@@t3hr00tb33rYep, they just "want to be left alone". Even in kindergarten if you didn't stand up for yourself someone would go after you. If you want peace you need to stand up for yourself.
Dwight Eisenhower had a similar warning. He called materialism a "moral plague" on western civilization that could morally destroy our country if we didn't put fellow people first and maintain spiritual values.
There are so many things wrong with this argument lol Answering the idiots below me: democracy is much deeper than that, the original Comment completely misses the point of what democracy is and is centered around a false premise. Who decides who is the genius and not? How is that relevant? Are you suggesting some people are intrinsically superior to others? And therefore can take all the decisions? Democracy was never meant to be a perfect system, where every decision is taken perfectly and no one can be wrong, that’s not what it is supposed to do, no system that exists provides you that, in fact, the one who comes closer to that is democracy A democracy in a uneducated and ignorant country will not be as successful as a democracy somewhere that the people are educated and capable of making decent choices There is still a ton of other problems here but I’m too lazy to writte it
@@Weweta Actually, the point of @veryniceindeed is going pretty strong: since everyone's vote is equal (so to say), a voting process's outcome is simply a projection of the belief of the many. And in a lot of the cases, "the many" have no idea what they're voting for. And pointlessly adding "lol" to what could and should have been a serious statement doesn't do your argument any favor.
You want to know the no. 1 characteristic that makes humans accept someone as a leader? Confidence. Not competence. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell
As true as that is, there are 2 other characteristics: promises of wealth for voting the "correct" way, and popularity. The last is why we vote for electors who are supposed to elect our president who they deem a better leader.
@@caim3465 , narcissists are confident they are the center of the universe. Psychopaths are confident they won't get caught for murder. Confidence is only useful if you are certain about what you are doing and your assessment is accurate... most don't know what they are doing yet are confident. As for making changes to complex systems that large (such as economic and political systems) it is not possible for a single human to have enough information to be confident due to the limitations of our brain... there is far too much relevant and useful information, let alone the specific type that an expert on a given field would bring to the table, and the number of different fields you would have to dip into to gain a clear picture is staggering. Anyone who is attempting to do so and is confident is either lying to themselves or you. So sure, in every day life confidence isn't "bad" per se... it might help you land a job or a date. When it comes to something like a political leader, it might win votes but it makes them a less effective leader... in that instance confidence can only serve as a blind spot.
My fave teacher answered "why are democracies always supplanted by dictatorships?" by saying: "Democracies last only until people realize that they can get out of govt more than they put into it." He then went on to assert that congress shouldn't be allowed to vote on the topic of the amount of their salaries.
That’s for sure. We definitely are not getting our money’s worth from them. In fact as much as they pay themselves, if we could demand they not accept pay for, oh say 10 years, we might just break even.
It's probably more that democracies don't make for quick decisions. And if things get really bad, people start to get angry and start to want the idiot promising them rapid change (without respect for anyone else).
What further aggravates the problem is the captain who would be good at piloting the ship doesn't want to go through the ordeal of trying to get elected to do the job.
bit the person who gets elected probably has at least some experience in order to get elected. Just because there is no election process doesn't mean the ship has a good captain.
Indeed, that's especially true in the US with our absurdly long political campaigns where you literally need to dedicate years of your life to just running for the job. And then you can so easily get screwed over for things that aren't even your fault before election day, like the economy went downhill under your political party's rule, or someone else in your party did something really stupid/controversial that pissed a ton of people off and drove them away from your party.
"It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes. It may even lie on the surface; but we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions - especially selfish ones." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The funny thing is, that has nothing to do with democracy. Tyrants throughout history have promised their people exactly the same thing. You weren't a tyrant for long if you didn't keep your population happy.
i disagree, that is probably the best argument for democracy, you want the people to be able to determine their own nations politics however the problem doesn't lie solely with the people, the system is one of the most pathetic and evil systems ever created, it keeps the people fighting against eachother creating a divide so that the people can never fight the government as a united front.
@@ColesGingy- Maybe, but the problem with any political system is that none of them work very well and the only thing democracy has going for it is that it works a little better than any other system that has ever been tried, in that the majority of peole in a so-called democracy are generasly better off than in any other system. Part of the problem is that democracy, such as it is, only works in a country where the majority of people are fairly well educated and even so, how many people even take the trouble to do some research and bother to find out something about who they vote for, what their backgrounds and beliefs and policies are and so on? As for a divisive society, we see that now in the USA and in Canada, but whose fault is that? Partly division is caused by politicians. Trudeau (both of them), Obama and Biden are the most divisive politicians I have seen in my lifetime, and I am 84 years old and hace been closely following politics since I was a teenager.. But it goes a lot deeper than that too - for one reason or another people have lost trust in institutions such as the so-called justice system, law enforcement agencies, governments, religions, big business and so on and on; Hardly anyone trusts the mainstream media now, and who can blame them,, they don;t report the news in a fair, objective and unbiased manner anymore, if they ever did..
no, no you don't. it's not just the poor people who are idiots or lazy. it's the upper class snobs who are equally dangerous and irresponsible because they got a little lucky with their circumstance and forget how they made it. so a limited form of democracy would be the ideal compromise.@@ColesGingy
@@William1939I wasn’t alive In the 70s but maybe you can shed light on it. Was news always this biased or was it less biased. I have heard from teachers that it wasn’t the same in the 70s that it was somewhat neutral.
I prefer the "class president" analogy -especially for kids. You know pizza is not healthy for you. You know broccoli and celery are healthy. You know homework, while annoying, is good for showing you what you do and don't understand, so you can be ready for the test. ...now if someone tomorrow said, "vote for me and I will abolish homework and give you pizza and ice cream every day", and another person said, "vite for me and we will have celery and broccoli, and only the necessary amount of homework", who would the class honestly vote for? Democracy requires 2 things: understanding the difference between what is wanted over what is needed, and being willing to refuse what you want and what benefits you, and vote instead for what is needed.
"Do right for your own sake and be happy in knowing that your neighbor will certainly share in the benefits resulting." - Mark Twain “No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” - Rudyard Kipling
To be fair, if u need to tax ur students with homework, you aren't teaching them correctly in class. Not to mention what is actually taught in school in the first place, but that's a subject for another time.
@arcguardian Homework for me has always been a way to gauge a student's weak areas and assist in strengthening them. This is why I am against grading homework and for correcting homework. The only grade homework should have, in my opinion, is "completed and corrected", "incomplete, not corrected", or "never turned in". I know plenty of teachers are against any homework now, but I find it useful, because I always did well in class work in math... because the teacher was doing the work with us... and I did not do so well on tests... because I was doing it by myself.
"What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty." - Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"As you describe me I can picture myself as I was, 22 years ago. The portrait is correct. You think I have grown some; upon my word there was room for it. You have described a callow fool, a self-sufficient ass, a mere human tumble-bug, stern in air, heaving at his bit of dung and imagining he is re-modeling the world and is entirely capable of doing it right. Ignorance, intolerance, egotism, self-assertion, opaque perception, dense and pitiful chuckle-headedness -- and an almost pathetic unconsciousness of it all. That is what I was at 19 - 20; and, It is of children like this that voters are made. And such is the primal source of our government! A man hardly knows whether to swear or cry over it." - Mark Twain
"The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool" Well, so are politicians and ruling classes, literally everywhere throughout history. The alternative to letting the masses decide, is letting the politicians decide. If you look at our current political class and think "yup, those people know a lot better what's good for us than we do ourselves", then I don't know what to say to you.
@@frankvandorp9732 You failed to read 5 sentences and instead jumped to an assumption that fit your emotional bias. You are exactly who the quote is describing.
@@wrongthinker843 You clearly didn't read anything I wrote or even spent one second thinking about it, so obviously you are one of the ignorant, short-sighted, envious, easily fooled people the quote describes.
Another brilliant summary, especially the part where no political system is perfect and is only as effective as the people who participate in it. Thank you.
Plato saw democracy as always devolving to tyranny. One of the key ways Jefferson tried to stop this natural digression was by promoting universities as institutions tasked with nurturing good citizenship. Also, the Founders created something closer to a timocracy (the rule of the land owners), which Plato saw as better than democracy. For the last century, many politicians (in conjunction with activists who have too much time on their hands) have found it irresistible to push the U.S. away from being a timocracy toward being a democracy because it creates blocks of easily manipulated voters. Ironically, now the universities have unintentionally come to serve in making the population _less_ understanding of how society works and to simultaneously shape people into balls of emotion that are all the more easy to manipulate.
never been a democracy, as a matter of fact the founders abhorred that system of governance and knew of its issues fully, hence making us a Constitutional Republic NOT a democracy.
What's really sad, is just how hard politicians have worked to make it increasingly difficult to be a land owner, or for that matter a business owner. Weakens the electorate and softens us towards democracy. Hardly hear any politician use the words constitutional republic these days. Poor education, plus struggling to have a real stake in the country is a recipe for disaster.
Exactly, which is why the founders didn't want a strict democracy. For strict democracies are simply a tyranny of the majority. It is a democratic republic, and yes, those eligible to vote in the beginning were land owners, not merely citizens. Which is why citizen by birth or immigration wasn't seen as overly problematic. By having property, one has a vested interest in a single location. You aren't as transient and thus ought to think more long term, which would impact voting. The founders also setup separation of powers: they realized that sequestering authority in any one group, be it voters or rulers, can lead to oppression. Modern congress has given their legislative authority to the executive bureaucracies as has much of the judiciary. Thus the US president has consolidated too much authority and that makes for a very unstable future.
I hope people are getting what he's saying here. He's not saying, "Democracy is bad." He's saying, "Democracy does not give us an excuse to be lazy, vote someone in, then assume they'll do the right thing." We need to be part of that Democracy. We need to know what's going on. Democracies are representative of their people. If they are short sighted, filled with vengeance, see enmity in their neighbor, and easily fooled by lying politicians of their own party, then their government will reflect this.
People who have voting rights in democracy need to be told that they have not just right but also duty to country's development. They can't just pick someone and hurl abuses at them for not doing things right.
@@iamyou8994 Everyone remembers their rights, no one remembers their duties Everyone remembers what they are supposed to get, no one remembers what they are supposed to give and to do
I'm Australian. It's compulsory to vote here, or you get fined. I don't know if anyone has done a study into whether this makes the public more attentive to Politics though. Our Labour Party, (Founded by Unions, and purportedly representing working class people), is quite strong here. And we do have the highest minimum wage in the world. It certainly helps make young people vote, and voting is easy, because every election the same amount of people vote, there's never an overwhelming turnout that results in long queues. Saturday voting helps, along with postal and absentee voting, for if you know you'll be away. It is hard to gauge how this makes us different from other countries, although foreigners are always surprised how popular compulsory voting is. Polling shows around 75% of people support it, and we never have voter turnout below 90%.
Pretty hard thing to do when you don’t have time because you have to work all the time. On top of the fact that there’s been a systematic dismantlement of public education so….
Total number of times the term “democracy “ appears in: 1. Articles of Confederation 2. Declaration of Independence 3. US Constitution 4. Bill of Rights…. Zero.
Thank you for saying this! It even says in the pledge of allegiance that we "pledge allegiance to the flag and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands" we were meant to be a republic NOT a democracy, many of the founding fathers openly talked about their dislike and hate for democracies and that "democracies will destroy themselves. " It's just a shame that people aren't being taught the truth and don't bother to look for it and teach themselves.
You do realise the US is a democracy? Democracy is defined as "rule by the people": demos for people and kratos for rule. The US is just another example of the failure of democracy - read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans Herman Hoppe.
Something like the Peter Principle is at work here. The electorate are promoted to a level of respective incompetence, being required to vote on things that on average they don't understand. That's why they can be persuaded against their own interests. If they were competent enough to know who to vote in, they'd be competent enough to run things themselves. It's the same as school becoming about passing exams, politicians need only be competent at getting voted in, not needing to be good at the job. Additionally, competent leaders are removed from the lifestyles of the incompetent, so the incompetent become more likely to vote for similarly incompetent persuaders because they're more relatable.
A great contributor to the failure of democracies comes when a popularly elected leader must decide between implementing an unpopular but correct policy or a popular policy that is doomed to fail. Politicians almost always err on the side of their own self interest.
A politicians #1 Priority is getting re-elected. And given most people have famously short memories, the politician knows they are likely to get away with shifting blame to someone else. So the popular policy doomed to fail it is!
That's why Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew would spend the first 2 years of a term doing what had to be done, and then the last 2 years winning over the populace, so that he could get re-elected and do that again.
The word “fail” is not a word to be taken lightly. People die, people go in poverty, people starve. You think a government just fails and then after it’s all sunshine and rainbows. The unfortunate conclusion, millions of people suffer because of a corrupt few.
This is why US is the country of self responsibility. People have to live own power with a very few exceptions. This is the minimum condition of democracy. I think the reason US democracy is declining recently is collapse of this principle expressed by illegal immigrant crisis.
