Democracy and Humanism suck and don't work

[KingScorpio]

Democracy and Humanism both suck and are doomed to fail, in a world full of vicious hostile people.

first of all:

democracy tends to left open borders until the society starts dissolving itself -> visible in the usa "defund the police"

humanism also doesnt work because people are abusing it, until the society runs out of productive capacities.

its time to get rid of both in the west. because otherwise the livelyhoods of the vast majority of western population is under risk

also an issue the insidious racism of the left. that is basically targeting the native population for the benefit of foreigners.

especially the combination of democracy and humanism is a dangerous one as societies are being overrun with illegal migrants that then are inventing reasons to live on the back of workers.

how to get rid of both in the west?

regards

[jackg]

The main issue with democratic movements is that the outspoken are the ones that are heard and they're normally the "radicals" so their ideas just go ignored by most other than other "free radicals" (if you pardon the metaphor). I'm not sure of the way to get rid of the current ideals of democracy.

The main system that seems to go suggested is that either of a technocratic system or a decentralised democratic one.

In technocratic systems, people with knowledge in an area can vote on the outcomes (such as university professors etc) however most researchers can change opinions based on research pretty quickly or jst forget about stuff (and it'd obviously require a committee of judges to determine if they're voting right).

Places with a more decentralised democracy, imo, should take 1000 representatives and place them in a parliament/congress type setting where they can vote on whether to pass a law or not (a counsel of judges are generally used already in places to ensure bills can be enforced) a simple idea of individual 1000 strong juries being able to vote on each bill and if a majority of those elect in favour over the year, then it can be passed. Something like changing each jury every week and ensuring 30 juries vote on it in a year or it gets dropped until it gets a further threshold again as a new petition.



These are just rhoughts I've had and I'm not sure of the likelihood of them just breaking after a certain amount of time but enough random people could be selected from different locations so each part of the population groups get equally represented.

[KingScorpio]

The main issue with democratic movements is that the outspoken are the ones that are heard and they're normally the "radicals" so their ideas just go ignored by most other than other "free radicals" (if you pardon the metaphor). I'm not sure of the way to get rid of the current ideals of democracy.

The main system that seems to go suggested is that either of a technocratic system or a decentralised democratic one.

In technocratic systems, people with knowledge in an area can vote on the outcomes (such as university professors etc) however most researchers can change opinions based on research pretty quickly or jst forget about stuff (and it'd obviously require a committee of judges to determine if they're voting right).

Places with a more decentralised democracy, imo, should take 1000 representatives and place them in a parliament/congress type setting where they can vote on whether to pass a law or not (a counsel of judges are generally used already in places to ensure bills can be enforced) a simple idea of individual 1000 strong juries being able to vote on each bill and if a majority of those elect in favour over the year, then it can be passed. Something like changing each jury every week and ensuring 30 juries vote on it in a year or it gets dropped until it gets a further threshold again as a new petition.



These are just rhoughts I've had and I'm not sure of the likelihood of them just breaking after a certain amount of time but enough random people could be selected from different locations so each part of the population groups get equally represented.

democracy is pointless, there can't be a democracy if no one pays taxes.

democracy is around how to spend money & taxes.

[jackg]

democracy is pointless, there can't be a democracy if no one pays taxes.

democracy is around how to spend money & taxes.

If you don't pay taxes you lose any minimum wage or unemployment support people had for whatever reason, you lose police, judges and most importantly any sort of defence/military. You also lose your central monetary system, what you going to replace those paper notes with, who's going to back it up..

And if you don't have any military support, someone will just come along from outside and invade or from within and build up an inner circle to take over and run the country - reinventing taxes to fund themselves...? Or they'll just enslave everyone in the land or at least those who don't agree.

[Mttewndew]

In a democracy, all people participate in elections, but everyone votes individually. Of course, not all people are wise and able to make the right decisions. Therefore, I do not think such a system is correct.

In my opinion, it is much better when some issues are resolved within each family, then the wisest of all solves issues with others of the same kind from others, for example, 20 families. Then from these people the wisest one whom everyone trusts is selected. This person will go further down the chain. As a result, the most wise people will remain in the end, because these people are chosen by the people. The people will not choose those people who cannot be trusted. In addition, these selected wise people understand that the lives of their own families and the whole people depend on their decisions. Therefore, in the end, the most rational decisions will be made.

The first place in society should be - sanity, honesty, sincerity, kindness and comprehensive love (spirituality).

[PavelMed]

I came to the conclusion that democracy is impossible. It is possible in utopia, but in reality, no. There are citizens who cannot make a rational balanced decision, but they vote. And I'm not talking about psychiatric patients, but just about people with a high level of suggestibility.

[BADecker]

The USA and Britain are not Democracies. But all the riots are trying to turn them into Democracy.

If they are not Democracy, what are they? They are Libertarian, but few people seem to understand this.

Google "Ammon Bundy Idaho standoff," and look at the results of the court cases. Government dearly wanted the jury to bring a guilty verdict, but they set the Bundy's free.

Wake up and see that this isn't what happens in a Democracy. The riots are Democracy... mob rule.