Winston Churchill once famously said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried", and I have to say that I believe that as well.

I hate democracy, but don't get me wrong, all the other forms of government that have been tried suffer from the same problem as democracy: human greed and selfishness.

People often think I hate democracy to be edgy, or that maybe I say that I hate it as a joke, but no, I genuinely think that democracy is a very faulty system. Democracy assumes that the people should get to say, at least to a certain degree, how a country should be governed. Immediately, this brings forth issues. In the Netherlands, the law is as follows: if you are above 18 years of age, have the Dutch nationality, and haven't had your voting right stripped away by a judge for previously attempting to commit voter fraud, you are allowed to vote. This means that almost every adult citizen, regardless of their understanding or concern about politics, can vote.

There are two ways you could give form to this democracy, but both of them are heavily flawed. The first is that you let the people decide on every decision that needs to be made. The second is that you let people choose other people to represent their voice in a smaller political power structure where those elected people make laws.

Let's first focus on the first option. This would be problematic, because if you let people vote on every decision, then they need to constantly be busy with voting, or at least voting for the things they care about. This might mean that for smaller problems, only a small number of people go to vote and can decide the course of the country regarding that topic. Often, this will not be because the public doesn't necessarily care, but because they don't know enough about the problem and its solutions to care enough to form an opinion on the matter, especially since there are so many problems simultaneously. If you want people to care about every political issue, you are enslaving the entire public to a forced life of being a politician, and almost no one wants that.

Furthermore, as we're talking about the people not wanting to vote because they don't have enough information, we also SHOULD NOT want people to vote without this information. Take a topic such as immigration. You could ask me "Should we allow immigrants to enter our country?", and I could have an opinion about that, sure, but the matter of the fact is that I do not have all the figures I'd need to make an educated decision. If I answer yes, they'd also need to ask me how much the country should let in, but I don't know how many immigrants are in our country already, I don't know how many kids they generally produce, I don't know how many kids ethnically Dutch people generally produce, I don't know how much our economy depends on the workforce of these immigrants, and yes, I know there aren't enough places for them to stay, but should I see that as a problem in terms of immigration or in terms of not enough houses being built? No matter is black-and-white, yes-or-no, so if you want to ask everyone for their opinion, you could forever ask more and more about the small details, and nothing will ever come of it and you'll just lose sight of the bigger picture.

Then there's the second option, the common way democracy is practiced: you get to pick someone from a list of people who you think best represents your ideas and ideals. This form of governing is about equally broken. Sure, it's less work for the public, but it also gives the people less power, which I would argue is undemocratic. There is never someone you're going to completely agree with on everything, so you always need to compromise some beliefs for the sake of supporting other beliefs you have. Is that not fucked up? And, more importantly, doesn't that defeat the point of voting to let your voice be heard? Another problem with this form of government is that it is common to have elections every few years. That way people can show their updated opinions, and people who turned into adults have the ability to vote, while the voices of those who've died are filtered out. It sounds fair enough, but it does pose a problem. This way, the direction of the government, and thus the country, can completely change every few years. Not only does having to compromise with your fellow politicians cause action and legislation to be procrastinated on, but it also makes it so that a lot of time is spend in just undoing the previous ruler's plans, instead of looking ahead. I think a good example of this form of government causing problems is the current state in the United States of America. Many people voted for Trump because they believe he will improve the American economy. How does Mr. Trump propose to do this? By adding high tariffs to imported products. Now, this is quite a decent plan at its core. Getting people to buy local would boost the American workforce, strengthen the U.S. as it becomes less dependant on other countries, and buying locally means there's less shipping worldwide, so that's beneficial to the environment. The problem? The U.S. doesn't make all these products yet. The reason that they import so much from outside their country isn't just that it's cheaper, it's also because some products are not produced at a wide enough scale to make up for the lack of foreign alternatives. Now, if this plan was implemented differently, I believe it could have worked. If they first spend some years getting their production in order to fight the dependency, then this would've been not as big of an issue. Especially if they were transparent about it to the world years in advance, so that other countries could also find other solutions. Then when the U.S. is CAPABLE of being more independent, you add these tax laws. The problem? That plan requires time. Time Trump is well aware he does not have. He has four years at most and two years at least to make the rules. But just PREPARING the U.S. for these tariff increases in a way that would not cause the entire American economy to shake to its core would probably take four years or more. And there is no guarantee (in fact, it is likely to be the opposite) that these laws will stay in place after Trump leaves office, so he either does nothing, and the economy keeps crumbling, or he takes these drastic measures now, while no one is ready, and launches an economical war that will hurt the world economy as a whole, but ESPECIALLY Americans. And we HAVE an example of how a non-democratic country tackles this. The reason China is growing stronger is because they always have the same leader, so they can make plans that will take years to implement. China is slowly making itself more independent by producing more and more products it needs within the country. They don't even necessarily need to raise tariffs on foreign goods, because China already just has these products ready to go for its own people, so why would people massively buy imported items? (And of course there is a lot of loyalty to one's own country there.) China has been doing this for years, and their strategy works because they HAVE these years. Trump and the U.S. don't. Democracy causes the country to get stuck in a loop of opposite sides constantly fighting for dominance and undoing any progress the other's made, or even harming the country's people to push through their campaign points as quickly as possible. Not to mention the issue of politicians having a lot of money and power, which can corrupt them or attract those whose interests are not with the country and general public.

But Derick, don't other forms of government suffer from these problems too? Yes. Yes, they do. That's the big problem. Politics as a means of taking care of a large group of people is a broken concept, because deep down (or closer to the surface), most people are egotistical. They put themselves first. It's why communism, and even socialism, have failed equally hard as capitalistic democracies. You can distribute the resources of the common man evenly amongst them, but the common man will still suffer if those in political power assign themselves a larger percentile of the resources. This happens in practically every governmental system, but it develops the easiest in non-democratic governments where a few people in the country hold all the power, because then the majority of the people have even less power.

So, what do I think would be the best way to govern a group of people?

Well, first of all, get rid of this voting bullshit. Are you a regular Joe, a good ol' citizen? Well, then FUCK OFF. I would say that citizens should, however, have veto rights, where, if a certain percentage of the population decides to veto a decision (like, maybe 66%), then the government HAS to drop it. I think that's the only way to make sure those in power don't immediately start abusing it. But aside from that, people should be educated to make decisions in politics. And I don't mean that any Harvard or Yale graduate should be able to make political decisions. No, politics should be its own study, and people should learn to research, learn about problems and the different approaches to it, and then learn how to discuss, rather than fight and debate, over it with others. A big majority of people voting for something should also be specialized in that field. Maybe that could be specific classes you can take. For example, if you want to have a say on climate politics, then you will have a class to learn both about what opposite sides are saying, as well as learning about what science is saying about the matter. I think politics should probably be more fact-based, rather than so heavily emotion-based, because that just leads to useless populism getting nothing done.

So basically what I think would work best is a technocratic aristocracy, but one where politics is a study you need to complete to get into the job field. And this study should be very cheap, if not free, but it should be difficult, to ensure that only those committed to actually getting into politics out of a passion for the job field do. It shouldn't be an extremely high-paying working field. It should be about leading the world forwards, and committing yourself to that goal. The way people view politics as benefit to society should probably be similar to how they view the benefit of the military, who work hard and put their lives on the line to protect the citizens of their country. Politicians should have the same commitment to their craft, and look beyond pride and possessions they can gain from their job. We need people who get into politics to make people other than just themselves better, regardless of whether they're a die-hard conservative or a libtard.