Democracy sucks

Sheep came to establish their great democracy.

What is democracy? It is rule of the sheep.

Thats why the sheep are for it.

However, sheep are unfit to rule anything.

Sheep in 2001: "We should invade Iraq"

Sheep in 2016: "it was a mistake to invade Iraq"

Well, "mistake" is a strange word to use for the killing of million people. Usually, I use the word "mistake" to describe an error in grammar.

Sheep are stupid, so naturally a country governed by sheep will make bad decisions. To expect anything different would be pure stupidity.

Sheep elected Hitler. Contrary to the popular belief, Hitler was not a dictator. In fact, he was elected. Germany before Hitler was a democracy. Hitler had as much popular support as Trump did.

Who would have thought that choosing leaders based on popularity and their false promises could be bad for the country?

We are expecting  that "Stupid voters elect smart leaders".

What we get is "Stupid voters elect stupid leaders".

It seems unreasonable to expect that stupid voter makes smart decisions. He might make one or two smart decisions, but he will make much more decisions that are stupid. Therefore, stupidity prevails in the decisions of stupid voters.

What is interesting about stupid people is:

Stupid people dont know that they are stupid.

Smart people know who is smart and that stupid people are stupid. 

However, stupid people dont know who is smart and who is stupid.

Therefore, when stupid people elect a smart leader, its merely an accident. Its not an intentional action.

If democracy is the best system of government, then the best system of government is the one where we have liars and idiots as presidents. Liars, I say, because you have to make false promises to become president. Idiots, I say, it was already explained that stupid voters make stupid decisions and elect mostly idiots.

How is this different from monarchy? Well, in monarchy, king elects an heir. Now, lets say you have a good smart king. He will elect a good smart heir intentionally. His good smart heir will elect another good smart heir.

However, in democracy, electing a good smart leader is difficult. 

Even if we say "Leader doesnt have to be smart. He just has to be good.",

Is it reasonable to expect that voters elect good leader? 

If we take a look at morality of the masses:

Most people break speed limit and endanger traffic.

Most people refuse to help the poor.

Most people use lies.

Most people are sexually immoral.

Most people want to get rich easily.

Most people bully and abuse others.

Most people divorce at the expense of their children.

Most people only do good if it benefits them.

Can we expect from these people to elect a good moral leader? Probably not. So it is of no coincidence that every president elected by masses is sexually immoral, corrupt, thief or war criminal.

Democracy is a path to Socialism. However, not the kind of Socialism Marx hoped for. Rather, the Socialism where majority steals from minority. Any president promising free stuff for the masses has an advantage. The one with best promises for free stuff wins.

Now, the presidents are not allowed to say: "If you vote for me, I will give you 1000$ out of my own pocket".

No, that would be bribe.

But presidents are allowed to say: "If you vote for me, I will take 1000$ from the rich and give it to you".

The only difference between these two bribes is that one is also a theft.

Now, people say: Capitalism rewards according to merit. 

However, smart people in capitalism are not always rich. And the richest people are not the smartest.

This impossible contradiction, where capitalism rewards according to merit, while at the same time smartest people are not being the richest.

So there is some other factor in play other than being smart.

Back to democracy. Can we say that there is any benefit in democracy as opposed to kingdom? It seems that the only benefit is that masses have no one to blame but themselves when their country sucks.

Eh, I talk nonsense. I should support the rule of the sheep, I mean democracy.

I have to agree with this.

That sounds a lot like Marxism.

Actually, Marx said "to each according to his work" in describing Socialism. Eh, Marx and his fantasies.

That's not justice, because the labor theory of value is demonstrably false.

Marx wanted society where people dont exploit each other. However, democracy just turned into infinite exploitation of minority by majority and majority by minority.

Labor theory of value I would say, sounds good. Its impossible to implement it in practice. Socialist countries rejected it.

In theory, labor theory of value works. In practice, there are issues such as production not being in line with demand and labor-money being even more difficult than the regular rationing of goods.

The labor theory of value was intended to be a description of capitalism, not a plan for organizing the economy. That's why it can be disproven.

Actually, Marx mentioned the idea of labor-money, the idea being derived from labor theory of value.

It was that price of the product would be the time needed to make it, and wage of the worker would be the time he worked minus taxes required for society to function.