@@林遼太朗-w2e Well, immigration is part of it but it’s not entirely the full problem. If democracy was always moderate with accountability of threat that goes on in real time then people wouldn’t be in suffering, but I can vouch for America that it isn’t moderate, it’s a new form of democracy that’s been labeled as radical populist democracy. It’s pretty complicated but a few topics that can cover this is attaching people to an emotional controversial subject, for example race, immigration, foreign affairs. Blaming the 1%, so the people would feel something but in truth the majority elected few are turning into the elitist and the middle class/working class has no power, for money is power. They control everything, who rises, who falls, and they don’t let you reach that familiar “American Dream”. The American dream doesn’t exist due to their entity, which is evil in itself. Even Chinese understand the value of family. How can you harbor a family, if you’re always juggling? This is my perspective of the working class, we’re constantly attacked and manipulated. Although this is true, my perspective relates to other people throughout the world. There’s a pattern throughout the globe.
There is no god which determines anything. If there is an omniscient god, there is no free will and everything is predetermined. Then the god does not determine, but already determined.@@aclark903
The problem with the boat analogy is that you assume the captain is on the boat with the crew, meaning the captain would be exposed to consequences of bad decisions. In our system that isnt the case, so its not the same. That being said this is the reason for small govt, the only person who ultimately can make the best decisions for you is yourself.
@@clearviewmoai "It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes. It may even lie on the surface; but we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions - especially selfish ones." - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Democracy or Republic, it doesn't matter when a large number of our elected officials ignore the highest law in the land, the Constitution, and the people they represent don't know or care about it. Like the video said, no form of government is perfect, but no form of government can work if the people can't be bothered to make it work.
@@Leto2ndAtreidesevery single rich country has gotten rich by being a dictatorship, you dont get to transition to a “democrazy” in the last phase of development, then attribute your entire wealth as being a democrazy, in fact most western countries stagnated after becoming s democrazy
The parting shot at the end is absolutely true, which is why my US Government teacher in high school was driving it into our heads that it is our civic duty to stay informed so when we go to the polls we have a full understanding of what we are voting for
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” - Alexander Tyler, 1787
I wondered who that quote came from. Thanks. It's why there was no direct taxation back before the US became an empire and started following the logic of empires.
wow funny how this quote is stupid. As a commenter said"Don't listen to folks who make simple analogies like a boat and captain or a country and its credit card. It's designed to mislead by ignoring the complexities of real life. Folks are easily led by simplistic explanations on something that only takes 3 mins to listen to and has a few buzzwords included. You are impressed with it as are many others. It's not real though. Unfortunately many are convinced by it."
@@kringle7804 It is a real quote. He was a Scottish Historian talking about the history of democracies, specifically ancient Athens. It is actually really smart, because it seems unavoidable. Eventually even republics fall. The Roman Senate thought they would save the republic when they killed Caesar, instead it just made clear to the plebs that the republic wasn't meant for them. People change, empires change, demographics change. So it only seems logical that a system based on the whims with the people, will go away with the people.
@@kringle7804 I would like to differ there. While analogies can have that type of habit youve mentioned, it only accounts for less intelligent people. As using analogies in your every day language is a sign of intelligience, intelligent people are able to sort the analogy into context and know that it only has a limited potential to show a certain aspect, not the whole truth. Scientific models for example like the structure of a DNA Helix or the Atom are also kind of analogies and could posses the same dangers as stated by you, but the majority of educated and intelligent people still use them to explain stuff broken down. The danger only appears when you dont understand that an analogy is just an analogy and no universal truth about the topic
@@GilleanFreire Gee I can't even give an example of ANY KIND OF GOVERNMENT AT ALL That's harmless to it's citizens. Harm seems somehow implicit in the DEFINITION of government--even in its absence
Usually doesn't give you that either. It gives you promises of what you want, with a higher likelihood of getting some low hanging fruit so that politicians can pretend to be giving you what you want.
I know more about public affairs now than I ever did and the sad thing is that I can’t find any politician that represents my interests. Power is too entrenched and no one is stopping it.
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. - Redacted.
Pretty much. At the end of the day, Democracy is the worst form of government except for those that have been tried. People can criticise democracy all they want, but in the end it's still all we have that is worth a damn.
Why? It just talks about democracy. It doesn't touch on monarchy or dictatorships or the variations on those like elected monarchy or absolutist monarchy.
@@liamjm9278 Because what might cause the fall of democracy, also applies to other forms of government. Anger the people enough, and those governments will fall under the pressure of the masses.
@@DiogoJ1 What? He didn't say anything about angering the people. He said incompetent but popular people get elected and people can vote for stupid things like rebelling against a power who could easily destroy them just because the idea sounds nice. Did you watch the video?
Bill Clinton balanced the budget. Look it up. America's debts were paid up until the wars started again with the Bushs. Not opposing the wars, just saying.
@@contumelious-8440Really it was having a very strong actually conservative Congress for the first time In good knows when. Clinton was smart though, and together him and that Congress were pretty successful. Comparatively speaking.
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle Through the House of Representatives and, to a lesser extent with the 17th Amendment for the Senate, we do have a legislative democracy.
Precisely. For example, if a dozen people knew nothing of storytelling, dramatic structure, character archetypes, literary techniques, thematic underpinnings, and metaphorical allegory... what business would those two groups of six have at attempting to critique or analyze literature? Must give us pause.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill The older I get and the more I observe the common man's opinion, the more I realise how true this statement is. It's not even worth having conversations with most people. You cannot effectively convince large amounts of people anymore without strategic use of social media.
I am reminded of Starship Troopers. The film was made into something of a mockery of a fascistic militarized state, but it raised a very interesting concept; rather than give EVERYONE the right to vote, make voting a privilege that anyone can earn, but which MUST be earned, and thus respected, in order to be exercised. Nick demonstrated an excellent point in his boat analogy when he said the person elected captain was the one who offered the best gifts to the people. In a democracy there is a demographic who will select the person who offers them the best handouts. NOT the person who will run the nation best, or actually take care of the people, but the person who makes the prettiest promises. And if that person wins the office, depleting the nations coffers to give out bread and cake will not help the nation or the people in the medium or long term. That, of course, assumes that said politician actually keeps his promise when he makes it into office, and gives out bread and cake to the people. More likely is that most of the bread and cake will go to himself, his friends and family, and the wealthy patrons who helped him sway public opinion. I understand there are good arguments for universal voting, but I think there are also good arguments for a vote that is restricted to the people who will use it responsibly. Perhaps a more representative system would work better. The people elect a set of local representatives who are chosen for their intelligence and integrity, and those people then form a quorum to elect the actual politicians. I don't know. But what we have right now just isn't working (though I suspect that is as much the fault of the people as it is of the government).
I agree with everything but the bit after your conclusion. You assume people are UNINFORMED. It is MUCH more accurate to say they are MAL-INFORMED, that is, that they are being deliberately lied to, and are VERY informed about those lies. They just don't know they're lies. They have believed the lie. It isn't until people wake up to realize that mass media is lying to them all the time that their opinions start to change. I know VERY smart people who just "Believe the Lie", in part because media USED to be trustworthy. At the same time that they lie to you, they tell you EXACTLY who you can't trust - anyone else, anyone who thinks differently, who has done their research, anyone who disagrees even a little with the talking points of the agenda. Then they threaten outliers. If you DO listen to others, start doing your own research, and disagree, then they threaten you, cancel you, make it impossible to have a job, and everyone knows that without a job, you can't take care of yourself or your family. So people bow to pressure, apologize, and follow the rules, believing them or not, because they know what happens to those that refuse to "Believe the Lie". It is a devastatingly simple tactic, and unbelievably successful.
Everything old is new again. Voting used to be restricted to land ownership and military service. And universal suffrage is cancer, as we can clearly see.
I disagree, most democracies have a strong Judiciary or at least some form of meritocratic checks and balances. Whilst these people, most often judges, are unelected, they have a strong grasp of the legal system and how it affects society, often basing their judgements off of a strong historical constitution that was (hopefully) written by non corrupt officials. Probably the most famous example of this is the US supreme court which can override ANY law from any part of the legislature , but even that isn't perfect as the judges themselves are chosen specifically by the democratically elected President based off their ideological leanings. Not the case for all countries though
@@mapper7310 He isn't talking about ideological knowledge, education or anything like that. He's talking about how these men's actions will affect society: how the person thinks for the country, does he want personal gain or the better of the people? and to what extent he will go to so that he can achieve such goals? Obviously judges and government members are well versed in their fields but that doesn't mean they have the ability to shift the tide of a nation or make rational decisions for the good of the people. Afterall, meritocracy is based on the talent of a person, and if those people are in a corrupt country where they get blackmailed if they threaten a corrupt system then obviously the "democratic" government lacks meritocracy. A very clear example of this is Russia, and an even bigger example of this were the recent elections of Pakistan (read up on the rigging situation and how they've been trying to oust Imran for so long, it's literally the perfect example for this video). It's sad to see that qualified and selfless people get dismissed so many times just because of some other person's greed.
Just because one thing sucks, doesn't mean the alternatives are good, a fatal flaw humans have is to think a wrong justifies another wrong instead of looking for what's right.
Democracy and monarchy are not mutually exclusive options. The thing is we just didn't try better options. President should be elected by professionals (economists, historians, psychologists, successful businessmen etc) and rule the country as a king until, let's say, GDP won't dip from its peak more than 10%.
@@Max_JacobyAbsolutely,the First Democracy in England was The PM/Parliament being elected by Landlords, Merchants,Bankers, Religious leaders etc As a Result England Became Global Superpower,But when 'Normal' people started Getting Votes, England has become a Laughing Stock of 21st Century Europe
@@Max_Jacoby yes, they shouldn't have terms so public things can have continuity and they get instantly ejected from office if they underperformed. The next ruler should be trained decades before taking office, so literally groomed like Alexander the great was.
Why do people keep repeating this as though it's a clever point? It's really not. If it were true, democracies be more likely than other systems to engage in genocide and human rights violations, but this actually happens more in other political systems.
Democracy is basically one tiger, two wolves and three sheep together deciding what to have for dinner. And there is always one sheep that thinks it's a wolf. I prefer this version.
Yea. As a student, our teachers always spoke of democracy with the back drops of tyranny. As if that was the only alternative to it. They spoke of democracy in a way that made us believe that if man ever achieved a Utopia, it would be ruled by a democracy . On one hand I don't really blame them. When you live in a democracy, patriotism gets in the way of being critical to democracy.
The educational system and institutions are infiltrated with WOKE ideologists. Students are just getting indoctrinated with Leftist ideologies like climate change and feminism.
@@axiezimmah And what is a “decent king?” Who decides which kings are “decent” or not? From where I stand, the king declares himself a “good ruler” and the scribes just go along with it lest they be thrown in a dungeon…
Which shows that Obi Wan was not as bright as Star Wars makes him out to be. Democracy and Republic are antithetical to one another. We don't want a representative body unguided by law. That power has too easily gone to their heads, and American Congress has broken the LAW for over 2 centuries! 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Democracies don't fail. They work exactly as intended: tyranny of the majority. Or tyranny of those who currently control the army and claim to represent the majority. And yes, that has always been the case. Being the benefactor of such a system didn't make it "honest", you simply had no reason to look deeper.
Two things to note. First, pretty much all modern democracies work under some sort of constitution, which generally protects the individual and the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So, the tyranny of the majority in a democracy is a much more lenient than the tyranny in other political systems. Second, even though the decisions are made by the majority, that doesn't mean that it's the same people who are always in a majority and the same in the minority. So, I may agree with you on X but disagree on Y. In a decision making we're on the same side when deciding on X but opposite sides when deciding on Y. This is not the case in a dictatorship. The dictator's view is always on the winning side.
Which is exactly why our founding fathers decided upon a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. There’s an excellent video from a man named Dan Smoot, I believe. It’s footage from 1966. Excellent explanation of the very important differences between Constitutional Republic and democracy. Folks who don’t understand those differences…you all are a HUGE part of the problem in this country.
The American founders attempted (with some success) to avoid the trap by having multiple parallel powers, Congress, Executive, Judicial as well as the states. It has worked fairly well but it's not immune to whims of a disaffected populace.
It's better to not think too highly of the setup. The main reason people like Washington accepted the Constitution was that it was set up to be easily changeable... By a congress that was assumed to be united and committed to the common good. A premise that did not last even into Washington's second term. The US government is designed on assumptions about reality that have almost never been true... Not that that is an entirely bad thing.
I don't know that it ever worked well but it certainly quit working once the voters let the government have direct taxation so they could find out what we did and how much money we made and how much money they could steal to buy votes.
