well done, well presented, most people in your audience and most sincerely self taught and educated people know the problems of democracy. the real question NOW is whether corrupted present democracy is so much of a danger that we need to toss it off and replace it with an autocracy. Our present democracy is a train bringing the system towards a certain type of totalitarianism. if you want off that certain type of totalitarianism in our present and future, it begs the question, what kind do you want to trade it for? systems , however collapse when they can no longer be sustained, not usually because one small group wants to subvert the train. sustained means, food in the mouths of the many, food and distractions. and yet, with drugs, endless entertainments and gambling addictions, the amount of food can be lessened in quality and quantity to the point where people will eat bugs, one another, and then also starve, and yet not rebel. ---this totalitarianism is post industrial post telecommunications---and can be sustained for a long long time. so who would in their own sanity fight against this democracy in the name of a better future, when it is a suicidal task. the system will inevitably collapse in mass death and destruction----when it runs its long and technologically insulated course. modern technology will make possible sustained totalitarianism for far far longer than ever thought possible. perhaps that is the only sane path towards taking mutually assured nuclear annihilation off the potential scenarios of our future. or what we see as a path towards 'global government' of one type or another in our collective future. or perhaps, that is just the excuse of those who seek to dominate....

Title: Why Democracy Leads to Tyranny In this thought-provoking video, the Academy of Ideas delves into the inherent flaws of modern democracy and its unintended consequences. While democracy is often hailed as the pinnacle of political organization, it is essential to critically examine its shortcomings and the potential dangers it poses. 1. The Sacred Dogma of Democracy: • Just as religious dogmas were once elevated to a sacred status, today, the dogma of the democratic state holds a similar position. Questioning the infallibility of democracy is akin to blasphemy. • However, just as religious dogmas sometimes masked the power of the Church, democracy can serve as a veil behind which politicians and bureaucrats enrich themselves while imposing their vision on society. 2. The Fatal Flaws of Modern Democracy: • Soft Totalitarianism: Instead of promoting social flourishing, modern democracy has given rise to a form of soft totalitarianism. The illusion of rule by the people conceals the reality of politicians and bureaucrats wielding power over us. • Destruction of Institutions: Democracy continually produces governments that undermine essential institutions. From families to schooling, media, free markets, sound money, and the rule of law, politicians and bureaucrats corrupt or destroy these pillars of a free society. • Power’s Soil: Conceived as a foundation for liberty, modern democracy paradoxically provides fertile soil for power to spread itself across the social field. 3. Bertrand de Jouvenel’s Insight: • Bertrand de Jouvenel astutely observed that democracy, born to stand as a bulwark against power, ultimately facilitates its expansion. The very system designed to protect us becomes an unwitting accomplice in our subjugation. 4. The Necessary Institutions for Freedom: • A truly free and prosperous society requires several critical institutions: - Free Markets: The engine of economic growth and individual prosperity. - Division of Labor: Essential for specialization and efficiency. - Rule of Law: Promotes order, trust, and stability. - Strong Families: The bedrock of social cohesion. - Sound Money: Protects against inflation and economic instability. - Education (Not Indoctrination): A school system that genuinely educates. - Truth-Seeking Media: A robust media that pursues truth rather than propaganda. 5. Questioning Democracy’s Value: • If democracy consistently produces governments that undermine these institutions, we must reevaluate its worth. Is it truly conducive to social harmony, or does it inadvertently lead to tyranny? • Across the globe, many democracies are failing to preserve these vital institutions, raising legitimate concerns about the value of democracy itself. In conclusion, the Academy of Ideas challenges us to critically examine the dogma of democracy, recognizing that blind faith in any system can obscure its flaws. By doing so, we can engage in meaningful discussions about how to create a more just and flourishing society, regardless of the prevailing political ideology.

you know this place is good because they don't have some youtube sponsor like Brilliant or Nebula dictating their speech.

You should do a collab with Dayz of Noah

I swear you're just redoing old videos now.

Rule of the majority can manifest into a form of tyranny by the masses

also the rich own both sides because its a 2party state

Yeah, there is a great book called Protagoras, by Daniel Silvermintz, about the Ancient Greek rhetorician (man is the measure of all things), and reading that book makes clear that Democracy is really the rule of persuasive rhetoricians.

