Anti Democracy Thread

File: 452 KB, 640x634, demo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anti Democracy Thread Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:10:30 2019 No.14412318 [Reply] [Original]

Jason Brennan BTFO's democracy:

Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj-vM1C1C5Y
Book: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Democracy-Preface-Jason-Brennan/dp/0691178496

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:31:41 2019 No.14412402 Wouldn’t anti democracy just be one of these sides forcing their views on everyone though?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:32:37 2019 No.14412407 I unironically dislike Democracy. In the 20th century alone it gave us Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Idi Amin and Chairman Mao. Let's go back to a Constitutional Monarchy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:35:13 2019 No.14412418 I don't get it. He makes it sound like Trump has been a disaster for this country.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:38:39 2019 No.14412437 >>14412318 Jason Brennan is an American and I'd be better off injecting asbestos into my eyes than getting political advice from a burger.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:40:22 2019 No.14412447 >>14412402 You're trapped in ideology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:49:35 2019 No.14412475 >>14412447 Okay, well please be a dear and explain what an anti-democratic society would be like.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 20:55:18 2019 No.14412499 >>14412407 >Constitutional Monarchy So you think the UK is a model to emulate?

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:00:16 2019 No.14412524

I was just thinking about starting an anti-tax/free stuff movement, which would use democracy by harnessing the power of the majority to invoke referendums to pass laws that give everyone tax exempt status to everyone with an income below a certain point. This would appeal to both the working and middle classes aka the majority. Then we would invoke referendums to raise taxes for the rich, then another referendum to abolish having to pay for rent and utilities. Then I remembered that democracy doesn’t work

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:06:23 2019 No.14412545 File: 460 KB, 980x550, EE9F227C-AF47-4BA6-AB28-4EFAE0A5D37E.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412318 It’s pointless to talk about democracy in world that doesn’t even employ it

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:09:38 2019 No.14412556 >>14412407 Are you retarded?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:11:48 2019 No.14412566 >>14412545 Democracy is terrible and is the tyranny of the majority.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:13:23 2019 No.14412572 File: 67 KB, 640x643, 640_2015_02_05_21_15_15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412499 The UKs monarchs are just figureheads. Jordan would be a better example of what I'm talking about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:13:44 2019 No.14412574 >>14412407 Based

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:14:22 2019 No.14412577 >>14412566 Democracy is the most sincere form of government.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:18:16 2019 No.14412585 >>14412318 What does this Brennan guy propose as a replacement for Democracy? >inb4 just watch the video / read the book / read this link etc no faggot, just tell me

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:18:43 2019 No.14412588 >>14412475 Watch the video

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:19:55 2019 No.14412598 >>14412545 Noam is a faggot. We do have democracy, people are actually elected by popular vote at every level, anyone can get on the ballot with very little work.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:20:07 2019 No.14412599 File: 73 KB, 650x650, A33FCE08-3D5E-47D9-82CC-0D0DBA750B81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412566 Lets see it sometime

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:20:59 2019 No.14412603 >>14412556 I'm not saying that a Constitutional Monarchy is perfect but I legitimately think it would be better than Democracy. Do you think it's a coincidence that the fall of Monarchies coincided with the rise of Nazism, Socialism and Communism?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:21:41 2019 No.14412604 >>14412598 Voting does not equal democracy >>14412599 >>14412475 Fascism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:21:45 2019 No.14412606 >>14412407 >liking monarchy based >not liking Hitler cringe

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:22:13 2019 No.14412608 >>14412545 Shut up, retard.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:22:54 2019 No.14412610 >>14412603 Did you ever think a civics class?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:23:01 2019 No.14412612 >>14412585 Epistocracy, and there's a bunch of different ways of implementing it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:23:13 2019 No.14412614 >>14412606 Hitler was a Socialist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:24:04 2019 No.14412615 >>14412604 > Voting does not equal democracy What does ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:24:53 2019 No.14412617 >>14412545 Sweaty democracy is theoretically incoherent and pragmatically impossible! You should know this, buttertranny...

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:26:25 2019 No.14412625 >>14412614 Stalin was a Marxist, too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:27:17 2019 No.14412630 File: 111 KB, 500x349, 2132.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:27:24 2019 No.14412631 >>14412625 Yeah and I hate Hitler, Stalin, Socialism and Marxism. I just want to be left alone.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:27:47 2019 No.14412633 >>14412615 >>14412599 >>14412545 >>14412617 Thweety, no. Just no. You know I’m an anarchist and don’t need a giant state. Nice diffused democratically elected councils of this sector and that are all the leadership civil society needs.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:29:23 2019 No.14412642

>>14412572
I find it interesting that in the existing constitutional monarchies that a lot of discretionary power to the monarch, Morocco, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain, that the government is the primary employer and indeed controls the economy as a whole.
Monaco is an exception, probably because of its tiny population.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:35:59 2019 No.14412666 File: 91 KB, 640x640, deng.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Democracy is based, just make sure its executed properly and prevent reactionaries from interfering iwth its processes.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:37:03 2019 No.14412671 >>14412666 Can’t be done under capitalism

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:37:08 2019 No.14412673

>>14412633
> anarchist
That's the perfect system, correct derivation of deontology and such would always produce anarcism but we don't live in a perfect world or with perfect people. That's why anarchism is delusional.
> Nice diffused democratically elected councils of this sector and that are all the leadership civil society needs.
Doesn't solve any of the problem that Brenan brings up

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:37:53 2019 No.14412675 >>14412633 >being restricted by geography No, what we need is voluntary association in non-geographically defined political bodies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:38:37 2019 No.14412681 >>14412666 >>14412671 Both of you fags are wrong and would benifit from reading the book or watching that video

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:40:44 2019 No.14412693 >>14412630 Oh noes. All male slave owners decide to execute a homeless neet butt-pirate How could this ever have happened? >>14412673 Anarchism would better people. >Brenan Such as?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:41:45 2019 No.14412699 The Shocking Paper Predicting the End of Democracy Human brains aren’t built for self-rule, says Shawn Rosenberg. That’s more evident than ever. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:44:34 2019 No.14412708 >>14412693 i hope you get raped and orgasm so you turn straight again

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:49:05 2019 No.14412729 >>14412693 50.1% good, 59.9% bad. Great philosophy there. > Anarchism would better people. Because magic ? > Brenan Watch or read it

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:49:37 2019 No.14412731 >>14412708 she's post menopausal and all dried up and frigid

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 21:50:11 2019 No.14412734 >>14412729 *49.9%

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 21:56:45 2019 No.14412764

>>14412729
Athenian democracy was allowed for just the property owning male citizens. Not a full democracy. But the issue of executing homeless philosophers isn’t any better under a republic or a monarchy.
>magic
The magic of the human mind. Seems people who are raised well in a peace and prosperity turn out nice, while those raised in poverty and pressure come out committing crimes to get by.

Now explain it. You aren’t interesting me. See I’m good on this subject and I don’t really care about this Brenan guy

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:01:49 2019 No.14412789

>>14412764
> Not a full democracy
Bruh, are you not aware of the number of people govt unjustly kills in a democracy ? War on drug, militarized policing, millinery killing people by thousands and every other kind of shitty life destroying policies enacted in democracy... Pretty sure Hitler was also democratically elected.
> Seems people who are raised well in a peace and prosperity turn out nice
I'm gonna need a source on that unsubstantiated claim
> See I’m good on this subject and I don’t really care about this Brenan guy
Live demonstration of why we can't have democracy

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 22:08:41 2019 No.14412811 >>14412789 You just get here? Read the thread first. Voting=/=democracy

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:10:06 2019 No.14412816 >>14412318 this is extreme brainlet. the US has a garbage education system resulting from capitalism and then of course the libertarian brennan wants to just disenfranchise the majority rather than fix the underlying issue

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:34:57 2019 No.14412918 >>14412811 Then clarify what the fuck actually is ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:36:41 2019 No.14412925 File: 36 KB, 465x460, 1577088207003.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412402 Not necessarily. Stirner's Egoism is complete renunciation of ideology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:38:34 2019 No.14412931 >>14412811 God butterfly. Stop with your cute posting. I can barely contain myself. :3 I think I'll crank one out in your honour. Think of me in the next 20 minutes, ok?

