well done, well presented, most people in your audience and most sincerely self taught and educated people know the problems of democracy. the real question NOW is whether corrupted present democracy is so much of a danger that we need to toss it off and replace it with an autocracy. Our present democracy is a train bringing the system towards a certain type of totalitarianism. if you want off that certain type of totalitarianism in our present and future, it begs the question, what kind do you want to trade it for? systems , however collapse when they can no longer be sustained, not usually because one small group wants to subvert the train. sustained means, food in the mouths of the many, food and distractions. and yet, with drugs, endless entertainments and gambling addictions, the amount of food can be lessened in quality and quantity to the point where people will eat bugs, one another, and then also starve, and yet not rebel. ---this totalitarianism is post industrial post telecommunications---and can be sustained for a long long time. so who would in their own sanity fight against this democracy in the name of a better future, when it is a suicidal task. the system will inevitably collapse in mass death and destruction----when it runs its long and technologically insulated course. modern technology will make possible sustained totalitarianism for far far longer than ever thought possible. perhaps that is the only sane path towards taking mutually assured nuclear annihilation off the potential scenarios of our future. or what we see as a path towards 'global government' of one type or another in our collective future. or perhaps, that is just the excuse of those who seek to dominate....
Title: Why Democracy Leads to Tyranny In this thought-provoking video, the Academy of Ideas delves into the inherent flaws of modern democracy and its unintended consequences. While democracy is often hailed as the pinnacle of political organization, it is essential to critically examine its shortcomings and the potential dangers it poses. 1. The Sacred Dogma of Democracy: • Just as religious dogmas were once elevated to a sacred status, today, the dogma of the democratic state holds a similar position. Questioning the infallibility of democracy is akin to blasphemy. • However, just as religious dogmas sometimes masked the power of the Church, democracy can serve as a veil behind which politicians and bureaucrats enrich themselves while imposing their vision on society. 2. The Fatal Flaws of Modern Democracy: • Soft Totalitarianism: Instead of promoting social flourishing, modern democracy has given rise to a form of soft totalitarianism. The illusion of rule by the people conceals the reality of politicians and bureaucrats wielding power over us. • Destruction of Institutions: Democracy continually produces governments that undermine essential institutions. From families to schooling, media, free markets, sound money, and the rule of law, politicians and bureaucrats corrupt or destroy these pillars of a free society. • Power’s Soil: Conceived as a foundation for liberty, modern democracy paradoxically provides fertile soil for power to spread itself across the social field. 3. Bertrand de Jouvenel’s Insight: • Bertrand de Jouvenel astutely observed that democracy, born to stand as a bulwark against power, ultimately facilitates its expansion. The very system designed to protect us becomes an unwitting accomplice in our subjugation. 4. The Necessary Institutions for Freedom: • A truly free and prosperous society requires several critical institutions: - Free Markets: The engine of economic growth and individual prosperity. - Division of Labor: Essential for specialization and efficiency. - Rule of Law: Promotes order, trust, and stability. - Strong Families: The bedrock of social cohesion. - Sound Money: Protects against inflation and economic instability. - Education (Not Indoctrination): A school system that genuinely educates. - Truth-Seeking Media: A robust media that pursues truth rather than propaganda. 5. Questioning Democracy’s Value: • If democracy consistently produces governments that undermine these institutions, we must reevaluate its worth. Is it truly conducive to social harmony, or does it inadvertently lead to tyranny? • Across the globe, many democracies are failing to preserve these vital institutions, raising legitimate concerns about the value of democracy itself. In conclusion, the Academy of Ideas challenges us to critically examine the dogma of democracy, recognizing that blind faith in any system can obscure its flaws. By doing so, we can engage in meaningful discussions about how to create a more just and flourishing society, regardless of the prevailing political ideology.
Frank Zappa Quote; "The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
I hope it will! And I'm sure it will. Tyranny in antiquity meant that a popular powerful guy took power from the corrupt incompetent oligarchs. It most often improved society a great deal. And established the natural ideal of inherited absolute monarchy for generations.@@alka9scottus
The Constitution is a piece of paper. Yes a moral society is the ONLY THING keeping us safe. In REALITY. it's been a long time in the making. The drug war was truly the nail in the coffin imo. The beginning was occupational licensing and regulations on businesses and zoning etc
Right. Carlin couldn't have quoted anyone. He was so smart and wrote so many well loved novels like "you've never seen someone taking a sht while running at full speed" truly genius and not just an edgelord
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that… and… Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. George Carlin There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Mark Twain
Yep, America was never supposed to be a democracy. It was founded as a constitutional republic. There is a great video from the 50's or 60's about this which can be easily found on yt by searching "America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy."
Democracy is the rule of majority ,BUT majority can be easily manipulated and influenced by the medium , and the medium is owned by a minority , so democracy is the rule of a minority .
Yeah, there is a great book called Protagoras, by Daniel Silvermintz, about the Ancient Greek rhetorician (man is the measure of all things), and reading that book makes clear that Democracy is really the rule of persuasive rhetoricians.
@@WillyEckaslikeThree, four, five parties wouldn't help. How often does it happen that you vote for a candidate, which is subsequently elected, that the elected actually fulfills his promises? I believe the size of the government/society is the ultimate reason democracy fails. Above a particular size, it becomes impossible for an elected individual to move away from the status quo, despite having good intentions regardless of the theoretical power of the position, even the president of United States is unlikely to make meaningful positive changes. There will simply be too many which have grown into "their niche" in the system which will not support the change, these are elected officials which can not simply be replaced, and certainly won't vote favorably on any bill/law/appointment which could negatively impact their personal position regardless of the relative impact on the society. In this scenario, most people will likely come to the conclusion that the reasonable thing to do, is simply steal as much as they can and blend in with the crowd..
This is why they took logic and rhetoric out of public school education and now only teach only enough grammar so that people can read the propaganda without being able to notice the manipulation. They want us all to have just enough education to be able to follow orders, no more. 😅
In an autocracy, one hateful ignorant person decides how you get to live your life. In a democracy, millions of hateful ignorant people decide how you get to live your life.
@@Max.J.H.democracy is based on the interests of the people in it. If they are taught to be narcissistic and financially focused, then it will be projected. The same is true for hate of free speech and values and people.
@@Max.J.H. it based on popularity and the basis of letting people that virtually have no idea how things work to decide who doing what. No ruling system is flawless. Why do you have a doctor instead of a board of 1000 people trying to cure you and decide what to do with your body. Resources and knowledge are not evenly distributed by nature, society and biology. It’s idealism vs pragmatism.
I see your post, because it got likes and not hided by algorithm. That what makes democracy different from other systems - you actually can be heard and influence people.
Because those lists get shared so often the algorithm labeled it as spam. Like intended. If you could go back in time a decade or so and read the weekly posts on some conspiracy forum you would shit your pants. We got warned about encroaching censorship so many times we ignored it like an ad for war thunder.
This is the one thing that could make a difference. If people would brave up and stop paying taxes. Every single transaction gives a cut to the gov then by threat of kidnapping they get you to voluntarily give them your income.
@@trippsseywhy don’t you contact me and let’s set up an underground organisation after I finish my final exams and let’s plan to usurp the government and establish a constitution denotin the autonomy of community councils as supreme over state authority.
Voting does things just beyond the presidential election, mayors, and such. I worked on one campaign that got more funding for parks in my city through a local vote. So I know I've done something, but most politics is nebulous.
@@sunphoenix1231 yeah, not trying to discount that. It can work at a small scale, but it can also be a mental trap where you think of voting as the best or only way to solve problems; and of course, voting only works if you're given something good to vote for.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Beware of controlling language. Use Common Sense. Stand Up and Speak Up and say No! to coercive language especially when the language makes slippery assumptions.
It seems that the two herds of voters WANT controlling language - That is, language that they approve of and will, by their perception, control the others who are not a part of their political tribe.
Aye I also believe fundamental concepts: Good faith Mutual respect Honestly Discipline Courage Training Exercise Healthy diet Productive work Personal responsibility Wisdom ... And a heterodox perspective is superior to enforced unification, aka authoritarian totalitarianism. Then again I am anarchosyndicalist by birth. It's what makes inherent sense for me.
“I care not who controls a nation’s political affairs, so long as I control her currency.” - Mayer Amschel Rothschild It does not matter for whom you vote for as long as the banking elite is allowed to pull the strings...👈😔
@@RoryMarteltruth hurts when power is corrupted. they did well for themselves but its passed time to share the burden of power and the struggle that comes with it.
Here in the UK, we don't live in a 'democracy', but in a constantly shifting unwritten Constitutional monarchy. Once in, all UKMPs swear allegiance only to HRHKC, not the electorate. Ephesians 6:12.
@bjorntorlarsson The Soviet Union placed names on their ballots, and the people were required to vote "yes." There were punitive measures against people who stayed home. Santa Claus
@@eliasmontanez Today's education is a poor example of a liberal arts program. It has become indoctrination, carefully crafted by nefarious professors and social theorists. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity posits the idea that education is no barrier to stupidity. Neither is ethnicity, or social status. Some of the strupidest things and statements ever to see the light of day have come from highly educated people - many in Academia who have never had to punch a clock or run a simple coffee stand. Conversely, some of the most brilliant things have come from people who lived 250 years ago - such as the American Founders, most of them only moderately educated, who did indeed act to suppress democracy in favor of a republic. And thier sources of knowledge went back 200 to 1700 years before they were born - much of it written in Latin and Greek.
@@eliasmontanez Seems so simple doesn’t it? Yet, politicians have been cutting education budgets for fifty+ years. Knowledge is power and they can’t give away too much power.
One thing this video fails to do is mention that " the people" are just as corruptible and have just as much tendency toward cruelty , brutality, and authoritarianism as any one person in power. Too many people want to speak of the greater population in terms of goodness , decency, and being the "victims" of despots, when usually the despots are created by the very people who become their victims.
Virtue is used against people in this game. You're a bad person if you believe this you're a good person if you accept this etc. The people are more apathetic than dangerous. They take nothing into their own hand because of the victim savior complex. They're jaded. It's the government's responsibility because we pay them because they promised because I had to do this immoral thing I didn't object to so they better take care of everything etc
I believe that two things create monsters and they are too much hardship and not enough hardship. Most people are good because they have been on both sides of this fence at one time or another. Empathy is highly underrated in most modern societies.
John Adams was speaking against pure democracy (mob rule), as opposed to and as an argument in favor of a Constitutional democratic republic. The key to a functional CDR - that is to say one that protects individual liberty and allows society to remain free and to flourish - is an educated, knowledgeable, and involved citizenry willing and capable of keeping its elected officials in line and accountable. This is precisely what has gone awry in the United States.
That idea works in the 1700 prior to the existence of mass media. Today...... Even our opinion are a product of the mass media until you are old enough or smart enough to realise it. By then....... Its no longer matter because you will also realize that it is just human nature.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." -Alexander Fraser Tytler
sorry, I don´t speak English very well, and the translation were confusing. Could you explain the last part? "they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
@@paulopaniago5972 It means they can vote themselves [largesse = huge amounts of money, perks, benefits] by voting for the party that has no hesitations taxing and printing the country into oblivion.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
I searched the US declaration of independence, Constitution and bill of rights. There isn't one reference of "democracy." Only Constitutional Republic. We simply elect officials with a combination of democratic vote and an electoral college. The American people must wake up and enforce what was set up for us. Also, end the fed.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Indeed, his is one of my most recommended sources, too, when it comes to my pet peeve … which is seeing and hearing people, especially those on our side of freedom-loving aisle, talking about “… preserving and protecting and upholding democracy…” - .. by the way, along with the small classic booklet by FBastiat “ The Law” !
Born and lived my whole life in Canada, 5-plus decades. I would say that Canada (and Canadians) is a quintessential example of what's being discussed in this video.