Amen! AND when enough of the population has become educated on the *_Philosophy_* underpinning the Constitution, perhaps repeal the 17th Amendment, so states can get their representation back. We have the People's House; we don't need a second "people's house." To hold a vote on the Constitution now opens the door to potential *_destruction of the entire Constitution_* because voters don't know squat and won't see the betrayal coming. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@frankvandorp9732 No, Frank. The American system has been corrupted for over 200 years. By now, it stinks pretty bad. Yet, the accomplishments are astounding despite the 200+ years of corruption. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@frankvandorp9732 I'll take the electoral college any day over cities deciding the president. Go to a city then go to a town the people have nothing in common.
Winston S. Churchill - *_"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."_* _"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."_
And sad. Because it means we shouldnt settle for democracy, but strive to figure out a superior system that has yet to exist. And yet absolutely NO ONE with any voice on the public scene is so much as looking for another way to do things. Instead the common stance seems to be "democracy good, everything else bad" when really democracy is just barely better because of how it can be exploited. (Like in russia, technically a democracy, but does it matter when anyone inconvenient to the current power in place is either silenced or made to disappear? Another tactic being that there is several valid parties for people to choose from... Except that they barely deviate from eachother. Two identical choices is no choice at all)
@thorveim1174 I'd say Russia is one of the purest democracies in which you can clearly see the flaws of the system. The most vocal part of the parliament consists of uneducated celebrities. The president is the type of politician who has political statements dependent on who he is talking to (pro-working, religious, and anti-Western while talking to low-income workers, and pro-business, pro-trade, and making friends with the west while talking with business owners). At the smaller level, politicians can't do anything because voters would rather go to the barbecue and make a turnout less than 30%, so some of our politicians are democratically voted in office by less than 200 people (and in many cases, those are just relatives, friends, and members of the same party). An opposition that was completely destroyed by only 1 Navalniy and his boycotts. People vote against pension reform, while the budget is almost exclusively spent on social policies (because previously, politicians would make easy points by giving "free" apartments to almost anyone). And when the biggest problem of the government was a very small budget, the party that promised to give $1000 a month to every citizen was close to win the elections. And my favorite part is the spoiler parties/candidates. We have 3 communist parties, 2 people who legally changed their names to "кпрф" or "communist's party of RF" to fool voters, and 3 guys who changed their surnames and appearances to match an opposition politician. All of it worked just because of democracies greatest flaw. People are stupid enough to fall for it.
@@thorveim1174 And I also want to talk about Russian fines a little. The most common fine you'll ever see in Russia is less than $20. Not because it's a sufficient amount for anything, but because any attempt at incrising it was faced with backlash from people. When our fines were first introduced, they were pretty reasonable. For example, the fine for broken state property (like a bus station) was enough to repair it 2 or 3 times, and the criminal was also forced to pay for repair on top of that, so the damage was dealt with, the punishment was served, and the state gained extra money to spend if the vandal was not found. Now, because of inflation, in order to just change a broken glass, you need to penalize 5 vandals. But in many cases, the damage is dealt to seats or electronics in buses and trains, and repair costs are roughly 70-100 prosecuted and fined vandals. Of course, all the extra spending is now done via transfers from the federal budget. The same thing happened with fines targeted at car owners. What was earlier a good source of income for a federation subject has become a part of its budget so small that prosecuting a criminal now costs a few times more than a payment received from him as a fine. And in that economy, the same voters who vote for a promise to not raise taxes or fines simultaneously demand the government to increase the salaries of public sector workers and to spend money on newer and better public transport and infrastructure. And politicians are promising them both, knowing that it is an impossible task they wouldn't even try to complete. But in the next elections, the same politicians are making the same promises, and people are still voting for them because others are not promising free good things, but are trying to steal our low taxes and freedom to ride a car 20 km/h above the speed limit.
Because true democracy is direct. Indirect democracy is just demogagy. This knowledge was passed on to us by Aristotle yet today you won't find any true (direct) democracy outside of certain cantons in Switzerland.
A "direct democracy" (where the people must vote on specific issues themselves) requires that the populace becomes active participants in governmental decision making, on an individual policy basis. This active participation is necessary for any system to actually be "for the people, by the people". Indirect "democracies" (where people elect politicians that make the decisions for them) are not true democracies, and they are not stable either. In an indirect "democracy", individual citizens do not get to make individual policy decisions, and therefore, they typically will not pay very close attention to and consider what actual policies might be good or bad. Such a system is not "by the people, for the people", but rather, is "by the politicians, for the politicians". Leaders of indirect democracies will try to tell you that true "direct democracies" are impossible, and they cannot work. They will say this, because they are perfectly happy being the ones in control, and they do not want to see the people having more power, and them less power. In reality, very few nations in the world have even tried implementing and "direct democracy" at all. It is thus wrong to say that "direct democracy" is impossible. One cannot make such a conclusion, due to lack of real world attempts at actually trying to make one work. In reality, a real direct democracy has become vastly more practical to realize, with the invention of the internet. The internet enables rapid distribution of information to any quantity of citizens, it enables an electronic forum where large quantities of individual citizens can discuss issues with other citizens (without having to physically travel to try to meet in person), and it enables rapid electronic voting by any number of citizens, as frequently as necessary, on any and all issues. Prior to the invention of the internet, a true direct democracy would have been hard to realize. Today however, it is possible to implement a true direct democracy. Doing so would empower the people, while also encouraging them to become familiar with individual issues and the pros/cons associated with individual policy issues. Governance should not be about politicians, their personalities, their popularity, and their willingness to rig elections. Governance is supposed to be about individual policy issues and decisions, and not about political parties, political parties ideologies, and politicians. True governance is about policies, not politicians.
@@Fritz_Schlunder "direct democracy" would be even worse lol, the common people don't know sh!t about how to run a country, they don't have the skills and knowledge needed to judge the long term or short term benefit of a policy, and people often ruled by their emotion and not logic, so even smart person can still oppose a good policy if it hurt their personal interest.
As a Chinese, I used to desperately crave for democracy, but as I slowly grew up, my thoughts evolved. Don't get me wrong, I am not against democracy. It's just that I've come to realize that there are a lot of people who don't deserve the right to vote, some of them are completely incapable of thinking, and worse, some of them have self-destructive tendencies, and all of these will be reflected in the vote. I don't like the fact that criticizing a leader can possibly land you in jail like in my country, but I also don't like the fact that extremists or fools can use democracy as a banner to disrupt other people's lives. I don't like the fact that accusing the government can get you muted like in my country, but I also don't like the fact that a lot of politicians in the West often spend more time blaming the opposition party than solving problems. I'm thinking now that maybe it's perhaps an inevitable destiny that all countries will eventually collapse, with or without democracy, and they will all come back in a new form.
The most important thing people need to remember is, a government that gives you everything, can also take everything away, as they most often do towards the end of the governments life cycle. Democracies, socialists, communist, societies all have that same problem in common.
@@lorisberendhuysen7015 I can list the countries that haven't done it yet, far easier than listing the ones that have, so if you need more information you might try a library, they have plenty of books that will enlighten you.
This is why universal suffrage is a bad idea. Full citizenship and the right to vote are too valuable to be given freely. Service and investment in the state should be the cost of earning the right to help guide the ship.
Ancient Greeks used the term "idiotés" for those who weren't interested in public affairs, as they didn't know or care how political decisions affected their lives and those around them.
except we are not a democracy. but the example is one that is OFTEN used and very accurate. with the 'posturing' that has been happening these last couple of decades for being 'politically correct' - we have begun our own demise - choosing 'leaders' based on qualifications OTHER THAN their ability to lead.
The ship analogy is a perfect description of modern american politics. Don't actually fix anything, just promise people the moon and give them the shoulder.
I think it's more that so many voters are partisan now, that the parties have a far lower need to care what they think. So, the captain may as well not be on the same boat at all.
Would you vote for someone who promised you very little or caused economic hardship in trying to fix things? Until society is about to collapse the answer is usually no. People get what they deserve which is the beauty of democracy. I would still rather trust the people to consider their own interests than have an elite who have their own agenda.
@@alanrobertson9790 this is a democracy, people don't get what they deserve. The point isn't the amount they promise it's how much they actually deliver. Seems like getting elected on the back of false promises and lies doesn't mean shit because no one cares anymore.
@@AMainProductions As well as the promises you usually have a record in office. Maybe people should vote on the latter not the former. A lot of people just vote for their team, be it red or blue. Bit like the youtube comments section.
@@jimmyjohnson1870That's a very one sided absolutist assumption similar to the one that "democracy is the will if the people" and just like that its not really accurate
This is why freedom of information is one of the pilars of democracy, people need to know how and why the government is run a certain way. Otherwise democracy turns into oclocracy, the rule of the people turns into the rule of the mob, and mobs are always emotional and illogical.
That's not a pillar of democracy. That doesn't even mean anything. Democracy is just everyone voting, for anything. Which has awful consequences soon enough.
It's called a Demagogue. And it's not just a single person. It's their cult following as well. Kind of like that fiasco in Jonestown many decades ago. The skilled people aren't able to participate. Because of aggression from the cult.
I’m Greek myself, and I always ask “has anyone ever stopped to think that pretty much everything we’re proud of came BEFORE we came up with Democracy?”
@@Weweta Not really. 95% of what everyone always brags about didn’t come under democracy. In most recent memory, things to be proud of, were; 1) to decline surrendering to the Italians in WWII and playing a crucial role in significantly delaying Hitler’s progress, which was under a dictatorship 2) the Greek revolution, which was under Ottoman rule and had a monarchy straight after 3) victory in the Balkan Wars, under monarchy 4) hosting the first modern Olympic Games, again, under monarchy 5) every modern building we’re proud of came during the monarchy, very few things we are actually proud of came out during democratic rule. And that’s recent history, I’m not going to ancient history, because that’s really what everyone loves to bring up, and that’s all pre-democracy. I’m fairly knowledgeable about our history, I stand by what I said.
@@alexman378 Im very aware of the Greek monarchy, and you seem to be confusing things, the Greek monarchy wasant absolutist to start, but that’s irrelevant, Athens was democratic, Ancient Greece gave the Roman republic the framework to build western civilization, recent Greek history is irrelevant, Ancient Greece (invention of democracy and of western thinking) is
@@WewetaNot well aware enough, it seems. Name one point where I said anything about "absolutism". Rome did invade, Rome did get a lot of inspiration from Greece, Rome wasn't a democracy, so I don't get what your point was. Recent Greek history is relevant, in that it puts into perspective that not much has changed, but sure, let's go to the Ancient times. Before democracy, Greece managed to repel invasions such as the two Persian invasions. After it got established, we started the dumbest and most devastating war, the Peloponnesian War, which wrecked Greece. After that, the only invasions we managed to repel were with the Byzantine Empire, and that wasn't a democracy. We did get Socrates, Phocion democratically executed, and Themistocles, Anaxagoras, Aristides, and Damon democratically exiled, though. Anaxagoras got exiled for saying the sun was a hot rock in the sky, and the moon reflected its light, and Damon was exiled for being associated with Pericles (father of democracy). Phidias died in prison. So yes, I do know quite a bit about our history, and still, my point stands. We don't have much to be proud of under democracy, most of what we're proud of came when it wasn't a thing, both in ancient and recent history.
1:15 the "promises nice things" is probably the real culprit. For example, the people elect the captain who promises 3 full meals a day, even though there is not enough food on the ship for 3 full meals before arriving at their destination, and of course eventually people are forced to either ration extremely harshly, or some are killed off for their opposition (basically Soviet Russia). Whereas if they had elected the captain who would have limited it to 2 full meals a day, they would have arrived safely without extreme rationing or repression
Which is why democracy is stupid, people will always fall for the conforting lie instead of walking in righteousness. They don't want to think about if what was said was possible or not, they just want the confort.
Then that's the answer. Instead of promising 3 full meals, promise to arrive safely in exchange for 2 full meals a day. Of course, convincing politicians to be that forthright is the real challenge.
People need to be taught that America was never intended to be a Direct Democracy but instead a Constitutional Republic, and the behaviors and responsibilities of the regular citizens and political citizens should reflect that fact.
Democracies have a meritocracy issue. If those involved have merit and are informed, democracy is great. Unfortunately, humanity is just too prone to stupidity and "feel good & comforting" lies. Maybe up the qualifications of who can be a representative.
@@Nolord_ No Sir. It's about getting rid of the clowns you voted for when you find out they can't do the job anymore. THAT'S why democracy is, far and away, the single best form of government ever dreamt of by man. Because no other form gives you this right. "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" ~Winston Churchill
“A Democracy is only as effective as the people who participate in it” When the masses are ignorant, "Democracy" will inevitably end up as a Totalitarian state by demagogues or whoever. They WILL take advantage of their unintelligence. This even includes Republics. The 1 fatal flaw freedom relies on "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson Only way freedom can last, is education. For erryone to know their history and are made sure to never forget it Even the US' Constitutional Republic can fail due to our apathy/ignorance of history and understanding of our own country. "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~ Plato. "Harmless men are NOT good men" And that's why "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure" -Thomas Jefferson. An endless cycle of repeating the same lesson and to be reminded of eternal vigilance. Ouroboros In the US, we have an Electoral College that protects us from Democracy. That protects the Individual from the Majority. We The People do not have a Democracy, the US is not a Democracy. Despite that, we still have corrupt Media/Demagogues swaying the public against their political opposition thru constant streams of fear and hate mongering Totalitarian states / dictatorships fail by default bcuz they're unintelligent. Logic and Morality go hand in hand, therefore they cannot last lol
Not only democracy demands a level of compreehension of society that will be never achieved by the common man, but it also demands that every single common man has the best interest of society and not his own as his priority
This is why education is SO IMPORTANT! An educated electorate is a strong democracy. But those in power don't want to expand education services because they know it will make things more difficult for them.