@@WillyEckaslikeThree, four, five parties wouldn't help. How often does it happen that you vote for a candidate, which is subsequently elected, that the elected actually fulfills his promises? I believe the size of the government/society is the ultimate reason democracy fails. Above a particular size, it becomes impossible for an elected individual to move away from the status quo, despite having good intentions regardless of the theoretical power of the position, even the president of United States is unlikely to make meaningful positive changes. There will simply be too many which have grown into "their niche" in the system which will not support the change, these are elected officials which can not simply be replaced, and certainly won't vote favorably on any bill/law/appointment which could negatively impact their personal position regardless of the relative impact on the society. In this scenario, most people will likely come to the conclusion that the reasonable thing to do, is simply steal as much as they can and blend in with the crowd..

This is why they took logic and rhetoric out of public school education and now only teach only enough grammar so that people can read the propaganda without being able to notice the manipulation. They want us all to have just enough education to be able to follow orders, no more. 😅

Thanks for the quote!🤙

"Vote early and often!" - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley

And America has 3 Democrats to vote for in 2024🤷‍♂️

"The problem with most quotes by historical persons you find online, is that some guys believe that they are actually true!" /Lenin

@bjorntorlarsson The Soviet Union placed names on their ballots, and the people were required to vote "yes." There were punitive measures against people who stayed home. Santa Claus

You get it !

Last 2 comments got taken down but I’ll give you a hint 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱

​@@ZeusZar I am surprised you didn't got shadow banned?

And the industrial barons

And other special interests . I have no trust or Faith in any of them !

Why?

​alluding to present time

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

​@@vladdumitrica849Democracy is mob rule poorest form government ever conceived by man.

@@vladdumitrica849Too long didn’t read

Which never has, will, or can exist.

Involuntary contracts are slavery.

@@nevisysbryd7450 I don't think they meant a perfect society, but one that uplifts morality, unlike today.

The Constitution is a piece of paper. Yes a moral society is the ONLY THING keeping us safe. In REALITY. it's been a long time in the making. The drug war was truly the nail in the coffin imo. The beginning was occupational licensing and regulations on businesses and zoning etc

But the founding fathers weren't exactly moral.

Thank God it’s all an illusion

@@JulietMarovicwitch One Thor ?

We are at that point...

Love that quote!

@@squeaker19694 yeah that an was brilliant

Ireland

As a fellow cannuck born in the fifties, I sadly concur...

The channel creators are Canadian too LoL they have an American idée fixe though.

You guys suffered from too much hubris and complacency. I say that as an American you guys looked down your nose on my whole life. Ridiculing our 2nd amendment, which is the only reason the tyranny here is not as bad s Canada or the UK or Australia/NZ. Ridiculing Americans for other reasons with unfounded smugness. Now you have communist dictator Trudeau.

US as well. It’s nauseating so many are still asleep at the wheel

He said it leads to tyranny

I hope it will! And I'm sure it will. Tyranny in antiquity meant that a popular powerful guy took power from the corrupt incompetent oligarchs. It most often improved society a great deal. And established the natural ideal of inherited absolute monarchy for generations.@@alka9scottus

@@alka9scottus can you specify source please?

It's in the Republic ​@@Some1Philosophy

Heheh... Socrates criticised democracy, so they democratically executed him.

That was George Carlin

@@achinthmurali5207ironic

Right. Carlin couldn't have quoted anyone. He was so smart and wrote so many well loved novels like "you've never seen someone taking a sht while running at full speed" truly genius and not just an edgelord

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that… and… Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. George Carlin There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Mark Twain

@@chris4973 and liamc4113 and chris4973

@winstonsmith6999 It doesn't matter because whether a republic or democracy, they are both cons.

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

@@vladdumitrica849 Why vote for people to rule over you???

Verified ✔️ Fact check true.

@@user-ey4tt6do1e Stop putting everything in markets. Get rid of private property the property used to exploit others.

“If you can keep it”. It requires vigilance which too many forgot. Fortunately many are starting to remember if it’s not too late.