You guys suffered from too much hubris and complacency. I say that as an American you guys looked down your nose on my whole life. Ridiculing our 2nd amendment, which is the only reason the tyranny here is not as bad s Canada or the UK or Australia/NZ. Ridiculing Americans for other reasons with unfounded smugness. Now you have communist dictator Trudeau.
It's simple. To compete in politics you've got to have a huge campaign funding. To have the money you have to please the ones who gave it to you. Hence, the rich control politics.
@@beingsshepherd Trump is a billioneer, much like Bloomberg he didin't need much funding, if ever. That's my point. The current form of democracy is the ruling of the rich, not the people. Want a real democracy? Ban political ads and campaigns. Interviews and debates on national TV should be enough for the people to decide. It's bad enough that the ultra rich own the media, i.e. public perception, which is another blow to any "democracy". If the European enlightenment required speration of church and state, the coming enlightement should be the seperation of billioneers and state.
@@beingsshepherd Trump's billionaire status allowed him to self-fund his campaigns, much like Bloomerg. This reveals a dangerous flaw in our system: privately funded campaigns give the wealthy undue control over the political process. There shiukd publicly funded debates and interviews on national television would reduce this influence. The wealthy already dominate public opinion through the media; we cannot let them control our elections as well.
… and, the person must have the desire to rule, the ability to promise lots to the people even if not able to fulfill the promises later, possibly even the willingness to use deception in order to win the campaign, and the willingness to accept that the use force will be used once he is in a positive of authority to write laws that he will want to be followed - … all personality traits that - in the majority of cases- do not make a for a live-and-let-live- peaceful- honest- well meaning human being -
The rich have ALWAYS controlled things. Always. In every form of government, all through history, the rich have had their hand in how things are run. It only differs in degree. But honestly why wouldn't they? If I had millions of dollars and could influence how things were done in my city, I'd be a fool not to.
Aristocracy: The sheep are ruled by a small group of powerful wolves. Monarchy: The sheep are under controlled by a wolf. Democracy: A wolf in sheep's clothing rules the sheep.
Here is my take: corruption always find its way and no system is immune to it. Western democracy tends to have this self-image of having "check and balances" as opposed to so-called dictatorships. This self-image then becomes a false sense of security that the system has a natural ability to self-correct. However, it is when the people relent, corruptions seep through. To fix this, the people have to fight back and you can't expect those in power to give you freedom for free.
@@anomilumiimulimona2924 The way I could approach it is by suppressing anything related to fear, evil and corruption. As well as anything relating to the seven deadly sins.
@@anomilumiimulimona2924you think the banks and the agencies other reasons that America is the currency it is no it is everyone's fault from the lowest man to the highest person the whole American society has morphed and shaped how it's seen how it's act
Awesome video! I'm a high school civics teacher who explains this and I will use this video in the future to help. It is so timely as politicians complain that Our "Democracy" is at risk. They have no idea that we are a "Republic". A democracy is the passage toward tyranny. Our founders knew this.
_Freedumbs_ and _Dumbocracy_ are the corner stones of this system that dragged us into world wars to defend its lies and propagate its subversion, and the same system that will withhold support in the name of market index. They are buzzwords to trigger ingroomed traumas to immunize the group against contrary thoughts and ideas, like a drunk to the bottle. The modern world is Pavlov's Democracy. This is why they love to go after children, to get them hooked and gutted young, before they spawn. To injure them so deeply to the 'false mask of freedom'. If they only think as this system grooms them, they will only fight as the system can exploit in its game. Each successive generation will be worse and worse off until none remember any different. As such, it is less the system and more the stock that is critical. The tyrant in itself is only seen as all negative due to black legend spread by democracies to diminish cohesions long held by tribes, and install the strings of democracy. Democratics will scream about tyrants doing something, while the democratics reach into pockets from behind and hide from repercussion. Is it not a supreme irony that Tyr, who bound the wolf [of greed] and brought us law, is so hated now in a time of rampant mammon worship and the ill effects that come from the erosion of adherence to eternal law?
They're saying the same in Europe right now, the "Far-Right" results in the elections are proof the people see through the lies and now the people currently in power are saying "Democracy is at risk". Yes it is at risk, but not because of the far right gaining voters and support, but because those in power don't want to lose their power so they'll find a way to subvert Democracy for their own gains.
I think the politicians who keep saying democracy are fully aware of what they are saying! They know if you keep saying it over and over the people, dumbed down for public schools with not have a clue and believe we are a democracy! It's part of the marxist revolution being pushed across the US now!
I just want to thank you for all you do. The content you put out is by far the most sensible, logical, and rational guidance I've ever found since the advent of the internet. It's uncommon to find someone who understands that philosophy and general semantics are the simplest things but are of critical importance as the fundamental base upon which civilization should be founded. These ideals were known and revered thousands of years ago and should have become more solidified today, but instead we seem to be devolving further away from it. It's good to known I'm not the last of my kind.
My fav quote: "If Democracy cannot protect us from the rise of a soft totalitarianism, then democracy, as currently practiced, is a failed institution and alternative forms of political organizations must be explored and openly debated." - Thank you for that unique open perspective. Makes us ask the important questions.
why does organization have to be political? I guess it depends on what you mean by political. A voluntarist society would be ideal but I don't know if it's possible right now.
@@bobleglob162 Bob, It's the norm. Most transactions and relationships between individuals are voluntary. It's only because so many accept (never question) the authority of the few, that significant levers of power have been institutionalized.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
democracy is a form of socialism, and it leads to tyranny, as with any socialist regimen. Only private property based systems can provide voluntary transactions and liberty.
@@debanydoombringer1385if you can keep it refers to a constitutional republic, not a democracy. A contractually bound government can be kept in check, mob rule cannot. Democracy always leads to tyrrany no matter how good intentioned the people who vote are. Ruling over another's life is by its very essence tyrranical in nature.
Popular sovereignty in our formal democratic systems is an illusion. If my only choices are between the Raytheon candidate and the Boeing candidate, do I have a choice? If an independent candidate wins and is punished via process in kangaroo courts, did my vote have any impact? If my taxes being automatically subtracted from my paycheck is sold to me as "convenient," am I truly free? Sovereignty is individual, and manifests only insofar as we can blissfully ignore these goings-on with no impact to ourselves. This is infringed on further and further each day.
You can become a candidate yourself! Who was the first presidential candidate in the USA? Where did he come from? Why can't the people repeat that today when they are free to do so without fighting a war with some colonial master power. Because they don't care! It's the voters' own fault.
That is up to the voters. You claim that Kim Jong Un has no responsibility at all for the situation in North Korea. That is odd, I think. But there you are! You claim that the voter has no responsibility for how he personally is governing his society. Your point is that Democracy is when it is someone else's fault, whatever the guy in charge does. That's a mental coping mechanism that is lethal. @@DxV04
You know why voters don't care? Because America kicks ass. We police the globe. We influence culture with our media. We sht more nutrients than most people eat in gold bricks in porcelain thrones😂. Life is so good that we have to make up problems or pretend that some other foreign problem is our problem. Aww you're stuck with Raytheon and Boeing? How terrible. Sure sucks we aren't stuck with Polpot or Mao, killing hundreds of millions of us on a power trip. Instead we have "oh no, all that free stimulus money I threw away is actually affecting the price we pay for things? That's the bad orange's and the sleeping creepy's fault, nit mine for blowing that money on worthless crap"
When I talk to my friends and relatives about corporate fascism and social Marxism, they look at me like I am from Mars. When greater minds than mine, past and present, "get it", I feel vindicated. Small comfort, I know.
Wow! Are you from Mars!? I think Elon Musk for sure would be interested in talking with you. Please just do not discourage him too much, I'm looking forward to his adventures over there. I heard that an indoors Summer vacation can almost be somewhat nice there in some deep crater.
This is why i always chuckle when people say they want to abolish the electoral college. It's literally one of the only things holding back mobs of sheep from being easily ruled by media buzzwords
All “isms” in this realm revert back to feudalism. I don’t care whether it’s capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. The result will always be a few powerful “elites” owning everything and the vast majority are very poor. Democracy is just these same “elites” using the vote of the majority of useful idiots to bludgeon the minority into submission and to create feudal serfdoms. One might argue that feudalism was a bit more humane, because at least you were born onto land in generations where you always had a place to live. Modern governments have create numerous homeless people, because the rich no longer even have the requirement to house their slaves.
Remove _”I don’t care”_ and copy that text into your notes. It’s a short, powerfully to the point, thought provoking spill that’s worthy of reposting where you see fit. That said, I am attempting to debunk it out of fear.
True, i wish more people realised this. Every system is doomed to fail via human corruption. I see many people these days praising socialism as the answer, ignorant to the fact that many people in the past pushed the same idea and instead of a utopia, were given human atrocities such as in cambodia, soviet russia and maos regime. Whenever politics are discussed or promoted, human corruption should always be discussed along side it
Socialism is the collective control of the means of production, and communism is a state less classless moneyless society there is no space for elites in any actually egalitarian society
Easy. It's more fair in feudalism to be born privileged, but not when you consider it was the privilege of being taxed indiscriminately at whim of whoever controls the feifdom, along with their ruler, and you are subject to marauding bandits with no authority to hold them back from having their way with your foodstuffs, wife, daughter, and livestock. There is no advocacy if you encounter strife. No army holds neighboring countries at bay. You could easily become a human sacrifice. Nothing stops you from being chained to a millstone for your entire life. Nobody educates people. No great advancements are created. You likely died at birth or your mom did. You probably don't have any capacity to see a doctor aside from a crazy old person who is convinced you need to mix cow poop, dirt, goat blood, and eel slime in a bowl and drink it after 2 days to cure a sore tooth. Or there's capitalism where you can buy some aspirin, work hard, buy land, build a house, and pads it on to your kid. Or you can live like a business some bushes in a park. Or you can move to the middle of nowhere and recreate the feudalism life. Or you can just practice what you are good at and do whatever you want that doesn't directly hurt someone else. So hard to debunk, wow
@@pituguli5816 I have a question, what should Donald Trump's real job be if he becomes president, should he be allowed to make day to day decisions about his businesses and then after that is done, go home to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and act as President of the United States?
@@pituguli5816 Well that's the thing being president leaves a lot of opportunity for making money, mostly illicit, I think Joe Biden has taken advantage of this more than Trump. So either you are a billionaire and what you do as President of the United States could benefit your business, or you are not a billionaire and what you do as President of the United States could benefit someone else's business, and that someone else usually is happy to share the wealth with a president who benefitted his business, I mean that is just an investment in effect! So neither one of these two situations is particularly good. Which would you rather have, a billionaire making more money while being president, or someone who is not a billionaire that takes bribes and kickbacks from billionaires for doing something beneficial to their businesses?
No i needs to be a carrer, it must be a servant of the state, beeing compensared only by the state. On investment allowed, no high paying Bord positions in companys afterwards allowed. No rich people beeing allowed. Yoz need to ban all people and ways of how the Office is exploited for Personal gain
A big part of the problem in modern democracies is the ‘first past the post’ and thereby ‘winner takes all’ voting system. In these systems new, smaller parties struggle to gain a toehold and political reform becomes impossible and the complacent encumbents remain entrenched in power.
You think thats bad ? Try the "preferential" system whereby parties "give" the losing votes they receive FROM US ,to a party aligned to their political vagueiaries (faux-ideology). Thereby "ganging up "on ,say a 49% of the vote party when there are 5 or 6 candidates. A clear case of divide an conquer , from the voter's perspective and a betrayal of the people's confidence. As corrupt as a rotting carcass !
@@tompc17 'Anarchism', properly understood, is the highest measure of personal autonomy. It doesn't prevent voluntary association if someone desires it, but it does prevent a 'tyranny of the masses' from oppressing and imposing it's will upon the individual.
Liberty is acting like BLM protesters when you don't get your way, they set you up to look just as foolish as they do which only empowers the corrupt police state further.
@@aaronl2130 Alexander Fraser Tytler- "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." is another strong contender.
