Is globalism real?

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Rule of law isn't consistent with democracy.

Yes it is. It's the yin to democracy's yang. Inevitably, without a proper legal framework, society will devolve in to fractious factions and smother out liberty. So, paradoxically, liberty must be partially tempered for it to survive.

They're rhetorically associated in our culture, but wrong. Rule of law means that legal outcomes are consistent and property rights are secure. Democracy requires that laws and title be changeable instantly and on a whim. Rule of law has been dying as democracy has been spreading.

[Nat Socs]

Yes it is. It's the yin to democracy's yang. Inevitably, without a proper legal framework, society will devolve in to fractious factions and smother out liberty. So, paradoxically, liberty must be partially tempered for it to survive.

They're rhetorically associated in our culture, but wrong. Rule of law means that legal outcomes are consistent and property rights are secure. Democracy requires that laws and title be changeable instantly and on a whim. Rule of law has been dying as democracy has been spreading.

Well, as I pointed out earlier, I'm talking more about representative republicanism, which is colloquially called democracy even if it necessarily isn't. Actual democracy, though, if that's what you mean, is absolutely cancer, and I will gladly join with you in shitting on it.

As Mussolini said, referring to the kind of unrestrained democracy of the communist ideal, "Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant." Poignant quote.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

They're rhetorically associated in our culture, but wrong. Rule of law means that legal outcomes are consistent and property rights are secure. Democracy requires that laws and title be changeable instantly and on a whim. Rule of law has been dying as democracy has been spreading.

Well, as I pointed out earlier, I'm talking more about representative republicanism, which is colloquially called democracy even if it necessarily isn't. Actual democracy, though, if that's what you mean, is absolutely cancer, and I will gladly join with you in shitting on it.

As Mussolini said, referring to the kind of unrestrained democracy of the communist ideal, "Democracy is a kingless regime infested by many kings who are sometimes more exclusive, tyrannical and destructive than one, even if he be a tyrant." Poignant quote.

Representative republicanism was less law abiding than constitutional monarchy (and collapsed almost instantly into democracy).

[Nat Socs]

Representative republicanism was less law abiding than constitutional monarchy (and collapsed almost instantly into democracy).

What are you specifically referencing? I'm talking about, for instance, the U.S., or Britain.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Representative republicanism was less law abiding than constitutional monarchy (and collapsed almost instantly into democracy).

What are you specifically referencing? I'm talking about, for instance, the U.S., or Britain.

Both of them have been collapsing to a state of less lawfulness and more democracy for about 300 years.

[Nat Socs]

What are you specifically referencing? I'm talking about, for instance, the U.S., or Britain.

Both of them have been collapsing to a state of less lawfulness and more democracy for about 300 years.

pshhhh, that can change on a whim. And it shall. It's self-correcting, or at least in America. The Brits have a few screws loose though. It takes a bit more to get them to change their minds when an issue comes up. In America, though, every time lawlessness seems poised to take over, it gets thwarted. Look at why Nixon was elected in '68 and then re-elected by a massive landslide in '72. It's because the people needed law and order after seeing Marxists get pandered to by the Johnson administration, and left-wing crybabies on college campuses flaunting their embarrassing drivel (yes, many parallels could be made to today-- every forty years or so they do the same shit)

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

How is America self-correcting? It's clearly in a monotonic if slow collapse.

Britain is potentially self-correcting because its institutions can turn on a dime. Doesn't mean it'll happen, but it might. In the US the course is locked in by the constitution.

[Nat Socs]

In the US the course is locked in by the constitution.

That's interesting because I personally see the opposite as being true. What does the constitution do that establishes mob rule?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I understand that. But contemporarily, when people refer to America, they are describing a republic, yes, but calling it a democracy. Most of the time, when people talk about democracy, they mean it in the context of western republicanism; liberal democracy instead of illiberal democracy.

Which people? These terms do not have universal definitions. I was only pointing that the views of Plato seemed to be misrepresented.

[Nat Socs]

I understand that. But contemporarily, when people refer to America, they are describing a republic, yes, but calling it a democracy. Most of the time, when people talk about democracy, they mean it in the context of western republicanism; liberal democracy instead of illiberal democracy.

Which people? These terms do not have universal definitions. I was only pointing that the views of Plato seemed to be misrepresented.

Indeed they have been, and I assumed that the more common (albeit incorrect) one was the representation being used.

[The Parkus Empire]

Huh. Well how about that, eh?

Strange world.

No, not really. Mao was a Marxist.

[Ethel mermania]

Uh, heh, no. Democracy is when the citizens elect their leaders in government. Think western enlightenment/classical liberalism philosophy. Communism is just mob rule.

What's the difference?

Democracy is a political system, communism is an economic system for one.

[MERIZoC]

Trump is also a legit Maoist

[Luziyca]

Yes, but I associate it more with corporations exploiting workers in the third world and having a global reach than with some sort of nebulous shadowy front of people who want to impose "liberal ideals" or whatever.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Democracy is a political system, communism is an economic system for one.

IMO, it is not that simple. Democracy is both political and economic (as in worker cooperatives which are economic democracies). Communism also also both economic and political (as in Engels' two stages of communism: with a state and with an administration).

[Sovaal]

The real question is what is a "Myrth"?

[Ethel mermania]

Democracy is a political system, communism is an economic system for one.

IMO, it is not that simple. Democracy is both political and economic (as in worker cooperatives which are economic democracies). Communism also also both economic and political (as in Engels' two stages of communism: with a state and with an administration).

It really is that simple.

No, democracy can work with both communism and capitalism. Who owns what is not a requirement of a democratic process.

Communism can work as a democracy or a technocracy, it doesn't require either.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Frankly, he's just a moderate paleoconservative, like a watered-down version of the constitution party. To call him an anarchist would be just as inaccurate as calling him a communist. As a fascist, I'd like for him to be more authoritarian, but he's really just center-right and he dabbles in populism.

Well, Pat Buchanan (a self-described paleoconservative) supported Trump, so perhaps. However, while I strongly disagree with paleoconservatives (such as Buchanan and the late Robert Novak), most of them (unlike Trump) are reasonably intelligent.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

No, democracy can work with both communism and capitalism. Who owns what is not a requirement of a democratic process.

Communism can work as a democracy or a technocracy, it doesn't require either.

Well, we are dealing with definitions. I would define bourgeois democracy as faux democracy.

Communism as a technocracy? Although I don't particularly like that approach to communism, it is advocated by the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

What's the difference?

Democracy is a political system, communism is an economic system for one.

Politics is entirely about who owns what.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

IMO, it is not that simple. Democracy is both political and economic (as in worker cooperatives which are economic democracies). Communism also also both economic and political (as in Engels' two stages of communism: with a state and with an administration).

It really is that simple.

No, democracy can work with both communism and capitalism. Who owns what is not a requirement of a democratic process.

Communism can work as a democracy or a technocracy, it doesn't require either.

In democracy everything is owned by a cooperative in which everyone is an equal shareholder, which is communism.

[Ethel mermania]

It really is that simple.

No, democracy can work with both communism and capitalism. Who owns what is not a requirement of a democratic process.

Communism can work as a democracy or a technocracy, it doesn't require either.

In democracy everything is owned by a cooperative in which everyone is an equal shareholder, which is communism.

That aint what websters says, so thats a no.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

That aint what websters says, so thats a no.

Websters and other dictionaries present common usages. They are not authorities on truth.

[The Federal Kingdom Of Zuhi]

Yes, but It isn't due to the Illuminati or satan.

It's possibly due to technology. And of course, due to numerous other factors.

[Tyrannistate]

Globalists are the same as communists