Brazil Second Presidential N Paliament Elections 2018 Genral

[No Steppia]

I'm glad Bolsonaro won but I don't think it's going to translate into a major change in Brazil's economic trajectory. I think the Latin American culture of treating economic ideologies more like religions than obtaining a comprehensive understanding of economic mechanisms will see to that. Eh, what can you do?

>Not effect it economically

kk, Taurus' economic upshift is a myth then.

obviously a rightwing fabrication

[Caracasus]

The Favela's presence violates the countries NAP.

> "NAP!!!!" except when it comes to the poor.

The NAP idea or the inherant ideloogy behind it has never, ever applied to poor people. Likely because the ideology it forms part of doesn't see poor people as, you know, people.

[No Steppia]

> "NAP!!!!" except when it comes to the poor.

The NAP idea or the inherent ideology behind it has never, ever applied to poor people. Likely because the ideology it forms part of doesn't see poor people as, you know, people.

Don't be a poor then, geez.

[Second Empire of America]

I'm glad Bolsonaro won but I don't think it's going to translate into a major change in Brazil's economic trajectory. I think the Latin American culture of treating economic ideologies more like religions than obtaining a comprehensive understanding of economic mechanisms will see to that. Eh, what can you do?

Have you heard the gospel of our lord John Maynard Keynes?

[Givienci]

I'm glad Bolsonaro won but I don't think it's going to translate into a major change in Brazil's economic trajectory. I think the Latin American culture of treating economic ideologies more like religions than obtaining a comprehensive understanding of economic mechanisms will see to that. Eh, what can you do?

Have you heard the gospel of our lord John Maynard Keynes?

They're not Keynesians, that's for sure. Most of Latin America just bounces back and forth between socialist style policies and empty-headed, Reagan-inspired market fundamentalist policies. Then when each ideology produces undesirable effects, they just blame it on the other ideology and everything continues as usual without actually understand why things aren't improving.

[Second Empire of America]

Have you heard the gospel of our lord John Maynard Keynes?

They're not Keynesians, that's for sure.

So they are heretics. Anyone up for a Keynesian holy war?

(This post is a joke. I don't actually worship Keynes as a god.)

[Mardla]

Carl Schmitt and Paul Gottfried both make it a point to stress that it is folly to presume democracy and liberalism are innately bedfellows--in fact sometimes democracy is not compatible with liberalism, Kuehnelt- Leddihn opposed democracy for that reason. Plato believed democracy naturally tends toward Caesarism, given a long enough trajectory, and he is quite correct.

This is a hard lesson for the left. Turkey, which depended on military coups to keep it liberal, should have taught you not to take liberalism for granted.

You will have to start deciding which matters more to you, democracy, or liberalism. Tocqueville himself was also a supporter of both but was insightful enough to see their impending collision course.

I am personally positive about this. I won't rub it in because I know many of you are already in enough distress without more being piled on. Hopefully the future will pan out.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Carl Schmitt and Paul Gottfried both make it a point to stress that it is folly to presume democracy and liberalism are innately bedfellows--in fact sometimes democracy is not compatible with liberalism, Kuehnelt- Leddihn opposed democracy for that reason. Plato believed democracy naturally tends toward Caesarism, given a long enough trajectory, and he is quite correct.

This is a hard lesson for the left. Turkey, which depended on military coups to keep it liberal, should have taught you not to take liberalism for granted.

You will have to start deciding which matters more to you, democracy, or liberalism. Tocqueville himself was also a supporter of both but was insightful enough to see their impending collision course.

I am personally positive about this. I won't rub it in because I know many of you are already in enough distress without more being piled on. Hopefully the future will pan out.

Democracy and liberalism are inseparable. Liberalism without democracy always fades, and democracy without liberalism becomes a sham of a democracy. The freedoms that liberalism provides, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, non-discrimination, are all required for the proper functioning of democracy. Democracy is more than just doing what 50% +1 of the electorate wants.

[Carl Hasty]

This is a hard lesson for the left. Turkey, which depended on military coups to keep it liberal, should have taught you not to take liberalism for granted.

This would be to completely misunderstand Turkish politics. The people behind those coups were not liberals. Kemalism is a corporatist ideology which is not merely represented by the Republican Peoples Party. The Menderes Regime, the first government to get couped, was lead by what might be called bourgeois liberals, who literally left the ruling party because it adopted land reform legislation, and to this day there exist a large number of self-described the liberals who hate Kemalists so much they support Erdogan.