Whereas representative democracy is 100 sheep picking which of 2 wolves gets to decide what's for dinner, and being told that the winning wolf's decision was the will of the sheep.
You so eloquently speak the thoughts of my mind. I've been contemplating society since I was 18 years old, I'm now 53. I speak my mind to the sheep, I share your videos, I share screen shots of quotes, I do what I can to spread knowledge.
The sheep? You mean you post on Facebook to accounts nobody uses and nobody cares because you don't have an original thought and are posting huge loads of bs, like this.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
@@vladdumitrica849 democracy is tyranny by the people, as in, 50.1% can vote to limit the 49.9%. Democracy sucks! Socialism sucks. Communism sucks. America is the standard, but the people let it be subverted. We were brainwashed over the decades, real leaders were removed, etc.
Solution: outlaw political parties. Make lobbying illegal. Put people in congressional seats like they do a jury where only qualified candidates get selected through a lottery, then have to be questioned and confirmed only if they have unbiased beliefs that align with the constitution, they receive a fair salary equivalent to the national average, and only serve 1 term.
@@Powwer69 Congress wrote the Constitution and made itself the most power branch when it is united. It can impeach Justices and the President but a President and the courts can not touch sitting Congressmen without tacit Congressional approval.
@@Powwer69then that isn’t gonna work, our system of checks and balances already failed and it would again. No system of government or societal structure (or lack thereof) actually can function, it’s just a matter of figuring out which system a society needs at a given time and moving in that direction. In America, our populace has become stupid and disconnected from reality by the design of our state owned education system, so moving away from democracy might help (but the people in power right now all suck, so idk we might just be cooked)
There is no form of government which, by its nature, can keep jackasses from trying to game the system. The problem is not the form of government, it's that the jackasses will always be around, & that most of the time, our only choice will be between jackasses. tavi.
The mentality that we should use force against others because we think they should live a certain way is a big problem. The lack of faith in natural divine order and law is a big problem. The fact people are comfortable with allowing complete strangers be responsible for their lives is another issue
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 It does. Government can use violence against you and it's "OK" while anyone else would get prosecuted for using violence against you.
When I watched this I felt that I really needed to see it. I will post this link whenever I have an opportunity. This is the best video I have watched on that particular topic! Subbed off course!
And then he proceeded to prove his point by implementing policies and making decisions that are the root causes of the problems that the USA is facing today! Ronald Reagan's government created a massive number of l9ong lasting problems!
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre a decentralized system that allows and enables the people to "govern" themselves without the oppression that government and capitalism creates. True anarchy.
@@anarcho-savagery2097 anarchy and a lack of capitalism or governing? Three scenarios 1) your neighbor is a 7 foot tall muscle bound well armed thief. He steals all your food and tools. 2) a disease runs through your home 3) you have no skills related to acquiring food I'm picturing a post capitalist America with no government. There's no capital so trading, bartering, or owing anything as tit for tat, because those are capital. You and your family can rely on each other and govern your own house, but there is no system of governing beyond that. Is that what you consider anarchy, or am I wrong?
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre all of those scenarios happen in a capitalist state. And that's the whole point. The whole point is that small, decentralized communities will govern themselves without the need for a federalized government. There is no reason that if government and capitalism were eliminated, that they should be brought back.
@@anarcho-savagery2097 sure, I'm trying to go with you here, I just had those thoughts cross my mind immediately. And additionally, what stops a country as small as Luxembourg from conquering us? And what about a much less liberty minded country or even an organization like al ki duh? Or what if Xi gi ping decided he wants Anaricha (that would be a cool name for it) and treat us like all the non Han Chinese in his country? You know, not execute us, and the ones they miss, not kidnapp us and not send us to get re educated. I'm losing faith in this idea, I'm sorry. If you let us be called Anaricha, you may still have my support.
the visuals!!! nice job on collecting all the imagery!!! the points made are ultra on point too. bravo good sir ya just got a new sub! pleasure to be aboard
It's all perspective, right? I came to the U.S. legally 10 years ago with nothing. I have a pretty good 6-figure income, a wife, decent familial ties, working on kids. So I have the framework of the old American Dream. It isn't impossible, just hard.
@@adamm2091, legit. I am a born citizen, served my country, found hard times and ended up homeless and on the streets. Was able to climb my way out of it all. Now I own my home, have a business and have raised three amazing kids who are doing well. Unfortunately it’s getting harder and harder
I worked for Senator Mike Gravel and he was pushing for a constitutional amendment to allow citizens to use referendums when needed to put the elected representatives in check. I honestly think it takes a combination of both represenitive and direct democracy to get the best system. Direct democracy has problems, but acting like democratically picking individuals to make all our decisions for us and that this will give us the best non corruptible system makes no sense.
Democracy: The God That Failed should be required reading for political science majors. It is and imperfect but withering critique of the assumptions which undergird popular governments.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Great video. Would love to see a breakdown of corporations role in this as well. That's another tyrannical institution that has more power than the state and steers our democracy
Not to mention that, as Americas history has shown, even a constitutional Republic, which specifically has non-democratic elements built in to *restraint* the democratic ones, can be far too *easily* subverted into a pure democracy, which allows for *everything* you just described & invariably & inevitably devolves into authoritarianism; in sharp contrast to that, when you read the story of Domacles, you see the *true* nature of feudalism, contrary to pro-democracy propaganda, & end up understanding exactly *why* feudalism was humanitys favored government system throughout its history until *recently* . That's exactly why I'm all *for* a return to feudalism, with each state becoming its own independent kingdom; fun fact, the federal government was *supposed* to be subservient to the state governments that governed their own state *independently* , but the way our government's gone has *reversed* that. So each state becoming its own feudal kingdom would be much *closer* to what was *supposed* to happen under the Republic our country is *supposed* to be according to the Constitution.
A very large part of the problem is that we are waiting for someone to save us. Nobody will save us from these problems. They are reflections of the problems within ourselves that we refuse to even acknowledge, let alone try to address. Unless that changes this same cycle will continue until humanity itself falls.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
“Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.”
It isn't enough for you to begrudgingly engage with the state by choosing the lesser of the two evils. Propagandists constantly demand that you, "believe in democracy" as your highest ideal.
As my mother used to say"Anyone who wants to be President should automatically be disqualified from running because that is a sign they are a power hungry megalomaniac."
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
The problem is even if a new leader can somehow resist corruption, the conglomerate of rot in politics will go to work suppressing coercing or ultimately removing such a burden to their aims. It’s already happened a few times.
I am convinced that if a person is intellectually honest and logically consistent in exploring the concept of freedom, eventually one arrives at anarchy as the only possible conclusion. This channel has a fairly decent reach, i would love to see it go into this direction as well and help spread the message.
@@maurices5954 and it will devolve back into a form of government as people begin to develop systems the more complex they get you are gonna have to have people manage them, still gonna be crime gonna need law and a way to deal with criminals or outside threats so it will just go back to councils and eventually a form of tribalism. It won't work cause for it to work you have to change the minds of the masses and just basic human instinct it is just another utopian idea that sounds great on paper and falls apart in practice very few communes last for very long before they collapse, one of the most successful would be the Omish and they have a form of ruling council or body NO WHERE does it exist otherwise even the smallest tribes in the world got a chief or leader it is the basis even of our family structure.
@@DustinDonald-cz9ot Well, suppose all your predictive claims came true, even so, if the current world we live in is the worst that can happen, there is not much to lose. In the meantime the people would have gotten a taste of freedom in their lifetime and can judge for themselves which is the better alternative. The Omish/Amish are likely the closest to anarchy indeed but the ideas are slowly spreading. There's the Free State Project in New Hampshire and obviously Argentina is currently being influenced by anarcho-capitalism under Milei. What is needed for anarchy to work is to reach a critical mass to trigger meaningful change, it starts with the intellectuals, if they are on board, the masses will follow like they always do. The biggest obstacle i see is convincing people of the idea of freedom and all that it entails, essentially you're asking a person to give up the predictable world he's living in right now in favor of the scary unknown concept of anarchy that comes with self-responsibility and accountability, it's a tough sell but a worthy cause if you ask me.
@@KRAZYKAISER007True anarchy can't exist. If anarchy exists, what is then stopping me from forming an authoritarian regime? If they stop me from doing that, it is not anarchy.
The message I'm getting from this piece is that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is, no dictatorship can ever guarantee it will always be benevolent for all citizens, even if it might start that way.
No that’s not what it’s saying. It’s saying the nature of every government is corruption. No matter the system it creeps in overtime. Notice how it’s saying modern democracy and not democracy period. All governments fail eventually. There is no perfect system. Democracy is currently the best system but it has flaws and those flaws need to be remembered and watched for. Complacency is one of the biggest threats to it.
I have to disagree on a specific matter. Power does not corrupt, and it is telling that after you mention the supposed corrupting nature of power you quickly end up discussing people who are already tainted seeking out power and Democracy's inability to keep power out of their hands. It is weakness, not strength, that corrupts. The undeserving who gain power are not corrupted by the power, it is instead they who corrupt the power.
I sometimes wonder if a country drafting citizens into the majority of representative roles rather than voting for politicians with questionable motivations could foster a healthier society compared to what we've seen. I suppose corruption will always find a way, and context will dictate what plays.
Dude. Dude. Duuuuude. Thank you. You are literally the only person in here who isn't just complaining, but instead suggesting an alternative. I say we draft citizens from a pool of exclusively you. You have restored the smallest flicker of hope for humanity in myself, and have seriously brightened my mood. Thank you
I think originally it was supposed to be similar to jury selection. At least at the local and state representative levels. I’d prefer the federal government shrinking and the power restored to the state and local governments. Part of the problem occurs when the rulers are tucked away far from their constituents. It’s much different when they have to come in contact with them every time they leave their home and being tucked hundreds or thousands of miles away in DC. This is why it was set up originally how it was. With the power concentrated where the people had more direct contact. If you did things against the citizenship you could face having tomatoes thrown at you when you walked down the street. What you’re up to is much more transparent.
At that point you may as well leave governance up to a coin toss. There are some who hold a general disinterest in policy and won't act as proper stewards
Too many Americans commenting on this. The biggest flaw of Democracy is that people will eventually take it for granted. They think everything will just correct itself. They don't think about actual situations that happen in the real world. So, their ability to address it will be minimal when they do arise. Just like how it happened with the Romans. And this is why Socrates said democracy can work. If the population is well-educated.
self governance by autonomous individuals, respecting the equal and mutual rights of others to do the same and voluntarily and as necessary choosing to work together to respond to various issues is the only way to achieve a truly peaceful and happy society.
Oh the utopia. Your plan completely ignores human nature and pretends it doesn’t exist. What you’re talking about is tribes. Look at how peaceful that was please. We’re currently living in the most peaceful time in recorded history and act like it’s the opposite.
@@debanydoombringer1385 no it doesnt,this is the typical argument against human freedom, we live in a violent and angry society now, as politicians and governments face us off against each other. We are far more tribal now, divided by race, religion, political persuasion. Todays world is all about pitting us against each other, my utopia is exactly that and it would indeed be a peaceful and happy utopia.
@@tommalone58 But there would always be outstanding historic greviences under the surface. You'll never have victims living peaceably alongside their unpunished predators.
Fully agree. Highly recommend the video "The Politics Of Starship Troopers" in which its broken down why that is literally the best system we could have. Of course that would hurt a few people's feelings.
