>>10380 >[Democratic systems, are they any good?] In the US, a system of representative democracy is used. So elected representatives supposedly do what their constituents want. Sounds OK, but was times under monarchy really that bad? Or is that just Whig History? An obvious criticism of democracy is that no one is really that dedicated or involved in politics. Most voters don't know a lot about politics and economics, so why should their vote matter? Quote from some TV show episode where an absolute democracy is criticized: "I think you're confusing knowledge with opinions." Additionally, politicians themselves aren't that dedicated. Presidents serve for 4 years. Senators and other higher-ranking politicians can have such a position for up to ~50 years. (Higher-ranking politician in the same position for decades is similar to the aristocracy class.) Monarchs on the other hand are supposed to serve and lead for their entire adult life. Makes me think of Putin - maybe he'll still be "president" of Russia when he becomes an old madman with Alzheimer's or dementia (such a corrupt system might enable such weirdness).
The question kinda becomes this: would those with governing power (politicians/aristocrats/monarchs/governors) do politics/ruling/leading/serving/war any better if democracy was not involved. In the book "Democracy, the God that Failed" I think the author argues that the economics of a nation without democracy is better than one with democracy. Or at least other(s) make that argument.