@@doublesushi5990 IQ was a made up concept, there is no scientific way to measure intelligence. In fact, IQ has historically been used to justify eugenics.
Wishful thinking. Look at Finland, the country with the best education system in the world. 80%-90% of Finns have been brainwashed into the recent lies of the government and the globalist propaganda. Any CIA agent worth his salt will tell you how easy it is to manipulate, coerce an brainwash at least 90% of the world ´s population, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, education, background, etc.
this is why de-centralized democracies have worked best in the past. a federation forces differing groups to have to cooperate and work together to get stuff done. no one strongman or populist can come into power and sway the entire nation as in a de-centralized system that is unviable. it also allows for more freedom as local control is usually less corrupt in a high trust society. the bigger the political structure and the more complicated it is, the easier it is for money to be dealt under the table.
This is pretty terrifying when you consider that the US is on the road towards this same outcome. At some point, the country stopped caring about if the average person can run the ship.
Oh the USA is way past that point. Letting 18 year old kids vote was downright bone headed. Allowing women to vote when they don't have to put skin in the game (they are not drafted in wars) was also idiotic. Same with letting non land owners vote. The founders had a lot of restrictions on who could participate and it wasn't just because they were bigoted.
@@Ziegfried82 Women literally had to bleed for you to be born and typing this garbage. I'm always perplexed why men are not ashamed of senseless wars brought upon women, but would shame women for not becoming culprits in senseless wars against men.
The big problem is when residents with nothing at stake are allowed to vote. Whether a member of society's right to vote is based on one or some combination of land ownership, taxes paid, military time served, etc., there needs to be qualifications for the right to vote.
@@septanine5936I disagree because the standards/qualifications to vote would be set so that the average person would be able to vote (let's say 80% of the present voters). The impulse and low information voter would go away.
The bigger problem is allowing the government to choose who chooses the government. Is the current government liberal? Great, now you need a college degree to vote. Is the current government conservative? Well, now you need military service to vote. Is the current government dominated by unions? Fantastic, now a blue collar job is a must. Is the current government dominated by the judiciary? Simple, now only lawyers can vote. I would not trust the government with such power. And remember, is the current government is one of idiots, the electoral requirement will soon reflect that.
Democracy in general doesn't work It's not just corporations. An entire Media could subvert the public masses against their political opposition thru a constant stream of fear and hate mongering. That's all it'd take to control the citizenry. That's Democracy In America, we have an Electoral College that protects us from Democracy. Democracy only paves the way towards Totalitarianism. It's inevitable
When the USA was founded, that's exactly what it was and for good reason. The founders understood you needed skin in the game, and you need to understand the workings of the world to be a voter. Not just anyone with a pulse over 18 could vote. It simply doesn't make any sense. But after 2020 I wonder to myself...maybe the voting and politics are nothing more than a pro wrestling match and the vote doesn't actually matter?
@@Ziegfried82 Right on the nail. Our rulers realized oppressing people leads to revolutions so they started using the low IQ of the masses against us. Its a rigged game and I refuse to participate in a system where my Tax paying academically educated high IQ vote carries the same weight as some low iq welfare recipient.
Alexander Tytler showed over 250 years ago, a 9 step process showing how a Democracy, as a permanent form of Government, was not possible. From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage. --- I would say we are on step 7 give or take 1.
I think an important thing to mention is that greek democracy of the ancient world could hardly be called a democracy in the modern sense. That is people shouldn't think that it was like 21st century where general elections meant everyone got the right to vote and elect their leaders and that everyone is equal and has fundamental rights including the right to elect their leaders
@@AzureSymbiote Its actually the exact opposite, they were more gullible , ignorant and uneducated than a average person today living in a developed country. I mean you can hardly be called a democracy in modern world when u have slavery and little to no rights for woman who were treated as property in ancient greece. Where there was no transparent rule of law, no independent media or any form of media
"It is the function of mass agitation to exploit all the grievances, hopes, aspirations, prejudices, fears, and ideals of all the special groups that make up our society, social, religious, economic, racial, and political. Stir them up. Set one against the other. Divide and conquer. That’s the way to soften up a democracy.”― J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit
Problem with boat analogy is, in a democracy the leaders will appoint the relevant person to take the job, in this case the captain, who intern will assign other roles. It will also happen naturally too, a person or a group will take leadership and do what is the best for everyones survival. The problem generally is with nepoticm and despotism, not democracy itself when the right people are not chosen for the right place based on their merit.
You’re completely mistaken, my friend. Coming from a country with its fair share of corrupt politicians, I can tell you that politicians are just as stupid as the people they represent.
I am actively searching for different ways to invest or diversify my $400k portfolio so it can increase exponentially during this next bull run. Ideas?
You’re right Darren. I have been working with a seasoned professional advisor for the past eight months now, and it’s been a life glorious experience financially. Made over six figures this few months.
He’s the licensed fiduciary I work with. Just look his names up on your search engines and you’ll get the necessary details you need to set up an appointment with him. Cheers!
And also his great weakneses. You control education and you can do wathever you plaises. And Populism + democracy usually is a dangerous cócktel that end with an authoritarian govenment, usually communist, but also right-handed too.
A bit of a cope out there,cause Plato doesn't try to salvage Democracy as implied here,by telling people to just become better so that Democracy gets better as well,he advocates for a Philosopher Kings,he's for a Monarchy.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
~ Plato
What's funny is all the "I'm not political" type of people in my life are the first ones to complain when politics starts affecting their lives.
@@t3hr00tb33rYep, they just "want to be left alone".
Even in kindergarten if you didn't stand up for yourself someone would go after you. If you want peace you need to stand up for yourself.
I believe that democracy only works in a society mostly comprised of competently intelligent people.
@@t3hr00tb33r That's basically all Russia
Plato also said that if a just man lives in a corrupt nation, if they wish to remain just they must stay away from politics entirely
Another thing Thomas Jefferson said in his farewell address, "... material abundance without character is the surest road to destruction."
Ah yeah, Amazon
Dwight Eisenhower had a similar warning. He called materialism a "moral plague" on western civilization that could morally destroy our country if we didn't put fellow people first and maintain spiritual values.
Is that the Madagascar flag I'm seeing?
@@finiavanamandresy5460 yes it is. I plan to get moved there sometime later this year.
rich people always say that shit
Because two idiots can always outvote one genius.
There are so many things wrong with this argument lol
Answering the idiots below me: democracy is much deeper than that, the original
Comment completely misses the point of what democracy is and is centered around a false premise.
Who decides who is the genius and not? How is that relevant? Are you suggesting some people are intrinsically superior to others? And therefore can take all the decisions?
Democracy was never meant to be a perfect system, where every decision is taken perfectly and no one can be wrong, that’s not what it is supposed to do, no system that exists provides you that, in fact, the one who comes closer to that is democracy
A democracy in a uneducated and ignorant country will not be as successful as a democracy somewhere that the people are educated and capable of making decent choices
There is still a ton of other problems here but I’m too lazy to writte it
And often do.
@@Weweta Actually, the point of @veryniceindeed is going pretty strong: since everyone's vote is equal (so to say), a voting process's outcome is simply a projection of the belief of the many. And in a lot of the cases, "the many" have no idea what they're voting for.
And pointlessly adding "lol" to what could and should have been a serious statement doesn't do your argument any favor.
There's a reason why Republicans exist. This, precisely this.
@@Wewetaname 3.
You want to know the no. 1 characteristic that makes humans accept someone as a leader? Confidence. Not competence.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell
As true as that is, there are 2 other characteristics: promises of wealth for voting the "correct" way, and popularity. The last is why we vote for electors who are supposed to elect our president who they deem a better leader.
Confidence is good imo, healthy self esteem and things like that
@@caim3465 , narcissists are confident they are the center of the universe. Psychopaths are confident they won't get caught for murder. Confidence is only useful if you are certain about what you are doing and your assessment is accurate... most don't know what they are doing yet are confident.
As for making changes to complex systems that large (such as economic and political systems) it is not possible for a single human to have enough information to be confident due to the limitations of our brain... there is far too much relevant and useful information, let alone the specific type that an expert on a given field would bring to the table, and the number of different fields you would have to dip into to gain a clear picture is staggering. Anyone who is attempting to do so and is confident is either lying to themselves or you.
So sure, in every day life confidence isn't "bad" per se... it might help you land a job or a date. When it comes to something like a political leader, it might win votes but it makes them a less effective leader... in that instance confidence can only serve as a blind spot.
@@caim3465 confidence amounts to nothing when running a country, it's competence that matters.
@@caim3465 , youtube deleted my response to you. I hope you got to read it before the thought police brought the hammer down.
My fave teacher answered "why are democracies always supplanted by dictatorships?" by saying: "Democracies last only until people realize that they can get out of govt more than they put into it." He then went on to assert that congress shouldn't be allowed to vote on the topic of the amount of their salaries.
That’s for sure. We definitely are not getting our money’s worth from them. In fact as much as they pay themselves, if we could demand they not accept pay for, oh say 10 years, we might just break even.
It's probably more that democracies don't make for quick decisions. And if things get really bad, people start to get angry and start to want the idiot promising them rapid change (without respect for anyone else).
@@Leto2ndAtreidesthat sounds more like the fatal flaw of democracy. to assume it is inherently better than any other form of governance is ignorant
Except that politicians don't get rich on their salaries. They get rich on corruption.
@@neilreynolds3858 Somehow they all become multi millionaires in 2 years with a salary that does not add up to their net worth.
What further aggravates the problem is the captain who would be good at piloting the ship doesn't want to go through the ordeal of trying to get elected to do the job.
the tale as old as time, the people who want power usually aren't the ones that should have it and vice versa
bit the person who gets elected probably has at least some experience in order to get elected. Just because there is no election process doesn't mean the ship has a good captain.
Not to mention you probably also need to become a lawyer.
Indeed, that's especially true in the US with our absurdly long political campaigns where you literally need to dedicate years of your life to just running for the job. And then you can so easily get screwed over for things that aren't even your fault before election day, like the economy went downhill under your political party's rule, or someone else in your party did something really stupid/controversial that pissed a ton of people off and drove them away from your party.
It's the luck of the draw, isn't it?@@kairon5249
Societies rarely need a politician that has essentially been the most eloquent in promising everyone the maximum amount of other people's stuff.
How true, and yet we keep seeing examples of such being elected.
I would say, "Never!" Anyone who appeals to people's *_selfish nature,_* is likely incredibly evil.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
"It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes. It may even lie on the surface; but we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions - especially selfish ones."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The funny thing is, that has nothing to do with democracy. Tyrants throughout history have promised their people exactly the same thing. You weren't a tyrant for long if you didn't keep your population happy.
More like never need.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
i disagree, that is probably the best argument for democracy, you want the people to be able to determine their own nations politics however the problem doesn't lie solely with the people, the system is one of the most pathetic and evil systems ever created, it keeps the people fighting against eachother creating a divide so that the people can never fight the government as a united front.
@@ColesGingy- Maybe, but the problem with any political system is that none of them work very well and the only thing democracy has going for it is that it works a little better than any other system that has ever been tried, in that the majority of peole in a so-called democracy are generasly better off than in any other system. Part of the problem is that democracy, such as it is, only works in a country where the majority of people are fairly well educated and even so, how many people even take the trouble to do some research and bother to find out something about who they vote for, what their backgrounds and beliefs and policies are and so on? As for a divisive society, we see that now in the USA and in Canada, but whose fault is that? Partly division is caused by politicians. Trudeau (both of them), Obama and Biden are the most divisive politicians I have seen in my lifetime, and I am 84 years old and hace been closely following politics since I was a teenager..
But it goes a lot deeper than that too - for one reason or another people have lost trust in institutions such as the so-called justice system, law enforcement agencies, governments, religions, big business and so on and on; Hardly anyone trusts the mainstream media now, and who can blame them,, they don;t report the news in a fair, objective and unbiased manner anymore, if they ever did..
"The best argument against Winston Churchill is a one day trip into his bio"
The Average Voter
no, no you don't. it's not just the poor people who are idiots or lazy. it's the upper class snobs who are equally dangerous and irresponsible because they got a little lucky with their circumstance and forget how they made it. so a limited form of democracy would be the ideal compromise.@@ColesGingy
@@William1939I wasn’t alive In the 70s but maybe you can shed light on it. Was news always this biased or was it less biased. I have heard from teachers that it wasn’t the same in the 70s that it was somewhat neutral.