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:40:06 2019 No.14412935

>>14412816
> too retarded to understand therefore it's brainlet
He talks about how the increase in education lead to no increase in the amount of stuff people know about govt in 40 year long study. He talks about how it's not due to the content being taught, they tested to see what is being taught, it's a problem with incentive built into democracy, people doesn't bother to remember what they learn that they don't find that important or useful.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:41:08 2019 No.14412938 >>14412402 A random draw is not for example. There can be many others that are not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:41:16 2019 No.14412940 >>14412402 Democracy right now is when intelligence agencies tell NGOs to tell universities to tell their journalism students to tell us what Our Values are, so it's functionally an obfuscated dictatorship.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:41:25 2019 No.14412941

>>14412318
I'm not necessarily against democracy, but I'm against liberal democracy because the liberals have not come up with any method of organizing political life that is not built on the foundation of institutions that the aristocrats created (i.e. parliament, privy council, and judiciary), and I've come to think it's because they lack the creative essence to do so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:42:31 2019 No.14412946 >>14412941 Why aren't you against democracy ?

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:43:36 2019 No.14412951

Democracy is fine, but it must be balanced with anti-democratic measures and institutions, such as a monarch, a meaningful separation of powers, strong families, a powerful and shared faith or identity, or other shared traditions.

Sage in all fields for a thinly-veiled politics thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:47:18 2019 No.14412966 >>14412951 Democracy is not fine because there are people like you who thinks this way >>14412940 According to the little birdy that spoke with a german accent this morning ?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:49:25 2019 No.14412973 >>14412966 Just study the genesis of most popular ideas post-WW2. It typically goes CIA/Rockefeller/Ford Foundation -> University -> journalism -> us.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:50:44 2019 No.14412977 >>14412925 >Stirner Pure ideology

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:52:16 2019 No.14412984

>>14412545
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:52:29 2019 No.14412985 >>14412951 don't forget ethnic homogeneity and a strong middle class

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:52:35 2019 No.14412986 >>14412925 Stirner's egoism is literally just liberalism

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 22:57:28 2019 No.14413011 >>14412946 I'm not against it on principle, but I think it's very flawed. Personally, I really like the idea of Prussian constitutionalism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:02:13 2019 No.14413031 This is why economists shouldn't do political philosophy.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 23:08:05 2019 No.14413059 >>14412986 No.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:08:15 2019 No.14413060

>OPs video advocates epistocracy, rule of the knowledgeable
Does "trans women are women" count as knowledge in Liberal Epistocracy? (Hint: yes)
The point here is that power, as in democracy, still lies with those who have the power to shape mass opinion. If anything having more "idiots" voting is a good thing if we must have elections, because "smart" people are often just better at mental gymnastics.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:08:43 2019 No.14413062

>>14413031
Political philosophy done correctly can only lead to anarchism. But since don't live in a perfect world, so we have to add all sort of bs to make it work. Economist with philosophy PhD is perfectly suited to handle that mess and suggest where we can improve things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:09:17 2019 No.14413063 >>14413059 It is, and you're a liberal (as you said above, since you are an anarchist).

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:09:46 2019 No.14413065 >>14413060 It does not count, and there's not one way of implementing epistocracy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:11:39 2019 No.14413072 >>14413062 >Political philosophy done correctly can only lead to anarchism The irony here is amazing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:12:15 2019 No.14413075 >>14413031 this

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 23:13:58 2019 No.14413076 >>14413063 You don’t understand the terms. Libertarian-socialism is anarchism and completely anti-capitalism. Liberalism is for capitalism of any and every stripe

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:15:32 2019 No.14413083 >>14412935 yeah i know and it wasn't convincing. it's one of the ways i could tell an economist was talking. capitalism is the context in which 'incentive structures' are even relevant

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:17:12 2019 No.14413090 The problem with his epistocracy idea is that it's built with the assumption that the knowledgeable are virtuous. There must be something more than simple knowledge to government.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:18:00 2019 No.14413092 >>14413063 Read "Combat Liberalism"

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:18:31 2019 No.14413094

>>14413072
Consequentialism boils down to relativistic retardation. Deontology done correctly can not legitimize governance over others. So you are left with anarchism. But we don't live in the ideal world of first principals, so we have to add shit on consequentialist term while keeping as much deontological stuff as possible intact. Brennan is trying to do that.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:18:35 2019 No.14413095

>>14413076
liberalism is the belief that all people equally share in a rational nature and can use it to define which form of polity is best for them. since, presumably, you believe in anarchism because you believe it is supported by the strongest and most rational arguments in its favor, that makes you a liberal. a non liberal attitude toward politics would be someone conquering through sheer force and enforcing their will, or people following a certain form of governance because they believe it is god sanctioned and because they fear god's wrath if they turn from it. non liberals don't base their political preferences on flimsy rational grounds, though they might use reasoned arguments for rhetorical purposes, ultimately their case rests on some potent irrational source

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:18:58 2019 No.14413098 >>14413076 Anarchism of the type you subscribe to is just liberalism taken to its logical conclusion, that is, concluding that social structures themselves are threats to our liberty.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:19:55 2019 No.14413101 >>14413090 Nope, it's just that knowledge and stake is better than lack of knowledge or no stake. You can keep the "something more" with aristocracy too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:20:08 2019 No.14413102 >>14413092 Anything involving "People's X" has hidden liberal assumptions, so no, I will not read Mao. >>14413076 I'm not misreading terms at all. They're just different forms of "muh autonomy".

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:20:57 2019 No.14413107 >>14413101 *epistocracy

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:21:22 2019 No.14413111 >>14413101 They don't have a stake in everyone's well-being, that's the problem. It would breed corruption.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:22:27 2019 No.14413114 >>14413094 Government doesn't need "legitimacy", it just is, by asserting otherwise you're either viewing primitivism aspirationally, or holding hidden liberal assumptions.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:30:40 2019 No.14413152

>>14413114
> Government doesn't need "legitimacy"...
Govt in the sense of being abstract higher level rules that people can be shown to follow may not need legitimizing but that's meanigless, but enforcement of those rules on others absolutely does require it being legitimate.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Tue Dec 24 23:31:16 2019 No.14413156 >>14413098 I’ve been called a communist and now a liberal. So by your logic Marxists are liberals. Pro and con capitalists are both liberals. Just shut up with your mush mouths already. I’ve described for you what I stand for plenty.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:32:03 2019 No.14413160 >>14413156 >I’ve been called a communist and now a liberal. So by your logic Marxists are liberals. Hint: they are a subset of liberals

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:32:56 2019 No.14413162

>>14412318
His arguments are very poor.
>dude it isn't just correlation, there's causation here too
Bullshit. All statisticians are liars trying to lend legitimacy to nonsense. In essence he suggests knowledge of political trivia makes you a better voter if you could divorce yourself from ideological bias, which is insipid.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:36:03 2019 No.14413171

The only “solution” to politics is deeply religious (and not brainwashy dogma shit, genuine, truthful perennial spirituality!) anarchy. That is the perfect system. Will it ever be realised? God willing, one day. Perfect freedom, perfect forgiveness, perfect oneness and kinship with all creatures God made on earth... the expression, the deeply profound artistic expression and freedom. It would be so beautiful. We may never realise it but I dream about it

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:36:50 2019 No.14413172 >>14413162 His main point is that democracy has a built in incentive issue that results in these outcome

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:36:55 2019 No.14413173 >>14413102 >Anything involving "People's X" has hidden liberal assumptions, so no, I will not read Mao What does that even mean? That's just a string of words.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:37:52 2019 No.14413177 >>14413171 We live in a real world, not in heaven

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:41:50 2019 No.14413195

>>14413173
Marxism, with its appeals to "the people", betrays an implicitly liberal assumption about human organization, and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is no different. Indeed this essay by Mao largely defines liberalism as "things Chairman Mao does not like in the Party", but obviously a Chinese wouldn't really have any understanding of liberalism since it's outside his tradition anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:43:34 2019 No.14413202 >>14413171 t. hakim bey, known pedophile

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:45:01 2019 No.14413211 >>14413171 In a given moral community, there is always a "correct" decision for any matter of governance based on the priors of said moral schema. There's no reason people's votes ought to have anything to do with this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:45:37 2019 No.14413213 >>14413172 And the sky is blue.

Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:50:51 2019 No.14413231

>>14413195
>Marxism, with its appeals to "the people"
Marxism does not "appeal" to "the people." It underlines the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, which is not "the people," because every other class has been outside of it. For most of modern history, the proletariat has been the minority in most parts of the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:52:02 2019 No.14413236 >>14413213 not at night, then its black with white spots (the stars)

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:53:29 2019 No.14413242 File: 130 KB, 800x990, KurtVonSchuschnigg1936-3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I wish I was dictator. I would really sort this country out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:54:38 2019 No.14413245 >>14413242 >schuschnigg Shush nigga, im finna tryin to watch tv

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:55:33 2019 No.14413248 >>14413160 cringe

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 24 23:57:13 2019 No.14413255 >>14413231 Marxism has a fundamentally different view of the flow of power/authority within society as compared to the concept of the Mandate of Heaven, a view which it shares with liberalism, is the point I am trying to make.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:00:03 2019 No.14413265 Cringe incel thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:01:19 2019 No.14413269 >>14413255 To put it as crudely as possible: Marxism/Liberalism: power flows as spooky force -> masses -> authority How power acutally flows: spooky force -> authority -> masses.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:03:13 2019 No.14413274

>>14413255
marxism bases itself on rational arguments. they make rational arguments on why their form of government is best/correct or whatever. on that basis alone, it is liberal. previous forms of government were based on the reasoning "it's just the way things are done lol". and sure we have people like aristotle justifying aristocracy, or people like dante justifying monarchy, but those are both after the fact justifications. those forms of government antedate the thinkers who tried to justify them, and ultimately do not rest on rational grounds. marxism is built on a foundation of rational justification. there could be no marxism without intellectuals making a case for it, it simply would not exist. aristocracy predates conceptual thought itself, it's literally older than philosophy and dialectical argument

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:06:08 2019 No.14413280 >>14412614 Yeah, a NATIONAL socialist.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:06:34 2019 No.14413286

>>14413255
Marxism does have a different view of power than the Mandate of Heaven, sure. So does liberalism. However, it does not follow that Marxism and liberalism have the *same* view of power.

Marxism views power as it exists, and has existed in the past, through the lens of historical materialism. Liberalism, in all its manifestations, does not. This is one of the fundamental things separating the two strains of thought.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Dec 25 00:11:54 2019 No.14413307 File: 15 KB, 408x230, F3549927-1464-46C6-B876-281A71B802A4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14413160 >They’re all just protestants

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:13:19 2019 No.14413317 >>14413274 Rationality without empiricism si retarded. Most marxist observations of reality and human behavior are bullshit so it fails miserably.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:13:58 2019 No.14413318 >>14413307 Not completely true, but obviously Western Christian history played a role in both.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:14:32 2019 No.14413322 >>14413242 I would make you all wear badges with my glorious face on it and I would have einsatzgruppen patrolling each block.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:15:34 2019 No.14413328 >begins the talk with talking about how fucking dumb his in laws are lol

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:15:39 2019 No.14413331

>>14413286
>>14413269
>Spooky force
Okay, here's how Marxism actually views things. In a (simplified) feudal society, for example:
Peasants make food, artisans make specialized goods.
The lord controls groups of armed men. The armed men, under direction of the lord, make sure that the peasants keep growing crop and artisans keep making their stuff (including arms for the men, luxuries for the lord, etc.). The armed men enforce this status quo by staving off raiders, the armies of other lords, and by oppressing the populace as need be.
The key here is that the relationships are reciprocal. Working classes feed armies, armies force working classes to keep working, and so on.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Dec 25 00:15:56 2019 No.14413333 >>14413318 It’s true if you’re Catholic. Atheists, satanists. All Protestants

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:17:15 2019 No.14413345

>>14413317
even rationality coupled with empiricism could not build an adequate form of government. the very origins of governance are in the irrational obscurity of prehistory. building a polity on rational grounds (with or without empiricism) will only lead to disaster

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:17:49 2019 No.14413348 >>14413333 Protestantism grew out of Catholicism, and it's not like there weren't liberal Catholics as well. Many quasi-liberal tendencies existed in Western Europe pre-Reformation anyway.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:22:44 2019 No.14413371

>>14413333
Catholics are literally proto atheists. They have the same vile utilitarian outlook. Orthodox christians are the only ones who were true to Jesus’ anti political spiritual emancipation, until they were taken over by the Russian state. Now the true church only exists in the hearts of a small count of individuals spread across the world

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:30:36 2019 No.14413402 >>14412318 Ryan Faulk already settled this years ago. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tAOjAhwJvWQ

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Dec 25 00:42:07 2019 No.14413449 >>14413371 There never was a true church

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:44:35 2019 No.14413459 File: 2.58 MB, 2000x4045, t.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14413402 Please tell your whotuber to take a philosophy 101 class and then read some of the theories before shitting out another cringy video.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 00:54:29 2019 No.14413492 >Everyone gets one vote but some people get more than one vote Was John Stuart Mill retarded?

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Dec 25 01:00:00 2019 No.14413515 >>14413492 >Liberal Some pigs are more equal to liberals

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:02:00 2019 No.14413519 >>14413459 >multiple Enlightenment writers in the Pre-Enlightenment section bro, you just posted cringe

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:02:30 2019 No.14413521 >>14413459 > your ideas are wrong > but I'm not gonna tell you how > instead I'm gonna throw you walls and walls of text > because big brain /lit/ please kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:03:40 2019 No.14413525 >>14413521 not him but >a single sentence is a wall of text the absolute state of zoomer attention spans

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Dec 25 01:03:48 2019 No.14413526 >>14413521 Your guy hasn’t read one brick of that wall

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:11:36 2019 No.14413555

>>14413449
The kingdom of God is within you, within everyone, if they wish. No institution but the individual human soul has the right to such a power. The church was always a convenience and a perversion, because the actual church was in the hearts of the free

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:12:37 2019 No.14413558

Neocameralist gang in the house checking in looking to turn the country into a pile of stonks because the joint stock corporation is the most efficient form of human organization ever devised.
Imagine turning your upper management over to the whims of a volatile marketplace of ideas instead of a marketplace of something infinitely more trustworthy (monies)

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:32:43 2019 No.14413618 >Book Oh good thing your thread included a link to a book, I almost thought it was off topic /pol/shit

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:37:55 2019 No.14413633

>>14413521
The video guy makes up a story about why he doesn't like democracy while assuming this is the only framing that procedure can have and makes no justification for why this is the right frame, that's why I mentioned reading theories. He also causally shits out this sentence at 2 minutes in: "Civilization, as I define it, is a certain standard of living and it is totally subjective and arbitrary and it is created by increase of capital". If everything is subjective and arbitrary, you can allow and justify anything and everything, including opposite of what he is trying to say is right. People learn why moral relativism contradictory in their philosophy 101 class, that's why I mentioned Phil 101.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 01:57:45 2019 No.14413690 >>14412407 mostly based >>14412606 highly based

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 09:40:55 2019 No.14414628

>>14412764
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 09:42:41 2019 No.14414637

>>14413059
>>14413076
>>14413156
>>14413307
>>14413333
>>14413449
>>14413515
>>14413526
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 09:42:47 2019 No.14414640 >>14412318 I will legitimately support any system that frees common people of political thought.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 09:53:29 2019 No.14414668 >>14413633 Moral relativism isn't contradictory unless you maintain certain preferences like this guy is doing.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 09:58:37 2019 No.14414686

>>14412318
>Anti Democracy Thread
neat-o

>Political democracy is Christian since in it man, not merely one man but everyman, ranks as sovereign, as the highest being, but it is man in his uncivilized, unsocial form, man in his fortuitous existence, man just as he is, man as he has been corrupted by the whole organization of our society, who has lost himself, been alienated, and handed over to the rule of inhuman conditions and elements — in short, man who is not yet a real species-being. That which is a creation of fantasy, a dream, a postulate of Christianity, i.e., the sovereignty of man – but man as an alien being different from the real man — becomes, in democracy, tangible reality, present existence, and secular principle.

