I agree that liberal democracy has failings, but I tie those failings to the fact that liberal democracy is essentially majoritarianism without a philosophical foundation. Personally I believe that a Republic with seperation of powers is better. I would also want this Republic to have an explicit religion or philosophy it is based in as to prevent legal interpretation from going off the rails. I would he against monarchism however as while the original monarch may be noble, future monarchs often get too comfortable with their own power.

>>18519272
The flaws of modern democracy:
>1. No seperation of powers:
Since the executive and judicial branch members are voted in by (and often stem from) the legislative branch, which is entirely controlled by a cartel of political parties, separation of powers doesn't exist.
>2. No punishment for lobbyism:
Lobbyism —political bribery — is entirely legal and leads to politicians selling out every aspect of their nation and its people to banks, corporations and foreign powers.
>3. No accountability:
Rulers aren't liable for reducing the nation's health. Often they get re-elected even if the majority knows they're bad rulers, simply because the alternatives are even worse and voting for a non-cartel party means throwing your vote away.
>4. Warring tribes
While democracy might work in small ethnostate, where the vast majority has the same core interests, democracies tend to foreignize and diversify their population, thus creating ever more opposing interest groups that are doomed to take up arms against each other in a struggle over land, power and resources.
>5. Soft civil war
While authoritarian regimes tend to unify the country under a single ideology, democracy splits the population into opposing ideological camps that hate each other and would rather ally with foreigners or extremists than with each other.
>6. Pacifism:
Since democracies are designed to empower anti-war interest groups (merchants, academics, the petit burgeoisie as a whole), the youth will be raised anti-violent, anti-masculine and to passively obey weak authorities. The result is either being defeated militarily by foreign nations (outside threat) or by migrants from non-pacifist societies (inside threat).

[...]

>7. Anti-meritocracy:
Since authorities can't be held accountable and citizens are taught to obey weak leaders, the system tends to elect ever more unqualified personnel into leading positions.
>8. Equality:
Different people need different modes of living, thus access to different rights and resources to function. Restricting access to guns, performance-enhancing drugs or quality education to high-IQ people means diminishing the nation's potential, while allowing low-IQ people access to public transportation, pitbulls or the entry into the political system means actively sowing chaos. People also aren't seperated by abilities and interest early on, choosing a divergent path of education only being possible after the brain is almost fully developed.
>9. Schools
Democratic schools are little more than prisons for children. Democrats fear children, because they are everything the democrat isn't: curious, amoral, adventurous and disrespectful towards weak and crooked people. Since their teachers are the aforementioned weak authorities, they won't be taught any useful knowledge by the idiots that dictate their lifes.
>10. Nihilism:
Every democratic nations tends to grow extremely nihilistic, because every religion and non-satirical, non-absurdist ideology gets deconstructed and dumbed down to its most superficial and materialistic elements, while its priest-like moral leaders treat democracy itself like a religion — but one without rituals, spirituality or any serious willingness to sacrifice oneself for it. That's why democrats are largely apathetic to the downfall of democracy, unwilling to save it from imploding before their eyes.
>11. Legalism:
Since the democrat doesn't have a religion or respectable leader to look up to, secular law to him has the status of religios scripture and disobeying the law is a sacrilege that has to be avoided, even if it means being impoverished or killed by the consequences of its internal contradictions.

[...]

>12. The media:
Every leader gets mocked, every belief turned into satire, everything enjoyable gets scandalized until everyone is a paranoiac only keeping to himself, to not risk the media priests to accuse him of wrongdoing and have his neighbors or random strangers turn on him. That's the consequence of media outlets uncontrolled by the state, entirely driven by seeking popularity through sensationalism.
>13. Ethicism:
The academic elites twist the word ethics around until everything that maintains a healthy nation is a crime and everything that furthers their own influence and lazy authoritarianism is a virtue.
>14. Erosion of the center:
Since democracies tend to self-destruct without a legal way to restart the system, voters flock to the most destructive extremists until rational governance is impossible and either a dictatorship or a civil war commences.

Those were just some points I scrapped together in the last minutes. I could probably write a whole book about the internal failings of democracy.
As for alternatives I'm not sure, but from what I've seen and heard Europe and America are going in the direction of corporate techno-feudalism, like it or not.

I should also add that democracy requires treating the population to a constant stream of fanatic propaganda that praises democracy as the one and only savior of civilization, which is supposedly always being threatened by shadowy enemies and terrorists from within and without. Democracy is, maybe aside from communism, the most totalitarian system, because it doesn't allow any ideological competition and seeks to democratize every aspect of live (unless it clashes with the monetary order that stands above it).

>>18519272
I find it weird that Polybius said the Roman Republic was the best form of government because it incorporated monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy into one government where each would check the other. How exactly were the consuls (which he compared to monarchs due to their huge executive power) and the senate (the aristocrats) meant to be checks on one another, when the consuls WERE senators? Wouldn't their interests have basically always been aligned?

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other ones.

People who think monarchy is better have no understanding of history or systems of power.

>>18519591
Democracy isn't better than roman republicanism and national socialism. As it stands, democracy is driving towards civil war, race war and economic collapse, maybe another world war too.

>>18519632
I'm sure its just a coincidence that all the best countries are democracies then, and that autocracies are on the whole all shitholes.

>>18519460
It wouldn't be very coherent book since past point 2 your points are generously speculative and less generously wholly imaginary or even contrary to historic and contemporary examples.
>>18519591
Dangerously based

>>18519632
>other systems may have fallen apart but in 2 more weeks democracy will also collapse
cope. ideological darwinism has resulted in democracies being the most powerful, most prosperous societies on the planet. america has the oldest constitution in the world for a reason.