[Mardla]

This is a hard lesson for the left. Turkey, which depended on military coups to keep it liberal, should have taught you not to take liberalism for granted.

This would be to completely misunderstand Turkish politics. The people behind those coups were not liberals. Kemalism is a corporatist ideology which is not merely represented by the Republican Peoples Party. The Menderes Regime, the first government to get couped, was lead by what might be called bourgeois liberals, who literally left the ruling party because it adopted land reform legislation, and to this day there exist a large number of self-described the liberals who hate Kemalists so much they support Erdogan.

By liberal here I mean secular.

[Carl Hasty]

This would be to completely misunderstand Turkish politics. The people behind those coups were not liberals. Kemalism is a corporatist ideology which is not merely represented by the Republican Peoples Party. The Menderes Regime, the first government to get couped, was lead by what might be called bourgeois liberals, who literally left the ruling party because it adopted land reform legislation, and to this day there exist a large number of self-described the liberals who hate Kemalists so much they support Erdogan.

By liberal here I mean secular.

That’s not the definition Carl Schmitt would’ve used. And anyhow, the Menderes government (or any Turkish government wasn’t too religious either. They suppressed Islamist parties and newspapers too I believe.

[Darussalam]

Democracy and liberalism are inseparable. Liberalism without democracy always fades, and democracy without liberalism becomes a sham of a democracy. The freedoms that liberalism provides, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, non-discrimination, are all required for the proper functioning of democracy. Democracy is more than just doing what 50% +1 of the electorate wants.

So democracy functions well only because it non-democratically guarantees certain rights. That strikes me off as more of an indication of success of apolitical liberalism than democracy. I might call vilayat e-faqih as a democratic element if I like, or indeed an "inseparable component of democracy", but that doesn't make it so.

[United Homeland]

We support Far Right Wing former army Captain Jair Bolsonaro, make Brazil great again

[Mardla]

By liberal here I mean secular.

That’s not the definition Carl Schmitt would’ve used. And anyhow, the Menderes government wasn’t too religious either. They suppressed Islamist parties and newspapers too I believe.

I am guessing you haven't read Schmitt's Political Theology?

It outlawed competing parties, but that doesn't mean it was secularist.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Democracy and liberalism are inseparable. Liberalism without democracy always fades, and democracy without liberalism becomes a sham of a democracy. The freedoms that liberalism provides, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, non-discrimination, are all required for the proper functioning of democracy. Democracy is more than just doing what 50% +1 of the electorate wants.

So democracy functions well only because it non-democratically guarantees certain rights. That strikes me off as more of an indication of success of apolitical liberalism than democracy. I might call vilayat e-faqih as a democratic element if I like, or indeed an "inseparable component of democracy", but that doesn't make it so.

Yeah, it looks like a paradox, but it isn't. Take the following example:

In a state of 60% Rounds and 40% Cubes, the Rounds decide to take away the voting rights of the Cubes. Is that democracy? In the next election, only 60% of the population will be able to vote. Imagine that, every year, the people are asked if they want to renew the suppression of voter rights of the Cubes. Every year, the vote passes with 100% of the vote, while 40% of the population opposes the rule. While 100% of the electorate supports the rule, we can see that it is inherently undemocratic, since it takes away the democratic voice of a large minority of the population, even thought it was the will of the majority. Democracy is only democracy if it leaves democracy intact. If you have a democracy, and the power comes from the consent of the governed, then all the governed must have a say in these matters. Thus, if we want to maintain a democratic system, then sometimes the will of 50% + 1 has to be disregarded because keeping democracy for future generations is more important than adhering to all of its outcomes.

Now, imagine the same country: 60% Rounds, 40% Cubes. This time, the Rounds don't take away the voting rights of the Cubes, but they decree that only Rounds will have the ability to peacefully assemble. While not a direct infringement on vote rights, we can see that the playing field is not level. Rounds can form political parties, have congresses, have discussions and have fundraisers, while Cubes have to do all that in secret. While the Cubes still have a right to vote, their right is effectively curtailed. That too is an infringement on democracy, since for a functioning democracy, the playing field has to be at least somewhat level.

Now, imagine a third scenario: the same country, 60% Rounds, and 40% Cubes. However, now, there is no new law. Instead, in this country, Cubes always get paid 90% of what Rounds get for comparable work. It's not a law, it's just a habit of large corporations. While not a law, this kind of discrimination also impacts democracy. Cubes have less standing in society, they have less money, they cannot buy houses or send their kids to college like Rounds can. Also, they cannot donate to political parties like Rounds can, and Cubes have to work longer days so they cannot put in as much effort. While the laws of the country are egalitarian in principle, the outcomes of that are dangerous to the functioning of democracy. Therefore, the government must also ensure that its citizens are treated equally.