Except that’s not true. Democracy was baked in Athenian culture and they still became tyrannical

That part. We need to remind people why democracy is good important

democracy is a form of socialism, and it leads to tyranny, as with any socialist regimen. Only private property based systems can provide voluntary transactions and liberty.

​​@@debanydoombringer1385if you can keep it refers to a constitutional republic, not a democracy. A contractually bound government can be kept in check, mob rule cannot. Democracy always leads to tyrrany no matter how good intentioned the people who vote are. Ruling over another's life is by its very essence tyrranical in nature.

Totally feel ya there

This is the one thing that could make a difference. If people would brave up and stop paying taxes. Every single transaction gives a cut to the gov then by threat of kidnapping they get you to voluntarily give them your income.

@@trippsseywhy don’t you contact me and let’s set up an underground organisation after I finish my final exams and let’s plan to usurp the government and establish a constitution denotin the autonomy of community councils as supreme over state authority.

Real talk 😂

​@@trippssey✊

Such as black rock?

@@davidsykes9331Yuppers! They are the ones foisting DEI initiatives on corporations.

I see your post, because it got likes and not hided by algorithm. That what makes democracy different from other systems - you actually can be heard and influence people.

Because those lists get shared so often the algorithm labeled it as spam. Like intended. If you could go back in time a decade or so and read the weekly posts on some conspiracy forum you would shit your pants. We got warned about encroaching censorship so many times we ignored it like an ad for war thunder.

What were the specific corps named?

_Freedumbs_ and _Dumbocracy_ are the corner stones of this system that dragged us into world wars to defend its lies and propagate its subversion, and the same system that will withhold support in the name of market index. They are buzzwords to trigger ingroomed traumas to immunize the group against contrary thoughts and ideas, like a drunk to the bottle. The modern world is Pavlov's Democracy. This is why they love to go after children, to get them hooked and gutted young, before they spawn. To injure them so deeply to the 'false mask of freedom'. If they only think as this system grooms them, they will only fight as the system can exploit in its game. Each successive generation will be worse and worse off until none remember any different. As such, it is less the system and more the stock that is critical. The tyrant in itself is only seen as all negative due to black legend spread by democracies to diminish cohesions long held by tribes, and install the strings of democracy. Democratics will scream about tyrants doing something, while the democratics reach into pockets from behind and hide from repercussion. Is it not a supreme irony that Tyr, who bound the wolf [of greed] and brought us law, is so hated now in a time of rampant mammon worship and the ill effects that come from the erosion of adherence to eternal law?

It is even a Republic is free speech is censored?

The Founding Fathers were right in allowing only landed men to vote. Ever since women got the vote, the West started its decline into socialism.

Education works when its in the hands of the community. Relying on the Government for education was a mistake.

Yes and unfortunately those in charge tend to be the least qualified in their field.

But the sheeple have no idea what is happening and where its leading them to.....

It seems corruption and war is in our blood, we may never escape it​@@stevenvater2681

Because citizens are too weak minded, complacent and don’t have the gall to stand up against their governments

Yep, America was never supposed to be a democracy. It was founded as a constitutional republic. There is a great video from the 50's or 60's about this which can be easily found on yt by searching "America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy."

@@RoryMarteltruth hurts when power is corrupted. they did well for themselves but its passed time to share the burden of power and the struggle that comes with it.

They win every election, and profit from every war.

Meh... the rothschilds are not so powerful. They're boogeymen. Real power always lies behind the mouth of a gun.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y7eVd5Smus3Re6s.html Paper isn't money. It's fraud.

Truth

Yes But democracy has it far worse It's literally in it's nature

​@@elpsykoongro5379the thing is, you guys keep saying "democracy" but all the examples you give are corporate Oligarchies.

@@DharmaVibes that's essentially what democracy is nowdays

@@elpsykoongro5379 then it's not democracy 🤣

The Elites know that, and act accordingly.

@@user-fu9vj9ix3g Divide and conquer

Then increase education instead of repressing democracy.