I once read a book where they defined democracy as such: Democracy is the worst most horrible, evil and cruel government known to man and its only saving grace is that it is better than all else. A key element that you have missed is the idea of a constitution. France tried democracy and it became known as the terror and was soon deposed. The United States imposed those same principles and became the most successful nation on the planet. Why was this so? The difference was that the French Jacobins being radical atheists did not believe in God. So when they pondered the question of where do rights come from they naturally decided that Rights come from Man. The colonies however were for the most part God Fearing Christians and so when they ask the question where does a man's right come from, the answer was Almighty God. This led to a very distinct paradigm difference between the two starting nations. The French decided that since rights come from men they are therefore editable by men and thus it should be men that define them. Since men, especially men seeking power, are corruptible then they will decide to edit rights that a man is granted to suit their needs. Do not be deluded to think that it is just democracies where the greedy and corrupt can get to power. The smarmy money grubbing politician lusting for power lying to get elected in the democracy becomes the simping toady quisling brushing up against the ruling elite to advance in position. Every system must deal with this. Now I am not saying God exists, I am religious and do believe it but for the sake of my argument I posit true even if there is no God which I will admit from a point of proof I cannot prove nor disprove His existence. Instead what I am stating is that it is the paradigm that provides an armor against corruption which the US benefited from. Since the Rights of Man are granted by God Almighty they are therefore inviolate and only editable by God himself. While rational men will certainly acknowledge that God does not come down and spell all of this out they will look to their religion, pray, consider morality and determine those elements of Natural Rights appear to be correct. Should someone posit that the definition of rights is misunderstood and needs to be changed then the body politic will be very loathe to simply make the change on a simple vote and much evidence must be presented and weighed even to get those in charge of these things to give consideration. At issue is not the choice of who to vote for but rather the Rights that are granted. What natural freedoms does every citizen have, freedoms that cannot be altered even by the elected rulers because there is an independent judicial system in place to protect them. I would posit to you that much of the corruption in the US has been from the erosion of these rights by the centralization of power starting with the 17th amendment removing the appointment to the US Senate by the State Government and the 16th amendment granting the power to levy an income tax. This was further eroded by the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt which created national agencies to control all 50 states. This moved a great deal of control from the state governments to the national governments. Many things ran by the state became either usurped by federal agencies or the state subject to regulatory controls. What this does is reduce COMPETITION! COMPETITION is key in ensuring a level of freedom to the people and this is any country. Take China for instance. They are run by the Communist Party. To enter the Party one has to be recommended, study, spend two years in a type of apprenticeship and prove to be loyal to the Party. Each regional party group answers to the larger area groups and ultimately to the party leaders. Control is at the highest level. However, recently under Xi Jinping attention to stopping corruption was put in place. Xi came into power, based on what little I know, because after the fall of the Soviet Union China understood it was corruption that failed them and so they were seeking to correct that. In Xi Jinping's thought, what I could find from the English version online, it actually states that Competition is required to avoid corruption. This has been true in America as well. For a long time the US benefited from capitalist firms at each other's throats fighting to survive not just in granting market based prices but in keeping industry honest. After all if your competitor is cheating to get advantage you are more prone to call out and criticize this. Over the last few decades and escalating in 2008 the US economic system has suffered from crony capitalism where industry in cahoots with politicians made laws designed to place barriers to entry. Under TARP Obama elevated this by monopolizing the financial firms giving them power over capital which they abuse. I would challenge the notion that it is the type of government Democracy, Monarchy or even Communism that is the problem but rather the centralization of decision making and the lack of any real competition. Sure, democracy can be manipulated but even in America the corruption at the local town level is less severe. It happens but angry citizens can more readily correct this even within their own party apparatus. This is because it is much harder for central planners to tally every small community in a nation. Likewise in industries with few barriers to entry where it is easy to start a business there is less economic malfeasance against the customers than those which are more heavily regulated and controlled. This is because customers have more choices and getting caught cheating them is not able to be gotten around. Take China for instance. If joining the party, at least at the local level was much easier and the local party in the area had more independent control or decision making for that area then I would submit that at least locally there would be more freedom and real choice, even under their controlled system. I actually believe China would benefit from that but they are not going to listen to me. Further if China closely adheres to a constitution and set of rights which the grant an independent judiciary the ability to enforce equally I think they would end up benefiting more. So in conclusion it is not the governmental form but rather the body politics devotion to three factors: 1) Natural Rights independently administered to all 2) Competition 3) Decentralization of power with the only Centralized power being what is absolutely necessary. I further submit any government in the world today would benefit themselves and their people the more they increase these three items.
Support our work, and access 88+ videos exclusive to AOI Members! - academyofideas.com/members/
well done, well presented, most people in your audience and most sincerely self taught and educated people know the problems of democracy. the real question NOW is whether corrupted present democracy is so much of a danger that we need to toss it off and replace it with an autocracy. Our present democracy is a train bringing the system towards a certain type of totalitarianism. if you want off that certain type of totalitarianism in our present and future, it begs the question, what kind do you want to trade it for? systems , however collapse when they can no longer be sustained, not usually because one small group wants to subvert the train. sustained means, food in the mouths of the many, food and distractions. and yet, with drugs, endless entertainments and gambling addictions, the amount of food can be lessened in quality and quantity to the point where people will eat bugs, one another, and then also starve, and yet not rebel. ---this totalitarianism is post industrial post telecommunications---and can be sustained for a long long time. so who would in their own sanity fight against this democracy in the name of a better future, when it is a suicidal task. the system will inevitably collapse in mass death and destruction----when it runs its long and technologically insulated course. modern technology will make possible sustained totalitarianism for far far longer than ever thought possible. perhaps that is the only sane path towards taking mutually assured nuclear annihilation off the potential scenarios of our future. or what we see as a path towards 'global government' of one type or another in our collective future. or perhaps, that is just the excuse of those who seek to dominate....
Title: Why Democracy Leads to Tyranny
In this thought-provoking video, the Academy of Ideas delves into the inherent flaws of modern democracy and its unintended consequences. While democracy is often hailed as the pinnacle of political organization, it is essential to critically examine its shortcomings and the potential dangers it poses.
1. The Sacred Dogma of Democracy:
• Just as religious dogmas were once elevated to a sacred status, today, the dogma of the democratic state holds a similar position. Questioning the infallibility of democracy is akin to blasphemy.
• However, just as religious dogmas sometimes masked the power of the Church, democracy can serve as a veil behind which politicians and bureaucrats enrich themselves while imposing their vision on society.
2. The Fatal Flaws of Modern Democracy:
• Soft Totalitarianism: Instead of promoting social flourishing, modern democracy has given rise to a form of soft totalitarianism. The illusion of rule by the people conceals the reality of politicians and bureaucrats wielding power over us.
• Destruction of Institutions: Democracy continually produces governments that undermine essential institutions. From families to schooling, media, free markets, sound money, and the rule of law, politicians and bureaucrats corrupt or destroy these pillars of a free society.
• Power’s Soil: Conceived as a foundation for liberty, modern democracy paradoxically provides fertile soil for power to spread itself across the social field.
3. Bertrand de Jouvenel’s Insight:
• Bertrand de Jouvenel astutely observed that democracy, born to stand as a bulwark against power, ultimately facilitates its expansion. The very system designed to protect us becomes an unwitting accomplice in our subjugation.
4. The Necessary Institutions for Freedom:
• A truly free and prosperous society requires several critical institutions:
- Free Markets: The engine of economic growth and individual prosperity.
- Division of Labor: Essential for specialization and efficiency.
- Rule of Law: Promotes order, trust, and stability.
- Strong Families: The bedrock of social cohesion.
- Sound Money: Protects against inflation and economic instability.
- Education (Not Indoctrination): A school system that genuinely educates.
- Truth-Seeking Media: A robust media that pursues truth rather than propaganda.
5. Questioning Democracy’s Value:
• If democracy consistently produces governments that undermine these institutions, we must reevaluate its worth. Is it truly conducive to social harmony, or does it inadvertently lead to tyranny?
• Across the globe, many democracies are failing to preserve these vital institutions, raising legitimate concerns about the value of democracy itself.
In conclusion, the Academy of Ideas challenges us to critically examine the dogma of democracy, recognizing that blind faith in any system can obscure its flaws. By doing so, we can engage in meaningful discussions about how to create a more just and flourishing society, regardless of the prevailing political ideology.
you know this place is good because they don't have some youtube sponsor like Brilliant or Nebula dictating their speech.
You should do a collab with Dayz of Noah
I swear you're just redoing old videos now.
Frank Zappa Quote;
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
Thank God it’s all an illusion
@@xxonosouloxxwitch One Thor ?
We are at that point...
Love that quote!
@@squeaker19694 yeah that an was brilliant
Plato even said democracy is dangerous if you give it time.
He said it leads to tyranny
I hope it will! And I'm sure it will. Tyranny in antiquity meant that a popular powerful guy took power from the corrupt incompetent oligarchs. It most often improved society a great deal. And established the natural ideal of inherited absolute monarchy for generations.@@alka9scottus
@@alka9scottus can you specify source please?
It's in the Republic @@Some1Philosophy
Heheh... Socrates criticised democracy, so they democratically executed him.
Democracy is the freedom to choose the choice that has already been chosen for you.
2024 presidential election is essentially this
Hard to argue given the recent installment of Kamala as the democrat nominee
What a great comment
Choice to stay in America. Not tyranny. Harris isn’t going to tell you how to live your life.
No, it is not. It is a way of manifesting the will of the majority of people. It is the only system that allows that. And that is a very good thing.
Didn't the founding fathers say that the Constitution could only work with a moral society?
Which never has, will, or can exist.
Involuntary contracts are slavery.
@@NevisYsbryd I don't think they meant a perfect society, but one that uplifts morality, unlike today.
The Constitution is a piece of paper. Yes a moral society is the ONLY THING keeping us safe. In REALITY. it's been a long time in the making. The drug war was truly the nail in the coffin imo. The beginning was occupational licensing and regulations on businesses and zoning etc
But the founding fathers weren't exactly moral.
“Consider the average intelligence of the common man, then realize 50% are even stupider.” - Mark Twain
That was George Carlin
@@achinthmurali5207ironic
Right. Carlin couldn't have quoted anyone. He was so smart and wrote so many well loved novels like "you've never seen someone taking a sht while running at full speed" truly genius and not just an edgelord
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that…
and…
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
George Carlin
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Mark Twain
@@chris4973 and liamc4113 and chris4973
Power does not corrupt, corrupt people simply seek power.
Power shows you who you really are when not restrained.
For that reason Power, i mean the state, shouldn't exist.
@@faustosar6151 anarchy ain't very great
@@spec214 Why?
@@faustosar6151because despite of all the positives it will all eventually lead to endless chaos and suffering
@@longlivethepatriotrev3381so you don't know what anarchy is? Of course.
We're seeing this in real time
Yes and unfortunately those in charge tend to be the least qualified in their field.
But the sheeple have no idea what is happening and where its leading them to.....
It seems corruption and war is in our blood, we may never escape it@@stevenvater2681
Because citizens are too weak minded, complacent and don’t have the gall to stand up against their governments
Yep, America was never supposed to be a democracy. It was founded as a constitutional republic. There is a great video from the 50's or 60's about this which can be easily found on yt by searching "America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy."
Democracy is the rule of majority ,BUT majority can be easily manipulated and influenced by the medium , and the medium is owned by a minority , so democracy is the rule of a minority .
also the rich own both sides because its a 2party state
Yeah, there is a great book called Protagoras, by Daniel Silvermintz, about the Ancient Greek rhetorician (man is the measure of all things), and reading that book makes clear that Democracy is really the rule of persuasive rhetoricians.
@@WillyEckaslikeThree, four, five parties wouldn't help. How often does it happen that you vote for a candidate, which is subsequently elected, that the elected actually fulfills his promises?
I believe the size of the government/society is the ultimate reason democracy fails. Above a particular size, it becomes impossible for an elected individual to move away from the status quo, despite having good intentions regardless of the theoretical power of the position, even the president of United States is unlikely to make meaningful positive changes. There will simply be too many which have grown into "their niche" in the system which will not support the change, these are elected officials which can not simply be replaced, and certainly won't vote favorably on any bill/law/appointment which could negatively impact their personal position regardless of the relative impact on the society.