>It is sufficient to recall that, if the consciousness of human beings is the result, not the cause, of the characteristics of the surroundings in which they are compelled to live and act, then never as a rule will the exploited, the starved and the underfed be able to convince themselves of the necessity of overthrowing the well-fed satiated exploiter laden with every resource and capacity. This can only be the exception. Bourgeois electoral democracy seeks the consultation of the masses, for it knows that the response of the majority will always be favourable to the privileged class and will readily delegate to that class the right to govern and to perpetuate exploitation. It is not the addition or subtraction of the small minority of bourgeois voters that will alter the relationship. The bourgeoisie governs with the majority, not only of all the citizens, but also of the workers taken alone.

>Setting out from the individual-unit in order to draw social conclusions and to construct social blueprints or even in order to deny society, is setting out from an unreal supposition which, even in its most modern formulations, only amounts to refurbishing the concepts of religious revelation and creation and of a spiritual life which is not dependent upon natural and organic life. The divine creator — or a single power governing the destiny of the universe has given each individual this elementary property of being an autonomous well-defined molecule endowed with consciousness, will and responsibility within the social aggregate, independent of contingent factors deriving from the physical influence of the environment. Only the appearance of this religious and idealist conception is modified in the doctrine of democratic liberalism or libertarian individualism. The soul as a spark from the supreme Being, the subjective sovereignty of each elector, or the unlimited autonomy of the citizen of a society without laws — these are so many sophisms which, in the eyes of the Marxist critique, are tainted with the same infantile idealism, no matter how resolutely "materialist" the first bourgeois liberals and anarchists may have been.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:11:52 2019 No.14414737 >>14413322 BASED. I would follow you into the dark my fuhrer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:18:44 2019 No.14414758 File: 9 KB, 168x200, 1576910733704.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412545 >that definition of 'fascism'

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:20:38 2019 No.14414763 >>14412402 >just be one of these sides forcing their views on everyone This is democracy.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:20:38 2019 No.14414764
File: 840 KB, 1200x1600, Hans-Hermann-Hoppe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Intended as a contribution to this great thread, I present a logical proof of impossibility of democracy that permanently REFUTES this vicious system
1) The decision process must always and everywhere concern scarce resources - this is trivially true always and everywhere, where there is no scarcity of resources there need not be any decission concerning the allocation of said resources.
2) Resources of the earth are scarce, hence the need for an allocative system.
3) In Western liberal democracies decissions concerning the allocation of scarce resources are made in two different ways - by means of the market or of democracy.
4) The market allocates resources where they produce the greatest return on investment, democracy allocates resources where the majority of people want them to be allocated. Thus unless there is complete equality amongst peoples the allocation achieved through voluntary market exchanges and through democratic process will differ considerably from one another.
5) Democracy could be therefore summarized as a system of "rule of majority". This is a necessary simplification if our proof is to be short and concise. Furthermore, we restrict our analysis to direct democracies. Although most Western countries are representative democracies, this will not hinder our analysis greatly as the reasoning presented herein is universal and abstracted from the particular form a democracy may assume.
6) Suppose you were trying to create a constitution of a democratic state or community (notice that by extending our analysis to non-statist societies, we refute the claims of """anarchists""" that their """anarchism""" is the only proper form of democracy). Techincally speaking the only necessary rule that must constitute a democracy is the statement that "state/community X is a democracy and all other decissions are made through democratic voting process"
7) But since in a democracy it is the will of majority that makes a decission legitimate, the statement "state/community X is a democracy" is not legitimate since this statement was not decided upon through democratic process! Therein lies our predicament - democracy cannot possibly assert itself because the statement "state/community X is a democracy" cannot be a subject of democratic voting. We cannot make this statement legitimate through voting because the sentence "state/community X is a democracy" needs to be true for majority's will to be decissive and we cannot assume that this statement is the only one that is not decided upon through non-democratic voting because that is arbitrary - why just this statement and not some other ones?

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:26:00 2019 No.14414774

>>14412545
This quote would almost mean something if it werent for the fact that the "top" in a fascist government is decided arbitrarily as opposed to the "top" in a capitalist economy being decided via competition, which is completely desirable and in no way equivalent to the former.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:26:15 2019 No.14414775 >>14414764 >Resources of the earth are scarce I disagree. People are too lazy, stupid and/or obedient to make use of them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:34:28 2019 No.14414803
File: 51 KB, 300x432, Mises-cigarette300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14414764
8) We could technically overcome this problem by assuming that everyone agrees with the statement "state/community X is a democracy" and hence there is no need to confirm this through voting. If someone disagrees with the said statement, he is free to leave our yet to be democratic state/community and therefore all that remain will be adherents to the basic principle that "majority's will constitutes a legitimate decission". There are at least two problems with this line of defense.
a) Our consideration of whether or not to leave the yet to be democratic society will necessarily be a function of all decissions that might be made in the future in other words it is impossible to say in advance whether or not we agree with some principle of collective decission making without knowing what particular decissions would be made in a democracy. One could try to rescue our yet to be democratic society by arguing that in real life we often cannot envision with 100% accuracy the effects of our decisions and yet some decissions HAVE TO be made. In response to this it will suffice to say that
b) A democracy without any additional safety networks like inalienable natural rights will surely restrict people's freedoms of locomotion, therefore it is reasonable to postulate that in light of a) if some people adversly affected by the results of democratic process were to try and flee the democratic community, a retaliatory action from the community would follow that would necessitate the incarceration of said individual under accusation of "trying to undermine democracy". Notice that this already happened albeit not in a democratic state but in the authocratic Soviet Union.
What follows is the logical impossibility of democracy and that is exactly what we intended to prove, QED.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 10:57:29 2019 No.14414855 >>14414774 >Fascist government is not decided via competition >Capitalists don't select people as CEOs based on what the investors want to hear

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 12:42:33 2019 No.14415229 >>14412402 >describes democracy heh, ever heard of libertarianism kid?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 12:47:26 2019 No.14415258 File: 185 KB, 293x928, ❗⚠️❗⚠️⚠️❗⚠️❗❗❗❌１５０℃ FIRE WARNING❗❗⚠️❗⚠️❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗❗.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412402 >Wouldn’t anti multi-person-driving just be one guy behind the steering wheel though?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 12:49:34 2019 No.14415273 >>14412407 Democracy created none of those. All of those are a reaction to democracy. Following your logic, a constitutional monarchies are what gave us democracy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 13:02:18 2019 No.14415332 >>14412318 It's not even their view that is forced on the entire country, their view isn't "theirs" either

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 13:25:59 2019 No.14415446

>>14414764
Now I'm not exactly familiar with scholasticism but this seems particularly dumb. Firstly without scarcity decisions just become infinitely more complex, they aren't eliminated. Secondly obviously markets or democracy aren't the only choices, I can "illegitimately" steal or pirate whatever I want, lots of individual preferences can only be happening outside those commercial or political channels all the time. Democracy and markets are just different procedural methods to supposedly actualize majority opinon.

