Is there a worse form of government than democracy?

Someone's a Hoppe fan.

I would also argue that motivations between monarchs and entrenched politicians to continue the status quo are not dissimilar. They both desire wealth, power, and prestige for themselves and their progeny. At least you [ideally] have influence in a democracy.

And, dictatorships masquerading as communist utopias, like the DPRK, are axiomatically worse forms of government.

Yeah literally everything else so far blows arse in comparison. We have never seen the average person have it so good.

quote:

---

benign despot has always been viewed as the most superior form of govt

---

Yes. But the rub is you never know if the next one will be so benign, and have zero recourse, short of revolution, if not.

quote:

---

To be clear, so I can be precise with my responses: are you suggesting that being ruled by a king is superior to our current form of government?

---

Nah not really, just a thought experiment really and suggesting that we should do something about our voting restrictions.

You always have the Haves and the Have Nots. At least in a Western Democracy the Have Nots can still have a decent standard of living compared to the Third World. As long as you have food, shelter, laws, and some type of health care. You are doing better than people who don't have those basic needs fullfilled.

Interesting to see this thread here.

If you distilled each of the classic forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy) down to its pure and best form, monarchy is obviously the best, and that shouldn’t be controversial either.

However, the best government is suited to the people it rules. Each form can be more or less appropriate depending on who the people are that it governs. When America was founded, I think the federal system with democratically elected representatives was the natural and correct system which organically arose from the circumstances.

The problem today is multifaceted. First, the system which was initially set up has been diluted substantially over time. Universal suffrage was never meant to be the law of the land for the voting of representatives, and the founders would have considered it lunacy for this to be so. Everyone knows it’s bad, everyone can see that not everyone deserves a vote, but we’ve been so conditioned into this liberal hyper individualist form of thinking no one has the gumption to call it out for the disaster that it is.

Second, people have been brainwashed into not even properly understanding what the current system actually is. It’s hard to see, because technically it has more “democracy” than the founding, but the expansion of suffrage was and always has been a cynical tool for bolstering oligarchy. That is what our current system is, oligarchy. It doesn’t work like the constitution says, unelected bureaucrats and agencies control everything we do, along with a Congress with outrageous incumbency rates (due to cynical manipulation of the underclass voting as mentioned earlier). FDR created a new form of government that is nothing like what the constitution says it is. And a creative theater keeps everyone pretending it is what we think it is supposed to be.

Now we get to today, with a people unfit to rule themselves and alienated from their own society. I think it is inevitable a Caesar figure comes to rule over a shattered and inept republic just as happened in Rome, the question is when. A true hierarchical monarchy would not work here, because it requires an organic tradition that the population respects, and that would be impossible to achieve.

Socialism and Communism in all its iterations is worse than Democracy. Democracies work great in homogenous countries. A Nationalist Republic is the best path forward for America.

quote:

---

Monarchs at least had a vested interest in the success of the country over the long run.

---

Tell that to the Romanovs.