In this scenario, most people will likely come to the conclusion that the reasonable thing to do, is simply steal as much as they can and blend in with the crowd..
This is why they took logic and rhetoric out of public school education and now only teach only enough grammar so that people can read the propaganda without being able to notice the manipulation. They want us all to have just enough education to be able to follow orders, no more. 😅
Otherwise known as oligarchy
In an autocracy, one hateful ignorant person decides how you get to live your life.
In a democracy, millions of hateful ignorant people decide how you get to live your life.
not really. democracy is not based on hate.
@@Max.J.H.democracy is based on the interests of the people in it. If they are taught to be narcissistic and financially focused, then it will be projected. The same is true for hate of free speech and values and people.
@@Max.J.H. democracy is based on the majority. If the majority is filled with hate, democracy will be based on hate. So on so forth.
@@Max.J.H.Only tyranny is built on hate, by it's nature as continuation of emergency status.
@@Max.J.H. it based on popularity and the basis of letting people that virtually have no idea how things work to decide who doing what.
No ruling system is flawless. Why do you have a doctor instead of a board of 1000 people trying to cure you and decide what to do with your body.
Resources and knowledge are not evenly distributed by nature, society and biology. It’s idealism vs pragmatism.
I named specific corporations that control our society and the algorithm took my post down. How aptly ironic.
Such as black rock?
@@davidsykes9331Yuppers! They are the ones foisting DEI initiatives on corporations.
I see your post, because it got likes and not hided by algorithm. That what makes democracy different from other systems - you actually can be heard and influence people.
Because those lists get shared so often the algorithm labeled it as spam. Like intended.
If you could go back in time a decade or so and read the weekly posts on some conspiracy forum you would shit your pants.
We got warned about encroaching censorship so many times we ignored it like an ad for war thunder.
What were the specific corps named?
Now I'm really not in the mood to finish my taxes.
Totally feel ya there
This is the one thing that could make a difference. If people would brave up and stop paying taxes. Every single transaction gives a cut to the gov then by threat of kidnapping they get you to voluntarily give them your income.
@@trippsseywhy don’t you contact me and let’s set up an underground organisation after I finish my final exams and let’s plan to usurp the government and establish a constitution denotin the autonomy of community councils as supreme over state authority.
Real talk 😂
@@trippssey✊
Remember what they did to Socrates when he spoke up against Democracy?
What'd they do?
@@princemichael4708 they made him disappear.
@@princemichael4708poisoned
He also spoke put against Zues who demanded a life of Morality from humans. While continuing to have affairs with his sister's daughter's moral women.
THEY KILLED HIM.......@@princemichael4708
Voting lets people feel like they're doing something without having to do anything that will actually matter.
I like that
Just like praying
Voting does things just beyond the presidential election, mayors, and such. I worked on one campaign that got more funding for parks in my city through a local vote. So I know I've done something, but most politics is nebulous.
@@sunphoenix1231 yeah, not trying to discount that. It can work at a small scale, but it can also be a mental trap where you think of voting as the best or only way to solve problems; and of course, voting only works if you're given something good to vote for.
Democracy is not about voting, it's about freedom of speech.
Guess we now have modern documentation why all the great philosophers hated democracy.
Why?
alluding to present time
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
@@vladdumitrica849Democracy is mob rule poorest form government ever conceived by man.
@@vladdumitrica849Too long didn’t read
We are a constitutional republic not a democracy.
Supposed to be. We are more like an Oligarchy that plays make believe.
Agreed but similar principles to the problems with democracy due to the decay of republican traditions and the way power tends to accrue
@@thoughtcriminal-k5l More like a pile of shit pretending to be a cup of sugar!
Do you even know the difference? An ignorant electorate is the #1 killer of democracy not corruption.
Beware of controlling language. Use Common Sense. Stand Up and Speak Up and say No! to coercive language especially when the language makes slippery assumptions.
It seems that the two herds of voters WANT controlling language - That is, language that they approve of and will, by their perception, control the others who are not a part of their political tribe.
Exactly right. Manipulative language should immediately be suspicious.
Aye
I also believe fundamental concepts:
Good faith
Mutual respect
Honestly
Discipline
Courage
Training
Exercise
Healthy diet
Productive work
Personal responsibility
Wisdom
...
And a heterodox perspective is superior to enforced unification, aka authoritarian totalitarianism.
Then again I am anarchosyndicalist by birth. It's what makes inherent sense for me.
Language like "new normal"
Asking for "Common sense" is literally one of the go to arguments to oppress people and strip away rights.
“I care not who controls a nation’s political affairs, so long as I control her currency.”
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
It does not matter for whom you vote for as long as the banking elite is allowed to pull the strings...👈😔
@@RoryMarteltruth hurts when power is corrupted. they did well for themselves but its passed time to share the burden of power and the struggle that comes with it.
They win every election, and profit from every war.
Meh... the rothschilds are not so powerful. They're boogeymen. Real power always lies behind the mouth of a gun.
ruclips.net/video/-QeD1uUgmKw/видео.html
Paper isn't money. It's fraud.
Here in the UK, we don't live in a 'democracy', but in a constantly shifting unwritten Constitutional monarchy. Once in, all UKMPs swear allegiance only to HRHKC, not the electorate. Ephesians 6:12.
Voting feels like surrendering your rights rather than exercising them.
Correct. Voting is the act of surrendering sovereignty of individuals to the minority elects, which mostly consist of demagogues
Then what is the alternative?
@@WolfeSaber They prefer constant civil war and violent conflict OR prefer for their own corrupt governments to do it to them - for them.
@@WolfeSaberAnarchy! #ExercisingYourRights
Don't vote. It's satanic.
"I don't care if the people can vote as long as I choose who they vote for."
Stalin
Thanks for the quote!🤙
"Vote early and often!" - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley
And America has 3 Democrats to vote for in 2024🤷♂️
"The problem with most quotes by historical persons you find online, is that some guys believe that they are actually true!"
/Lenin
@bjorntorlarsson The Soviet Union placed names on their ballots, and the people were required to vote "yes." There were punitive measures against people who stayed home.
Santa Claus
People will inherently vote for those promise more provision and welfare , this loop itself is always the downfall of democracy
“In any given situation there will always be more dumb people than smart people”. - Ken Kesey
The Elites know that, and act accordingly.
@@Lollygagger-k4p Divide and conquer
Then increase education instead of repressing democracy.
@@eliasmontanez Today's education is a poor example of a liberal arts program. It has become indoctrination, carefully crafted by nefarious professors and social theorists.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity posits the idea that education is no barrier to stupidity.
Neither is ethnicity, or social status. Some of the strupidest things and statements ever to see the light of day have come from highly educated people - many in Academia who have never had to punch a clock or run a simple coffee stand.
Conversely, some of the most brilliant things have come from people who lived 250 years ago - such as the American Founders, most of them only moderately educated, who did indeed act to suppress democracy in favor of a republic. And thier sources of knowledge went back 200 to 1700 years before they were born - much of it written in Latin and Greek.
@@eliasmontanez Seems so simple doesn’t it? Yet, politicians have been cutting education budgets for fifty+ years. Knowledge is power and they can’t give away too much power.
One thing this video fails to do is mention that " the people" are just as corruptible and have just as much tendency toward cruelty , brutality, and authoritarianism as any one person in power. Too many people want to speak of the greater population in terms of goodness , decency, and being the "victims" of despots, when usually the despots are created by the very people who become their victims.
Virtue is used against people in this game. You're a bad person if you believe this you're a good person if you accept this etc.
The people are more apathetic than dangerous. They take nothing into their own hand because of the victim savior complex. They're jaded. It's the government's responsibility because we pay them because they promised because I had to do this immoral thing I didn't object to so they better take care of everything etc
The tyranny of recent times showed that
I believe that two things create monsters and they are too much hardship and not enough hardship. Most people are good because they have been on both sides of this fence at one time or another. Empathy is highly underrated in most modern societies.
@@paulcolin9071 Bingo!
Although there is truth to this, but if everyone espoused status quo, the world wouldn't be in such better condition
John Adams was speaking against pure democracy (mob rule), as opposed to and as an argument in favor of a Constitutional democratic republic.
The key to a functional CDR - that is to say one that protects individual liberty and allows society to remain free and to flourish - is an educated, knowledgeable, and involved citizenry willing and capable of keeping its elected officials in line and accountable. This is precisely what has gone awry in the United States.
The Founding Fathers were right in allowing only landed men to vote. Ever since women got the vote, the West started its decline into socialism.
Education works when its in the hands of the community. Relying on the Government for education was a mistake.
That idea works in the 1700 prior to the existence of mass media.
Today...... Even our opinion are a product of the mass media until you are old enough or smart enough to realise it. By then....... Its no longer matter because you will also realize that it is just human nature.
Guess what, the founding fathers were wrong. Much like communism, an ethical republic is an impossibility due to sinful human nature
@@EdmacZ very true
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." -Alexander Fraser Tytler
Juvenal said very much the same thing centuries ago...
Brilliant
sorry, I don´t speak English very well, and the translation were confusing. Could you explain the last part? "they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."
@@paulopaniago5972 It means they can vote themselves [largesse = huge amounts of money, perks, benefits] by voting for the party that has no hesitations taxing and printing the country into oblivion.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
I searched the US declaration of independence, Constitution and bill of rights. There isn't one reference of "democracy." Only Constitutional Republic. We simply elect officials with a combination of democratic vote and an electoral college. The American people must wake up and enforce what was set up for us. Also, end the fed.
@winstonsmith6999 It doesn't matter because whether a republic or democracy, they are both cons.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
@@vladdumitrica849 Why vote for people to rule over you???
@@Mr.Anderson-y2j Stop putting everything in markets. Get rid of private property the property used to exploit others.
Exactly. We are a Democratic Republic, not a democracy or so we've been told.
"DEMOCRACY IS WHEN TWO WOLFES AND A SHEEP ARE DECIDING WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE FOR DINNER ".....😂
A republic is arming the lamb- Benjamin Franklin the rest of the quote
I love that you quoted Hans-Herman Hoppe from his book "Democracy: The God that Failed." It's probably the best book I've ever read.
Love Hoppe
@@stephenoverdorf4917 So to speak.
Absolutly can confirm. Excellent read from a brilliant man.🍻
Thanks. I was unaware of it and looked it up after reading your post. I'm putting it on my list of reads.
Indeed, his is one of my most recommended sources, too, when it comes to my pet peeve … which is seeing and hearing people, especially those on our side of freedom-loving aisle, talking about “… preserving and protecting and upholding democracy…” - .. by the way, along with the small classic booklet by FBastiat “ The Law” !
Born and lived my whole life in Canada, 5-plus decades. I would say that Canada (and Canadians) is a quintessential example of what's being discussed in this video.
Ireland
As a fellow cannuck born in the fifties, I sadly concur...
The channel creators are Canadian too LoL they have an American idée fixe though.
You guys suffered from too much hubris and complacency. I say that as an American you guys looked down your nose on my whole life. Ridiculing our 2nd amendment, which is the only reason the tyranny here is not as bad s Canada or the UK or Australia/NZ. Ridiculing Americans for other reasons with unfounded smugness. Now you have communist dictator Trudeau.
US as well. It’s nauseating so many are still asleep at the wheel
Not sure why so many think America is a Democracy?
It's actually a Constitutionally Republic.
I wish more people would learn that fact.
Democracy is where you elect your leader
A republic is where you elect people who pick your leaders
It is both. We are a Democratic Republic. Drop the semantics.
@@gvd72 democracy does not equal democratic. There is a difference between a democracy and a republic
It WAS a constitutional republic. Corruption has morphed it into a democracy.
We live in a representative democracy. All these repeated semantics are silly.
It's simple. To compete in politics you've got to have a huge campaign funding. To have the money you have to please the ones who gave it to you. Hence, the rich control politics.
Well ... Trump's 2016 campaign had far less money than Hillary's, but the corporate press gave him very much more publicity.