>>14414803
>A democracy without any additional safety networks like inalienable natural rights will surely restrict people's freedoms of locomotion
Freedom of movement is an example of a positive right, there's notting "natural" about you going wherever you want without being shot. Not to mention the public infrastructure for movement people don't like each other and would discriminate if allowed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 14:31:50 2019 No.14415763 File: 23 KB, 500x421, 1576131612403.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412545 >Any hierarchical society is fascist Thanks Noam

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 14:34:40 2019 No.14415781 >>14412402 You're describing base democracy. People vote, one fraction ends up making the calls. As opposed to compromising. Not that I have a solution for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 14:40:23 2019 No.14415800 >>14412407 >Constitutional cringe

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 14:41:25 2019 No.14415804 >>14412318 i like democracy when not everyone is a fucking propagandised idiot who is misled by corporations and their interests instead of humanity's interests so fuck capitalism

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 14:48:04 2019 No.14415826

Democracy works effectively in some parts of the world just probably less in post-war Anglo-Zionist vassal states and in developing countries. The combination of common law along with systems of customary and religious law along with the primitiveness of some modern political systems such as the U.S's are what make places such as those more backwards and less efficient.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 15:07:16 2019 No.14415903

>>14412545
As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame;
As tumbled over rim in roundy wells
Stones ring; like each tucked string tells, each hung bell's
Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its name;
Each mortal thing does one thing and the same:
Deals out that being indoors each one dwells;
Selves — goes itself; myself it speaks and spells,
Crying Whát I dó is me: for that I came.

I say móre: the just man justices;
Keeps grace: thát keeps all his goings graces;
Acts in God's eye what in God's eye he is —
Chríst — for Christ plays in ten thousand places,
Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his
To the Father through the features of men's faces.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 15:09:26 2019 No.14415911

>>14412693

No worst, there is none. Pitched past pitch of grief,
More pangs will, schooled at forepangs, wilder wring.
Comforter, where, where is your comforting?
Mary, mother of us, where is your relief?
My cries heave, herds-long; huddle in a main, a chief
Woe, wórld-sorrow; on an áge-old anvil wince and sing —
Then lull, then leave off. Fury had shrieked 'No ling-
ering! Let me be fell: force I must be brief."'

O the mind, mind has mountains; cliffs of fall
Frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed. Hold them cheap
May who ne'er hung there. Nor does long our small
Durance deal with that steep or deep. Here! creep,
Wretch, under a comfort serves in a whirlwind: all
Life death does end and each day dies with sleep.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 16:27:01 2019 No.14416303

>>14415781
> Not that I have a solution for it.
Read the book, it has solutions in it too
>>14415804
So you like democracy in a magical fairy tale world. Also most people vote according to what they believe is a national interest not humanity's interest. You probably do too if you don't support open borders for example.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 16:37:36 2019 No.14416348
File: 47 KB, 645x968, 1554538105947212550.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14415446
> Firstly without scarcity decisions just become infinitely more complex, they aren't eliminated
Thanks for proving you're a brainlet. If energy is infinite, we need not worry where to allocate it since we are sure that we won't run out of it no matter how hard we exploit it. Please note that post-scarcity is a theoretical construct, a post-scarcity society is literally impossible to imagine to a being that has become accustomed to a situation of ubiquitous scarcity.
>Secondly obviously markets or democracy aren't the only choices, I can "illegitimately" steal or pirate whatever I want
Stealing is not the part of the allocation process, it's the part of the redistribution process.
Still haven't refuted me since the crux of the argument consists in points 5), 6) and 7). You've conveniently shifted your focus to preceeding points which are not that important in the structure of my argument and are by my own admission underdeveloped, but then again they can be assumed away and the argument would be none the weaker.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 16:47:44 2019 No.14416384 [DELETED]

>>14414764
a. You already artificially limited yourself to only 2 choice for some reason : democracy vs capitalism and assumed both are about resource allocation. They are clearly not in many ways, one is a system of governance and other a economic setup, governance concerns rules, trial, justice etc that other does not.

> The market allocates resources where they produce the greatest return on investment

market doesn't do shit, it incentivizes as such, people can still go whichever way they want in it.

> democracy allocates resources where the majority of people want them to be allocated

democracy can also democratically decide on capitalistic allocation

> Democracy could be therefore summarized as a system of "rule of majority". This is a necessary simplification if our proof is to be short and concise.

Wow, what a revelation!

> democracy isn't determined democratically, therefore there can not be any legitimate democracy

Govt and procedure requires time to setup, oh no! This is wrong in two ways:

1. There is nothing theoretically stopping people from starting govt democratically. Start with 1 guy with constitution, and then another one who likes the idea joins, then a third and a fourth, anytime they have a disagreement, they take a vote, majority decides what changes to make on the constitution and so on until you get enough to have a democratic nation.
2. Democracy that did not start democratically is still democracy since it meets all the criteria. And if people think current system is illegitimate, they can democratically, with majority election, change the current constitution and rules to their heart's desire. All the elements of democracy is present in this procedure and is democratically legitimate.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 16:53:18 2019 No.14416415

>>14414764
> In Western liberal democracies decissions concerning the allocation of scarce resources are made in two different ways - by means of the market or of democracy
You already artificially limited yourself to only 2 choice for some reason : democracy vs capitalism and assumed both are about resource allocation. They are clearly not in many ways, one is a system of governance and other a economic setup, governance concerns rules, trial, justice etc that other does not.

> The market allocates resources where they produce the greatest return on investment
market doesn't do shit, it incentivizes as such, people can still go whichever way they want in it.

> democracy allocates resources where the majority of people want them to be allocated
democracy can also democratically decide on capitalistic allocation

> Democracy could be therefore summarized as a system of "rule of majority". This is a necessary simplification if our proof is to be short and concise.
Wow, what a revelation!

> democracy isn't determined democratically, therefore there can not be any legitimate democracy
Govt and procedure requires time to setup, oh no! This is wrong in two ways:

1. There is nothing theoretically stopping people from starting govt democratically. Start with 1 guy with constitution, and then another one who likes the idea joins, then a third and a fourth, anytime they have a disagreement, they take a vote, majority decides what changes to make on the constitution and so on until you get enough to have a democratic nation.

2. Democracy that did not start democratically is still democracy since it meets all the criteria. And if people think current system is illegitimate, they can democratically, with majority election, change the current constitution and rules to their heart's desire. All the elements of democracy is present in this procedure and is democratically legitimate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 16:54:26 2019 No.14416424 >>14412599 That's a criticism of democracy...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 17:26:24 2019 No.14416608 File: 264 KB, 1024x576, democracy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 17:34:29 2019 No.14416645 >>14412318 We live in such a bizarre culture. The number of layers that this meme represents is really freaking me out right now.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 17:37:20 2019 No.14416656

>>14416415
You gave me a good laugh, brainlet. I won't adress your """refutations""" of those parts of my argument that related to scarcity since that's not in question here.
>Govt and procedure requires time to setup, oh no!
That's not the point. What you've said is trivially true insofar as all human action requires time, however let us consider how my argument would apply to a fascist government. Thing is, it wouldn't at all since fascism is the rule of authority and authority doesn't need public support to assert itself. If Mussolini says that Italy is to be a fascist country where he is to be the sole decission maker and he further makes some particular decissions in this fascist framework there is no contradiction. However democracy cannot establish its own foundations democratically. It's the same thing with empiricism - you cannot defend it rationally because then you'd assume non-empirical source of legitimacy of knowledge (in this case reason) and you cannot defend it empirically because that's circular (you cannot prove A by assuming a corollary of A). As to your points 1. and 2. they are retarded and I have already refuted them in >>14414803

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 17:39:17 2019 No.14416668 Most people don’t even fucking vote.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 17:45:34 2019 No.14416698 >>14416668 That's good but not enough, people need to vote even less. Majority of the voters are still low information voters.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 17:48:08 2019 No.14416711 >>14416303 Yes.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 17:58:45 2019 No.14416760

>>14414803
> but how would people know what to vote on democratically ??!1!
How about through vote nigga ? Everyone throws out their idea, people picks the most important of those issue to vote on with a vote and then votes on them. Think le reddit, someone makes a posts, people updoots to top, the weekly most updooted can set the issues and the people can discuss it and vote on it for decision.