People who need leaders aren't qualified to choose one
-Micheal Malice
Malice is kind of a delusional idiot himself.
I prefer the "class president" analogy -especially for kids.
You know pizza is not healthy for you.
You know broccoli and celery are healthy.
You know homework, while annoying, is good for showing you what you do and don't understand, so you can be ready for the test.
...now if someone tomorrow said, "vote for me and I will abolish homework and give you pizza and ice cream every day", and another person said, "vite for me and we will have celery and broccoli, and only the necessary amount of homework", who would the class honestly vote for?
Democracy requires 2 things: understanding the difference between what is wanted over what is needed, and being willing to refuse what you want and what benefits you, and vote instead for what is needed.
damn good analogy
"Do right for your own sake and be happy in knowing that your neighbor will certainly share in the benefits resulting."
- Mark Twain
“No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
- Rudyard Kipling
In short, irresponsible idiots do not deserve democracy.
To be fair, if u need to tax ur students with homework, you aren't teaching them correctly in class.
Not to mention what is actually taught in school in the first place, but that's a subject for another time.
@arcguardian
Homework for me has always been a way to gauge a student's weak areas and assist in strengthening them.
This is why I am against grading homework and for correcting homework. The only grade homework should have, in my opinion, is "completed and corrected", "incomplete, not corrected", or "never turned in".
I know plenty of teachers are against any homework now, but I find it useful, because I always did well in class work in math... because the teacher was doing the work with us... and I did not do so well on tests... because I was doing it by myself.
"What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty." - Hans-Hermann Hoppe
"As you describe me I can picture myself as I was, 22 years ago. The portrait is correct. You think I have grown some; upon my word there was room for it. You have described a callow fool, a self-sufficient ass, a mere human tumble-bug, stern in air, heaving at his bit of dung and imagining he is re-modeling the world and is entirely capable of doing it right. Ignorance, intolerance, egotism, self-assertion, opaque perception, dense and pitiful chuckle-headedness -- and an almost pathetic unconsciousness of it all. That is what I was at 19 - 20; and, It is of children like this that voters are made. And such is the primal source of our government! A man hardly knows whether to swear or cry over it."
- Mark Twain
"The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool"
Well, so are politicians and ruling classes, literally everywhere throughout history. The alternative to letting the masses decide, is letting the politicians decide. If you look at our current political class and think "yup, those people know a lot better what's good for us than we do ourselves", then I don't know what to say to you.
@@frankvandorp9732 You failed to read 5 sentences and instead jumped to an assumption that fit your emotional bias.
You are exactly who the quote is describing.
@@wrongthinker843 You clearly didn't read anything I wrote or even spent one second thinking about it, so obviously you are one of the ignorant, short-sighted, envious, easily fooled people the quote describes.
On point.
Another brilliant summary, especially the part where no political system is perfect and is only as effective as the people who participate in it. Thank you.
"Garbage in, garbage out" - G. Carlin.
Biggest participants in US politics are corporations
It explains why China is rising and we are falling.
No such think as perfect.
Plato saw democracy as always devolving to tyranny. One of the key ways Jefferson tried to stop this natural digression was by promoting universities as institutions tasked with nurturing good citizenship. Also, the Founders created something closer to a timocracy (the rule of the land owners), which Plato saw as better than democracy. For the last century, many politicians (in conjunction with activists who have too much time on their hands) have found it irresistible to push the U.S. away from being a timocracy toward being a democracy because it creates blocks of easily manipulated voters. Ironically, now the universities have unintentionally come to serve in making the population _less_ understanding of how society works and to simultaneously shape people into balls of emotion that are all the more easy to manipulate.
never been a democracy, as a matter of fact the founders abhorred that system of governance and knew of its issues fully, hence making us a Constitutional Republic NOT a democracy.
This is due to the cancer of Marxism which has infected our entire educational system then to government and business.
Sad but true.
What's really sad, is just how hard politicians have worked to make it increasingly difficult to be a land owner, or for that matter a business owner. Weakens the electorate and softens us towards democracy. Hardly hear any politician use the words constitutional republic these days. Poor education, plus struggling to have a real stake in the country is a recipe for disaster.
Exactly, which is why the founders didn't want a strict democracy. For strict democracies are simply a tyranny of the majority. It is a democratic republic, and yes, those eligible to vote in the beginning were land owners, not merely citizens. Which is why citizen by birth or immigration wasn't seen as overly problematic. By having property, one has a vested interest in a single location. You aren't as transient and thus ought to think more long term, which would impact voting.
The founders also setup separation of powers: they realized that sequestering authority in any one group, be it voters or rulers, can lead to oppression. Modern congress has given their legislative authority to the executive bureaucracies as has much of the judiciary. Thus the US president has consolidated too much authority and that makes for a very unstable future.
I hope people are getting what he's saying here. He's not saying, "Democracy is bad." He's saying, "Democracy does not give us an excuse to be lazy, vote someone in, then assume they'll do the right thing." We need to be part of that Democracy. We need to know what's going on. Democracies are representative of their people. If they are short sighted, filled with vengeance, see enmity in their neighbor, and easily fooled by lying politicians of their own party, then their government will reflect this.
People who have voting rights in democracy need to be told that they have not just right but also duty to country's development. They can't just pick someone and hurl abuses at them for not doing things right.
@@iamyou8994 Everyone remembers their rights, no one remembers their duties
Everyone remembers what they are supposed to get, no one remembers what they are supposed to give and to do
in other words asking water not to be wet
I'm Australian. It's compulsory to vote here, or you get fined. I don't know if anyone has done a study into whether this makes the public more attentive to Politics though. Our Labour Party, (Founded by Unions, and purportedly representing working class people), is quite strong here. And we do have the highest minimum wage in the world. It certainly helps make young people vote, and voting is easy, because every election the same amount of people vote, there's never an overwhelming turnout that results in long queues. Saturday voting helps, along with postal and absentee voting, for if you know you'll be away. It is hard to gauge how this makes us different from other countries, although foreigners are always surprised how popular compulsory voting is. Polling shows around 75% of people support it, and we never have voter turnout below 90%.
Pretty hard thing to do when you don’t have time because you have to work all the time. On top of the fact that there’s been a systematic dismantlement of public education so….
Winston Churchill summed it up best.
“The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with your average voter”
Better known the worst system of government apart from all the others
a wise man once said, 'democracy is for the people, by the people. but the people are idiots'
Osho said it, give credit
But the people are [R-word].
Osho isn't wrong.
@@nightraven2975 you can just say "retard"
No he said retarded.
He did not say [democracy is ...] but [gov't of ...].
Total number of times the term “democracy “ appears in:
1. Articles of Confederation
2. Declaration of Independence
3. US Constitution
4. Bill of Rights….
Zero.
The number of times it appears in the Communist Manifesto? Dozens, maybe hundreds.
Thank you for saying this! It even says in the pledge of allegiance that we "pledge allegiance to the flag and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands" we were meant to be a republic NOT a democracy, many of the founding fathers openly talked about their dislike and hate for democracies and that "democracies will destroy themselves. " It's just a shame that people aren't being taught the truth and don't bother to look for it and teach themselves.
I like Your Style Sir !
And to the Republic for which it stands, "if we can keep it !"
- Benjamin Franklin
You do realise the US is a democracy? Democracy is defined as "rule by the people": demos for people and kratos for rule. The US is just another example of the failure of democracy - read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans Herman Hoppe.
Does "consent of the governed" ever appear in any of those documents? Because that's the exact same damn thing as democracy.
Something like the Peter Principle is at work here. The electorate are promoted to a level of respective incompetence, being required to vote on things that on average they don't understand.
That's why they can be persuaded against their own interests. If they were competent enough to know who to vote in, they'd be competent enough to run things themselves.
It's the same as school becoming about passing exams, politicians need only be competent at getting voted in, not needing to be good at the job.
Additionally, competent leaders are removed from the lifestyles of the incompetent, so the incompetent become more likely to vote for similarly incompetent persuaders because they're more relatable.
A great contributor to the failure of democracies comes when a popularly elected leader must decide between implementing an unpopular
but correct policy or a popular policy that is doomed to fail. Politicians almost always err on the side of their own self interest.
A politicians #1 Priority is getting re-elected. And given most people have famously short memories, the politician knows they are likely to get away with shifting blame to someone else. So the popular policy doomed to fail it is!
That's why Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew would spend the first 2 years of a term doing what had to be done, and then the last 2 years winning over the populace, so that he could get re-elected and do that again.
Yeah. I'm old enough to remember back when it was almost always. That was about 60 years ago.
Judges too, it seems.
Sure seems to be quite a lot of effort going in over the past few years to try and make people see policy as law
The word “fail” is not a word to be taken lightly. People die, people go in poverty, people starve. You think a government just fails and then after it’s all sunshine and rainbows. The unfortunate conclusion, millions of people suffer because of a corrupt few.
The most dagerous thing to a country is not natural hazards, gods or the enemies, but its leaders.
This is why US is the country of self responsibility. People have to live own power with a very few exceptions. This is the minimum condition of democracy. I think the reason US democracy is declining recently is collapse of this principle expressed by illegal immigrant crisis.
@@HeinRichKocHPretoriaGod determines the future of all countries, whether democratic or not.
@@林遼太朗-w2e Well, immigration is part of it but it’s not entirely the full problem. If democracy was always moderate with accountability of threat that goes on in real time then people wouldn’t be in suffering, but I can vouch for America that it isn’t moderate, it’s a new form of democracy that’s been labeled as radical populist democracy. It’s pretty complicated but a few topics that can cover this is attaching people to an emotional controversial subject, for example race, immigration, foreign affairs. Blaming the 1%, so the people would feel something but in truth the majority elected few are turning into the elitist and the middle class/working class has no power, for money is power. They control everything, who rises, who falls, and they don’t let you reach that familiar “American Dream”. The American dream doesn’t exist due to their entity, which is evil in itself. Even Chinese understand the value of family. How can you harbor a family, if you’re always juggling? This is my perspective of the working class, we’re constantly attacked and manipulated. Although this is true, my perspective relates to other people throughout the world. There’s a pattern throughout the globe.
There is no god which determines anything. If there is an omniscient god, there is no free will and everything is predetermined. Then the god does not determine, but already determined.@@aclark903
Thank you, Nick, easily the best explanation of why democracy fails. This needs to be seen and understood worldwide.
The problem with the boat analogy is that you assume the captain is on the boat with the crew, meaning the captain would be exposed to consequences of bad decisions. In our system that isnt the case, so its not the same. That being said this is the reason for small govt, the only person who ultimately can make the best decisions for you is yourself.
Ships often have a life boat though. You know, for VIPs ;)
It was the case once that leaders were accountable but one bad electoral decision after another and the People voted away that accountability. .
@@clearviewmoai "It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes. It may even lie on the surface; but we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions - especially selfish ones."
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
nah, while yeah it wouldn't directly affect them but it will, what happens as you lose capable crews, as your ship capsizes?
@@aljonserna5598 Not the same thing that happens to the crew.
Democracy or Republic, it doesn't matter when a large number of our elected officials ignore the highest law in the land, the Constitution, and the people they represent don't know or care about it. Like the video said, no form of government is perfect, but no form of government can work if the people can't be bothered to make it work.
As long as a country is rich enough, its government can be complete garbage, and it still appears to work mostly fine.
@@Leto2ndAtreides yeah, until it suddenly doesn't
As long as the voters get a cut of the loot, they'll accept any form of government.
The US Constitution was violated a very, very long time ago. Pre Civil War.
@@Leto2ndAtreidesevery single rich country has gotten rich by being a dictatorship, you dont get to transition to a “democrazy” in the last phase of development, then attribute your entire wealth as being a democrazy, in fact most western countries stagnated after becoming s democrazy
The parting shot at the end is absolutely true, which is why my US Government teacher in high school was driving it into our heads that it is our civic duty to stay informed so when we go to the polls we have a full understanding of what we are voting for
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
- Alexander Tyler, 1787
What a legend. Thanks for this, will check him out.
I wondered who that quote came from. Thanks. It's why there was no direct taxation back before the US became an empire and started following the logic of empires.
wow funny how this quote is stupid. As a commenter said"Don't listen to folks who make simple analogies like a boat and captain or a country and its credit card. It's designed to mislead by ignoring the complexities of real life. Folks are easily led by simplistic explanations on something that only takes 3 mins to listen to and has a few buzzwords included. You are impressed with it as are many others. It's not real though. Unfortunately many are convinced by it."
@@kringle7804 It is a real quote. He was a Scottish Historian talking about the history of democracies, specifically ancient Athens. It is actually really smart, because it seems unavoidable. Eventually even republics fall. The Roman Senate thought they would save the republic when they killed Caesar, instead it just made clear to the plebs that the republic wasn't meant for them. People change, empires change, demographics change. So it only seems logical that a system based on the whims with the people, will go away with the people.
