Democracy is only a good idea if everyone participating in said democracy is educated, moral, and rational.
We don't live in such a world.
Discussion
Jean-jacques Rousseau, the father of the left would also add that it only works in small towns that everyone knows each other, like those in Switzerland with 200 inhabitants.
what might you suggest as an alternative ?
Good question. This republic we have in America might be the least worst way of humans organizing themselves that we've come up with thus far, but it's still a shit idea.
It probably worked better for the first while when not everyone had a vote. Now the path to leadership in this country is to be the best at duping the masses with appeals to their base emotions.
Radical decentralization. Restoration of absolute individual liberty. Only two laws: don't hurt people (physically) and don't take their stuff (as long as it was gotten in a consensual fashion).
Or, just roll back the fedgov back to 1791 and restrict voting to those who have no debt.
Yes but not enough to change the structure of government. The culture needs fixing. Our centers is higher education have been corrupted by liberal permissivism and are churning out technically smart people with no moral compass.
Yes, but if we somehow axed the fedgov, those overeducsted idiots will get smacked by the big, black reality that is real life, and then they either die or they grow.
This 'liberal permissivism', sneer quotes times two, is neither liberal nor permissive; it is not liberal because it is supported and orchestrated by people whose mindset is anything but liberal (the term originally meaning free-spirited), it is not permissive because it seems solely pemissive towards people and activities that the so-called liberals seem to approve of, it is hostile to those that they do not (meaning conservatives, republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists, and anyone that are usually derided using x-ist or y-phobes).
Or to put it another way - 'liberals' broadly seem to be enamoured to vices, destructive, belligerent behaviors and things that most liberals of the past would find deeply il-liberal.
thoughts on ethnonationalism as a solution?
It makes me uncomfortable to think about, as it can easily be corrupted towards much more nefarious ends than that of people sticking to like people. And it's not something really reliable across humanity as a whole. It does seem to work fairly well for populations that adopt a largely cohesive Christian faith on top of their ethnic background, but outside of that, not so much. If ethnonatuonalism worked by itself, you would have much less warfare abd societal strife in areas that were primarily controlled by atheist, Islamic, and Bhuddist regimes.
So, it needs to be tempered by something that prevents tribalism and othering.
tribalism and "othering" is the foundation of all proper civilizations...
the rest is antichrist psyop grift.
I disagree. Shared principles are not the same thing as tribalism. Also, tribalism usually ends up in slaughtering others, which, is not good both in the short and longer terms.
and what would you base those "shared principles" on ?
WASP-y everything, plus English common law.
and what would those be based upon ?
Too much stuff for me to want to type it out?
maybe just pick a big three
Luther, Locke, and eventually Bastiat? Those are the ones that pop into my head guest.
and Luther's source ?
The Bible.
tribalism and "othering" is the foundation of all proper civilizations...
the rest is antichrist psyop grift.
??
Tribalism happened after the tower of babel. Which is not a good thing. Othering leads to atrocities.
biblical law is tribal
How so?
OK, I see where you're getting this from, but also realize that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law, and had a much broader, harder to follow command for his followers, so, I'll stick with my own assessment and politely disagree with your belief since I'm not will enough equipped to disabuse you of the notion that you should follow the old testament law in everything.
Shared cultural values are the glue that holds a society together. The values held up by Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture gave rise to the greatest civilization in human history. If you look around the world, you will observe that other societies that successfully adopted the same values have also prospered.
Casting these values aside has lead to social and moral decay in our society.
We must reaffirm these values and root out moral corruption in our society if we are to survive as a civilization.
Yup. That's a really good summary. Aside from the political imperialism that isn't healthy, it really has been the best thing for humanity, in my estimation.
What world you livin in ?
Democracy is a tool which reflects the wants of the people. Good people in a democracy will yield better results than evil people. Democracy is neutral on this matter.
Democratic governance is probably the best way of such on a small scale. On a large scale, it starts to suffer the same ill effects on human individuals that all other social or organisational structures do.
Democratic governance is probably the best way of such on a small scale. On a large scale, it starts to suffer the same ill effects on human individuals that all other social or organisational structures do.
And We never have lived in such a world. 
That's why the founding fathers didn't give every mouth breather on the continent a vote. They knew that would lead to chaos.
Lol that’s not the moral of this anecdote.
It’s that the world is imperfect and no one feels they live up to the demands of the time when they are making history. Still, it gets made.
Yes, and in addition:
1. Introducing central banks and moneyprinting will corrupt any system of governance, and democracy in particular.
Politicians buying votes with promises of expensive benefits, aid or relief, paid for with printed money, is a race to the bottom toward totalitarianism, with ever rising cost of living and centralization of power.
Every regulation comes with downstream calls for increased surveillance in order to enforce the regulation. The regulatory state is the surveillance state.
2. Democracy requires a jurisdiction small enough that the voters know the representatives they are voting for and that the distance is sufficently small that there is accountability; harmful decisions must have severe consequences.
3. In a small enough jurisdiction, who wins an election is not the end of the world when you can just vote with your feet and travel a few hours to a nearby jurisdiction where your work and your savings are better appreciated.
I think the last point here is crucial. If jurisdictions are small enough, it doesn't matter that much what type of governance it has, as long as people can vote with their feet with a plethora of options.
Small competing jurisdictions under a Bitcoin (free market) economy will lead to lower taxes, greater individual rights and freedoms, regardless of its ruling system, since any government will need to consider the cause and effect of any particular policy.
- Will a policy cause productive people and valuable skills and resources to move in or out of the jurisdiction?
That's the ultimate evaluation of how deeply a policy is anchored in voluntary consent.
Over time, I believe that long-lasting governments that implement neutral, fair, free market policies with strong property rights protections will have an edge over governments that change every 4 years, since uncertainty is a gamble for entrepreneurs while a positive certainty is a magnet for entrepreneurs.
Imagine a solid government with sound policies that will not change for 20 years, versus a solid government with sound policies that may change in the next 4 years. Which is more attractive?
Yes most everything should be administered at the county level. That's where most taxes should go and where most decisions should be made.
By the way if you hold this belief it classifies you as a radical extremist by the FBI.
If they see you expressing such views it will get you added to certain lists.
Heh. While I am not American, I'd say that 100% of decisions and sovereignty should be at the county or municipality level, with some room for variance here for practical purposes.
With the Dunbar number at 150, adding too many orders of magnitude to that number in population size for a jurisdiction will naturally have negative consequences. We may not know the exact cutoff point where a sound population size turns into a negative in regards to jurisdiction size, but that lack of precise knowledge doesn't change the inherent problems involved.
Quality of discussions on Nostr is 1000x better than traditional social media.
Fascism is the most demonized form of governance, primarily because it's the sole system that doesn't decay with time.
It's up to the leader fo maintain, and strengthen, the government by ensuring they don't install incompetent or maliciously duplicitous people to powerful positions. Otherwise, every action they take is guaranteed to be undermined.