4 ms·
I don't think that anybody seriously considers the republic of Rome a democracy. Also Athenian and Venetian "democracy" were so wildly different from the curre
by A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
I don't think that anybody seriously considers the republic of Rome a democracy.
Also Athenian and Venetian "democracy" were so wildly different from the current model that it's really not at all the same thing. Hewing more closely to the Athenian model could solve many of the world's problems, but today's oligarchical (at best!) "representatives," having attained power, will not willingly relinquish it.
- CooCooCaCha 1y agoIn that case, you defeated your own argument because if you dismiss historical democracies (which I agree with) then you’re left with modern democracies which haven’t existed long enough to compare with monarachy in terms of resilience. But I also fully acknowledge that invalidates my argument as well. However, I still think the stability of monarchies is overstated. Just because a dynasty lasts for 700 years doesn’t mean it was stable.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y agoUh, yeah, which is why "democracies are certainly more stable than monarchy" doesn't make any sense. > modern democracies which haven’t existed long enough to compare with monarachy in terms of resilience. lol, dude. Western democracy has been been on the wane for a long time now, and it's unironically just about over. The West is either going to continue down its path towards less democracy and plutocrat/oligarch/jurist rule with politics as bread and circuses (very bad, an intensification of what we have right now) -- or make a hard break towards more democracy and prole/populist mob rule (not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're a political extremist like, perhaps ironically, Yarvin himself.) Polybius saw it all, in his day. <-- Ochlocracy <--> Democracy <--> Oligarchy -->