[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] MaunaLoona 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I tend to be more cynical. At the end of the 19th century the elites realized democracy was more profitable for them than monarchy or dictatorship. It took them 50 years and two world wars to convert all of Europe to democracy.

Every four or eight years you put someone else in power and let them loot the country for you. Keeps the peasants happy as they get to kick the bums out of office every election cycle.

0
0

[–] syntaxaxe ago  (edited ago)

I think democracies are at high risk for corruption in two particular cases:

1) In an extremely free-market capitalist nation, especially in modern times, because you end up with a culture addicted to materialism. I could give a long explanation for why I think this is, but regardless of my theories, it is clear that the West is living in a materialistic culture of me-me-me, where we are all addicted to TV and video games and junk food and porn and drugs and money. In such a culture, people are likely to be too distracted to pay much attention to their politicians, people will vote for any candidate that promises the most benefits and easiest answers, and everyone gets apathetic enough after all the political lies that nobody is shocked that their politicians are all corrupt, so uncovering it changes nothing. Political campaigns then go to the candidate who spends the most money on advertising, which means the laws and policies are made by whoever spends the most money on buying a candidate.

2) In a multicultural nation, because you end up with such conflicting interests within society, that there is no clear set of values that everyone sees benefit in. Because of that, you can't speak truth. For example, the candidate who is appealing to blue-collar white citizens in the Midwest, and a candidate who is appealing to working-class Latinos in the Southwest, they might as well be leaders of totally different countries. They couldn't focus too much on specific policies, because it would be clear that they aren't representing the interests of broad swaths of the country. They have to either give conflicting messages about policy, or give very vague speeches about non-specific, universally good sounding values, if not just running smear campaigns.

Of course, places like America have both of these issues right now, which is a big part of why we've got shit government. I think the only way to not have corrupted democracy is to have a homogeneous population that identifies as a single in-group, to have business regulated to what clearly benefits the society, and have leaders who are prohibited from getting wealthy from politics. And even then, you'll probably still need to have a revolution every once in a while to get rid of the people who figured out how to game the current system.

0
1

[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Political campaigns then go to the candidate who spends the most money on advertising, which means the laws and policies are made by whoever spends the most money on buying a candidate.

True, until the internet went mainstream. Look at the special Georgia election. The democrats blew the republicans out of the water in advertising and spending, yet still lost.

n a multicultural nation, because you end up with such conflicting interests within society, that there is no clear set of values that everyone sees benefit in. Because of that, you can't speak truth.

Yes yes go on..

For example, the candidate who is appealing to blue-collar white citizens in the Midwest, and a candidate who is appealing to working-class Latinos in the Southwest, they might as well be leaders of totally different countries

Exactly. Which is why we have stupid as fuck California pretending they're their own country. Its quite funny actually, since I live here. I get to see it first had...so many are deluded.

They have to either give conflicting messages about policy, or give very vague speeches about non-specific, universally good sounding values, if not just running smear campaigns.

And so we get politicians in power that don't have to bow to any group of people, since the power is divided up between so many conflicting groups all the politican has to do is find the lowest common denominator which comes to, as you said, "good sounding values".

have a homogeneous population that identifies as a single in-group, to have business regulated to what clearly benefits the society, and have leaders who are prohibited from getting wealthy from politics. And even then, you'll probably still need to have a revolution every once in a while to get rid of the people who figured out how to game the current system.

Well put.

I love Voat. I think the intellectuals of our age (not all of them) but some of them...are here.

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.

Cheers.

0
1

[–] Approved 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Democracy, itself, is corrupt.

One premise of democracy is that all people are equal, which is false. They're not.

Another oremise of democracy is that allowing everyone to have an equal vote is fair, and the right thing to do.

It isn't fair, and it isn't right that a literal retard whose family hasn't had a paying job for three generations has the same voting rights as a college-educated engineer who's running a startup employing 100 people at high wages.

How the fuck could that possibly be fair? Or right?

Democracy is built on a foundation of lies, designed to hide the actual oligarchy behind the scenes from public view, and to shield them.

An actual monarchy, run by a non-inbred, non-efete royal house would end up making decisions that were more fair and more equitable than those made in a western democracy.

Why? Because the demands of one small royal family are absolutely nothing percentage-wise to a developed economy, but the demands of 20 layers of hidden deep state oligarchs are enough to bankrupt most developed nations.

0
0

[–] xenoPsychologist ago 

everything involving people is destined to be corrupt. dont act so surprised.

What we are seeing today

is nothing but a result of their incredibly immoral religion. its not because of colonialism or capitalism. other peoples had poor experiences with those things and didnt turn into complete monsters. it has literally nothing to do with anything anyone else did. they arent the victims fighting righteously against an oppressor. they are monsters.

people are corrupt. some more than others.

0
0

[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] ago 

people are corrupt. some more than others.

What do you think is the best way to minimize corruption?

0
0

[–] xenoPsychologist ago 

thats been quite a puzzle for a few thousand years now. if i figure out an answer, ill let ya know.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] ago 

Do you have an actual response or you just doin it for shits and gigs?

0
1

[–] dontforgetaboutevil 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Since when is a lack of war disturbing?

In any case the best answer I come up with to your question is no. I don't think that democracies must inevitably become corrupt. Nor do I think that about any other government type necessary.

However, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Not just vigilance against external foes but also internal foes of liberty. Once liberty is gone corruption follows inevitably.

The price of freedom must be paid every day. The people who stop paying that price will lose everything. Basically freedom cannot be bought it can only be rented.

0
0

[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] ago 

Since when is a lack of war disturbing?

The lack of physical war is disturbing. At least with physical war, you know your enemy. You know that A is a good guy and B is the bad guy (enemy), but with corruption, the other country may be at war with you....you just don't know it. They'll fight war through economics, bribery, population control (less whites more shitskins).

To me that is much worse, I'd rather face an opponent straight up than have him break me away piece by piece each day without me even knowing.

0
0

[–] dontforgetaboutevil ago 

I don't agree with you at all. That kind of low grade war you are talking about really only hurts the rich people and businessmen of a country. But a shooting war means the poor get called up to be bullet stoppers for an empire that has never done them a day of good in their lives.

If they ever try to force me to fight an imperial war I will turn on the rich so goddamned fast.