@@eliasmontanez Today's education is a poor example of a liberal arts program. It has become indoctrination, carefully crafted by nefarious professors and social theorists. Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity posits the idea that education is no barrier to stupidity. Neither is ethnicity, or social status. Some of the strupidest things and statements ever to see the light of day have come from highly educated people - many in Academia who have never had to punch a clock or run a simple coffee stand. Conversely, some of the most brilliant things have come from people who lived 250 years ago - such as the American Founders, most of them only moderately educated, who did indeed act to suppress democracy in favor of a republic. And thier sources of knowledge went back 200 to 1700 years before they were born - much of it written in Latin and Greek.

@@eliasmontanez Seems so simple doesn’t it? Yet, politicians have been cutting education budgets for fifty+ years. Knowledge is power and they can’t give away too much power.

It seems that the two herds of voters WANT controlling language - That is, language that they approve of and will, by their perception, control the others who are not a part of their political tribe.

Exactly right. Manipulative language should immediately be suspicious.

Aye I also believe fundamental concepts: Good faith Mutual respect Honestly Discipline Courage Training Exercise Healthy diet Productive work Personal responsibility Wisdom ... And a heterodox perspective is superior to enforced unification, aka authoritarian totalitarianism. Then again I am anarchosyndicalist by birth. It's what makes inherent sense for me.

Language like "new normal"

Asking for "Common sense" is literally one of the go to arguments to oppress people and strip away rights.

No that’s not what it’s saying. It’s saying the nature of every government is corruption. No matter the system it creeps in overtime. Notice how it’s saying modern democracy and not democracy period. All governments fail eventually. There is no perfect system. Democracy is currently the best system but it has flaws and those flaws need to be remembered and watched for. Complacency is one of the biggest threats to it.

One party dictatorships are the least violent form of dictatorship, just don't rely too much on command economies and you can be stable.

@@caim3465point to a single example of a stable one party dictatorship 😊

​@@emanymgulf states

@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 the gulf states are not stable.

Yeah it can, you just did

I like that

Just like praying

Voting does things just beyond the presidential election, mayors, and such. I worked on one campaign that got more funding for parks in my city through a local vote. So I know I've done something, but most politics is nebulous.

@@sunphoenix1231 yeah, not trying to discount that. It can work at a small scale, but it can also be a mental trap where you think of voting as the best or only way to solve problems; and of course, voting only works if you're given something good to vote for.

Democracy is not about voting, it's about freedom of speech.

Well ... Trump's 2016 campaign had far less money than Hillary's, but the corporate press gave him very much more publicity.

@@beingsshepherd Trump is a billioneer, much like Bloomberg he didin't need much funding, if ever. That's my point. The current form of democracy is the ruling of the rich, not the people. Want a real democracy? Ban political ads and campaigns. Interviews and debates on national TV should be enough for the people to decide. It's bad enough that the ultra rich own the media, i.e. public perception, which is another blow to any "democracy". If the European enlightenment required speration of church and state, the coming enlightement should be the seperation of billioneers and state.

@@beingsshepherd Trump's billionaire status allowed him to self-fund his campaigns, much like Bloomerg. This reveals a dangerous flaw in our system: privately funded campaigns give the wealthy undue control over the political process. There shiukd publicly funded debates and interviews on national television would reduce this influence. The wealthy already dominate public opinion through the media; we cannot let them control our elections as well.

… and, the person must have the desire to rule, the ability to promise lots to the people even if not able to fulfill the promises later, possibly even the willingness to use deception in order to win the campaign, and the willingness to accept that the use force will be used once he is in a positive of authority to write laws that he will want to be followed - … all personality traits that - in the majority of cases- do not make a for a live-and-let-live- peaceful- honest- well meaning human being -

The rich have ALWAYS controlled things. Always. In every form of government, all through history, the rich have had their hand in how things are run. It only differs in degree. But honestly why wouldn't they? If I had millions of dollars and could influence how things were done in my city, I'd be a fool not to.

😅👍

I see you, Helldiver

Uh ohhhh... 😄

Virtue is used against people in this game. You're a bad person if you believe this you're a good person if you accept this etc. The people are more apathetic than dangerous. They take nothing into their own hand because of the victim savior complex. They're jaded. It's the government's responsibility because we pay them because they promised because I had to do this immoral thing I didn't object to so they better take care of everything etc

The tyranny of recent times showed that

I believe that two things create monsters and they are too much hardship and not enough hardship. Most people are good because they have been on both sides of this fence at one time or another. Empathy is highly underrated in most modern societies.

