High Trust, High IQ populations, particularly in the west, tend to gravitate towards democratic institutions. But the success of those institutions depends on the perpetuation of meritocratic, fitness selection mechanisms, economic and political integrity, and of the demos not deteriorating in terms of initiative, awareness, competence, and value. But often, as democracy progresses, opportunistic actors find it more appealing to leverage the votes of low investment, low income demos, to achieve power. And they will often *bribe* these low income, low investment constituents through the application of wealth and resource distribution schemes. In so doing, exacerbating class conflict, and subsidizing the growth of the least capable sub-populations.

you concerns are by definition, less important than those of everyone else, live with it

This is why we have a nation of laws, and not of men.

A constitutional republic is the best thing we have to alleviate the potential of such things to corrupt the results of elections and votes.

But hey, show me something better.

Like, for example, the Terran Federation from Starship Troopers.

yeah but thats just a manifestation of democracy, or maybe thats the other way around

@Goodwood of Dank™
>An Ethnonationalist IQ-Based Democratic People's Republic

Kek.

Everyone who completes a term of service can get the vote. And everyone has the right to try for it, no matter their disability.

we could just erase it all nd install trump as eternal god emperor for all of america & europe

I know with me being in favor of market capitalism, this might come as a shocker, but markets don't always produce the most desirable outcome. It's less accurate to argue that a market always produces a good outcome then it is to argue that outcomes within a market are *earned* for better or worse. The reality is that markets are subject to human stupidity, as is basically everything else. They just tend to compartmentalize failures better when they rely on voluntary transaction.

at this point, i would vote for it

Kek. Me too.

You know what, you ask me if I think there is a better system? I'll concede, Starship Troopers sounds bretty gud.

we're going to need to divert science funding to extending his life indefinitely

system11, you should read my second novel...

...he's a fairly major minor character.

But then, that's basically a system with some elements of democracy, providing voting as a privilege to be earned through meritorious behavior, rather than a default right.

Which *is* better than universal suffrage, I strongly suspect.

Because it attaches that representation more strongly to a personal investment, and personal risk.

Service Guarantees Citizenship!

its hrd to measure meritous behaviour

https://tenor.com/tXKg.gif

Voting isn't a right. The ability to earn the vote is.

Hard, yes, many standards can be better than virtually none at all. Or "oh, you were born here, that means you understand how things should be run!"

In Starship Troopers.

socioeconomic mobility is far more important a factor in functional civilization than socioeconomic *equality*

fite me

Oh no, I agree.

I'd rather fite you over your use of woo.

woo

uwu

awoo

0w0

i think i have a way to cause the guardian to have an apoplectic fit. all we need to do is get boris to suggest that voting rights should be suspended while someone is not contributing taxes

Kek.

The absolute madlad. He might actually go for it.

But the basic point I'm making, is that, comparing systems, even while Starship Troopers can be argued superior to the system we have now, it's success is still chiefly subject to the kind of people who operate within it. For instance, it's still possible to gain the system to stack votes, by bloating public service sectors in order to justify an expanding demos, and leveraging the loyalty of those new employees to the official who created their jobs.

We can see examples of this in the US currently, as certain public sector employees represent a considerable lobby, obstructing efficiency and cost reform.

Also, I would argue a nation of laws and not men is impossible. Laws require men. Unless you're arguing for everything to be run by some autonomous self-creating AI. While some men are more, or less, interested in enforcing objective, impartial laws, the results are nevertheless a consequence of those men.