>>212545268>I can defend it, but it would require an article and several thousand words. This is not the place for that.If you actually need so many words to defend something then I don't think it's that axiomatic.
>Greek democracy was different. First, ot was direct democracy. Second, it was limited to certain people. Third, it was just for city-states, not countries with millions of people.Direct democracy is not practical for big countries yes, but it's about the concept, rule of many versus rule of one person, not about the exact implementation.
>The current form of democracy has more blood in its hands than current monarchies.You disregard when monarchies nowadays such as Russia start wars, you disregard historical data that doesn't fit your perspective, you basically are convinced of your point of view and disregard anything against it.
>Hitler was elected. The uneducated masses fucked up (again).Until he wasn't and created a monarchy.
Besides, he actually didn't get more than half of the votes, he got around 1/3 and later once he became chancellor used flimsy excuses to increase his power.
>oh you mean with regime changes? With covert assassinations? With censorship and manipulation?I said among themselves instead of relating to third world countries, besides most democracies don't start regime changes, that's a USA, France, UK thingy.
>Playing with demographics at a scale never seen before?Yes, a monarchy never would have for example taken minorities and exterminating them.
>Except you keep failing to show that.I showed you how people living in democracies have on average more wealth, they also have higher quality of life and more freedoms.
>Carlos II wouldn't have been King today. He would have not reached the Throne. These are different times.It was an example to show that a monarchy can easily breakdown if the person at the top is not capable.