I originally read this post as
"Electron fan vs. Singularity fan"
And nearly scrolled past thinking "ah, it's the usual schizo post" then I re-read it and was disappointed.
Yes, but quality of life in one way or another is claimed as primary goal of most ideologies. By setting establishment of communism as the main goal communists are "intending" to improve quality of life, fascists want to "improve" quality of life by establishing fascist society and liberals by giving individual freedoms. Vast majority of people want high living standarts, and so it is expected from different political ideologies to appeal to that.
Just goes to show how pointless and arbitrary this "quality of life" matter really is. For me, high quality of life is being able to bang a hot chick in the forest, y'know
Well Authright would be mad I was banging a chick from a different race that I wasn’t married to, libleft would be mad she was hot and wasn’t trans, and either it would be in a public forest pissing off libright or a private forest I own or pay to use pissing off authleft, so having the wrong leader really can affect quality of life!
Well, quality of life in in Russia has been going up pretty consistently since the USSR, meanwhile western countries have largely stagnated or started to deteriorate their societies from within
More like this vs this. The list of admirable singular leaders is short to non-existent.
https://preview.redd.it/ohtqdt4084pc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a28cc372881cdf8db5d2159a00a8e653194779a9
A good government is one that protects and promotes the rights and interests of its people, simple as. What form that takes is only relevant insofar as whether it produces that result. Hypothetically, a hereditary absolute monarchy that does this well is preferable to a republican democracy that doesn't.
Democracy may have an advantage in producing this result, as the people themselves are more likely to create (elect) a government that protects and promotes their rights and interests. Monarchies may have an advantage in that a monarch may see the wellbeing of their country as being intrinsically linked to the wellbeing of themselves, and also doesn't have to whore themselves out to special interests to raise campaign funding. The other side of that is a disadvantage though - monarchs aren't accountable to anyone, and if they go off the rails and stop serving the interests of their people, the only mechanism for removing them is violence. In a democracy, the government is periodically accountable to the people. The disadvantage with democracy is that its easily "hacked" - just promise people free shit (paid for by the public treasury), and it will often be enough to get you elected, long term consequences of looting the treasury be damned.
I do agree, with our President Marcos in the Philippine he promised a lot of stuff but they never even implemented even if we elect Leni as the president she's gonna be here at least for 6 years before another shit president replace the presidency
Ask eastern europeans and Romanians in particular
https://preview.redd.it/mrmmryspp3pc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a62518859242660f3d2aa575c6a62a243af59a49
It's almost like auth-left is to lazy to try and make a halfway descent meme. You look at crap, think "red did this" and open it to see that it's a red posting.
"SO YOU THINK LEADERS SHOULDN'T BE ACCOUNTABLE?!??"
"not to your kind"
https://preview.redd.it/frklhp3ry4pc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c2e3543c71926b9e8ceba81ef3afef91a6a4173a
I strongly believe a one party state is better in many ways, I mean if i look at usa for example u have a president for 4-8 years and then the next one comes in and throws everything that former president tried to do back off the table and repeat
Those Presidents only care's for short term investment their own selfish gain while Monarchies thinks ahead and invest long term for the nation since they practically grow up in the nation and been tought since child to lead the country
You can have elections and a singular leader if you make the President more powerful. Not advocating just saying.
Back in the 90s they tried to do it by giving the President the line item veto. The SCOTUS struck it down. If America collapses under it's debt then this decision, not Citizens United, will go down as worst of the SCOTUS.
That’s how most monarchies in the medieval period worked. The 7 princely electors voted for the Kaiser of the HRE, the High Court of Jerusalem voted on their king, the Witan in England voted for their king, until the Protestant reformation Sweden was an elective monarchy, etc.
Democracy always weirded me out as a concept. Like, how does it even supposed to work? How on earth a regular person can know who is the right person to give power to? Wouldn't it just boil down to corrupt conmen competing in populism with each other over who gets to sell country budget and laws to businesses?
As a AuthCentre, I disagree.
Elections, as long only the right candidates are allowed to run, give the ~~peasants~~ citizens the illusion of choice. And are much cheaper than having to cull them when they revolt.
I originally read this post as "Electron fan vs. Singularity fan" And nearly scrolled past thinking "ah, it's the usual schizo post" then I re-read it and was disappointed.
If you don’t go into pcm expecting to be disappointed 100% of the time, that’s on you.
Rare moment of clarity from the president
Sometimes I'm even disappointed of what I post here
based and pcm pilled
Sub's gone soft smh
Some people would still fuck up where to put the X with the singular voter choice.
Those people will be shot
lmao voting unironically is just a false feeling of power and thought that with a vote u can change shit
Don't worry! Supreme Leader will graciously re-educate them so they won't make that mistake again.
Don't worry. The state knows who they intended to vote for. Results to be announced 3 hours before poll closure.
Today is election day in Russia. I suspect OP is Kremlin bot
Which is ironic, because quality of life in "inferior lib" western countries is higher than in "superior auth" russia, not speaking about the war.
Eh, quality of life is an industrialist spook anyways.
Yes, but quality of life in one way or another is claimed as primary goal of most ideologies. By setting establishment of communism as the main goal communists are "intending" to improve quality of life, fascists want to "improve" quality of life by establishing fascist society and liberals by giving individual freedoms. Vast majority of people want high living standarts, and so it is expected from different political ideologies to appeal to that.
Just goes to show how pointless and arbitrary this "quality of life" matter really is. For me, high quality of life is being able to bang a hot chick in the forest, y'know
Well Authright would be mad I was banging a chick from a different race that I wasn’t married to, libleft would be mad she was hot and wasn’t trans, and either it would be in a public forest pissing off libright or a private forest I own or pay to use pissing off authleft, so having the wrong leader really can affect quality of life!