@@kringle7804 I would like to differ there. While analogies can have that type of habit youve mentioned, it only accounts for less intelligent people. As using analogies in your every day language is a sign of intelligience, intelligent people are able to sort the analogy into context and know that it only has a limited potential to show a certain aspect, not the whole truth. Scientific models for example like the structure of a DNA Helix or the Atom are also kind of analogies and could posses the same dangers as stated by you, but the majority of educated and intelligent people still use them to explain stuff broken down. The danger only appears when you dont understand that an analogy is just an analogy and no universal truth about the topic
Democracy rarely gives you what you need or even what you actually want; it just gives you what you ask for.
Like the Devil! You can't spell democracy or devil without the letter d!--COINCIDENCE??
Not even true, the elected parties do what ever they want anyway.
Typical excuse democracy is terrible too
@@GilleanFreire Gee I can't even give an example of ANY KIND OF GOVERNMENT AT ALL That's harmless to it's citizens. Harm seems somehow implicit in the DEFINITION of government--even in its absence
Usually doesn't give you that either. It gives you promises of what you want, with a higher likelihood of getting some low hanging fruit so that politicians can pretend to be giving you what you want.
I know more about public affairs now than I ever did and the sad thing is that I can’t find any politician that represents my interests.
Power is too entrenched and no one is stopping it.
"I can't rule, that's why I am totally qualifed for choosing my rulers"
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
sounds legit 😂
Hehe.... ❤
And when I fail to choose the right rulers, I will blame the rulers, not myself....
🤣
Funny how the classics are not taught anymore
What?
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
- Redacted.
WOKE PC Cancel Culture
...to most people.
WOKE Multiculturalism
This video ought to be renamed "why every governmental body that has ever existed has failed and been critisized"
doesn't get as many views tho, click bait factor kicks in hard for this one
Pretty much. At the end of the day, Democracy is the worst form of government except for those that have been tried.
People can criticise democracy all they want, but in the end it's still all we have that is worth a damn.
Why? It just talks about democracy. It doesn't touch on monarchy or dictatorships or the variations on those like elected monarchy or absolutist monarchy.
@@liamjm9278 Because what might cause the fall of democracy, also applies to other forms of government. Anger the people enough, and those governments will fall under the pressure of the masses.
@@DiogoJ1 What? He didn't say anything about angering the people. He said incompetent but popular people get elected and people can vote for stupid things like rebelling against a power who could easily destroy them just because the idea sounds nice. Did you watch the video?
Thomas Jefferson, the writer of our Declaration of independence also Said " When tyranny becomes law Rebellion becomes Duty"
See you on the barricades, Comrade.
You will never see me you might hear the bullet I fired from a hidden position just before it hits you.@alexanderjaruk4982
Exactly! We were given the right to abolish or alter government by our Founding Fathers.
he also imagined you could respect a society of brutal slave masters.
Why I support Palestine
America hasn’t had a balanced budget once in the 21st century. Democracy.
Bill Clinton balanced the budget. Look it up. America's debts were paid up until the wars started again with the Bushs. Not opposing the wars, just saying.
@@contumelious-8440Really it was having a very strong actually conservative Congress for the first time In good knows when.
Clinton was smart though, and together him and that Congress were pretty successful. Comparatively speaking.
Hard to blame it on democracy when we don't have one of those
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandleA republic is a form of representative democracy. The US is a republic. The US is a representative democracy.
@@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle Through the House of Representatives and, to a lesser extent with the 17th Amendment for the Senate, we do have a legislative democracy.
The irony is this video was recommend to me right after 2024 election that resulted in Trump’s victory.
Marcus Aurelius also once said the opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if they know nothing of the subject.
The stoic emperor, we could learn a lot from his book.
Precisely. For example, if a dozen people knew nothing of storytelling, dramatic structure, character archetypes, literary techniques, thematic underpinnings, and metaphorical allegory... what business would those two groups of six have at attempting to critique or analyze literature? Must give us pause.
"most of the time Socrates says something, its actually Plato faking that quote"
Almost Sun Tsu.
So your name is "Almost"?
Congrats
@@tttyuhbbb9823 almost correct.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
The older I get and the more I observe the common man's opinion, the more I realise how true this statement is. It's not even worth having conversations with most people. You cannot effectively convince large amounts of people anymore without strategic use of social media.
Another great "mother of democracy" is on death bed.
Winning an argument with a genius is hard, winning an argument with an idiot is impossible.
I know what you mean. I grew against democracy too. And the populace even kept subverting my pessimistic expectations.
I am reminded of Starship Troopers. The film was made into something of a mockery of a fascistic militarized state, but it raised a very interesting concept; rather than give EVERYONE the right to vote, make voting a privilege that anyone can earn, but which MUST be earned, and thus respected, in order to be exercised.
Nick demonstrated an excellent point in his boat analogy when he said the person elected captain was the one who offered the best gifts to the people. In a democracy there is a demographic who will select the person who offers them the best handouts. NOT the person who will run the nation best, or actually take care of the people, but the person who makes the prettiest promises. And if that person wins the office, depleting the nations coffers to give out bread and cake will not help the nation or the people in the medium or long term. That, of course, assumes that said politician actually keeps his promise when he makes it into office, and gives out bread and cake to the people. More likely is that most of the bread and cake will go to himself, his friends and family, and the wealthy patrons who helped him sway public opinion.
I understand there are good arguments for universal voting, but I think there are also good arguments for a vote that is restricted to the people who will use it responsibly. Perhaps a more representative system would work better. The people elect a set of local representatives who are chosen for their intelligence and integrity, and those people then form a quorum to elect the actual politicians.
I don't know. But what we have right now just isn't working (though I suspect that is as much the fault of the people as it is of the government).
That sounds an awful lot like authoritarianism to me. No thanks. I won't live under an authoritarian regime.
I agree with everything but the bit after your conclusion.
You assume people are UNINFORMED. It is MUCH more accurate to say they are MAL-INFORMED, that is, that they are being deliberately lied to, and are VERY informed about those lies. They just don't know they're lies.
They have believed the lie. It isn't until people wake up to realize that mass media is lying to them all the time that their opinions start to change.
I know VERY smart people who just "Believe the Lie", in part because media USED to be trustworthy.
At the same time that they lie to you, they tell you EXACTLY who you can't trust - anyone else, anyone who thinks differently, who has done their research, anyone who disagrees even a little with the talking points of the agenda.
Then they threaten outliers. If you DO listen to others, start doing your own research, and disagree, then they threaten you, cancel you, make it impossible to have a job, and everyone knows that without a job, you can't take care of yourself or your family. So people bow to pressure, apologize, and follow the rules, believing them or not, because they know what happens to those that refuse to "Believe the Lie".
It is a devastatingly simple tactic, and unbelievably successful.
NOTE: I replied to you. I cannot now see my own message. If you can, let me know. Thanks!
@@kateshiningdeer3334 I don't see your original response. I don't trust YT replies, a lot seem to go "missing" these days...
Everything old is new again. Voting used to be restricted to land ownership and military service.
And universal suffrage is cancer, as we can clearly see.
Yes, democracy lacks meritocracy.
but it is most likely to have more of it.
Such as irony :(
I disagree, most democracies have a strong Judiciary or at least some form of meritocratic checks and balances. Whilst these people, most often judges, are unelected, they have a strong grasp of the legal system and how it affects society, often basing their judgements off of a strong historical constitution that was (hopefully) written by non corrupt officials. Probably the most famous example of this is the US supreme court which can override ANY law from any part of the legislature , but even that isn't perfect as the judges themselves are chosen specifically by the democratically elected President based off their ideological leanings. Not the case for all countries though
@@mapper7310 He isn't talking about ideological knowledge, education or anything like that. He's talking about how these men's actions will affect society: how the person thinks for the country, does he want personal gain or the better of the people? and to what extent he will go to so that he can achieve such goals?
Obviously judges and government members are well versed in their fields but that doesn't mean they have the ability to shift the tide of a nation or make rational decisions for the good of the people. Afterall, meritocracy is based on the talent of a person, and if those people are in a corrupt country where they get blackmailed if they threaten a corrupt system then obviously the "democratic" government lacks meritocracy. A very clear example of this is Russia, and an even bigger example of this were the recent elections of Pakistan (read up on the rigging situation and how they've been trying to oust Imran for so long, it's literally the perfect example for this video). It's sad to see that qualified and selfless people get dismissed so many times just because of some other person's greed.
@@mapper7310
I don't believe you live in reality.
if failing means they don't last forever, then the same can be said of monarchies too
Just because one thing sucks, doesn't mean the alternatives are good, a fatal flaw humans have is to think a wrong justifies another wrong instead of looking for what's right.
Democracy and monarchy are not mutually exclusive options. The thing is we just didn't try better options. President should be elected by professionals (economists, historians, psychologists, successful businessmen etc) and rule the country as a king until, let's say, GDP won't dip from its peak more than 10%.
@@Max_JacobyAbsolutely,the First Democracy in England was The PM/Parliament being elected by Landlords, Merchants,Bankers, Religious leaders etc As a Result England Became Global Superpower,But when 'Normal' people started Getting Votes, England has become a Laughing Stock of 21st Century Europe
SEVERAL of our monarchies lasted for 500-1000 years, except the Kingdom of Greece due to some foreign dude on the Greek Throne.
@@Max_Jacoby yes, they shouldn't have terms so public things can have continuity and they get instantly ejected from office if they underperformed.
The next ruler should be trained decades before taking office, so literally groomed like Alexander the great was.
You did forgot that democracy in nutshell is “two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner.”
Should the wolves starve, and die, so that the sheep can live?
@@achinthmurali5207 Are two idiots smarter than one genius?
Why do people keep repeating this as though it's a clever point? It's really not. If it were true, democracies be more likely than other systems to engage in genocide and human rights violations, but this actually happens more in other political systems.
Democracy is basically one tiger, two wolves and three sheep together deciding what to have for dinner. And there is always one sheep that thinks it's a wolf.
I prefer this version.
Thats a bad analogy because in that analogy no form of government, democratic or otherwise, is going to save the sheep.
Yea. As a student, our teachers always spoke of democracy with the back drops of tyranny.
As if that was the only alternative to it.
They spoke of democracy in a way that made us believe that if man ever achieved a Utopia, it would be ruled by a democracy .
On one hand I don't really blame them. When you live in a democracy, patriotism gets in the way of being critical to democracy.
I suppose those two mad ideas go hand in hand: utopia and democracy.
Schools are plagued with WOKE and feminist teachers. Time for reforms and removal of this corrupt institution.
Maybe a utopia would be ruled by a direct democracy, but the people don't want responsibilities, they want to think that have power🎉
I do blame them, they supposed to be teachers not propagandists.
The educational system and institutions are infiltrated with WOKE ideologists. Students are just getting indoctrinated with Leftist ideologies like climate change and feminism.
The best argument argument for democracy is 5 minutes in any other regime
If you have a decent king it's not that bad. And at least you know who to blame for a poorly ran country.
@@axiezimmah And what is a “decent king?” Who decides which kings are “decent” or not? From where I stand, the king declares himself a “good ruler” and the scribes just go along with it lest they be thrown in a dungeon…
Democracies bring up responsibility in its' citizens.
Autocracies relieve its' citizens from responsibility and make them helpless on their own
@@wilberwhateley7569 Well, the UK isn't doing all that bad... the bling of a monarchy makes for good entertainment.
"Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!"
- Obi Wan
Nope, because he understood a democracy only works in a Republic.
Which shows that Obi Wan was not as bright as Star Wars makes him out to be. Democracy and Republic are antithetical to one another. We don't want a representative body unguided by law. That power has too easily gone to their heads, and American Congress has broken the LAW for over 2 centuries!
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@kateshiningdeer3334 Has there ever been any democracy in human history that is NOT a Republic? I don't know any.
"Only a sith deals in absolutes."
- same guy
@@frankvandorp9732
Modern day Netherlands and most of the Scandinavian states are democracies while being monarchies.
Democracies don't fail. They work exactly as intended: tyranny of the majority. Or tyranny of those who currently control the army and claim to represent the majority.
And yes, that has always been the case. Being the benefactor of such a system didn't make it "honest", you simply had no reason to look deeper.
Well then, let’s just become communists!🙄
Two things to note. First, pretty much all modern democracies work under some sort of constitution, which generally protects the individual and the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So, the tyranny of the majority in a democracy is a much more lenient than the tyranny in other political systems.
Second, even though the decisions are made by the majority, that doesn't mean that it's the same people who are always in a majority and the same in the minority. So, I may agree with you on X but disagree on Y. In a decision making we're on the same side when deciding on X but opposite sides when deciding on Y. This is not the case in a dictatorship. The dictator's view is always on the winning side.
@@srelma 1) Yeah, remember all the monarchies that told kids to report their parents to the state for wrongthink?