@@beingsshepherd Trump is a billioneer, much like Bloomberg he didin't need much funding, if ever. That's my point. The current form of democracy is the ruling of the rich, not the people.
Want a real democracy? Ban political ads and campaigns. Interviews and debates on national TV should be enough for the people to decide.
It's bad enough that the ultra rich own the media, i.e. public perception, which is another blow to any "democracy".
If the European enlightenment required speration of church and state, the coming enlightement should be the seperation of billioneers and state.
@@beingsshepherd
Trump's billionaire status allowed him to self-fund his campaigns, much like Bloomerg. This reveals a dangerous flaw in our system: privately funded campaigns give the wealthy undue control over the political process. There shiukd publicly funded debates and interviews on national television would reduce this influence. The wealthy already dominate public opinion through the media; we cannot let them control our elections as well.
… and, the person must have the desire to rule, the ability to promise lots to the people even if not able to fulfill the promises later, possibly even the willingness to use deception in order to win the campaign, and the willingness to accept that the use force will be used once he is in a positive of authority to write laws that he will want to be followed - … all personality traits that - in the majority of cases- do not make a for a live-and-let-live- peaceful- honest- well meaning human being -
The rich have ALWAYS controlled things. Always. In every form of government, all through history, the rich have had their hand in how things are run. It only differs in degree. But honestly why wouldn't they? If I had millions of dollars and could influence how things were done in my city, I'd be a fool not to.
Politicians serve the bankers, not the people.
You get it !
Last 2 comments got taken down but I’ll give you a hint 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
@@ZeusZar I am surprised you didn't got shadow banned?
And the industrial barons
their own bank accounts, to be precise
Aristocracy: The sheep are ruled by a small group of powerful wolves.
Monarchy: The sheep are under controlled by a wolf.
Democracy: A wolf in sheep's clothing rules the sheep.
Here is my take: corruption always find its way and no system is immune to it. Western democracy tends to have this self-image of having "check and balances" as opposed to so-called dictatorships. This self-image then becomes a false sense of security that the system has a natural ability to self-correct. However, it is when the people relent, corruptions seep through. To fix this, the people have to fight back and you can't expect those in power to give you freedom for free.
So what's left? Anarchy?
@@alexandrevachon541or back to the origin.
No bank, and no alphabet agency's
And no burocrats
@@anomilumiimulimona2924 The way I could approach it is by suppressing anything related to fear, evil and corruption. As well as anything relating to the seven deadly sins.
@@anomilumiimulimona2924you think the banks and the agencies other reasons that America is the currency it is no it is everyone's fault from the lowest man to the highest person the whole American society has morphed and shaped how it's seen how it's act
Awesome video! I'm a high school civics teacher who explains this and I will use this video in the future to help. It is so timely as politicians complain that Our "Democracy" is at risk. They have no idea that we are a "Republic". A democracy is the passage toward tyranny. Our founders knew this.
_Freedumbs_ and _Dumbocracy_ are the corner stones of this system that dragged us into world wars to defend its lies and propagate its subversion, and the same system that will withhold support in the name of market index. They are buzzwords to trigger ingroomed traumas to immunize the group against contrary thoughts and ideas, like a drunk to the bottle. The modern world is Pavlov's Democracy.
This is why they love to go after children, to get them hooked and gutted young, before they spawn. To injure them so deeply to the 'false mask of freedom'. If they only think as this system grooms them, they will only fight as the system can exploit in its game. Each successive generation will be worse and worse off until none remember any different. As such, it is less the system and more the stock that is critical.
The tyrant in itself is only seen as all negative due to black legend spread by democracies to diminish cohesions long held by tribes, and install the strings of democracy. Democratics will scream about tyrants doing something, while the democratics reach into pockets from behind and hide from repercussion.
Is it not a supreme irony that Tyr, who bound the wolf [of greed] and brought us law, is so hated now in a time of rampant mammon worship and the ill effects that come from the erosion of adherence to eternal law?
It is even a Republic is free speech is censored?
They're saying the same in Europe right now, the "Far-Right" results in the elections are proof the people see through the lies and now the people currently in power are saying "Democracy is at risk". Yes it is at risk, but not because of the far right gaining voters and support, but because those in power don't want to lose their power so they'll find a way to subvert Democracy for their own gains.
I think the politicians who keep saying democracy are fully aware of what they are saying! They know if you keep saying it over and over the people, dumbed down for public schools with not have a clue and believe we are a democracy! It's part of the marxist revolution being pushed across the US now!
I just want to thank you for all you do. The content you put out is by far the most sensible, logical, and rational guidance I've ever found since the advent of the internet. It's uncommon to find someone who understands that philosophy and general semantics are the simplest things but are of critical importance as the fundamental base upon which civilization should be founded. These ideals were known and revered thousands of years ago and should have become more solidified today, but instead we seem to be devolving further away from it. It's good to known I'm not the last of my kind.
The best video I've seen on this channel. The clarity and poignance can't be overstated. Well done. I will share it as broadly as possible.
Yeah it can, you just did
"Because democracy basically is .....Government , by the people , of the people , for the people .......but the people are , ree tar dad." - Osho
😆😆😆
All forms of government will lead to tyranny. Dominion over others is the reason governance exists at all.
Precisely correct.
Its weird that people have to be governed.
@@taroman7100It's weird that human have hoping a powerful figure like god to protect them.
lt's weird that human have hoping a powerful figure like god to protect them.
@@dood52751Speak English
My fav quote: "If Democracy cannot protect us from the rise of a soft totalitarianism, then democracy, as currently practiced, is a failed institution and alternative forms of political organizations must be explored and openly debated." - Thank you for that unique open perspective. Makes us ask the important questions.
The idea that what we have is anywhere close to a democracy is hilarious.
why does organization have to be political? I guess it depends on what you mean by political. A voluntarist society would be ideal but I don't know if it's possible right now.
@@bobleglob162 Bob, It's the norm. Most transactions and relationships between individuals are voluntary. It's only because so many accept (never question) the authority of the few, that significant levers of power have been institutionalized.
@@lisaeverhart7986 i agree it's the norm, but lying to ourselves and accepting tyranny seems to be the norm as well.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Democracy only leads to tyranny, when the people within the democracy forget what a democracy even is.
“If you can keep it”. It requires vigilance which too many forgot. Fortunately many are starting to remember if it’s not too late.
Except that’s not true. Democracy was baked in Athenian culture and they still became tyrannical
That part. We need to remind people why democracy is good important
democracy is a form of socialism, and it leads to tyranny, as with any socialist regimen. Only private property based systems can provide voluntary transactions and liberty.
@@debanydoombringer1385if you can keep it refers to a constitutional republic, not a democracy. A contractually bound government can be kept in check, mob rule cannot. Democracy always leads to tyrrany no matter how good intentioned the people who vote are. Ruling over another's life is by its very essence tyrranical in nature.
Reason We are A Constitutional Republic. Each individual counts not the majority as is Democracy.
Popular sovereignty in our formal democratic systems is an illusion. If my only choices are between the Raytheon candidate and the Boeing candidate, do I have a choice? If an independent candidate wins and is punished via process in kangaroo courts, did my vote have any impact? If my taxes being automatically subtracted from my paycheck is sold to me as "convenient," am I truly free? Sovereignty is individual, and manifests only insofar as we can blissfully ignore these goings-on with no impact to ourselves. This is infringed on further and further each day.
You can become a candidate yourself! Who was the first presidential candidate in the USA? Where did he come from? Why can't the people repeat that today when they are free to do so without fighting a war with some colonial master power. Because they don't care! It's the voters' own fault.
@@bjorntorlarsson Suree and you will vote for him, right? 😂
That is up to the voters. You claim that Kim Jong Un has no responsibility at all for the situation in North Korea. That is odd, I think. But there you are! You claim that the voter has no responsibility for how he personally is governing his society. Your point is that Democracy is when it is someone else's fault, whatever the guy in charge does. That's a mental coping mechanism that is lethal. @@DxV04
It sure is
You know why voters don't care? Because America kicks ass. We police the globe. We influence culture with our media. We sht more nutrients than most people eat in gold bricks in porcelain thrones😂. Life is so good that we have to make up problems or pretend that some other foreign problem is our problem.
Aww you're stuck with Raytheon and Boeing? How terrible. Sure sucks we aren't stuck with Polpot or Mao, killing hundreds of millions of us on a power trip. Instead we have "oh no, all that free stimulus money I threw away is actually affecting the price we pay for things? That's the bad orange's and the sleeping creepy's fault, nit mine for blowing that money on worthless crap"
my gratitude to you, whoever works on these videos. this channel is invaluable.
We Brazilian say that this video is telling the truth
Same here in the US.
When I talk to my friends and relatives about corporate fascism and social Marxism, they look at me like I am from Mars. When greater minds than mine, past and present, "get it", I feel vindicated. Small comfort, I know.
Most people watch mainstream corporate news.
@@jimyoung9262IKR? Sad.
Wow! Are you from Mars!? I think Elon Musk for sure would be interested in talking with you. Please just do not discourage him too much, I'm looking forward to his adventures over there. I heard that an indoors Summer vacation can almost be somewhat nice there in some deep crater.
It’s why I struggle to make small talk when in public.
This....
This is why i always chuckle when people say they want to abolish the electoral college. It's literally one of the only things holding back mobs of sheep from being easily ruled by media buzzwords
Precisely
This is an excellent video. I came to the same conclusion but your presentation is articulated in ways I can't. Thanks so much. 🙏
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe that they are free"
All “isms” in this realm revert back to feudalism. I don’t care whether it’s capitalism, communism, socialism, etc. The result will always be a few powerful “elites” owning everything and the vast majority are very poor. Democracy is just these same “elites” using the vote of the majority of useful idiots to bludgeon the minority into submission and to create feudal serfdoms. One might argue that feudalism was a bit more humane, because at least you were born onto land in generations where you always had a place to live. Modern governments have create numerous homeless people, because the rich no longer even have the requirement to house their slaves.
Remove _”I don’t care”_ and copy that text into your notes.
It’s a short, powerfully to the point, thought provoking spill that’s worthy of reposting where you see fit.
That said, I am attempting to debunk it out of fear.
True, i wish more people realised this. Every system is doomed to fail via human corruption. I see many people these days praising socialism as the answer, ignorant to the fact that many people in the past pushed the same idea and instead of a utopia, were given human atrocities such as in cambodia, soviet russia and maos regime. Whenever politics are discussed or promoted, human corruption should always be discussed along side it
Socialism is the collective control of the means of production, and communism is a state less classless moneyless society there is no space for elites in any actually egalitarian society
Easy. It's more fair in feudalism to be born privileged, but not when you consider it was the privilege of being taxed indiscriminately at whim of whoever controls the feifdom, along with their ruler, and you are subject to marauding bandits with no authority to hold them back from having their way with your foodstuffs, wife, daughter, and livestock. There is no advocacy if you encounter strife. No army holds neighboring countries at bay. You could easily become a human sacrifice. Nothing stops you from being chained to a millstone for your entire life. Nobody educates people. No great advancements are created. You likely died at birth or your mom did. You probably don't have any capacity to see a doctor aside from a crazy old person who is convinced you need to mix cow poop, dirt, goat blood, and eel slime in a bowl and drink it after 2 days to cure a sore tooth.
Or there's capitalism where you can buy some aspirin, work hard, buy land, build a house, and pads it on to your kid. Or you can live like a business some bushes in a park. Or you can move to the middle of nowhere and recreate the feudalism life. Or you can just practice what you are good at and do whatever you want that doesn't directly hurt someone else.
So hard to debunk, wow
you could say feudalism is simply tribalism.
This is why you take the money out of politics making it cease to be a career option and rather something you do after your real job.
This is something I agree with, 100k a year max, no investments and only able to own one property.
@@pituguli5816 I have a question, what should Donald Trump's real job be if he becomes president, should he be allowed to make day to day decisions about his businesses and then after that is done, go home to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and act as President of the United States?