​@@paulcolin9071 Bingo!

Although there is truth to this, but if everyone espoused status quo, the world wouldn't be in such better condition

Love Hoppe

@@stephenoverdorf4917 So to speak.

Absolutly can confirm. Excellent read from a brilliant man.🍻

Thanks. I was unaware of it and looked it up after reading your post. I'm putting it on my list of reads.

Indeed, his is one of my most recommended sources, too, when it comes to my pet peeve … which is seeing and hearing people, especially those on our side of freedom-loving aisle, talking about “… preserving and protecting and upholding democracy…” - .. by the way, along with the small classic booklet by FBastiat “ The Law” !

That’s why we have nothing but Lies-Atheism-Slavery-Injustice touted as righteousness. Clown world.

Truth, faith, freedom, justice. I remember what those were like. Sad to see how far America has fallen

We have democracy in place of our intended republic of laws.

​@@gamertube9918the contract that binds the government has been swept under the rug by the "voice of the people". Technically, most of us are under a corporation but it might as well be called a democracy/monarchy. It's run the same way.

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

So what's left? Anarchy?

​@@alexandrevachon541or back to the origin. No bank, and no alphabet agency's

And no burocrats

@@anomilumiimulimona2924 The way I could approach it is by suppressing anything related to fear, evil and corruption. As well as anything relating to the seven deadly sins.

​@@anomilumiimulimona2924you think the banks and the agencies other reasons that America is the currency it is no it is everyone's fault from the lowest man to the highest person the whole American society has morphed and shaped how it's seen how it's act

Juvenal said very much the same thing centuries ago...

Brilliant

sorry, I don´t speak English very well, and the translation were confusing. Could you explain the last part? "they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

@@paulopaniago5972 It means they can vote themselves [largesse = huge amounts of money, perks, benefits] by voting for the party that has no hesitations taxing and printing the country into oblivion.

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

You can become a candidate yourself! Who was the first presidential candidate in the USA? Where did he come from? Why can't the people repeat that today when they are free to do so without fighting a war with some colonial master power. Because they don't care! It's the voters' own fault.

@@bjorntorlarsson Suree and you will vote for him, right? 😂

That is up to the voters. You claim that Kim Jong Un has no responsibility at all for the situation in North Korea. That is odd, I think. But there you are! You claim that the voter has no responsibility for how he personally is governing his society. Your point is that Democracy is when it is someone else's fault, whatever the guy in charge does. That's a mental coping mechanism that is lethal. @@barunto1

It sure is

You know why voters don't care? Because America kicks ass. We police the globe. We influence culture with our media. We sht more nutrients than most people eat in gold bricks in porcelain thrones😂. Life is so good that we have to make up problems or pretend that some other foreign problem is our problem. Aww you're stuck with Raytheon and Boeing? How terrible. Sure sucks we aren't stuck with Polpot or Mao, killing hundreds of millions of us on a power trip. Instead we have "oh no, all that free stimulus money I threw away is actually affecting the price we pay for things? That's the bad orange's and the sleeping creepy's fault, nit mine for blowing that money on worthless crap"

sigh... freedom is not having to consult people for what you will eat

@@colorpg152 So is anarchy

@@tompc17 'Anarchism', properly understood, is the highest measure of personal autonomy. It doesn't prevent voluntary association if someone desires it, but it does prevent a 'tyranny of the masses' from oppressing and imposing it's will upon the individual.

Liberty is acting like BLM protesters when you don't get your way, they set you up to look just as foolish as they do which only empowers the corrupt police state further.

@@RichardHarlos Thing is, most people cant be trusted with a high measure of personal autonomy.

Democracy failed when the news media became unchecked without consequences. It doesn't matter when people vote when they could be propagandized through television, movies, and slanted news. We'll scare people into voting away their freedoms in exchange for "safety". Thankfully, We are a Constitutional Republic, despite our corrupted democracy's best effort to erode and destroy it, and people are waking up.

you sound crazy

Most people watch mainstream corporate news.

@@jimyoung9262IKR? Sad.