This is the basis of the liberal democracy. These rights, the right to vote, the freedom to assemble and freedom from discrimination, are all integral to democracy. Without them, the democracy becomes less representative. A government must always protect the rights of all of its citizens, and if a democratic vote detracts from that, then that democratic vote must be disregarded. That is what constitutions are for: they protect democracy from the worst excesses of itself. If 50%+1 want to ruin the democracy of the future, they should not have the right. That's why some fundamental rights are entrenched.

To bring this in line with the topic at hand: while Bolsy has been elected by a majority, that does not mean that he has the right to do whatever he wants. He has a duty to democracy to protect the lives and likelihood of all Brazilians. Otherwise, Brazil becomes a sham democracy.

[Carl Hasty]

That’s not the definition Carl Schmitt would’ve used. And anyhow, the Menderes government wasn’t too religious either. They suppressed Islamist parties and newspapers too I believe.

I am guessing you haven't read Schmitt's Political Theology?

It outlawed competing parties, but that doesn't mean it was secularist.

No but I’m pretty sure he didn’t use such a narrow definition. It had something to do with parliamentarism I think?

Their leaders were secular Western-educated people who merely weren’t as restrictive of religion (renovated mosques, allowed the call to prayer in Arabic, brought back limited religious education in lower education, etc) as the party before them. That makes them more liberal not less, under a normal definition.

Edit: Not to forget that all of the other coups (besides 1993 which wasn't a real coup) were about political instability not Islamism.

[Uxupox]

So democracy functions well only because it non-democratically guarantees certain rights. That strikes me off as more of an indication of success of apolitical liberalism than democracy. I might call vilayat e-faqih as a democratic element if I like, or indeed an "inseparable component of democracy", but that doesn't make it so.

Yeah, it looks like a paradox, but it isn't. Take the following example:

In a state of 60% Rounds and 40% Cubes, the Rounds decide to take away the voting rights of the Cubes. Is that democracy? In the next election, only 60% of the population will be able to vote. Imagine that, every year, the people are asked if they want to renew the suppression of voter rights of the Cubes. Every year, the vote passes with 100% of the vote, while 40% of the population opposes the rule. While 100% of the electorate supports the rule, we can see that it is inherently undemocratic, since it takes away the democratic voice of a large minority of the population, even thought it was the will of the majority. Democracy is only democracy if it leaves democracy intact. If you have a democracy, and the power comes from the consent of the governed, then all the governed must have a say in these matters. Thus, if we want to maintain a democratic system, then sometimes the will of 50% + 1 has to be disregarded because keeping democracy for future generations is more important than adhering to all of its outcomes.

Now, imagine the same country: 60% Rounds, 40% Cubes. This time, the Rounds don't take away the voting rights of the Cubes, but they decree that only Rounds will have the ability to peacefully assemble. While not a direct infringement on vote rights, we can see that the playing field is not level. Rounds can form political parties, have congresses, have discussions and have fundraisers, while Cubes have to do all that in secret. While the Cubes still have a right to vote, their right is effectively curtailed. That too is an infringement on democracy, since for a functioning democracy, the playing field has to be at least somewhat level.

Now, imagine a third scenario: the same country, 60% Rounds, and 40% Cubes. However, now, there is no new law. Instead, in this country, Cubes always get paid 90% of what Rounds get for comparable work. It's not a law, it's just a habit of large corporations. While not a law, this kind of discrimination also impacts democracy. Cubes have less standing in society, they have less money, they cannot buy houses or send their kids to college like Rounds can. Also, they cannot donate to political parties like Rounds can, and Cubes have to work longer days so they cannot put in as much effort. While the laws of the country are egalitarian in principle, the outcomes of that are dangerous to the functioning of democracy. Therefore, the government must also ensure that its citizens are treated equally.

This is the basis of the liberal democracy. These rights, the right to vote, the freedom to assemble and freedom from discrimination, are all integral to democracy. Without them, the democracy becomes less representative. A government must always protect the rights of all of its citizens, and if a democratic vote detracts from that, then that democratic vote must be disregarded. That is what constitutions are for: they protect democracy from the worst excesses of itself. If 50%+1 want to ruin the democracy of the future, they should not have the right. That's why some fundamental rights are entrenched.