2) One word: "bipartisan".
@@wrongthinker843 I'm not sure what your point is. The history is full of examples of tyrannical one person rule.
@@srelma So you just gonna ignore my words.
Okay.
Democracy is a good as the education of the voters. And we all know how good education is...
But like with lawyers and jury, media and other bodies always evolve ahead of the populace.
“Democracy Breeds Tyranny”~ Plato
Which is exactly why our founding fathers decided upon a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. There’s an excellent video from a man named Dan Smoot, I believe. It’s footage from 1966. Excellent explanation of the very important differences between Constitutional Republic and democracy. Folks who don’t understand those differences…you all are a HUGE part of the problem in this country.
@@robindelude3787 and it still didn't work womp womp
@@patriot9487lmfao
@@robindelude3787 Constitutional Republics are garbage too.
Tyranny is preferable.
Even if it does so what?
The American founders attempted (with some success) to avoid the trap by having multiple parallel powers, Congress, Executive, Judicial as well as the states. It has worked fairly well but it's not immune to whims of a disaffected populace.
It's better to not think too highly of the setup. The main reason people like Washington accepted the Constitution was that it was set up to be easily changeable... By a congress that was assumed to be united and committed to the common good.
A premise that did not last even into Washington's second term.
The US government is designed on assumptions about reality that have almost never been true... Not that that is an entirely bad thing.
I don't know that it ever worked well but it certainly quit working once the voters let the government have direct taxation so they could find out what we did and how much money we made and how much money they could steal to buy votes.
You get the leaders you deserve.
@@HeinRichKocHPretoria I seem to get the government my neighbors deserve.
@@theronwolf3296Unfortunately yes.
Most civilization were not democracies and ended up destroying themselves as well
They were not as doomed as democracies. Look at San Francisco.
Exactly why I want people to leave the electoral college alone!
No popular vote is terrible you may get poor politicians like india
Amen! AND when enough of the population has become educated on the *_Philosophy_* underpinning the Constitution, perhaps repeal the 17th Amendment, so states can get their representation back. We have the People's House; we don't need a second "people's house." To hold a vote on the Constitution now opens the door to potential *_destruction of the entire Constitution_* because voters don't know squat and won't see the betrayal coming.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Because the American system is functioning so great lately, the political class is known for its competence and integrity, right? Such a great system.
@@frankvandorp9732 No, Frank. The American system has been corrupted for over 200 years. By now, it stinks pretty bad. Yet, the accomplishments are astounding despite the 200+ years of corruption.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@frankvandorp9732 I'll take the electoral college any day over cities deciding the president. Go to a city then go to a town the people have nothing in common.
Winston S. Churchill -
*_"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."_*
_"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."_
that first one is funny haha
and true...
And sad. Because it means we shouldnt settle for democracy, but strive to figure out a superior system that has yet to exist. And yet absolutely NO ONE with any voice on the public scene is so much as looking for another way to do things. Instead the common stance seems to be "democracy good, everything else bad" when really democracy is just barely better because of how it can be exploited. (Like in russia, technically a democracy, but does it matter when anyone inconvenient to the current power in place is either silenced or made to disappear? Another tactic being that there is several valid parties for people to choose from... Except that they barely deviate from eachother. Two identical choices is no choice at all)
@thorveim1174 I'd say Russia is one of the purest democracies in which you can clearly see the flaws of the system. The most vocal part of the parliament consists of uneducated celebrities. The president is the type of politician who has political statements dependent on who he is talking to (pro-working, religious, and anti-Western while talking to low-income workers, and pro-business, pro-trade, and making friends with the west while talking with business owners). At the smaller level, politicians can't do anything because voters would rather go to the barbecue and make a turnout less than 30%, so some of our politicians are democratically voted in office by less than 200 people (and in many cases, those are just relatives, friends, and members of the same party). An opposition that was completely destroyed by only 1 Navalniy and his boycotts. People vote against pension reform, while the budget is almost exclusively spent on social policies (because previously, politicians would make easy points by giving "free" apartments to almost anyone). And when the biggest problem of the government was a very small budget, the party that promised to give $1000 a month to every citizen was close to win the elections. And my favorite part is the spoiler parties/candidates. We have 3 communist parties, 2 people who legally changed their names to "кпрф" or "communist's party of RF" to fool voters, and 3 guys who changed their surnames and appearances to match an opposition politician. All of it worked just because of democracies greatest flaw. People are stupid enough to fall for it.
@@thorveim1174 And I also want to talk about Russian fines a little. The most common fine you'll ever see in Russia is less than $20. Not because it's a sufficient amount for anything, but because any attempt at incrising it was faced with backlash from people. When our fines were first introduced, they were pretty reasonable. For example, the fine for broken state property (like a bus station) was enough to repair it 2 or 3 times, and the criminal was also forced to pay for repair on top of that, so the damage was dealt with, the punishment was served, and the state gained extra money to spend if the vandal was not found. Now, because of inflation, in order to just change a broken glass, you need to penalize 5 vandals. But in many cases, the damage is dealt to seats or electronics in buses and trains, and repair costs are roughly 70-100 prosecuted and fined vandals. Of course, all the extra spending is now done via transfers from the federal budget. The same thing happened with fines targeted at car owners. What was earlier a good source of income for a federation subject has become a part of its budget so small that prosecuting a criminal now costs a few times more than a payment received from him as a fine.
And in that economy, the same voters who vote for a promise to not raise taxes or fines simultaneously demand the government to increase the salaries of public sector workers and to spend money on newer and better public transport and infrastructure. And politicians are promising them both, knowing that it is an impossible task they wouldn't even try to complete. But in the next elections, the same politicians are making the same promises, and people are still voting for them because others are not promising free good things, but are trying to steal our low taxes and freedom to ride a car 20 km/h above the speed limit.
Interesting video.
I love the saying that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
Monarchy is vastly superior.
@@dimajo3057Yeah, tell that to the subjects of Henry VIII.
Not just democracies. Civilizations fail...
Given enough time , any civilization will fail. Why they fail is quite interesting.
Because true democracy is direct. Indirect democracy is just demogagy. This knowledge was passed on to us by Aristotle yet today you won't find any true (direct) democracy outside of certain cantons in Switzerland.
A "direct democracy" (where the people must vote on specific issues themselves) requires that the populace becomes active participants in governmental decision making, on an individual policy basis. This active participation is necessary for any system to actually be "for the people, by the people".
Indirect "democracies" (where people elect politicians that make the decisions for them) are not true democracies, and they are not stable either. In an indirect "democracy", individual citizens do not get to make individual policy decisions, and therefore, they typically will not pay very close attention to and consider what actual policies might be good or bad. Such a system is not "by the people, for the people", but rather, is "by the politicians, for the politicians". Leaders of indirect democracies will try to tell you that true "direct democracies" are impossible, and they cannot work. They will say this, because they are perfectly happy being the ones in control, and they do not want to see the people having more power, and them less power. In reality, very few nations in the world have even tried implementing and "direct democracy" at all. It is thus wrong to say that "direct democracy" is impossible. One cannot make such a conclusion, due to lack of real world attempts at actually trying to make one work.
In reality, a real direct democracy has become vastly more practical to realize, with the invention of the internet. The internet enables rapid distribution of information to any quantity of citizens, it enables an electronic forum where large quantities of individual citizens can discuss issues with other citizens (without having to physically travel to try to meet in person), and it enables rapid electronic voting by any number of citizens, as frequently as necessary, on any and all issues. Prior to the invention of the internet, a true direct democracy would have been hard to realize. Today however, it is possible to implement a true direct democracy. Doing so would empower the people, while also encouraging them to become familiar with individual issues and the pros/cons associated with individual policy issues.
Governance should not be about politicians, their personalities, their popularity, and their willingness to rig elections. Governance is supposed to be about individual policy issues and decisions, and not about political parties, political parties ideologies, and politicians.
True governance is about policies, not politicians.
Bro ur so basic lol
@@Fritz_Schlunder Excellent description. Thank you.
@@Fritz_Schlunder "direct democracy" would be even worse lol, the common people don't know sh!t about how to run a country, they don't have the skills and knowledge needed to judge the long term or short term benefit of a policy, and people often ruled by their emotion and not logic, so even smart person can still oppose a good policy if it hurt their personal interest.
As a Chinese, I used to desperately crave for democracy, but as I slowly grew up, my thoughts evolved. Don't get me wrong, I am not against democracy. It's just that I've come to realize that there are a lot of people who don't deserve the right to vote, some of them are completely incapable of thinking, and worse, some of them have self-destructive tendencies, and all of these will be reflected in the vote. I don't like the fact that criticizing a leader can possibly land you in jail like in my country, but I also don't like the fact that extremists or fools can use democracy as a banner to disrupt other people's lives. I don't like the fact that accusing the government can get you muted like in my country, but I also don't like the fact that a lot of politicians in the West often spend more time blaming the opposition party than solving problems. I'm thinking now that maybe it's perhaps an inevitable destiny that all countries will eventually collapse, with or without democracy, and they will all come back in a new form.
The most important thing people need to remember is, a government that gives you everything, can also take everything away, as they most often do towards the end of the governments life cycle. Democracies, socialists, communist, societies all have that same problem in common.
Oh yes mister hisyorian, tell me more about the social democracies that took evrything from their people
@@lorisberendhuysen7015 I can list the countries that haven't done it yet, far easier than listing the ones that have, so if you need more information you might try a library, they have plenty of books that will enlighten you.
This is why universal suffrage is a bad idea. Full citizenship and the right to vote are too valuable to be given freely.
Service and investment in the state should be the cost of earning the right to help guide the ship.
It's not a right, it's a responsibility.
Like every responsibility twisted into a right, the results are disastrous.
The book "Starship Troopers" explains this very well and in detail
A simple way to implement that: Only allow people who pay taxes to vote.
@@fromthecheapseats7126Everyone pays taxes; income tax is only one form of tax. Indeed, many people who pay income tax are under 18.
I really don't want to be ruled by the bureaucracy, if that's what you mean. Remember Dr. Fauci?
Ancient Greeks used the term "idiotés" for those who weren't interested in public affairs, as they didn't know or care how political decisions affected their lives and those around them.
That Captain example has been hitting EXTREMELY close to home in the states for the last 40 years.
Yup. Ship of fools, country of 1D10T$. 🙄
except we are not a democracy. but the example is one that is OFTEN used and very accurate. with the 'posturing' that has been happening these last couple of decades for being 'politically correct' - we have begun our own demise - choosing 'leaders' based on qualifications OTHER THAN their ability to lead.
If don't vote captain, you ain't sailor
The ship analogy is a perfect description of modern american politics. Don't actually fix anything, just promise people the moon and give them the shoulder.
I think it's more that so many voters are partisan now, that the parties have a far lower need to care what they think. So, the captain may as well not be on the same boat at all.
Would you vote for someone who promised you very little or caused economic hardship in trying to fix things? Until society is about to collapse the answer is usually no. People get what they deserve which is the beauty of democracy. I would still rather trust the people to consider their own interests than have an elite who have their own agenda.
@@alanrobertson9790 this is a democracy, people don't get what they deserve. The point isn't the amount they promise it's how much they actually deliver. Seems like getting elected on the back of false promises and lies doesn't mean shit because no one cares anymore.
@@AMainProductions As well as the promises you usually have a record in office. Maybe people should vote on the latter not the former. A lot of people just vote for their team, be it red or blue. Bit like the youtube comments section.
@@alanrobertson9790 ha, ya got me there. People should really look at who they vote for instead of blindly writing down a name on a ballot.
The best ever piece of video
Monarchy/autocratic rule has worked for thousands of years. Yet somehow, we believed in this myth that Democracy is the best form of government
You could be arrested withut trial for such dissident political beliefs in an autocracy, so watch your mouth.
Exactly! We are constantly bombarded with the idea that democracy is fundamentally "better" yet we are never exactly told why
@@jimmyjohnson1870That's a very one sided absolutist assumption similar to the one that "democracy is the will if the people" and just like that its not really accurate
We also believe the myth that humans are smart and rational despite all the evidence being against it.
are you an idiot?
This is why freedom of information is one of the pilars of democracy, people need to know how and why the government is run a certain way.
Otherwise democracy turns into oclocracy, the rule of the people turns into the rule of the mob, and mobs are always emotional and illogical.
There are a lot of people who are well informed but ruled by emotion anyway.
@@neilreynolds3858 I suppose so. But an ignorant populace has no chance whatsoever.
information consumption !== wisdom gains
That's not a pillar of democracy. That doesn't even mean anything. Democracy is just everyone voting, for anything. Which has awful consequences soon enough.
You described my people better. It happened in my country last year and today.
‘Democracy is the worst form of government….except for all the others.’ Winston Churchhill
It's called a Demagogue. And it's not just a single person. It's their cult following as well.
Kind of like that fiasco in Jonestown many decades ago. The skilled people aren't able to participate. Because of aggression from the cult.