Also yet another retarded assumption is being made, that is everything has to be democratically decided for something to be democracy. It does not. People can democratically decide to hand over some decision making task to some elected manager to sort out with some upper limit of when they'd be kicked out if they fuck up.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:09:26 2019 No.14416803

>>14416656
That's cringe bro. Please re-read what I wrote, I didn't say anything about leaving if one disagrees as a consensus mechanism. You are making the same retarded argument as saying: if Adam and Eve wasn't doing things democratically, there can't be any democracy after that. Your other post doesn't resolve shit either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:10:39 2019 No.14416812 >>14415763 >things i misinterpret dont make sense wow anon, insightful

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:13:35 2019 No.14416823 >>14412545 >autocrat=fascist holy shit chomsky you dumb motherfucker

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:19:38 2019 No.14416856 File: 4 KB, 125x117, 1577315978006.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The average person is so dumb that, honestly, if RNG voted instead of them the world would be better off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:40:42 2019 No.14416968 File: 93 KB, 595x313, democracy_trolly.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:46:45 2019 No.14417001 >>14412318 /localism/

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:47:48 2019 No.14417007 >>14412545 >muh abstract ideal is sullied by the reality of human nature >IT'S NOT REAL DEMOCRACY!!!!

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 18:50:18 2019 No.14417017

Libertarianism (minarchism) solves this problem. Give everyone constitutional rights, then let them decide the rest. If some want to get together and ban guns in their own private property (home owner's association type of thing) they can. This gives power to the actual citizens, individually, not by vote.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:00:52 2019 No.14417074

He's not really anti-democratic. It would be better to call him a reformed democrat since he advocates for more of an experimental epistocratic approach, with the idea of finding a good balance with a restricted franchise that can give us better informed policy than the current system does. He doesn't advocate for any radical change, but rather for small restrictions like a adding an extremely basic civic test for voting rights which he argues would perform better than what we have now.

By "perform better" he means getting a government willing to enact expert advised policy instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Brennen points out as one example how almost all economic experts are against the minimum wage while all the least educated, the ones that would likely fail the basic civic test, support it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:05:11 2019 No.14417099 >>14414775 The word scarce in an economic context means it's not unlimited.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:21:11 2019 No.14417190

>>14417074
>By "perform better" he means getting a government willing to enact expert advised policy instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator. Brennen points out as one example how almost all economic experts are against the minimum wage while all the least educated, the ones that would likely fail the basic civic test, support it.
In other words, he wants to manipulate the voting results to have his own side get on top. Minimum wage has been tried and worked, this is just libertarians limiting individual freedom where it doesn't suite them.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:30:02 2019 No.14417232

>>14417017
Yeah but that doesn't work with wider wider issues that transcend the individual level. Take protection of the environment for example, how do you prevent millionaires from reducing forests to wood logs without some form of goverment initiative?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:32:34 2019 No.14417246 >>14417190 I know you're itching to argue about the minimum wage but I'm not interested because you're retarded. I don't have patience for people like you.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Dec 25 19:33:49 2019 No.14417253

>>14417007
Corruption removed, democracy would deliver what it claims to in theory. Capital is the problem with the world. In other words, acknowledge human nature and respond to its needs and wants to adjust society so that works better, and in turn that adjusts humans nature.

>>14416424
For him. For us, it’s proper and good to have a democracy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:49:58 2019 No.14417333 >>14417246 What about global warming, here the expert consensus says it's real, yet the republicans think it's a hoax. Should we go with the experts or the Republican voters?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:54:00 2019 No.14417360 >>14417333 Fuck off

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:57:02 2019 No.14417387 >>14417253 Corruption is literally human nature

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 19:58:27 2019 No.14417394

>>14417232
I'm not trying to be a dick here but you're asking very basic questions. In libertarianism, anything that harms people directly (theft, assault, murder) is seen as unlawful. If the environmental damage from corporate activity harms people directly (which it does) then it should be prohibited. Many libertarians also support climate change mandates. A more nuanced answer (and a preferred method with dealing with environmental degradation) would involve taxing activities which have side effects, so you can still fish, cut down trees, etc. but you are "taxed" according to how at-risk the environment is.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:01:12 2019 No.14417412 >>14417360 What about the fact that Bernie's medicare for all for all plan is functionally a tax cut that would effectively reduce the budget currently spent on medicare? Bet you didn't see that coming

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:03:43 2019 No.14417418 >>14417394 Yeah but environmental issues are very controversial among libertarians, I haven't see stats but it seems a majority of them doesn't even believe in global warming.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:08:39 2019 No.14417443

>>14417418
The problem is that most libertarians read classic books on economics when this stuff wasn't a problem. And yes, even some modern Libertarian authors (Sowell) still talk as if we're living in the 20th century and resources are infinite. But sensible authors have actually incorporated technology, globalisation, and modern population problems into their policies. It's not hard, the principles of libertarianism are pretty simple, it's just that a lot of libtards today get dogmatic, and the most vocal are actually AnCaps. Read some Friedman for the basics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:14:08 2019 No.14417475 >>14417017 And then how do you agree on what exactly are those rights and the right codification and procedures that respects those rights without some consensus mechanism ?

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:17:19 2019 No.14417502

>>14417443
Libtards just go with what the science says, Republicans are literally doing anti environmentalist propaganda for big business because the reforms would hurt their profit. And yes in principle you can make an environmentalist libertarian argument, but in practice they tend to be on the opposite side, and I am not talking about AnCaps only. Ron Paul is probably the most famous Libertarian in America and doesn't believe in Global Warming (neither does Trump for that matter, who is just a Conservative).

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:19:48 2019 No.14417515 >>14417253 > For him. For us, it’s proper and good to have a democracy. Cuz I said so despite all evidence to contrary like what Brenan talks about in the video

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:21:36 2019 No.14417523 >>14417190 watch the fucking video or read the book, that's not what he is after

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:33:23 2019 No.14417573

>>14412585
>>14412588
>>14412681
He just entertained a series of farfetched alternative propositions of which none sound more fault proof than any of the historically established democratic political systems, but rather more fitting of the alleged ideals that stereotypical naïve college students would be presumed to be inclined toward. First he spoke about how ignorant people don't have an interest in voting and then proceeded to dispute voting by people who are less informed. He presented multiple flawed analogies of democratic political systems and electorates, and his portrayal of them was yet another inadequate reductionism that would seem to simply disregard the possibility of their various factors and nuances. His concept of 'fairness' suggests that he views it as being rooted in purely pragamatical principles instead of rather idealistic ones. His appeals to interests and intrigues frequent in popular media, and his claims of his personal political views, that could possibly seem varied only in a superficial manner, could come off as being just some attempt to appeal to and gain approval from audiences; in a spirit redolent of book peddlers or perhaps of a privately funded pundit. For what anyone could know he could even have a personal shill group in the audience. Such individuals often come off as having possible influences from Randian apologists and thought.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:42:07 2019 No.14417604 >>14417246 Based

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:48:59 2019 No.14417636 File: 2.15 MB, 200x150, 1549735806631.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14412598 >We do have democracy, people are actually elected by popular vote at every level Were you asleep in 2016?

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:49:19 2019 No.14417637
File: 141 KB, 409x409, sjfds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>14417573
> naïve college students
I don't like his idea, therefore he is naive college student, that'll show him
> First he spoke about how ignorant people don't have an interest in voting
That's not what he said, he said said incentive system of democracy does not encourage voter be knowledgeable. But that ignorant people do vote all the time and govt ends up reflecting many of their will.
>His concept of 'fairness' suggests that he views it as being rooted in purely pragamatical principles instead of rather idealistic ones.
Because it does. Anarchy is the ideal system if we had ideal people and ideal world. All system of governance must be pragmatic while keeping as much as possible from ideal system.

He also talks about how democracy is in no sense ideal in any characterization of fairness. If you want truly democratically fair election, have everyone vote and then assign probability to each candidate according to vote and do a random draw with weighted value. That's democratically fair, but I don't see any of you advocating for that.
> shill audience
Nigga he is a libertarian against democracy speaking in Portland, the fucking antifa central.
> He presented multiple flawed analogies of democratic political systems and electorates, and his portrayal of them was yet another inadequate reductionism that would seem to simply disregard the possibility of their various factors and nuances
use more vague words, we'll believe you more

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:51:35 2019 No.14417646

>>14417636
1. The electoral system hasn't been changed by democratically elected legislators, but they always could have. What does that signal to you ?
2. At each state, democratically elected legislator decided rules determined who wins the state and how in their election and pretty sure all were won with majority.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 20:55:34 2019 No.14417666 File: 33 KB, 680x438, maymes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 21:02:18 2019 No.14417696 >>14417637 >Nigga he is a libertarian against democracy speaking in Portland, the fucking antifa central. Much of the butthurt for the local antifa appear to reside in the nearby suburbs.

