>>828333
How is that biblical? If it weren't for the fall then we would presumably still be under the direct authoriy of God within Eden, how is that anarchism?
>>828308
This. Just because there's no perfect system, doesn't mean there aren't terrible ones, and representative liberal democracy is one of the worst. It's a system of complex obfuscational mechanisms meant to make the citizenry feel complicit in government through the illusion of consent and optionality, when in fact both power itself and the actual CONCEPTION of the workings of power is hidden from them.
That's why almost everyone's (including most of those involved in politics) folk sociology is so abyssmal (formal academic sociology is even worse, it's like an acute folk sociology, they're reaaaallly clueless). To pretend that any of the rationalizations in MUH constitution or liberal theory (consent of the governed, man kind in a state of nature… blah blah blah) had anything to do with the development of society is ludicrous. First came the rule of those powerful enough to crush any competitors, and afterward came formalisms to help more smoothly run society.
That's how all states developed, and all modern states function fundamentally similarly to one another (vis-a-vis the false "consentualist" vs "authoritarian" distinction), because all states have fundamentally similar needs to function; there is never the option to work contrary to the goals of the state in a meaningful way (short of literal armed rebellion).
Take for example some of the things you "ought" to be able to do under liberal theory, like form guilds, clubs, organizations, self contained communities, etc. that exclusively allow and pursue the interests of members of your ethnicity, religion, cultural group, what will happen? Well most of those are de jure illegal, but if you find some loophole, what then? You'll face an army of "non-profits", NGOs, "Human Rights" groups, media organizations, antifa street thugs; all of whose legitimacy, intelligence, and funding in one way or another run through the organs of government. And these "independant" organizations will then slander you, ruin your reputation, destroy your livelyhood, and in skme cases get you killed or imprisoned.
So compare these two systems to inhibit dissent; lib dem - a series of obfuscational perversely structured organizations whose real workings are hidden (even to most of their members) destroy the lives of wrongthinkers arbitrarily.
China - Sensors things it doesn't like, and has (fairly) consistent rules about what will land you in prison.
These both perform basically the same function, except that the liberal method is dishonest, less effective, and more arbitrarily destructive. This functional similarity is obviously true, and yet almost no one conceives of them in this way, because liberal democracy is inherently dishonest and obfuscatort. (This isn't to defend per se China, but just to illustrate the incoherence of liberal theories like "free speech" or "popular consent", there's never a choice to work contrary to the aims of the state freely).
Basically all the "advantages" of liberal democracy are just false propaganda, from "freedom" to "accountability in government" (dictators and kings who did a really s—ty job occasionally get killed, when's the last time a Western politician faced any real consequences for their ruinous actions? Heirr Merkel's abused her people worse than Gaddafi did, and she's probably going to get away with a fat pension as punishment). On top of this it creates perverse incentives like importing foreign voting populations to act as electoral ringers and undercut local workers.