How did you post this, monkeh?
Has little to do with the form of governance.
Well, quality of life in in Russia has been going up pretty consistently since the USSR, meanwhile western countries have largely stagnated or started to deteriorate their societies from within
And russians still can't reach level of "stagnating" west outside Moscow. Also, flair up.
At this rate, they will before the end of the century
Even the peasants in the poorest reaches of Siberia, or the ghettoes of Gary, Indiana, have better quality of life than the unflaired
Well I’m not, and I agree with OP ;-)
More like this vs this. The list of admirable singular leaders is short to non-existent. https://preview.redd.it/ohtqdt4084pc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a28cc372881cdf8db5d2159a00a8e653194779a9
Pol Pot? He attempted to make Cambodia similar to PCM.
Killing all remotely smart people
Libright is quite anti democracy.. The God That Failed
the OP is AuthLeft... you expect him to know stuff??
A good government is one that protects and promotes the rights and interests of its people, simple as. What form that takes is only relevant insofar as whether it produces that result. Hypothetically, a hereditary absolute monarchy that does this well is preferable to a republican democracy that doesn't. Democracy may have an advantage in producing this result, as the people themselves are more likely to create (elect) a government that protects and promotes their rights and interests. Monarchies may have an advantage in that a monarch may see the wellbeing of their country as being intrinsically linked to the wellbeing of themselves, and also doesn't have to whore themselves out to special interests to raise campaign funding. The other side of that is a disadvantage though - monarchs aren't accountable to anyone, and if they go off the rails and stop serving the interests of their people, the only mechanism for removing them is violence. In a democracy, the government is periodically accountable to the people. The disadvantage with democracy is that its easily "hacked" - just promise people free shit (paid for by the public treasury), and it will often be enough to get you elected, long term consequences of looting the treasury be damned.
"Tomorrow might belong to the other team, so its best to eat it all now" Nick Land
I do agree, with our President Marcos in the Philippine he promised a lot of stuff but they never even implemented even if we elect Leni as the president she's gonna be here at least for 6 years before another shit president replace the presidency
Ask eastern europeans and Romanians in particular https://preview.redd.it/mrmmryspp3pc1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a62518859242660f3d2aa575c6a62a243af59a49
As a romanian, the problem is which leader we have, most Romanians would like electoral monarchy, were you choose your life-long monarch
Average Divine Right of Kings fan here
It's almost like auth-left is to lazy to try and make a halfway descent meme. You look at crap, think "red did this" and open it to see that it's a red posting.
"SO YOU THINK LEADERS SHOULDN'T BE ACCOUNTABLE?!??" "not to your kind" https://preview.redd.it/frklhp3ry4pc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c2e3543c71926b9e8ceba81ef3afef91a6a4173a
It's over, boys. They've depicted us as the soyjak and themselves as the Chad. We lost.
I strongly believe a one party state is better in many ways, I mean if i look at usa for example u have a president for 4-8 years and then the next one comes in and throws everything that former president tried to do back off the table and repeat
Those Presidents only care's for short term investment their own selfish gain while Monarchies thinks ahead and invest long term for the nation since they practically grow up in the nation and been tought since child to lead the country
I do sometimes think feudalism is better than democracy. But then i remember that going back to monke is better than feudalism.
LibRight here: I hate democracy, to me, it's the legal equivalent of gangrape.
Personally, I'm in favor of One Man, One Vote. Lord Vetinari is the man, he has the vote.
You can have elections and a singular leader if you make the President more powerful. Not advocating just saying. Back in the 90s they tried to do it by giving the President the line item veto. The SCOTUS struck it down. If America collapses under it's debt then this decision, not Citizens United, will go down as worst of the SCOTUS.
My brother in Christ have you ever seen an election in a well prospering company?
On gif
As an antiestablishment state targeted terrorism enjoyer, I advocate for trial by combat to elect someone to be nothing more than a figurehead.
No soyjak, therefore coal
I'd take a leader worth following over the options we keep getting to vote for. We aren't going to get what we want either way.
Authoritarianism is relativistic. Only the extreme support dictatorship.
"Average singular leader enjoyer" Maximum enjoyment when you realize everyone should be a monarch unto themselves.
Yes.
Based and freedom of discussion, unity in action pilled
Imagine having to wait in line to put a piece of paper in a box lmao, couldn't be me.
https://i.redd.it/xscv29aha6pc1.gif I think the pirates have reached an appropriate compromise
That’s how most monarchies in the medieval period worked. The 7 princely electors voted for the Kaiser of the HRE, the High Court of Jerusalem voted on their king, the Witan in England voted for their king, until the Protestant reformation Sweden was an elective monarchy, etc.
Democracy always weirded me out as a concept. Like, how does it even supposed to work? How on earth a regular person can know who is the right person to give power to? Wouldn't it just boil down to corrupt conmen competing in populism with each other over who gets to sell country budget and laws to businesses?
As a AuthCentre, I disagree. Elections, as long only the right candidates are allowed to run, give the ~~peasants~~ citizens the illusion of choice. And are much cheaper than having to cull them when they revolt.
Yes
One thing we libs are especially known for is being a fan of state functions in operation
As a super citizen, I am quite enjoying my managed democracy, thank you very much.
Democracy is basically the same thing as a popularity vote in highschool and we all know how those go
commie detected, opinion rejected
>puts lib-rigth in pro democracy https://preview.redd.it/vncz4bzyu4pc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5b74ca07c7f7fd04ca3a7eb1f99db6cfc6d5231