@@thomaskalbfus2005 He can leave his business interests to others, if he is President he should concentrate on being President.
@@pituguli5816 Well that's the thing being president leaves a lot of opportunity for making money, mostly illicit, I think Joe Biden has taken advantage of this more than Trump.
So either you are a billionaire and what you do as President of the United States could benefit your business, or you are not a billionaire and what you do as President of the United States could benefit someone else's business, and that someone else usually is happy to share the wealth with a president who benefitted his business, I mean that is just an investment in effect! So neither one of these two situations is particularly good.
Which would you rather have, a billionaire making more money while being president, or someone who is not a billionaire that takes bribes and kickbacks from billionaires for doing something beneficial to their businesses?
No i needs to be a carrer, it must be a servant of the state, beeing compensared only by the state.
On investment allowed, no high paying Bord positions in companys afterwards allowed.
No rich people beeing allowed.
Yoz need to ban all people and ways of how the Office is exploited for Personal gain
A big part of the problem in modern democracies is the ‘first past the post’ and thereby ‘winner takes all’ voting system. In these systems new, smaller parties struggle to gain a toehold and political reform becomes impossible and the complacent encumbents remain entrenched in power.
You think thats bad ?
Try the "preferential" system whereby parties "give" the losing votes they receive FROM US ,to a party aligned to their political vagueiaries (faux-ideology).
Thereby "ganging up "on ,say a 49% of the vote party when there are 5 or 6 candidates.
A clear case of divide an conquer , from the voter's perspective and a betrayal of the people's confidence.
As corrupt as a rotting carcass !
Same in business. Look at Microsoft, Google and Amazon.
reply c3n50r3d
Countries with proportional representation have lots of problems too, usually of weak government & even less reform, as in Italy.
An example is a small majority in California gets to decide the fate of millions of other who have been ignored.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~Benjamin Franklin
sigh... freedom is not having to consult people for what you will eat
@@colorpg152 So is anarchy
@@tompc17 'Anarchism', properly understood, is the highest measure of personal autonomy. It doesn't prevent voluntary association if someone desires it, but it does prevent a 'tyranny of the masses' from oppressing and imposing it's will upon the individual.
Liberty is acting like BLM protesters when you don't get your way, they set you up to look just as foolish as they do which only empowers the corrupt police state further.
@@RichardHarlos Thing is, most people cant be trusted with a high measure of personal autonomy.
Thank goodness our founding fathers understood that a Constitutional Republic is the way to go.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.
This is an absolute banger of a quote.
Liberty is a well armed sheep
@@aaronl2130 Alexander Fraser Tytler- "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." is another strong contender.
Whereas representative democracy is 100 sheep picking which of 2 wolves gets to decide what's for dinner, and being told that the winning wolf's decision was the will of the sheep.
@@Somewhat-Evil Definitely. It echoes Hoppe's sentiment.
You so eloquently speak the thoughts of my mind. I've been contemplating society since I was 18 years old, I'm now 53. I speak my mind to the sheep, I share your videos, I share screen shots of quotes, I do what I can to spread knowledge.
The sheep? You mean you post on Facebook to accounts nobody uses and nobody cares because you don't have an original thought and are posting huge loads of bs, like this.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
@@vladdumitrica849 democracy is tyranny by the people, as in, 50.1% can vote to limit the 49.9%. Democracy sucks! Socialism sucks. Communism sucks. America is the standard, but the people let it be subverted. We were brainwashed over the decades, real leaders were removed, etc.
Solution: outlaw political parties. Make lobbying illegal. Put people in congressional seats like they do a jury where only qualified candidates get selected through a lottery, then have to be questioned and confirmed only if they have unbiased beliefs that align with the constitution, they receive a fair salary equivalent to the national average, and only serve 1 term.
Who do your propose do the questioning and make the determination of who is qualified to be a Congressmen?
@@kimobrien. it should be a shared responsibility of the executive and judicial branches. The 3 branches were created to keep each others in check
@@Powwer69 Congress wrote the Constitution and made itself the most power branch when it is united. It can impeach Justices and the President but a President and the courts can not touch sitting Congressmen without tacit Congressional approval.
@@Powwer69then that isn’t gonna work, our system of checks and balances already failed and it would again. No system of government or societal structure (or lack thereof) actually can function, it’s just a matter of figuring out which system a society needs at a given time and moving in that direction. In America, our populace has become stupid and disconnected from reality by the design of our state owned education system, so moving away from democracy might help (but the people in power right now all suck, so idk we might just be cooked)
There is no form of government which, by its nature, can keep jackasses from trying to game the system. The problem is not the form of government, it's that the jackasses will always be around, & that most of the time, our only choice will be between jackasses. tavi.
The institutions are emanations of the people themselves.
You almost make it sound as though voters reluctantly voted for Obama and Trump.
The mentality that we should use force against others because we think they should live a certain way is a big problem. The lack of faith in natural divine order and law is a big problem. The fact people are comfortable with allowing complete strangers be responsible for their lives is another issue
A good system makes it difficult for jackasses to infiltrate. A sound system+ ongoing reform is the solution.
@@descartes797 You can't reform the system when they systematically murder every last reformer.
Gov't is not eloquence....it is simply force
And has a monopoly on violence.
@@Divide_et_lmperano one has a monopoly on violence
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 It does. Government can use violence against you and it's "OK" while anyone else would get prosecuted for using violence against you.
When I watched this I felt that I really needed to see it. I will post this link whenever I have an opportunity. This is the best video I have watched on that particular topic! Subbed off course!
Corruption leads to tyranny and corruption is present in every society it’s not the form of politics it’s the participants.
Truth
Yes
But democracy has it far worse
It's literally in it's nature
@@elpsykoongro5379the thing is, you guys keep saying "democracy" but all the examples you give are corporate Oligarchies.
@@DharmaPunk111 that's essentially what democracy is nowdays
@@elpsykoongro5379 then it's not democracy 🤣
As Ronald Reagan said: The government does not solve your problems, the government is the problem.
He was the biggest corporate bootlicker president ever 😂 he turned government into a corporate state.
So you prefer to be ruled directly by unelected corporations, so the billionaire class doesn't even have to buy the election...
Government solves many problems but also creates them. Why are you so fooled by dogma as to repeat these vacuous and empty claims?
Actions speak louder than words.
And then he proceeded to prove his point by implementing policies and making decisions that are the root causes of the problems that the USA is facing today! Ronald Reagan's government created a massive number of l9ong lasting problems!
It's tyranny if I don't have things exactly my way.
Maybe if we werent taxed so hard we could afford to care for our neighbors directly instead of giving the government middleman a cut.
Entire house is corrupt. 🇨🇦
"The system works....For THEM"
As opposed to what system?
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre a decentralized system that allows and enables the people to "govern" themselves without the oppression that government and capitalism creates. True anarchy.
@@anarcho-savagery2097 anarchy and a lack of capitalism or governing?
Three scenarios
1) your neighbor is a 7 foot tall muscle bound well armed thief. He steals all your food and tools.
2) a disease runs through your home
3) you have no skills related to acquiring food
I'm picturing a post capitalist America with no government. There's no capital so trading, bartering, or owing anything as tit for tat, because those are capital. You and your family can rely on each other and govern your own house, but there is no system of governing beyond that. Is that what you consider anarchy, or am I wrong?
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre all of those scenarios happen in a capitalist state. And that's the whole point. The whole point is that small, decentralized communities will govern themselves without the need for a federalized government. There is no reason that if government and capitalism were eliminated, that they should be brought back.
@@anarcho-savagery2097 sure, I'm trying to go with you here, I just had those thoughts cross my mind immediately. And additionally, what stops a country as small as Luxembourg from conquering us? And what about a much less liberty minded country or even an organization like al ki duh?
Or what if Xi gi ping decided he wants Anaricha (that would be a cool name for it) and treat us like all the non Han Chinese in his country? You know, not execute us, and the ones they miss, not kidnapp us and not send us to get re educated.
I'm losing faith in this idea, I'm sorry. If you let us be called Anaricha, you may still have my support.
the visuals!!! nice job on collecting all the imagery!!! the points made are ultra on point too. bravo good sir ya just got a new sub! pleasure to be aboard
"They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
- George Carlin
I don't think people are getting over the wall while being asleep.
On the floor in a fentanyl fantasy.
It's all perspective, right? I came to the U.S. legally 10 years ago with nothing. I have a pretty good 6-figure income, a wife, decent familial ties, working on kids. So I have the framework of the old American Dream. It isn't impossible, just hard.
@@adamm2091, legit. I am a born citizen, served my country, found hard times and ended up homeless and on the streets. Was able to climb my way out of it all. Now I own my home, have a business and have raised three amazing kids who are doing well.
Unfortunately it’s getting harder and harder
@@bnalive5077proof?
I wish to be free, not ruled. Voluntaryism or bust.
I worked for Senator Mike Gravel and he was pushing for a constitutional amendment to allow citizens to use referendums when needed to put the elected representatives in check. I honestly think it takes a combination of both represenitive and direct democracy to get the best system. Direct democracy has problems, but acting like democratically picking individuals to make all our decisions for us and that this will give us the best non corruptible system makes no sense.
Democracy: The God That Failed should be required reading for political science majors. It is and imperfect but withering critique of the assumptions which undergird popular governments.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Great video. Would love to see a breakdown of corporations role in this as well. That's another tyrannical institution that has more power than the state and steers our democracy
Not to mention that, as Americas history has shown, even a constitutional Republic, which specifically has non-democratic elements built in to *restraint* the democratic ones, can be far too *easily* subverted into a pure democracy, which allows for *everything* you just described & invariably & inevitably devolves into authoritarianism; in sharp contrast to that, when you read the story of Domacles, you see the *true* nature of feudalism, contrary to pro-democracy propaganda, & end up understanding exactly *why* feudalism was humanitys favored government system throughout its history until *recently* . That's exactly why I'm all *for* a return to feudalism, with each state becoming its own independent kingdom; fun fact, the federal government was *supposed* to be subservient to the state governments that governed their own state *independently* , but the way our government's gone has *reversed* that. So each state becoming its own feudal kingdom would be much *closer* to what was *supposed* to happen under the Republic our country is *supposed* to be according to the Constitution.
It seems like the US needs far less voters, not more.
I agree. Only those who actually pay taxes should vote.
A very large part of the problem is that we are waiting for someone to save us. Nobody will save us from these problems. They are reflections of the problems within ourselves that we refuse to even acknowledge, let alone try to address. Unless that changes this same cycle will continue until humanity itself falls.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
“Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical, and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant.”
It isn't enough for you to begrudgingly engage with the state by choosing the lesser of the two evils. Propagandists constantly demand that you, "believe in democracy" as your highest ideal.
And the elites are attempting to change the definition of “Democracy” too.
And curse dissident dictatorships.
So, is there a better system?
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre Private property
@@DolphLongedgreens private property exists in our current system. That's a noun( person _place_ thing idea) and and an adjective, not a system.
We give you a Republic. If you can keep it.................... Benjamin Franklin
Billionaire oligarchy: here are the 2 candidates we selected for you to vote for to do our bidding
As my mother used to say"Anyone who wants to be President should automatically be disqualified from running because that is a sign they are a power hungry megalomaniac."
No she didn't. That's not something that came up
Maybe his mom did yours just didn't because she was dull as ditch water
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvreAre you the mother? How would you know that?
@TheGunfighterx Because it's been said in slightly different ways for a looooong time. Use your brain a bit.
@@DraconisMarchVII Doesn't mean his mother didn't say it. Use YOUR brain a bit
I'm reporting this video to my local democracy officer
😅👍
I see you, Helldiver
Uh ohhhh... 😄
Thank you for defending OUR democracy 💙💩
it is a revelation to know that so many scholars have already written so much about a phenomenon that has shown up 4 or 5 decades back
You know you're a sociopath when GDP is your measure of the human race.