It was further developed by other Marxists.

The labor theory of value was supposed to justify labor-money. (i.e. labor money is  a just economic system, because the labor theory of value is an accurate description of the economy). But because the labor theory of value is false, the conclusion doesn't follow.

Yes. Plus, its impossible to have labor-money as a system for economy.

Its so much easier to turn to simple rationing or limiting the possessions the person can have.

Some Marxists moved to worker-coops as an alternative to capitalism. But that is just too much democracy for me. I dont see how workers can manage any economy of a production facility.

I would imagine that a rapist has a similar view on the requirement of consent for a sexual encounter and ongoing relationship. To me, there is very little different. 

You either rule people with their consent or you don't. If you don't care to earn their consent, then you can only rule by fear.

For somebody who elsewhere advocated for children being capable of genuine consent (this was you, not me) and that parenting is fundamentally dictatorial, it bemuses me that you don't see how much bigger and badder national dictatorship is then, when contrasted with consensual democratic rule.

Marital rape was legal in a lot of democratic countries. Since we agree that rape is unjust, that actually supports the point that tyranny of the majority isn't always the best system.

The problem with consent of the masses is that they give it to liars and idiots.

I am going by the results here. Plus, these masses themselves have no respect for consent of others, so it is kinda awkward when they demand for their consent to be respected.

While I do find consent system interesting, people arent consistent about it and never stick to it.

Woman refuses to get pregnant and by doing that destroys her future child, therefore destroys child's consent as well.

The same law that says how children are unable to consent also says that 10 year-old can go to prison.

So yes, since masses dont stick to their own values, is there a point in respecting their consent when choosing a leader?

Yes. Since, if I do not, they would rape me anyway.

You could have a dictator who makes rape illegal, or an armed minority in a country with constitutional protections.

Yes there is. The reason yo respect their consent is that the leader can be an idiot too and there will be noone to hold them accountable unless the others can.

I don't think it's hypothetical. Constitutional protections exist today, and there are many examples of "pure" democracies failing.

Masses usually fail to hold leaders accountable. In fact, some of the worst leaders in history had mass popular support.

It is impossible to hold leaders properly in check. Church tried holding leaders in check with religion. Monarchy tried holding leaders in check by family members. Democracy tried to hold leaders in check by replacing competent kings with idiots and liars. So no, I dont think progress can be made in keeping leaders in check.

Everyone thinks the OTHER guy is a sheep

True lol

The flaw in any form of governance is the individual counting on it for anything and giving it more and more power to be more reliant on it. I live as if I am on my own and no one is coming to save me. If govt builds a road, great I'll drive on it. If govt doesn't maintain that road and it becomes filled with pot holes, I will drive around them as best I can. I don't expect govt to fix it. The point is reliance on govt will always be a life of disappointment, misery and death.  I am never disappointed by govt. It does and doesn't do everything I expect any govt to do, Not serve my needs and interests so I never look to it for anything. If govt does something that turns out to be beneficial to me it wasn't because it was thinking of me or the people it was doing it for the benefit of govt by govt and for govt. All forms of govt become the same over time as they grow in size and power. People outside of govt just become  liabilities to govt that need to be controlled and handled to maintain govt status quo for those in govt.

Governments are mostly useless in solving many problems.

I see the government as necessary to control military to protect us from the governments of other countries.

The government naturally forms with military, and then starts expanding to create police, social services...ect.

I think that governments are evil by default, but the problem is that government has to exist as a necessary consequence of force. If force exists, then government too must exist.

If someone uses force to create government and to rule over people, then there will be government.

If "person who uses force" results in "that person ruling over others", then there will always be government.

Only when person is unable to use force to rule over others, is when we wont have government.

Some amount of Govt is necessary for things like militaries and infrastructure. I agree to that. But all govts become the same as they are allowed  grow in size and power by the very people they are supposed to serve. They turn into tyrannical controlling puss bowls from hell that hold the very people they are supposed to serve in complete and total contempt. Any form of govt could work as long as it isn't allowed to expand beyond serving only the basic needs that a govt is supposed to do. Once you allow govt to provide for basic individual needs for the majority, it all over. Comply or die.

I believe equal right of education in the U.S. faces crisis these days. I discuss this problem later.