re: Is there a worse form of government than democracy?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Democracy is where the wolves and sheep decide what’s for dinner.

Democracy does suck.

Constitutional republicanism on the other hand, is awesome.

quote:

---

More of what we earn today goes to the federal government than what we were paying to the crown when we rebelled.

---

Yep, and we need to do something about that.

quote:

---

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.

---

100% agree

quote:

---

Understanding our form of government is one that congressional representation is elected by we the people..... The responsibility our federal government is the responsibility of we the people who have voted in those representing us.

---

Representatives have delegated all of their power to the “expert” class to do as they see fit. And by extension the only real power they continue to hold is the power of the purse, which has become more or less automatic.
Do you feel represented? Does your congressman or senator listen to anyone?

quote:

---

I think a monarchy would probably preferable to a system where the only requirement to have a voice in the direction of the country is merely existing.

---

I point this out to atheists all the time.

Atheists have no basis for their morality other than simple personal preference, whether that personal preference be individual or collective.

They always try to act as though "human flourishing" is sufficient as a baseline moral foundation, (even though it itself is a completely random standard), yet they don't want to deal with inconvenient facts like democracy being something that we hold up as being a highest ideal, yet it really isn't the best pathway to human flourishing.

A benevolent dictatorship with a constitution that places limits on government encroachment of outlined citizen's rights as well as limits on the dictator's ability to enrich himself off the taxpayers is clearly far more efficient and less likely to pursue frivolous and/or absurd distractions.

And remember, the founders realized this too. They never envisioned going to Wal-Mart, looking around at all of the shining examples of the Great Unwashed, and giving those people a say in influencing the government.

The country was conceived as a republic, but voting rights weren't supposed to be extended to anyone over a certain age who could fog a mirror. There were supposed to be filters to ensure that only serious adults who had skin in the game, so to speak, got to exert that influence.

The type of democracy we have devolved to is folly and guaranteed to fail.

It's the reason that we will not control spending. It's the reason that nothing will ever be done about SS/Medicare. We will simply ignore it until the bubble bursts and we go over the cliff financially.

In a democracy, the elected officials can always hide behind the majority.

“Mob rule” in effect. The Founders feared and loathed a purely democratic government and limited such via the Constitution. Albeit they knew that such would only work for “a moral and religious “ citizenry. The subjective debate and struggle for what constitutes religion and morality is in full swing. Likely to get painful for all at some point.

quote:

---

The problem today is the same shell of a system has been running on autopilot more or less with little fiefdoms, and perverse incentives have corrupted everything to the core so that nothing can be accomplished.

---

Fair enough.

It's a different dynamic when you have an organized agency of people who will prioritize the agency's best interests.

The idea the FFs were working with had to do with individuals, not agencies.

Great post, well thought out. Why do you think a monarchy is the best form of government? This is not a gotcha post or anything, I’m just interested to hear your thoughts on it