Wow! Are you from Mars!? I think Elon Musk for sure would be interested in talking with you. Please just do not discourage him too much, I'm looking forward to his adventures over there. I heard that an indoors Summer vacation can almost be somewhat nice there in some deep crater.

It’s why I struggle to make small talk when in public.

This....

No she didn't. That's not something that came up

Maybe his mom did yours just didn't because she was dull as ditch water

​@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvreAre you the mother? How would you know that?

​@TheGunfighterx Because it's been said in slightly different ways for a looooong time. Use your brain a bit.

@@DraconisMarchVII Doesn't mean his mother didn't say it. Use YOUR brain a bit

The idea that what we have is anywhere close to a democracy is hilarious.

why does organization have to be political? I guess it depends on what you mean by political. A voluntarist society would be ideal but I don't know if it's possible right now.

@@bobleglob162 Bob, It's the norm. Most transactions and relationships between individuals are voluntary. It's only because so many accept (never question) the authority of the few, that significant levers of power have been institutionalized.

@@lisaeverhart7986 i agree it's the norm, but lying to ourselves and accepting tyranny seems to be the norm as well.

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

He was the biggest corporate bootlicker president ever 😂 he turned government into a corporate state.

And has a monopoly on violence.

​@@Divide_et_lmperano one has a monopoly on violence

@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 It does. Government can use violence against you and it's "OK" while anyone else would get prosecuted for using violence against you.

You think thats bad ? Try the "preferential" system whereby parties "give" the losing votes they receive FROM US ,to a party aligned to their political vagueiaries (faux-ideology). Thereby "ganging up "on ,say a 49% of the vote party when there are 5 or 6 candidates. A clear case of divide an conquer , from the voter's perspective and a betrayal of the people's confidence. As corrupt as a rotting carcass !

Same in business. Look at Microsoft, Google and Amazon.

reply c3n50r3d

Countries with proportional representation have lots of problems too, usually of weak government & even less reform, as in Italy.

An example is a small majority in California gets to decide the fate of millions of other who have been ignored.

As opposed to what system?

@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre a decentralized system that allows and enables the people to "govern" themselves without the oppression that government and capitalism creates. True anarchy.

@@anarcho-savagery2097 anarchy and a lack of capitalism or governing? Three scenarios 1) your neighbor is a 7 foot tall muscle bound well armed thief. He steals all your food and tools. 2) a disease runs through your home 3) you have no skills related to acquiring food I'm picturing a post capitalist America with no government. There's no capital so trading, bartering, or owing anything as tit for tat, because those are capital. You and your family can rely on each other and govern your own house, but there is no system of governing beyond that. Is that what you consider anarchy, or am I wrong?

@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre all of those scenarios happen in a capitalist state. And that's the whole point. The whole point is that small, decentralized communities will govern themselves without the need for a federalized government. There is no reason that if government and capitalism were eliminated, that they should be brought back.

@@anarcho-savagery2097 sure, I'm trying to go with you here, I just had those thoughts cross my mind immediately. And additionally, what stops a country as small as Luxembourg from conquering us? And what about a much less liberty minded country or even an organization like al ki duh? Or what if Xi gi ping decided he wants Anaricha (that would be a cool name for it) and treat us like all the non Han Chinese in his country? You know, not execute us, and the ones they miss, not kidnapp us and not send us to get re educated. I'm losing faith in this idea, I'm sorry. If you let us be called Anaricha, you may still have my support.

This is an absolute banger of a quote.

Liberty is a well armed sheep

@@aaronl2130 Alexander Fraser Tytler- "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury." is another strong contender.

Whereas representative democracy is 100 sheep picking which of 2 wolves gets to decide what's for dinner, and being told that the winning wolf's decision was the will of the sheep.

@@Somewhat-Evil Definitely. It echoes Hoppe's sentiment.

Remove _”I don’t care”_ and copy that text into your notes. It’s a short, powerfully to the point, thought provoking spill that’s worthy of reposting where you see fit. That said, I am attempting to debunk it out of fear.

