keep it short and simple

Not being a lazy idealist, who assumes that pieces of paper have magic powers.

That's not an alternative, Menace. That's a statement of opinion.

It is an alternative.

Then explain how it's a system.

you said "democracy is shit" i asked for a preferable alternative to Democracy

Basically, stop falling for the scam. You can't rely on others to advocate sincerely on your behalf when they have very good reasons not to. You can't neglect self-advocacy.

"I have an idea! How about not having ideas!"

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

Sounds like you're advocating for direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy.

tbh in 2019 all we got are Conspiracy theories and a sense of impending doom

Systems rely on interested parties with a priority in making them function properly. It doesn't matter so much what that system is, so much as whether the people are sufficiently invested, and capable, and what it is they value most.

So yeah, you're dodging the question.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODGE!!!

If a people don't put the priority of safeguarding their institutions from corruption above their own convenience and comfort, then their institutions may be corrupt for as long as they can provide sufficient comfort and convenience.

You're asking the wrong question. The solution isn't to build a new system, so much as to cultivate a new folk.

Further and further you stray from the question put to you.

"above their own convenience and comfort" Something that will never happen.

"If democracy is shit, what's the alternative?"

Don't even bother entertaining that thought.

It's a waste of time.

There are lots of alternatives. All of them can also be shit depending on the kind of people you have. But democracy in particular is often championed as if it's some kind of exception to this. It's not.

"cultivate a new folk." You do realize that's what Kant and Hagel were trying to do, right? Didn't really work out too well.

TBH, @Miniature Menace, it sounds like you're an authoritarian collectivist. At least, that's the impression I get from your mealy-mouthed argumentation.

The reality is, to an extent, people have changed, and what they're willing to tolerate and condone has also changed. This cultivation is feasible, but it will almost certainly not be easy.

@Miniature Menace ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESITON YOU DUMB ANIME PROFILE PIC, WEEB LOVING, LOLI HENTAI JACKING OFF, TENDIES EATING, COCKROACH MONGOLOIDIC NIGGER FAGGOT FROM THE BUMFUCK OF ALASKA

i asked you what would be a alternative to democracy, and you dodge the question with BS Fluff

its simple

you say "Fascism" or "Monarch" or any other polticial system

I'm neither authoritarian, nor collectivist.

QED.

You literally just proved my point.

What point?

You doubled down on the idea of cultivating a new kind of people. That's literally the definition of authoritarian collectivism.

Who decides what kind of people? Who enforces the cultivation?

This is woo of the highest order.

"You doubled down on the idea of cultivating a new kind of people. That's literally the definition of authoritarian collectivism."

That's not the definition at all..

That would assume I'm arguing to use authoritarian methods of doing so. Or that I believe that individualism vs collectivism should necessarily assume collectives to somehow be more legitimate as a foundation of rights. Or, whatever other version of collectivism you're arguing, which I suppose I might conform to, depending on what that definition *is.* Maybe provide your definition of collectivism, please?

The same definition Sargon uses.

Which is?

Thus far my experience has been if you ask MM to actually offer a position rather than complain and claim the end of the world is nigh, what you will get is retardation....

And you think Sargon is the best example to use?