Democracy means having to tolerate losing. More we go down this path, the less tolerant the losers become meaning the less democracy we experience.
Woah, so deep brother. So, what do we do instead. I mean you are complaining because you know something better is possible, right?
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre
I can see the problem but have no solutions. Even those begging for socialism only want it for what it brings them.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Chinada is that hell now America is close behind
Yep.
The problem is even if a new leader can somehow resist corruption, the conglomerate of rot in politics will go to work suppressing coercing or ultimately removing such a burden to their aims. It’s already happened a few times.
cnn, msnbc, and the likes viewership is in the trash, people at least here in america are tired of the lies, the corruption, and the bs.
I'm speechless❤ thank you for putting this into words.
We are one step closer to a series of videos on Anarchism... I'd love to hear your take on that.
I am convinced that if a person is intellectually honest and logically consistent in exploring the concept of freedom, eventually one arrives at anarchy as the only possible conclusion. This channel has a fairly decent reach, i would love to see it go into this direction as well and help spread the message.
The true way out of this fixed game would be anarchy.
@@maurices5954 and it will devolve back into a form of government as people begin to develop systems the more complex they get you are gonna have to have people manage them, still gonna be crime gonna need law and a way to deal with criminals or outside threats so it will just go back to councils and eventually a form of tribalism. It won't work cause for it to work you have to change the minds of the masses and just basic human instinct it is just another utopian idea that sounds great on paper and falls apart in practice very few communes last for very long before they collapse, one of the most successful would be the Omish and they have a form of ruling council or body NO WHERE does it exist otherwise even the smallest tribes in the world got a chief or leader it is the basis even of our family structure.
@@DustinDonald-cz9ot Well, suppose all your predictive claims came true, even so, if the current world we live in is the worst that can happen, there is not much to lose. In the meantime the people would have gotten a taste of freedom in their lifetime and can judge for themselves which is the better alternative. The Omish/Amish are likely the closest to anarchy indeed but the ideas are slowly spreading. There's the Free State Project in New Hampshire and obviously Argentina is currently being influenced by anarcho-capitalism under Milei.
What is needed for anarchy to work is to reach a critical mass to trigger meaningful change, it starts with the intellectuals, if they are on board, the masses will follow like they always do. The biggest obstacle i see is convincing people of the idea of freedom and all that it entails, essentially you're asking a person to give up the predictable world he's living in right now in favor of the scary unknown concept of anarchy that comes with self-responsibility and accountability, it's a tough sell but a worthy cause if you ask me.
@@KRAZYKAISER007True anarchy can't exist.
If anarchy exists, what is then stopping me from forming an authoritarian regime? If they stop me from doing that, it is not anarchy.
6:08 describes our current "Administration" Perfectly
"Do not vote, it only encourages them" - some wise geezer
The message I'm getting from this piece is that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem is, no dictatorship can ever guarantee it will always be benevolent for all citizens, even if it might start that way.
No that’s not what it’s saying. It’s saying the nature of every government is corruption. No matter the system it creeps in overtime. Notice how it’s saying modern democracy and not democracy period. All governments fail eventually. There is no perfect system. Democracy is currently the best system but it has flaws and those flaws need to be remembered and watched for. Complacency is one of the biggest threats to it.
One party dictatorships are the least violent form of dictatorship, just don't rely too much on command economies and you can be stable.
@@caim3465point to a single example of a stable one party dictatorship 😊
@@emanymgulf states
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 the gulf states are not stable.
I have to disagree on a specific matter.
Power does not corrupt, and it is telling that after you mention the supposed corrupting nature of power you quickly end up discussing people who are already tainted seeking out power and Democracy's inability to keep power out of their hands.
It is weakness, not strength, that corrupts.
The undeserving who gain power are not corrupted by the power, it is instead they who corrupt the power.
"When the powerful Justifies the justification becomes the truth"
True power doesnt need justificarion
@@star_duck you are absolutely correct but Humans perception of power does need justification.
_Might makes right._
I sometimes wonder if a country drafting citizens into the majority of representative roles rather than voting for politicians with questionable motivations could foster a healthier society compared to what we've seen. I suppose corruption will always find a way, and context will dictate what plays.
Dude. Dude. Duuuuude. Thank you. You are literally the only person in here who isn't just complaining, but instead suggesting an alternative.
I say we draft citizens from a pool of exclusively you. You have restored the smallest flicker of hope for humanity in myself, and have seriously brightened my mood. Thank you
I think originally it was supposed to be similar to jury selection. At least at the local and state representative levels. I’d prefer the federal government shrinking and the power restored to the state and local governments. Part of the problem occurs when the rulers are tucked away far from their constituents. It’s much different when they have to come in contact with them every time they leave their home and being tucked hundreds or thousands of miles away in DC. This is why it was set up originally how it was. With the power concentrated where the people had more direct contact. If you did things against the citizenship you could face having tomatoes thrown at you when you walked down the street. What you’re up to is much more transparent.
At that point you may as well leave governance up to a coin toss. There are some who hold a general disinterest in policy and won't act as proper stewards
Too many Americans commenting on this.
The biggest flaw of Democracy is that people will eventually take it for granted. They think everything will just correct itself.
They don't think about actual situations that happen in the real world. So, their ability to address it will be minimal when they do arise.
Just like how it happened with the Romans.
And this is why Socrates said democracy can work. If the population is well-educated.
we live in a world where the smoothbrains out weigh the number of critical thinkers.
That de Tocqville quote at 12:30 is based as hell. What a genius to see that in the early 19th Century.
self governance by autonomous individuals, respecting the equal and mutual rights of others to do the same and voluntarily and as necessary choosing to work together to respond to various issues is the only way to achieve a truly peaceful and happy society.
After the economy collapses perhaps.
Hurry durrr durrrr people gonna respect each other cuz nobody make roads and protects weaklings
Oh the utopia. Your plan completely ignores human nature and pretends it doesn’t exist. What you’re talking about is tribes. Look at how peaceful that was please. We’re currently living in the most peaceful time in recorded history and act like it’s the opposite.
@@debanydoombringer1385 no it doesnt,this is the typical argument against human freedom, we live in a violent and angry society now, as politicians and governments face us off against each other. We are far more tribal now, divided by race, religion, political persuasion. Todays world is all about pitting us against each other, my utopia is exactly that and it would indeed be a peaceful and happy utopia.
@@tommalone58 But there would always be outstanding historic greviences under the surface.
You'll never have victims living peaceably alongside their unpunished predators.
I remember reading a quote that sounds like
"Democracy is a way for the corrupt to rise to power and create their own take on totalitarianism"
The other overlooked flaw of our democracy/idiocracy is that there are no IQ AND psychological tests (dark triad) mandatory for entry into politics.
Test
IQ doesn't make people in power any less greedy.
IQ is not the relevant factor, righteousness and morality is
@@commontouch1787 any testing is better than no tests at all. I agree psychological test for the dark triad would be more important.
@@sbef yes, but stupid politicians make idiotic decisions. Greed should be ruled out with different tests.
Not everyone should be allowed to vote.
And even less should be allowed to procreate.
Fully agree. Highly recommend the video "The Politics Of Starship Troopers" in which its broken down why that is literally the best system we could have. Of course that would hurt a few people's feelings.
Well, how and who should make such decision?
Especially illegal non citizens
Who should be given the power to select the voters?
I once read a book where they defined democracy as such:
Democracy is the worst most horrible, evil and cruel government known to man and its only saving grace is that it is better than all else.
A key element that you have missed is the idea of a constitution. France tried democracy and it became known as the terror and was soon deposed. The United States imposed those same principles and became the most successful nation on the planet. Why was this so?
The difference was that the French Jacobins being radical atheists did not believe in God. So when they pondered the question of where do rights come from they naturally decided that Rights come from Man. The colonies however were for the most part God Fearing Christians and so when they ask the question where does a man's right come from, the answer was Almighty God.
This led to a very distinct paradigm difference between the two starting nations. The French decided that since rights come from men they are therefore editable by men and thus it should be men that define them. Since men, especially men seeking power, are corruptible then they will decide to edit rights that a man is granted to suit their needs. Do not be deluded to think that it is just democracies where the greedy and corrupt can get to power. The smarmy money grubbing politician lusting for power lying to get elected in the democracy becomes the simping toady quisling brushing up against the ruling elite to advance in position. Every system must deal with this.
Now I am not saying God exists, I am religious and do believe it but for the sake of my argument I posit true even if there is no God which I will admit from a point of proof I cannot prove nor disprove His existence. Instead what I am stating is that it is the paradigm that provides an armor against corruption which the US benefited from. Since the Rights of Man are granted by God Almighty they are therefore inviolate and only editable by God himself. While rational men will certainly acknowledge that God does not come down and spell all of this out they will look to their religion, pray, consider morality and determine those elements of Natural Rights appear to be correct. Should someone posit that the definition of rights is misunderstood and needs to be changed then the body politic will be very loathe to simply make the change on a simple vote and much evidence must be presented and weighed even to get those in charge of these things to give consideration.
At issue is not the choice of who to vote for but rather the Rights that are granted. What natural freedoms does every citizen have, freedoms that cannot be altered even by the elected rulers because there is an independent judicial system in place to protect them.
I would posit to you that much of the corruption in the US has been from the erosion of these rights by the centralization of power starting with the 17th amendment removing the appointment to the US Senate by the State Government and the 16th amendment granting the power to levy an income tax. This was further eroded by the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt which created national agencies to control all 50 states. This moved a great deal of control from the state governments to the national governments. Many things ran by the state became either usurped by federal agencies or the state subject to regulatory controls. What this does is reduce COMPETITION!
COMPETITION is key in ensuring a level of freedom to the people and this is any country.
Take China for instance. They are run by the Communist Party. To enter the Party one has to be recommended, study, spend two years in a type of apprenticeship and prove to be loyal to the Party. Each regional party group answers to the larger area groups and ultimately to the party leaders. Control is at the highest level. However, recently under Xi Jinping attention to stopping corruption was put in place. Xi came into power, based on what little I know, because after the fall of the Soviet Union China understood it was corruption that failed them and so they were seeking to correct that. In Xi Jinping's thought, what I could find from the English version online, it actually states that Competition is required to avoid corruption.
This has been true in America as well. For a long time the US benefited from capitalist firms at each other's throats fighting to survive not just in granting market based prices but in keeping industry honest. After all if your competitor is cheating to get advantage you are more prone to call out and criticize this. Over the last few decades and escalating in 2008 the US economic system has suffered from crony capitalism where industry in cahoots with politicians made laws designed to place barriers to entry. Under TARP Obama elevated this by monopolizing the financial firms giving them power over capital which they abuse.
I would challenge the notion that it is the type of government Democracy, Monarchy or even Communism that is the problem but rather the centralization of decision making and the lack of any real competition. Sure, democracy can be manipulated but even in America the corruption at the local town level is less severe. It happens but angry citizens can more readily correct this even within their own party apparatus. This is because it is much harder for central planners to tally every small community in a nation. Likewise in industries with few barriers to entry where it is easy to start a business there is less economic malfeasance against the customers than those which are more heavily regulated and controlled. This is because customers have more choices and getting caught cheating them is not able to be gotten around.
Take China for instance. If joining the party, at least at the local level was much easier and the local party in the area had more independent control or decision making for that area then I would submit that at least locally there would be more freedom and real choice, even under their controlled system. I actually believe China would benefit from that but they are not going to listen to me. Further if China closely adheres to a constitution and set of rights which the grant an independent judiciary the ability to enforce equally I think they would end up benefiting more.
So in conclusion it is not the governmental form but rather the body politics devotion to three factors:
1) Natural Rights independently administered to all
2) Competition
3) Decentralization of power with the only Centralized power being what is absolutely necessary.
I further submit any government in the world today would benefit themselves and their people the more they increase these three items.