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 21:43:29 2019 No.14417902

>>14417523
Are you sure about that, from complaining about too many people voting + being against the minimum wage you can reasonably infer he is a fucking libertarian who knows that social programs are predominantly supported by the working class because they are the one who get fucked by the current system.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 25 22:29:38 2019 No.14418139 >>14417902 Take your ADHD meds

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 22:52:49 2019 No.14418201

>>14412318
it's not his criticism of democracy that bothers me so much as what brennan's endgame is. i think he wants 'experts' to rule because he knows economists will unleash neoliberal hell if they get their way. in both the video and the SEP article he wrote (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/)) he gives hints of this. like notice how he alludes to "econ 101" in the video multiple times, or "social scientists" (by which he probably just means economists) in the article
btw if you defend economics you're cringe and need to read theory

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Wed Dec 25 23:01:56 2019 No.14418233

>>14417515
Brenan has already been refuted.

It doesn't matter what Aristotle thinks. He was a yes man to a bully king. What he really refutes in that quote is the idea that Athens ever had a real democracy.

Democracy works best on a small scale, and that is all we need it for actually. There needn't be any state bureaucracy anywhere, just specialized councils of this department and that. Self governance is better than your centralized autocratic bullshit pipe-dream, fashy toad

Anonymous Wed Dec 25 23:12:19 2019 No.14418280

>>14418233
>Democracy works best on a small scale
Actually the opposite. You see quite a few smaller principalities have constitutional monarchies throughout time. Some smaller countries today are constitutional monarchies.

It's almost like there is a teleology, if you will, or a general tendency of progression through governmental systems. There's a determinism about it for sure, if there are positivist influences involved, such as growing population.

I think you're starting to see it's not really so much a matter of what we 'choose' government to be. Everything is a bit more complicated than that. To be honest, you can plainly tell that democracy is not inherently bad, but there are some big flaws that make for the next logical step to be an aristocracy, including consolidation of population and creation of clandestine economic coalitions. These sorts of things rise up within democracy and destroy it, usually.

What I have always said, and I always will, is that perhaps the political economists throughout time were correct, perhaps Rousseau is correct, that this span of democratic revolutions will either ruin us or, if slowed down, create an aristocracy again.

IF this is the case I believe technology could be used to free us once more so we don't revert from there to monarchy. If we can set a progression from democracy to aristocracy to democracy again then we can eliminate the pessimistic parabolic civilizational curve that Rousseau proposed in The Social Contract and Emile. Very important to understand though, that at this point I really don't think there is anything you can do about this becoming an aristocracy without expansion or war. And I think that's telling about what makes civilization tick in the first place :3

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 06:49:59 2019 No.14419508 >>14412407 >I hate freedom here's a list of le big men authoritarians that murdered millions wow!

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 07:27:15 2019 No.14419599

>>14418201
> i think he wants 'experts' to rule because he knows economists will unleash neoliberal hell if they get their way
brainlet take, not all economists are neoliberals and economists have been advisors to governments for a very long time. Kalecki who can hardly be regarded as neoliberal was an advisor to India just to give an example. the point is to give experts more power so that they can stop giving a fuck about democratic process.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 12:46:40 2019 No.14420799 >>14418201 Economists wouldn't be the only people voting for economic policy so even if economists were myopically focuses on just economics to the exclusion of all things social, things would still balance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 12:56:05 2019 No.14420861 >>14419599 kalecki is considered heterodox now

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 13:01:20 2019 No.14420885

>>14419599
>>14420799
i think that both of you aren't reading behind the lines enough. brennan is a libertarian (or neoliberal if we want to get specific). people like him know economics is on their side. he mentioned that the supposedly 'enlightened' voter votes for more economic liberalization in the video

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 13:06:25 2019 No.14420917

>>14420885
Yeah, people who are more informed usually don't favor policy that is ineffective at best, or downright destructive to the people its intended to help. I don't know why you think we should be scared of that. Economists favor neoliberalism because it is the most efficient way to organize the economy. It's what makes us all wealthier.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 13:37:43 2019 No.14421106 >>14420917 >what makes us all wealthier.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 13:43:28 2019 No.14421144 >>14421106 It looks like you accidentally submitted the post before wrote a reply. Mistakes happen, I won't hold it against you.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Thu Dec 26 13:47:35 2019 No.14421164 File: 52 KB, 640x640, 9B8E6A82-78DD-4EB4-A5C5-987FB772DE84.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>14418280 Just die

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE Thu Dec 26 13:49:08 2019 No.14421172 Still off topic thread

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:15:31 2019 No.14421333

>>14420885
He is making the point that without knowledge of some economics voter wouldn't know how and where govt should want to spend all that tax money in what ways. And this is something he barely mentioned. Economics isn't some holy bible either that one must practice according to it's wills, there are economist of every political ideologies, so I don't know what the fuck you are going on about.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:25:05 2019 No.14421378 >>14421333 >there are economist of every political ideologies, no. they are basically all liberals, most of them neoliberals >>14420917 how about you read theory dumbass, since you seem to value bigbrains so much

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:28:24 2019 No.14421395 >>14421378 You can go eat a dick. You're a worthless bastard shitting this place up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:30:49 2019 No.14421405 >>14421395 start with marx

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:32:32 2019 No.14421415

>>14420917
>Economists favor neoliberalism because it is the most efficient way to organize the economy. It's what makes us all wealthier.
yeah that's why it only 'works' in countries with brutal autocratic regimes that can suppress resistance to it like deng's china and pinochet's chile
btw don't think i'm aware that economists think what pinochet did was a 'miracle', and even to a lesser extent deng. i'm on to what you epistocrats want

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:35:05 2019 No.14421430 >>14421415 >>14421405 You can stop samefagging.

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:39:58 2019 No.14421453

>>14412938
It would be forcing a single lottery winner's submission onto everyone.

>>14412318
Democracies are still part of the sort of checks and balances that prevent tyranny.

The only real means of non-coercive government would be the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's in a world where everyone is a polish noble, because it would require total consent by everyone.

And even then it would fail to account for the people who weren't born, not in a coma or of voting age at the time of the vote, who would have the formerly consensual decision forced on them.

Any political system will have some coercion but we can limit this by putting more institutional barriers and by avoiding the politization of our daily lives.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:40:57 2019 No.14421458 >>14421430 i wasn't trying to lol. how about a response

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:43:07 2019 No.14421471 >>14421458 I'm not interested in actually talking to you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:43:58 2019 No.14421483 >>14421471 k. then >>14421415 still stands unrefuted

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:44:17 2019 No.14421484

>>14416348
> If energy is infinite, we need not worry where to allocate it since we are sure that we won't run out of it no matter how hard we exploit it.
Assuming supply is infinite you're still time constrained, you can only do one thing at a time and have infinite arrangements to experiment with now. If you drop the time constrained you're going far beyond anything conceivable to me so I'm not thinking about that. You're never going to reach an "ideal" state.

>Stealing is not the part of the allocation process, it's the part of the redistribution process.
Sorry but "redistribution" and "allocation" is the same thing.

>Still haven't refuted me since the crux of the argument consists in points 5), 6) and 7). You've conveniently shifted your focus to preceeding points which are not that important in the structure of my argument and are by my own admission underdeveloped, but then again they can be assumed away and the argument would be none the weaker.
I don't even really know what you're trying to get at. Democracy can't be democratically legitimized? You seem to be getting at e.g. contradiction of scepticism since “no truth is knowable” can't be justified. Much about notting of my concern.
Really markets and democracy are just different procedural forms of majority rule depending on assumptions. Most people in favour of markets think it can get what people want better. Minorities aren't best protected by democracy or markets really.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:49:07 2019 No.14421514 >>14421483 Would you like a medal or a pat on the head? I hope this isn't the peak of your day because I haven't even read the post in full.

