What's going on in Europe doesn't make sense.
If a King saw a mass migration (as big as we see now) coming, he would set up barriers, threaten violence, or send an army to intercept them as to keep them from coming inside the kingdom or perhaps even just kill them where they stand if they refuse to leave.
The reason? His incentive is to maintain his throne. To maintain the throne his father or mother once held, and their parents and so on and so forth. Also, if he were to lose the thrown he would be executed immediately (can't have a legitimate king organizing a resistance) as we have seen throughout history, shit even babies were killed to kill off lineage of the throne.
The point being, in a monarchy the power is consolidated..as well as the wealth. The King doesn't need outside money because he has all the money he could ever want or ask for (pretending its a rich nation, think USA, China, Japan or any other top 5 GDP countries) therefore any outside attempt to bribe him would be seen as a threat. Not saying it didn't happen in the past, but we know that Kings were wealthy enough to have "fuck you money" and as we have seen throughout history, they go to war.
As I have seen so far, all of these post-WW2 democracies lack one thing that is very common throughout history: War.
War is fought to achieve goals. Whether they are material, egotistical, ideological, or theological it doesn't much matter. Other options were exasperated or they figured war was easier than espionage or bribery.
There has been a disturbing lack of war between the developed nations ever since World War 2.
I mean real war. The war that gets called out and recognized by the governments and people on each side, the war that dominates news channels, newspapers, orators and however else news was passed along in ancient times.
Yes, all of these wars have been fought in ages past and disputes have been ironed out, but there are many that have not been ironed out or solved whatsoever.
Take Islam for example. What we are seeing today is nothing more than revenge for centuries past. They call us Crusaders, they openly declare war on our people and rape our women. They constantly say they will out breed us and take over, it's not just a few...it's many (preaching to the choir) , but the first thing a government that is not corrupt would is stop the invasion. Through violence is necessary.
Everyone responds to violence, that is why it has always been used and will always be used. Violence would stop the immigration immediately, this is a universal truth.
That being said, the fact that we have not seen any sort of response to the mass immigration, or a threat of military response against the migrants and the governments sending them here leads only one simple answer in my mind: corruption.
Yes..yes it's obvious to all of us that our democracies in the West are corrupted, the Republic in the USA is facing a crisis like we haven't faced before, and our governments sit idly by while people from other countries put pressure on us, the people they are supposed to serve.
They do not protect us because they do not serve us. When a democracy is created, the balance of power is distributed but the concentration of wealth is distributed as well.
A wealthier player can enter the game and buy up the smaller competition just like a large company does to a smaller company, they buy up smaller ones to consolidate their market share and gain greater control over the whole market.
Other nations that don't follow our rules, that are ruled by a true monarchy or ruling family (saudi arabia) can have more money than the richest of the rich in the USA at their disposal, allowing them to buy up the market in the USA.
The reason there hasn't been a violent response to this attack is corruption...as Goats we all know this but the word needs to get out. We're corrupt.
Politicians serving in the government should not be millionaire's after they've been in public service for years.
It seems...democracies are destined to become corrupt.
I suppose any type of government can become corrupt, are democracies just easier?
Fuck, am I crazy to think this?
Sort: Top
[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
[–] MaunaLoona 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] Approved 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] dontforgetaboutevil 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] ago
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.
[–] 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.
[–] xenoPsychologist ago
everything involving people is destined to be corrupt. dont act so surprised.
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.
[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] ago
What do you think is the best way to minimize corruption?
[–] xenoPsychologist ago
thats been quite a puzzle for a few thousand years now. if i figure out an answer, ill let ya know.
[–] 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.
[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
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.
Yes yes go on..
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.
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".
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.
[–] [deleted] ago
[–] CaliforniaOrange [S] ago
Do you have an actual response or you just doin it for shits and gigs?