To bring this in line with the topic at hand: while Bolsy has been elected by a majority, that does not mean that he has the right to do whatever he wants. He has a duty to democracy to protect the lives and likelihood of all Brazilians. Otherwise, Brazil becomes a sham democracy.

brazil has been "sham" democracy for a while.

[San Lumen]

I did not say that. I said monsters like Bolsonaro should not be allowed to take office.

You did.

The people of Brazil disagree, and there's nothing you can do but rant and rave like always about how unfair that a corrupt communist lost.

sometimes the people ought to be protected from themselves.

[Trumptonium1]

So democracy functions well only because it non-democratically guarantees certain rights. That strikes me off as more of an indication of success of apolitical liberalism than democracy. I might call vilayat e-faqih as a democratic element if I like, or indeed an "inseparable component of democracy", but that doesn't make it so.

Yeah, it looks like a paradox, but it isn't. Take the following example:

In a state of 60% Rounds and 40% Cubes, the Rounds decide to take away the voting rights of the Cubes. Is that democracy? In the next election, only 60% of the population will be able to vote. Imagine that, every year, the people are asked if they want to renew the suppression of voter rights of the Cubes. Every year, the vote passes with 100% of the vote, while 40% of the population opposes the rule. While 100% of the electorate supports the rule, we can see that it is inherently undemocratic, since it takes away the democratic voice of a large minority of the population, even thought it was the will of the majority. Democracy is only democracy if it leaves democracy intact. If you have a democracy, and the power comes from the consent of the governed, then all the governed must have a say in these matters. Thus, if we want to maintain a democratic system, then sometimes the will of 50% + 1 has to be disregarded because keeping democracy for future generations is more important than adhering to all of its outcomes.

Now, imagine the same country: 60% Rounds, 40% Cubes. This time, the Rounds don't take away the voting rights of the Cubes, but they decree that only Rounds will have the ability to peacefully assemble. While not a direct infringement on vote rights, we can see that the playing field is not level. Rounds can form political parties, have congresses, have discussions and have fundraisers, while Cubes have to do all that in secret. While the Cubes still have a right to vote, their right is effectively curtailed. That too is an infringement on democracy, since for a functioning democracy, the playing field has to be at least somewhat level.

Now, imagine a third scenario: the same country, 60% Rounds, and 40% Cubes. However, now, there is no new law. Instead, in this country, Cubes always get paid 90% of what Rounds get for comparable work. It's not a law, it's just a habit of large corporations. While not a law, this kind of discrimination also impacts democracy. Cubes have less standing in society, they have less money, they cannot buy houses or send their kids to college like Rounds can. Also, they cannot donate to political parties like Rounds can, and Cubes have to work longer days so they cannot put in as much effort. While the laws of the country are egalitarian in principle, the outcomes of that are dangerous to the functioning of democracy. Therefore, the government must also ensure that its citizens are treated equally.

This is the basis of the liberal democracy. These rights, the right to vote, the freedom to assemble and freedom from discrimination, are all integral to democracy. Without them, the democracy becomes less representative. A government must always protect the rights of all of its citizens, and if a democratic vote detracts from that, then that democratic vote must be disregarded. That is what constitutions are for: they protect democracy from the worst excesses of itself. If 50%+1 want to ruin the democracy of the future, they should not have the right. That's why some fundamental rights are entrenched.

To bring this in line with the topic at hand: while Bolsy has been elected by a majority, that does not mean that he has the right to do whatever he wants. He has a duty to democracy to protect the lives and likelihood of all Brazilians. Otherwise, Brazil becomes a sham democracy.

You're not describing a democracy, you're describing a republic.

Yes, absolutely - if you don't carry out the whims of your voters, you aren't a democracy.

[Trumptonium1]

You did.

The people of Brazil disagree, and there's nothing you can do but rant and rave like always about how unfair that a corrupt communist lost.

sometimes the people ought to be protected from themselves.

Like stopping African Americans in Michigan from voting so they don't fuck themselves with another blue candidate. Right on buddy, I'm with ya. John James all the way.

[San Lumen]

sometimes the people ought to be protected from themselves.

Like stopping African Americans in Michigan from voting so they don't fuck themselves with another blue candidate. Right on buddy, I'm with ya. John James all the way.

