Hyolobrika on Nostr: npub1z06la…ny3q9 https://xianc78.codeberg.page/articles/dear-democracy.html This ...
npub1z06laf0rhhwzd7h0y303hfp6e7r29e8p6vyl2yr7nv5uefdgtcfslny3q9 (npub1z06…y3q9)
https://xianc78.codeberg.page/articles/dear-democracy.html
This article makes no sense.
>Democracy doesn't even exist
In general, that has no bearing on whether it should exist. Is-ought distinction.
But it seems you just meant that voting doesn't work as it hasn't eliminated the bad things you listed. But monarchies have had lese-majeste laws, so monarchy "doesn't work" either.
I've never seen any evidence for a "shadow government".
>A monarch is NOT the same thing as a tyrant
>A monarch works in the interest of his/her people and country
And what's stopping a monarch from being a tyrant?
What's forcing or incentivising them to act in the interests of their country and people?
What's preventing them from denying "their" people liberty like so many monarchs in the past (and present)?
>It is easier to overthrow a corrupt monarchy or dictatorship than it is the overthrow a corrupt government pretending to be a democracy ...
This section seems to be based on the need to get everyone on board for a popular revolt. ?
What makes you think people would be more likely to support one for a monarchy? If they're loyal to a democracy or a monarch makes no difference. They're still loyal to a government.
I don't think anyone said democracy is anti-imperialist.
>Back in the days of monarchy, wars were actually pretty quick, with much fewer casualities,
Lmao. That's because they didn't have modern weapons.
>And why do you think it would be better when people can still be influenced through propaganda, fear, addiction, pleasure, and false claims.
Now you're sounding a lot like the people who want to control information in order to "fortify democracy".
And anyway, what's stopping the monarch from being influenced by those?
How can you support both anarchy (which you admit means "without rulers") and monarchy? It makes no sense.
I didn't answer your points about anarchy because I am sympathetic to it.
https://xianc78.codeberg.page/articles/dear-democracy.html
This article makes no sense.
>Democracy doesn't even exist
In general, that has no bearing on whether it should exist. Is-ought distinction.
But it seems you just meant that voting doesn't work as it hasn't eliminated the bad things you listed. But monarchies have had lese-majeste laws, so monarchy "doesn't work" either.
I've never seen any evidence for a "shadow government".
>A monarch is NOT the same thing as a tyrant
>A monarch works in the interest of his/her people and country
And what's stopping a monarch from being a tyrant?
What's forcing or incentivising them to act in the interests of their country and people?
What's preventing them from denying "their" people liberty like so many monarchs in the past (and present)?
>It is easier to overthrow a corrupt monarchy or dictatorship than it is the overthrow a corrupt government pretending to be a democracy ...
This section seems to be based on the need to get everyone on board for a popular revolt. ?
What makes you think people would be more likely to support one for a monarchy? If they're loyal to a democracy or a monarch makes no difference. They're still loyal to a government.
I don't think anyone said democracy is anti-imperialist.
>Back in the days of monarchy, wars were actually pretty quick, with much fewer casualities,
Lmao. That's because they didn't have modern weapons.
>And why do you think it would be better when people can still be influenced through propaganda, fear, addiction, pleasure, and false claims.
Now you're sounding a lot like the people who want to control information in order to "fortify democracy".
And anyway, what's stopping the monarch from being influenced by those?
How can you support both anarchy (which you admit means "without rulers") and monarchy? It makes no sense.
I didn't answer your points about anarchy because I am sympathetic to it.