True, i wish more people realised this. Every system is doomed to fail via human corruption. I see many people these days praising socialism as the answer, ignorant to the fact that many people in the past pushed the same idea and instead of a utopia, were given human atrocities such as in cambodia, soviet russia and maos regime. Whenever politics are discussed or promoted, human corruption should always be discussed along side it

Socialism is the collective control of the means of production, and communism is a state less classless moneyless society there is no space for elites in any actually egalitarian society

Easy. It's more fair in feudalism to be born privileged, but not when you consider it was the privilege of being taxed indiscriminately at whim of whoever controls the feifdom, along with their ruler, and you are subject to marauding bandits with no authority to hold them back from having their way with your foodstuffs, wife, daughter, and livestock. There is no advocacy if you encounter strife. No army holds neighboring countries at bay. You could easily become a human sacrifice. Nothing stops you from being chained to a millstone for your entire life. Nobody educates people. No great advancements are created. You likely died at birth or your mom did. You probably don't have any capacity to see a doctor aside from a crazy old person who is convinced you need to mix cow poop, dirt, goat blood, and eel slime in a bowl and drink it after 2 days to cure a sore tooth. Or there's capitalism where you can buy some aspirin, work hard, buy land, build a house, and pads it on to your kid. Or you can live like a business some bushes in a park. Or you can move to the middle of nowhere and recreate the feudalism life. Or you can just practice what you are good at and do whatever you want that doesn't directly hurt someone else. So hard to debunk, wow

you could say feudalism is simply tribalism.

The institutions are emanations of the people themselves.

You almost make it sound as though voters reluctantly voted for Obama and Trump.

The mentality that we should use force against others because we think they should live a certain way is a big problem. The lack of faith in natural divine order and law is a big problem. The fact people are comfortable with allowing complete strangers be responsible for their lives is another issue

A good system makes it difficult for jackasses to infiltrate. A sound system+ ongoing reform is the solution.

And yet it's by and far the most vile, evil, corrupt country on the planet and it isn't even close fine job that did the US isn't a country it's an evil empire.

Test

IQ doesn't make people in power any less greedy.

IQ is not the relevant factor, righteousness and morality is

@@commontouch1787 any testing is better than no tests at all. I agree psychological test for the dark triad would be more important.

@@sbef yes, but stupid politicians make idiotic decisions. Greed should be ruled out with different tests.

Yep.

I agree. Only those who actually pay taxes should vote.

The sheep? You mean you post on Facebook to accounts nobody uses and nobody cares because you don't have an original thought and are posting huge loads of bs, like this.

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

@@vladdumitrica849 democracy is tyranny by the people, as in, 50.1% can vote to limit the 49.9%. Democracy sucks! Socialism sucks. Communism sucks. America is the standard, but the people let it be subverted. We were brainwashed over the decades, real leaders were removed, etc.

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

And even less should be allowed to procreate.

Fully agree. Highly recommend the video "The Politics Of Starship Troopers" in which its broken down why that is literally the best system we could have. Of course that would hurt a few people's feelings.

Well, how and who should make such decision?

Especially illegal non citizens

Who should be given the power to select the voters?

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

And the elites are attempting to change the definition of “Democracy” too.

And curse dissident dictatorships.

So, is there a better system?

@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre Private property

@@GrasslandHerbivore private property exists in our current system. That's a noun( person _place_ thing idea) and and an adjective, not a system.

There isn’t

What's the difference of "rule of the public" and "rule of the people"? Different words, same meaning. Romans talked of Republic, Greeks of Democracy.

At what point did he mention this video was about the USA?

Most communist countries are both, and called Democratic Republic's

No difference if under either of them you have no freedom...

This is something I agree with, 100k a year max, no investments and only able to own one property.

One can hope that over time, the ethical theory that is most logically consistent with the concepts of freedom and truth-seeking and derived from first principles ultimately wins out in the long run. There is nothing of greater importance then the battle of ideas.

I think what really happens is the disorder and chaos gets too much for us to handle and we stop being lazy and start searching for some real answers. More than ethics, it's the survival instinct that gets to the bottom of reality.

@@SC-gw8np survival is an ethical notion, if you ponder existence it's all morality, everything is molded as if everything is a bunch of answers to how X should exist or how X should act, as if morality precedes survival, as if survival is an expression, not a root cause.

Woah, so deep brother. So, what do we do instead. I mean you are complaining because you know something better is possible, right?

