

Likewise, there should be a voting aptitude test, available to every citizen, and when you can pass that and demonstrate that you have a solid grasp of politics, economics, and a few other areas, you get a voting license.

Letting everyone vote at a certain age is as dumb as saying everyone can get behind the wheel and drive because they have reached a certain age. Why is age some magical prerequisite instead of demonstrating competency?

>>6815509
>Chinese characteristics (e.g. Confucian capitalism)
More like legalist capitalism.

>>6815521
>put the Universities in charge
>give SJWs even more power

>>6815504
Do you think I'm wrong?

>>6815531
simply eric

>>6815531
It would probably result in more traditionalist academics and working class whites having more influence than they do now v. SJWs.

>>6815537
You're fucking offensive.

Well, we figured something pretty good out but, you know Britain, France, Russia, the USA, Canada and Poland didn't think so. Was a tough fight against all those enemies. Maybe next time.

>>6815544
And yet all you can do is insult rather than actually refute my points.

>>6815544
>/lit/ has come to "you hurt my feelings"

>>6815539
>traditionalist academics

>>6815555
>>6815544
>>6815550

nice samefagging faggot

>>6815385
>an aristocracy is the only sustainable form of government under which it's people can flourish?
Did you mean ''under which the aristocracy can flourish?''

Not that business owners aren't aristocrats anyways. They can sway media and politics to do their bidding, so I don't see how it's any different.

Also
>the west is crumbling
[Citation needed]

>>6815590
>[Citation needed]

>>6815569
Not samefagging actually, faggot.

>>6815526
How do you judge competency? Say the test is put together by a left liberal PC type, they're going to say anyone bigoted should be denied the vote, a free marketeer would assume Socialists are too stupid to vote, etc. Plenty intelligent and knowledgeable people believe that other intelligent and knowledgeable people are complete idiots politically, because they disagree on certain fundamentals. If you're going to have the sort of democracy we have now, the only way to ensure fairness is to let everyone vote. There's a pretty strong case for better political education, but not for arbitrarily denying people the vote.

>>6815385

>>>/pol/

>>6815400
THIIIIIIIIIS

Go home, pol.

>>6815606
>Born: May 29, 1880, Blankenburg (Harz), Germany
>Died: May 8, 1936, Munich, Germany
Sure, hun. This counts.

>>6815645
There's something really endearing about those shoes.

>>6815617
>How do you judge competency?
Through a competency test
>Say the test is put together by a left liberal PC type, they're going to say...
You're just throwing out random hypotheticals. In the UK, the driving licensing agency is the DVLA which is separate from the government, and as such has no political allegiance. For a voting license, you'd have a separate body too.
>they're going to say anyone bigoted should be denied the vote, a free marketeer would assume Socialists are too stupid to vote, etc.
The test wouldn't include absurd questions like, "are you a socialist?", "do you agree with the labor theory of value?"... They would be neutral questions to ascertain a certain political, historical, and economic knowledge: "Which picture is a model of the credit/debt cycle, A,B,C or D?" "Which answer demonstrates 10% compound interest on this annuity?", "What year were women given the right to vote?", etc. A fair, unbiased, neutral test, that would require some study.
>If you're going to have the sort of democracy we have now, the only way to ensure fairness is to let everyone vote.
Why do you think it's unfair to deny those who can't demonstrate a basic political knowledge the right to vote? It's fair because *everyone* is entitled to take and retake the voting test.
>There's a pretty strong case for better political education, but not for arbitrarily denying people the vote.
There is nothing arbitrary about it. The only arbitrary thing is the current age restriction -- I'm sure you were, or at least knew, a 16 year old with a far better grasp of politics than the most uneducated 30 year old you have met.

If you can't read a road sign or reverse a car, you don't get a car license. If you don't have any knowledge of politics, you don't get a voting license. In both cases, the people who fail the test can then study and retake the test until they can demonstrate that they are competent enough to handle the power that comes with a car or vote. It's a fair system.

>moyes

>>6815649
Is this supposed to be a point of some kind?

>>6815606
nigga do you actually read the book?
It isn't about "the west is dying lol".

>>6815762
>what year were women given the right to vote?
>trivial pursuit: the voting aptitude test
fuck off

>>6815606
that book is about more than its title lmao
I read it while feeling very pessimistic about modern consumer culture but by the end I was actually hopeful for the future.

>>6815834
We regret to inform you that you have failed the competency test, Anonymous No.6815834, you are welcome to re-book a test at this center after a 30 day disgrace period.

>>6815934
lol *jazz hands*

Monarchy remains supreme. But everything depends on the monarch.

There is nothing easier to fix than a corrupt Monarchy. Just kill the king. But in a democratic bureaucracy like ours, who could you kill to purge the corruption? No one. It is too deeply entrenched.

Nietzsche would say 'any country with this many politicians deserves to perish by all these politicians'.

Schopenhauer said 'I would rather be ruled by a lion than by a pack of rats', and that is exactly what we have today: in Washington, in London, in Moscow, in Beijing, in Berlin and in Paris.

There is something truly contemptible about 'leaders' who are obliged to barter and haggle with the vulgar masses for allotments of power.

>>6815762

Daily reminder that the United States has been drifting leftward every since women were given the right to vote.

Things have really gone to shit since the 1920s, and it's no coincidence.

>>6816020
>USA
>leftwing

your socialists are further right wing than our conservatives.

get things into proportion you bellend

>>6815762

How about you have to be a legal citizen for 5 years or more and show proof of citizenship to vote?

>>6816039

Socialism is socialism dickweed. Our countries are comparable in government spending.

>>6815401
>What is so wrong with aristocracy, assuming it is one of merit rather than wealth?
So a meritocracy you fucking idiot?

>>6815980
But even in a monarchy, the leader can't do everything, they need trusted members to help them execute their will or trusted advisors to help do their job. And what happens if such people continue to stay and poison a supposedly good king?