Regarding Democracy, Churchill once said it was the worst form of government ever devised... except for all the rest!
monarchy is objectively better than democracy
Nothing is eternal in this life, everything is approaching its distant doom
I’m Greek myself, and I always ask “has anyone ever stopped to think that pretty much everything we’re proud of came BEFORE we came up with Democracy?”
No? You lack understanding of your own country’s history, that’s sad
@@Weweta Not really. 95% of what everyone always brags about didn’t come under democracy. In most recent memory, things to be proud of, were;
1) to decline surrendering to the Italians in WWII and playing a crucial role in significantly delaying Hitler’s progress, which was under a dictatorship
2) the Greek revolution, which was under Ottoman rule and had a monarchy straight after
3) victory in the Balkan Wars, under monarchy
4) hosting the first modern Olympic Games, again, under monarchy
5) every modern building we’re proud of came during the monarchy, very few things we are actually proud of came out during democratic rule.
And that’s recent history, I’m not going to ancient history, because that’s really what everyone loves to bring up, and that’s all pre-democracy. I’m fairly knowledgeable about our history, I stand by what I said.
@@alexman378 Im very aware of the Greek monarchy, and you seem to be confusing things, the Greek monarchy wasant absolutist to start, but that’s irrelevant, Athens was democratic, Ancient Greece gave the Roman republic the framework to build western civilization, recent Greek history is irrelevant, Ancient Greece (invention of democracy and of western thinking) is
@@WewetaNot well aware enough, it seems. Name one point where I said anything about "absolutism".
Rome did invade, Rome did get a lot of inspiration from Greece, Rome wasn't a democracy, so I don't get what your point was.
Recent Greek history is relevant, in that it puts into perspective that not much has changed, but sure, let's go to the Ancient times. Before democracy, Greece managed to repel invasions such as the two Persian invasions. After it got established, we started the dumbest and most devastating war, the Peloponnesian War, which wrecked Greece. After that, the only invasions we managed to repel were with the Byzantine Empire, and that wasn't a democracy.
We did get Socrates, Phocion democratically executed, and Themistocles, Anaxagoras, Aristides, and Damon democratically exiled, though. Anaxagoras got exiled for saying the sun was a hot rock in the sky, and the moon reflected its light, and Damon was exiled for being associated with Pericles (father of democracy). Phidias died in prison.
So yes, I do know quite a bit about our history, and still, my point stands. We don't have much to be proud of under democracy, most of what we're proud of came when it wasn't a thing, both in ancient and recent history.
You make a salient point.
1:15 the "promises nice things" is probably the real culprit.
For example, the people elect the captain who promises 3 full meals a day, even though there is not enough food on the ship for 3 full meals before arriving at their destination, and of course eventually people are forced to either ration extremely harshly, or some are killed off for their opposition (basically Soviet Russia).
Whereas if they had elected the captain who would have limited it to 2 full meals a day, they would have arrived safely without extreme rationing or repression
Which is why democracy is stupid, people will always fall for the conforting lie instead of walking in righteousness. They don't want to think about if what was said was possible or not, they just want the confort.
Then that's the answer. Instead of promising 3 full meals, promise to arrive safely in exchange for 2 full meals a day.
Of course, convincing politicians to be that forthright is the real challenge.
@@DiogoJ1 convincing people that the politician promising 3 full meals is a charlatan is the real problem.
@@GameFuMaster Politicians should be honest as well. Both cause the problem.
People need to be taught that America was never intended to be a Direct Democracy but instead a Constitutional Republic, and the behaviors and responsibilities of the regular citizens and political citizens should reflect that fact.
Democracies have a meritocracy issue. If those involved have merit and are informed, democracy is great. Unfortunately, humanity is just too prone to stupidity and "feel good & comforting" lies. Maybe up the qualifications of who can be a representative.
My poor friend, EVERY type of government destroys itself. It's not the system, it's the natural human tendency for violence and chaos.
Then it's about finding the best type of government, which is certainly not democracy.
@@Nolord_ No Sir. It's about getting rid of the clowns you voted for when you find out they can't do the job anymore. THAT'S why democracy is, far and away, the single best form of government ever dreamt of by man. Because no other form gives you this right.
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" ~Winston Churchill
“A Democracy is only as effective as the people who participate in it”
When the masses are ignorant, "Democracy" will inevitably end up as a Totalitarian state by demagogues or whoever. They WILL take advantage of their unintelligence. This even includes Republics. The 1 fatal flaw freedom relies on
"The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson
Only way freedom can last, is education. For erryone to know their history and are made sure to never forget it
Even the US' Constitutional Republic can fail due to our apathy/ignorance of history and understanding of our own country. "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~ Plato. "Harmless men are NOT good men"
And that's why "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure" -Thomas Jefferson. An endless cycle of repeating the same lesson and to be reminded of eternal vigilance. Ouroboros
In the US, we have an Electoral College that protects us from Democracy. That protects the Individual from the Majority. We The People do not have a Democracy, the US is not a Democracy. Despite that, we still have corrupt Media/Demagogues swaying the public against their political opposition thru constant streams of fear and hate mongering
Totalitarian states / dictatorships fail by default bcuz they're unintelligent. Logic and Morality go hand in hand, therefore they cannot last lol
Not only democracy demands a level of compreehension of society that will be never achieved by the common man, but it also demands that every single common man has the best interest of society and not his own as his priority
This is why education is SO IMPORTANT! An educated electorate is a strong democracy. But those in power don't want to expand education services because they know it will make things more difficult for them.
IQ > reading books that don't improve IQ
@@doublesushi5990 IQ was a made up concept, there is no scientific way to measure intelligence. In fact, IQ has historically been used to justify eugenics.
@@doublesushi5990 IQ =/= Wisdom
Wishful thinking.
Look at Finland, the country with the best education system in the world. 80%-90% of Finns have been brainwashed into the recent lies of the government and the globalist propaganda.
Any CIA agent worth his salt will tell you how easy it is to manipulate, coerce an brainwash at least 90% of the world ´s population, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, education, background, etc.
@@prasoonjha1816 u r 100% correct.
this is why de-centralized democracies have worked best in the past. a federation forces differing groups to have to cooperate and work together to get stuff done. no one strongman or populist can come into power and sway the entire nation as in a de-centralized system that is unviable. it also allows for more freedom as local control is usually less corrupt in a high trust society. the bigger the political structure and the more complicated it is, the easier it is for money to be dealt under the table.
Hence the importance of having a Free Republic where every individual, no matter how small cannot be overwhelmed nor manipulated.
This is also why the Founding Fathers decided that we would not be a Democracy. They opted for a Republic instead.
This is pretty terrifying when you consider that the US is on the road towards this same outcome. At some point, the country stopped caring about if the average person can run the ship.
Oh the USA is way past that point. Letting 18 year old kids vote was downright bone headed. Allowing women to vote when they don't have to put skin in the game (they are not drafted in wars) was also idiotic. Same with letting non land owners vote. The founders had a lot of restrictions on who could participate and it wasn't just because they were bigoted.
@@Ziegfried82shUt uP bIgoT NaaTsee
@@Ziegfried82 Women literally had to bleed for you to be born and typing this garbage. I'm always perplexed why men are not ashamed of senseless wars brought upon women, but would shame women for not becoming culprits in senseless wars against men.
*You will never be the ruler if you can’t protect humanity from evil. You followed your own evil ways.*
The big problem is when residents with nothing at stake are allowed to vote. Whether a member of society's right to vote is based on one or some combination of land ownership, taxes paid, military time served, etc., there needs to be qualifications for the right to vote.
C'mon, tough military guys voting for economic or scientific policies. To me it's the same as giving a vote to everyone.
they would make the qualifications suited to those already in power so the could stay in power, and that is not to the advantage of the average person
@@septanine5936I disagree because the standards/qualifications to vote would be set so that the average person would be able to vote (let's say 80% of the present voters). The impulse and low information voter would go away.
The bigger problem is allowing the government to choose who chooses the government.
Is the current government liberal? Great, now you need a college degree to vote.
Is the current government conservative? Well, now you need military service to vote.
Is the current government dominated by unions? Fantastic, now a blue collar job is a must.
Is the current government dominated by the judiciary? Simple, now only lawyers can vote.
I would not trust the government with such power. And remember, is the current government is one of idiots, the electoral requirement will soon reflect that.
but said people can pay taxes??
Democracy by people works, but when corporations are treated as people it absolutely will fail.
Democracy in general doesn't work
It's not just corporations. An entire Media could subvert the public masses against their political opposition thru a constant stream of fear and hate mongering. That's all it'd take to control the citizenry. That's Democracy
In America, we have an Electoral College that protects us from Democracy. Democracy only paves the way towards Totalitarianism. It's inevitable
No. This is an example of how democracy isn't perfect.
Your saying Trump is incompetent. Agreed!
Voting should be a privilege, not a right.
When the USA was founded, that's exactly what it was and for good reason. The founders understood you needed skin in the game, and you need to understand the workings of the world to be a voter. Not just anyone with a pulse over 18 could vote. It simply doesn't make any sense. But after 2020 I wonder to myself...maybe the voting and politics are nothing more than a pro wrestling match and the vote doesn't actually matter?
@@Ziegfried82 Right on the nail.
Our rulers realized oppressing people leads to revolutions so they started using the low IQ of the masses against us.
Its a rigged game and I refuse to participate in a system where my Tax paying academically educated high IQ vote carries the same weight as some low iq welfare recipient.
The ship analogy couldn’t be more relevant today.
Alexander Tytler showed over 250 years ago, a 9 step process showing how a Democracy, as a permanent form of Government, was not possible.
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
--- I would say we are on step 7 give or take 1.
I think an important thing to mention is that greek democracy of the ancient world could hardly be called a democracy in the modern sense. That is people shouldn't think that it was like 21st century where general elections meant everyone got the right to vote and elect their leaders and that everyone is equal and has fundamental rights including the right to elect their leaders
Indeed. People back then weren't that gullible.
@@AzureSymbiote Its actually the exact opposite, they were more gullible , ignorant and uneducated than a average person today living in a developed country. I mean you can hardly be called a democracy in modern world when u have slavery and little to no rights for woman who were treated as property in ancient greece. Where there was no transparent rule of law, no independent media or any form of media
"It is the function of mass agitation to exploit all the grievances, hopes, aspirations, prejudices, fears, and ideals of all the special groups that make up our society, social, religious, economic, racial, and political. Stir them up. Set one against the other. Divide and conquer. That’s the way to soften up a democracy.”― J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried" -Winston Churchill
Yea... 🇸🇪 is fast become a Caliphate and as a pragmatic anarchist I'm not looking forward to it.
Hierarchy is indispensable. Democracy is anti-hierarchical.
Democracy is VERY hierachical. So called leaders at the top, helpless citizens at the bottom, boot lickers somewhere in between.
and now, look what happened. thanks a lot american voters. you played yourselves.
The British should've never gave us independence...
@@insidious7329 i hate to say it but... yeah. sure, we'll have to pay bigger taxes but at least we wouldn't deal with these elections.
I envy your countries, democracy is working because all your people are smart as heck.
Problem with boat analogy is, in a democracy the leaders will appoint the relevant person to take the job, in this case the captain, who intern will assign other roles. It will also happen naturally too, a person or a group will take leadership and do what is the best for everyones survival. The problem generally is with nepoticm and despotism, not democracy itself when the right people are not chosen for the right place based on their merit.
You’re completely mistaken, my friend. Coming from a country with its fair share of corrupt politicians, I can tell you that politicians are just as stupid as the people they represent.
Autocracies always fail, but when they do they are often followed by another autocracy. So no real change.
I am actively searching for different ways to invest or diversify my $400k portfolio so it can increase exponentially during this next bull run. Ideas?
I completely understand your concerns. Navigating the financial markets can be very challenging.
What I would suggest you do is seek the proper guidance of a professional advisor that can manage your portfolios the right way
You’re right Darren. I have been working with a seasoned professional advisor for the past eight months now, and it’s been a life glorious experience financially. Made over six figures this few months.
His full name is Kurt Bastian Vogel
He’s the licensed fiduciary I work with. Just look his names up on your search engines and you’ll get the necessary details you need to set up an appointment with him. Cheers!
Excellent thorough brief summary
Way to go
Populism and democracy are good friends
So that's why education is one of the most important pillars for democracy
And also his great weakneses. You control education and you can do wathever you plaises. And Populism + democracy usually is a dangerous cócktel that end with an authoritarian govenment, usually communist, but also right-handed too.
Landowner, business owner, parent, civil servant. These are the people that have any real stake in the future.
“It’s only as effective as the people who participate in it.”
We’re doomed.
More of a history lesson than a deep dive into democracy but I still enjoyed the video.
A bit of a cope out there,cause Plato doesn't try to salvage Democracy as implied here,by telling people to just become better so that Democracy gets better as well,he advocates for a Philosopher Kings,he's for a Monarchy.