@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre I can see the problem but have no solutions. Even those begging for socialism only want it for what it brings them.

Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.

I don't think people are getting over the wall while being asleep.

On the floor in a fentanyl fantasy.

It's all perspective, right? I came to the U.S. legally 10 years ago with nothing. I have a pretty good 6-figure income, a wife, decent familial ties, working on kids. So I have the framework of the old American Dream. It isn't impossible, just hard.

@@adamm2091, legit. I am a born citizen, served my country, found hard times and ended up homeless and on the streets. Was able to climb my way out of it all. Now I own my home, have a business and have raised three amazing kids who are doing well. Unfortunately it’s getting harder and harder

​@@bnalive5077proof?

Imagination.

Name any country that doesnt have power hungry I individuals

If we are talking residential population, ok. If you mean tourists and people on business trips, that's impossible. Lichtenstein. They have no army. They are always neutral. In 2007, they were invaded accidentally during a foreign military exercise. Their response? "No problem, these things happen." During another foreign exercise in the eighties, they were bombed and some of their forests burned down. They met with delegates, cracked open a case of wine, and laughed it off. Granted, they were slightly power hungry after ww1 when a tiny bit of their land was annexed, but once their debts were paid off and they got the land back after ww2, they just chilled out and divided power amongst the people, with the prince being able to veto anything crazy they come up with and the people being able to do the same. They refuse to tax people who do business there, and are one of the very few countries that won't allow the US to collect taxes from people who do business in America. Monaco. Monaco has a military force of 250~260 people including the fire department, ambulance services, palace guards, scientific research, divers for the first oceanographic wildlife reserve, and an orchestra. They have no income tax, no business tax except if the business collects 25% of its revenue from outside the country, and a 5% sales tax for necessities and 18% sales tax for luxury goods. They don't fight, rhe politicians are often on loan from larger foreign powers. The people who live there already have power and they simply sit back and host the Formule Un á Monte Carlo and they have a world renowned high stakes gambling. They just bank without questions, but don't expand. They even tend to run their policy chances by their neighbors to say "is this ok with you?" The Most Serene Republic of San Marino. San Marino is the fifth smallest country in the world. They elect two new captains, you could say are heads of state, every six months with a three day period after each six month term where citizens can file charges against the former heads of state. This is just a 61²km country that keeps to itself, allows tourism, and has the 3rd best healthcare system in the world, as ranked by some international committee that I don't care to remember. Nobody has an opportunity to have enough power for anyone to be power hungry. I don't know much else about them. I bet there are more, but those are the most chill populations I'm familiar with. Mostly because they give America the finger when it comes to trying to suck tax money out of people, if ya catch my drift.

Looks like I'm not allowed to. I described 3 and they won't post :(

@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre they did post, although you described city states

True power doesnt need justificarion

@@star_duck you are absolutely correct but Humans perception of power does need justification.

_Might makes right._

That, my friend, is a subject one can discuss into eternity. But I agree with you. I think that the person who thinks it's impossible to maintain a society without some "external" governing lacks the imagination and trust of what we're capable of. I'm living in the proof of that. And there are (small) communities all over the world alike. Yes, there are bad people and even psychopaths, but good people outweigh them by far. If we start caring for each other again and unite. 50 years ago this current government overreach would have been crushed even before it started. Enough rambling, back to my puzzle. Have a great weekend.

Organization is good, coercion is not. Let people associate freely, but when you have the power over them, then it is no longer freedom. Thus no form of government can ever embody freedom. Freedom exists only in the absence of coercion. We call it anarchism.

@@keeskoek5329I think the desire for the external government is derived from the want to persue innovation continually, in taking away this “unifying” force would it be possible to fund and develop new innovations that could potentially increase human thriving dramatically. In proliferating power and decentralising we run the risk of factions forming and conflict brewing and halting the “progression” of humanity. I honestly have no clue.

@@keeskoek5329perhaps a perpetual symbiosis of the state and decentralised power need be implemented, with the more localised powers supreme over the state but a recognition of our fellow humans, through perhaps religion and/or the internet.

Not sure whether to read that as “the absence of government is good”, or “all governments are flawed” 🤔