>>18519272
Collective thinking happens in hierarchy. Layers induce upwards and deduce down. You cannot short circuit three base layer to the top as in democracy or a republic. The inference nodes cannot override the apex through voting and such.

>>18520095
*the base layer

File: brainlet.jpg (49 KB, 922x781)

49 KB JPG

>>18519272
>I believe democracy is failing globally because it's pandering to the demos

>>18520067
The world is eating up what it created in disciplinarian monarchies.

>>18519272
>Which government system would you implement in your country and why?
I don't mind parliamentarian democracy, but I think we should weaken party control over policy by allotting at least a third of all seats by lot drawn from the whole of the electorate.

Seems like a good way to generate parliamentarian majorities for policies 80% of the population actually supports.

>>18520104
Who cares what people support? We should do what must be done.

>>18520107
>We should do what must be done.
They aren't doing that either.

>>18519588
For a year, the consuls as elected magistrates had broad powers to propose laws, only needing approval via votes from an assembly.

The Senate on the other hand did not (until the reign of Augustus) have any power to pass laws, they could only *recommend* proposals, hence why these are called Senatus Consulta and not Lex.

That said, although only elected magistrates could propose lex, after their year in office was over they would almost automatically (automatically after Sulla's reforms) become members of the Senate, meaning that if they want their political influence to last through their lifetime they couldn't alienate the Senate, and hence try and appease them despite their recommendations not having the force of law.
>>18519675
The United States was explicitly founded as a mixed constitution, and it's enshittification has been synonymous with it becoming less aristocratic (this is why Congress is a joke know) and more democratic/monarchic.

File: 1780529287588356.png (13 KB, 158x151)

13 KB PNG

>>18520142
>enshittification
Relative to what? To hekkin trad and based days before there were any paved roads? This is why nobody takes you retards seriously. Your entire rhetoric is rooted in Nirvana fallacy

>>18520123
Because it's an oligarchy. Disciplinarian monarchy all the way.

File: fig2_prodhhincome.jpg (304 KB, 2192x1444)

304 KB JPG

>>18520159
Very dishonest to say this in a time when dissatisfaction with the status quo has been so high, amid stagnant wages and declining cities.

It's stupid to attribute the material successes of today only to the system that currently exists, rather than that which existed 100 years ago and allowed that economic progress in the first place.

>>18519272
Why stop at 17th century governments, where are the ones from the last few centuries like socialism fascism, communism, and libertarianism?

There's only one democracy in the world though and it's Switzerland, which incidentally has some of the most sane policy in the west. The majority of issues with "democracy" comes from it's representative form, which became dominant cause of the egocentric revolutionaries huffing their own farts while larping as the failed state of rome.

I think it's noteworthy that the representive form is extremely dysgenic not just to governance but also to the citizens who have politics consequently thrust into their life but whose high majority never actually spend a second thinking of policy instead thinking about which guy is really theirs and gossip or history regarding, engaging in base tribal flinging, based off culture war conditioning made to ensure party loyalists, distract from lacking platforms, shift blame, create basis for censoring people and thus effectively controlling potential opposition etc. At least with the direct form even if the masses remain manipulable and stupid, the nature of what's being voted centring on policy forces public discourse to think on matters that demand some degree of intellectual engagement and are of actual functional significance in the longterm, instead encouraging development.
Also, the constricted extent to what government officials can push through inherently limits the degree to which they can corrupt; even if they control what is/isn't voted on they ultimately can't prevent things being voted against.

>>18520187
The system from 100 years ago was also democratic. Your desired aristocratic USA died out before the civil war.

>>18520098
>implying the demos has a will of its own and isn't just a headless chicken running around in circles

>>18520481
>implying implications
If you think Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious, just say so, don't spew ashkenazi intellectual buzzwords.

>>18520494
>If you think Democracy is inherently flawed and fallacious
I do.
>ashkenazi
Democracy is the most jewish system. In most democracies you end up in jail when you mention jewish influence, deny the Holocaust, criticize Israel or jews in any way and even if not, you're losing all political and social reputation, lose your job and end up an outcast. Not even communism gave this amount of power to the jews, despite being created by them.

The demos/people don't have a will if their own. That's why every society collapses if your rob it of its strong-willed, high-IQ leadership.

I think that first and foremost democracies need civic engagement. As much as they love to bitch and moan about politics the average person in a developed, democratic nation is uninterested in the political affairs of their nation and even immediate community. There's roughly 35000 hours in four years, and a significant amount of people in these democratic nations can't be bothered to even invest 1-2 of those into casting their vote, whether that's because they're too lazy, too uninformed or too nihilistic about the process. Among the people that do vote there's an even larger chunk who's political engagement ends there. They'll show up at the voting booth every 4 years and they might even talk about politics the months leading up to the election, but they have no idea who's on their city council and they've never contacted a local politician or a government worker.
The elected people are supposed to be the representatives of their constituents, but how many of them actually speak to their representative or their staffers if they're too busy to have direct contact with the average Joe? I remember that Chat Control 2.0 was on the news here not too long ago, and many of the people who bother to read the news were outraged by this expansion of state power. I'd bet that not even a tenth (and that's being generous) contacted their rep, their party, their whatever to ask them about their position if it was unclear and to voice their concerns if they position was not to their liking. Citizens in a democracy have a right to, and one could argue an obligation to be in touch with their reps. If a politicians declares that they'll take a controversial stance on a vote that their constituents don't agree with then they should be greeted with thousands of emails and non-stop phone calls that make it perfectly clear that their ass will be out of office soon unless they change course.

>>18521122
That being said I still think there are other improvements that can be made, but ultimately these things only work if people actually care. You can vote in more accountability, more supervision, more transparency and whatever, but it only works if the people actually make an effort to enforce these things upon politicians.