You do know that John James is African American right?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yeah, it looks like a paradox, but it isn't. Take the following example:

In a state of 60% Rounds and 40% Cubes, the Rounds decide to take away the voting rights of the Cubes. Is that democracy? In the next election, only 60% of the population will be able to vote. Imagine that, every year, the people are asked if they want to renew the suppression of voter rights of the Cubes. Every year, the vote passes with 100% of the vote, while 40% of the population opposes the rule. While 100% of the electorate supports the rule, we can see that it is inherently undemocratic, since it takes away the democratic voice of a large minority of the population, even thought it was the will of the majority. Democracy is only democracy if it leaves democracy intact. If you have a democracy, and the power comes from the consent of the governed, then all the governed must have a say in these matters. Thus, if we want to maintain a democratic system, then sometimes the will of 50% + 1 has to be disregarded because keeping democracy for future generations is more important than adhering to all of its outcomes.

Now, imagine the same country: 60% Rounds, 40% Cubes. This time, the Rounds don't take away the voting rights of the Cubes, but they decree that only Rounds will have the ability to peacefully assemble. While not a direct infringement on vote rights, we can see that the playing field is not level. Rounds can form political parties, have congresses, have discussions and have fundraisers, while Cubes have to do all that in secret. While the Cubes still have a right to vote, their right is effectively curtailed. That too is an infringement on democracy, since for a functioning democracy, the playing field has to be at least somewhat level.

Now, imagine a third scenario: the same country, 60% Rounds, and 40% Cubes. However, now, there is no new law. Instead, in this country, Cubes always get paid 90% of what Rounds get for comparable work. It's not a law, it's just a habit of large corporations. While not a law, this kind of discrimination also impacts democracy. Cubes have less standing in society, they have less money, they cannot buy houses or send their kids to college like Rounds can. Also, they cannot donate to political parties like Rounds can, and Cubes have to work longer days so they cannot put in as much effort. While the laws of the country are egalitarian in principle, the outcomes of that are dangerous to the functioning of democracy. Therefore, the government must also ensure that its citizens are treated equally.

This is the basis of the liberal democracy. These rights, the right to vote, the freedom to assemble and freedom from discrimination, are all integral to democracy. Without them, the democracy becomes less representative. A government must always protect the rights of all of its citizens, and if a democratic vote detracts from that, then that democratic vote must be disregarded. That is what constitutions are for: they protect democracy from the worst excesses of itself. If 50%+1 want to ruin the democracy of the future, they should not have the right. That's why some fundamental rights are entrenched.

To bring this in line with the topic at hand: while Bolsy has been elected by a majority, that does not mean that he has the right to do whatever he wants. He has a duty to democracy to protect the lives and likelihood of all Brazilians. Otherwise, Brazil becomes a sham democracy.

You're not describing a democracy, you're describing a republic.

Yes, absolutely - if you don't carry out the whims of your voters, you aren't a democracy.

And you can't be a democracy if you follow every whim of the electorate. Then, democracy is impossible. Not following some measures of the voters is inherently more democratic than disenfranchising a part of the population.

Yeah, republics can be democracies, democracies can be republics. What I was describing is what's called a 'liberal democracy'. Don't let the 'liberal' scare you, though.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You did.

The people of Brazil disagree, and there's nothing you can do but rant and rave like always about how unfair that a corrupt communist lost.

sometimes the people ought to be protected from themselves.

Hey you're finally coming over to the authoritarian side, good job Lumen.

[Vassenor]

You're not describing a democracy, you're describing a republic.

Yes, absolutely - if you don't carry out the whims of your voters, you aren't a democracy.

And you can't be a democracy if you follow every whim of the electorate. Then, democracy is impossible. Not following some measures of the voters is inherently more democratic than disenfranchising a part of the population.

Yeah, republics can be democracies, democracies can be republics. What I was describing is what's called a 'liberal democracy'. Don't let the 'liberal' scare you, though.

I really don't get where people are getting this idea that "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive from.

[NS Miami Shores]

sometimes the people ought to be protected from themselves.

Hey you're finally coming over to the authoritarian side, good job Lumen.

Just because certain citizens disagree with other citizens economically, politically and socially doesn't mean the people ought to be protected from themselves or need to be protected from themselves, it is called real democracy.

Legal citizens, legal immigrants and legal foreign nationals in Brazil, the USA or any nations, with all their rights respected.

I like supporting and backing up fellow conservatives and others I agree with in my own way and style with my posts and words in my style.

133 voters so far and many posters on a one option poll with no closing date.
As your OP Thread Host as I like to call myself and all OPs, I am always proud when one of my Threads on General or the RP forums does well, I think all OPs feel the same way I do, I am very proud of this thread.

Posted by NS Miami Shores.
Posted by Brasilia Brazil.
The same Poster.