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:52:38 2019 No.14421535

>>14421514
why are you still talking to me then?
and no i'm just pointing out that you have no response. there's no way to respond to that post other than to contradict the supposedly intuitive value liberals like you put on 'liberty' and 'justice'. fact of the matter is your bullshit capitalist theology that you call 'economics' only functions if you try to force it against the will of millions - which is exactly what epistocracy seeks to do

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:55:39 2019 No.14421550 >>14421453 >Be Russia >bribe one (1) noble to deadlock the liberum veto system >nothing gets done Powerful

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:56:05 2019 No.14421553 >>14421535 I think you're retarded and I want you to know it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:57:10 2019 No.14421559 >>14419508 Democratically elected authoritarians. Democracy is just tyranny of the masses.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 14:58:21 2019 No.14421568 >>14421553 likewise

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:00:45 2019 No.14421581 >>14421568 Hah, it looks like you didn't refute my point. I win again.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:01:44 2019 No.14421585 >>14421581 you made no point. did you even take any philosophy courses before beelining into econ grad school?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:03:46 2019 No.14421600 >>14421378 So this magic subject has the power to corrupt people's mind ? How does this magic work, can you help me understand please ? And I got to this link 0.5 seconds of search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_economists

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:04:55 2019 No.14421605 >>14421585 I called you retarded and didn't refute it.

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:06:13 2019 No.14421611

>>14412402
The realistic answer to this is yes, and every other claim is basically a cop out. Because realistically, whoever gives up their ideological position first loses automatically.
It's also one of the core problems with the atomized hyperindividualism of modern liberalism. An atomized group of individuals will ALWAYS lose to a concentrated group with in-group preference.

The irony here is that the smart thing to do is encourage individuality and anti-ideology in your opponents, while embracing collectivism and ideology yourself within your own group. If you do this, you will simply triumph over anyone who holds the ridiculous ideas of individualism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:06:29 2019 No.14421612 >>14421605 that's not a point, so there's nothing to refute; you need some sort of argument. they take the form of premises > conclusion. so it's not clear whether 'you're a retard' is a premise or a conclusion since the other component is missing

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:09:29 2019 No.14421624 >>14421453 > Democracies are still part of the sort of checks and balances that prevent tyranny. No it doesn't. > consent What about the losing party, they never consented to any of the shit the winning party is doing

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:15:23 2019 No.14421656 Shouldn't the onus be on liberals and socialists to explain why we SHOULD have a democratic system?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:33:29 2019 No.14421741 >>14421378 Now try and fail from defense see >>14421656

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:38:04 2019 No.14421755 >>14421624 It's the aforementioned checks and balances that prevent a singular party (at least in American politics) from overwhelmingly exerting itself on the system.

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:39:16 2019 No.14421763

>>14421656
>>14421741
there's like 2k years of political philosophy on why democracy is preferable to other forms of government lmao. even brennan knows this and that's why he's doing the one arguing. i can't summarize all the arguments here

the standard line of response you're going to get though (derived from locke afaik), and the response i'd give for this particular challenge, is that democracy is the best system for keeping tyranny at bay
>but tyranny of the majority!
this is preferable to tyranny of less people. any form of government that isn't anarchism is tyranny when put that way
that said, there are forms of democracy with appropriate checks and balances that can mitigate the tyranny of the majority effect, or so someone like locke would say at least

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 15:58:41 2019 No.14421853 >>14412318 You can improve democracy by giving voting rights to a smaller pool of people. For example: >male >30+ year old >$1Million+ net worth

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:06:33 2019 No.14421877 >>14421763 >there's like 2k years of political philosophy on why democracy is preferable to other forms of government lmao. Only in the Western tradition that assumes a Western viewpoint on man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:07:35 2019 No.14421880 >>14421763 >>14421877 Also, what's tyranny?

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:23:10 2019 No.14421946

>>14421763
> there's like 2k years of political philosophy on why democracy is preferable
ok, list them
>>14421763
Locke was a god loving faggot, his rights don't work without god in the picture. He also made the prediction that voting would open people's mind, he was wrong. Rights are also against democracy, it says no matter what peolpe decide according to democracy, rights are still superior, so he is partly anti democratic.
> this is preferable to tyranny of less people
Being ruled by doesn't mean tyranny nigga. Tyranny is when people does things unjustly or illegitimately. Just because majority rules it doesn't mean it has to be tyranny. But if voters are retarded like every study shows, then it certainly is.
> checks and balances
like what ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:40:06 2019 No.14422011 Sortition Sortition Sortition

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:44:49 2019 No.14422035

>>14421946
>Locke was a god loving faggot, his rights don't work without god in the picture. He also made the prediction that voting would open people's mind, he was wrong. Rights are also against democracy, it says no matter what peolpe decide according to democracy, rights are still superior, so he is partly anti democratic.
this is true. why do you think this does anything to democracy? see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:49:49 2019 No.14422063 >>14421559 Hitler and Pol Pot were democratically elected?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:52:03 2019 No.14422071 >>14422035 >the problem with human rights is that they aren't left-wing enough We're doomed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 16:58:06 2019 No.14422099 >>14422071 human rights only can interpreted through material reality therefore left wing. deal with it, marxism is the only dialect worth listening to.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:00:00 2019 No.14422109 >>14422099 I don't care about rights-talk at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:13:56 2019 No.14422177 >>14422109 great, you don't mind me eating you since you have no rights right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:20:22 2019 No.14422215 >>14422177 I do, because it's morally wrong to eat others.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:34:33 2019 No.14422292 >>14422215 doesn't matter if it's moral or not. i'll be enjoying my anon steak tonight.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:39:34 2019 No.14422318 >>14422292 >societies without some autistic Englishman to declare universal rights commonly feature cannibalism The absolute state..

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:47:09 2019 No.14422351 >>14422318 be a gentleman and pass the ribs.

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:52:10 2019 No.14422374

>>14422351
You're just shrieking histrioinically like everyone in the left-liberal tradition does when their sacred cows are questioned. Not having "rights" (a concept which hardly exists outside of English or places with English influence) in no way implies that anyone can kill and eat someone else.
>Wow. Just wow. It's the current year. Wow. How dare you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:54:16 2019 No.14422383 This thread is pure cancer.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 17:59:35 2019 No.14422401 >>14422383 Yeah. I skimmed through it and most posts seem reddit as fuck. Plus that retarded tripfag attention whore and people who can't resist replying to him. OP's video is TED talk reddit crap too.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 26 18:28:12 2019 No.14422557 >>14422401 >Install 4chan X >Use this filter /^!mxvabIoSIE$/ >Main -> Filtering -> Uncheck "Stubs"

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 19:46:17 2019 No.14423072

>>14422035
Why does Cuck Philosophy seemingly look at the pre-Enclosure Movement times with a sense of loss? Even land considered "held in common" was still controlled by a lord. If you just want land and property to be controlled by the Party and replace the Lords with the Nomenklatura, okay, but why go on about true freedom or whatever?

Anonymous Thu Dec 26 22:06:08 2019 No.14423789

the main problem with democracy is the same problem with most enlightenment era philosphies and derivatives. they are completely outdated.
Democracy and Republicanism, liberalism, etc only make some sort of sense if you assume people can make up their own minds about things out of the ether, essentially. That demonstrably isnt true
There isnt such a thing as free will or self determination. Physics, genetics, chemistry, neuroscience etc have all proven this.

We have to start somewhere else. Perhaps in a way that we today call more "totalitarian" but not anything like the 20th century. Although history is poetry and does repeat itself and the future will likely take more influence from Hitler and Stalin's dictatorships than Napoleon's.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 27 01:19:54 2019 No.14424466 >>14422035 I don't know what you are asking and I'm not wasting 24 minutes watching something produced by someone called Cuck Philosophy.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature