Slimy Tactics By Which Party?

[Gustaf]

France and Germany are two good examples.  They might not be full blown communistic, but they are very socialistic.  Several of the small countries in Africa.  Usually, ths happens very quickly, over a very short period, so quickly that we often don't notice; because giving people ultimate political power usually causes them to turn on the wealthy.

WHAT?
France is NOT socialist. The current government is VERY right wing.
Parts of France are left wing (Saint Denis for example) but other parts are insanely right wing (Toulon for example).
Chirac is Waaaaaaaaaaay to the right of Bush.

France is quite socialist in an economic sense.  A few years of 'right wing' rule by Chirac doesn't wipe away centuries of centralized statist economic institutions, high taxes, welfare state, etc.  The French economy is burdened by state owned companies, high taxes, and highly regulated private industry that is also burdened with very pro-worker state interference.  Not as socialist as the U.S.S.R. was, but it'll do.

France could be said to be state-socialist, but not really compassionate. And definitely not super-democratic.

[12th Doctor]

Indeed, RP. I for one can't think of a single example where a 'hyper-democratic' nation turned to Marxism.

More often than not, Communist dictatorships were born out of another form of dictatorship (Russia, Cuba, China, etc).

France and Germany are two good examples.  They might not be full blown communistic, but they are very socialistic.  Several of the small countries in Africa.  Usually, ths happens very quickly, over a very short period, so quickly that we often don't notice; because giving people ultimate political power usually causes them to turn on the wealthy.

Yeah, France and Germany have really strong democratic traditions, super-democracies indeed...[SARCASM]

And Africa is positively RIDDLED with democracies... [MORE SARCASM]

You're yet again mixing up the issue of political power with that of political system. There's nothing "super-democratic" about mob rule or state control. That's authoritarian or socialist.

Perhapes I am not making myself clear.  If you have a system that gives suppream political power to the people (in sort Absolute Democracy), then what ALWAYS happens is you will get a majority leader, who the majority will put their faith in, who will oppress the minority, usually the wealthy, because absolute Democracies almost always become Marxist states because of the urge of the poor and middle-class to "get even" with the wealthy.

Another effect is what I call the "Socrates Effect" when the majority are totally unconcerned with the rights of the minority.  This is what happened in Athens 3000 years ago and thus you have the Trail and Death of Socrates.  Absolute Democray is little better than mob rule.  It is not the basis for our Constitution.  In fact "Democracy" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.  Liberty is what the founders cared about.  Liberty protects the rights of the individual.  Liberty insures that there is no tyranny of the majority.  What is a purely Democratic system if not a tyranny of the majority.  That is why we are a Federal republic, not a Democracy.  In truth, Democracy is not that far away from anarco-communism in principle.  

[Gustaf]

Indeed, RP. I for one can't think of a single example where a 'hyper-democratic' nation turned to Marxism.

More often than not, Communist dictatorships were born out of another form of dictatorship (Russia, Cuba, China, etc).

France and Germany are two good examples.  They might not be full blown communistic, but they are very socialistic.  Several of the small countries in Africa.  Usually, ths happens very quickly, over a very short period, so quickly that we often don't notice; because giving people ultimate political power usually causes them to turn on the wealthy.

Yeah, France and Germany have really strong democratic traditions, super-democracies indeed...[SARCASM]

And Africa is positively RIDDLED with democracies... [MORE SARCASM]

You're yet again mixing up the issue of political power with that of political system. There's nothing "super-democratic" about mob rule or state control. That's authoritarian or socialist.

Perhapes I am not making myself clear.  If you have a system that gives suppream political power to the people (in sort Absolute Democracy), then what ALWAYS happens is you will get a majority leader, who the majority will put their faith in, who will oppress the minority, usually the wealthy, because absolute Democracies almost always become Marxist states because of the urge of the poor and middle-class to "get even" with the wealthy.

Another effect is what I call the "Socrates Effect" when the majority are totally unconcerned with the rights of the minority.  This is what happened in Athens 3000 years ago and thus you have the Trail and Death of Socrates.  Absolute Democray is little better than mob rule.  It is not the basis for our Constitution.  In fact "Democracy" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.  Liberty is what the founders cared about.  Liberty protects the rights of the individual.  Liberty insures that there is no tyranny of the majority.  What is a purely Democratic system if not a tyranny of the majority.  That is why we are a Federal republic, not a Democracy.  In truth, Democracy is not that far away from anarco-communism in principle.  

OK, I will make my point again. Democracy means that political decisions are made by the people, or their elected representatives. It does not mean or imply that the state has supreme powers, it's just claimed by socialists to mean that. A democracy can have a very small and power less state, as long as that state is democratically run. The liberties of individuals are perfectly compatible with democracy, that's a whole other issue. Authoritarian regimes are generally less respectful of individual liberties than democracies, I think that is undisputable and no coincidence.

[12th Doctor]

Indeed, RP. I for one can't think of a single example where a 'hyper-democratic' nation turned to Marxism.

More often than not, Communist dictatorships were born out of another form of dictatorship (Russia, Cuba, China, etc).

France and Germany are two good examples.  They might not be full blown communistic, but they are very socialistic.  Several of the small countries in Africa.  Usually, ths happens very quickly, over a very short period, so quickly that we often don't notice; because giving people ultimate political power usually causes them to turn on the wealthy.

Yeah, France and Germany have really strong democratic traditions, super-democracies indeed...[SARCASM]

And Africa is positively RIDDLED with democracies... [MORE SARCASM]

You're yet again mixing up the issue of political power with that of political system. There's nothing "super-democratic" about mob rule or state control. That's authoritarian or socialist.

Perhapes I am not making myself clear.  If you have a system that gives suppream political power to the people (in sort Absolute Democracy), then what ALWAYS happens is you will get a majority leader, who the majority will put their faith in, who will oppress the minority, usually the wealthy, because absolute Democracies almost always become Marxist states because of the urge of the poor and middle-class to "get even" with the wealthy.

Another effect is what I call the "Socrates Effect" when the majority are totally unconcerned with the rights of the minority.  This is what happened in Athens 3000 years ago and thus you have the Trail and Death of Socrates.  Absolute Democray is little better than mob rule.  It is not the basis for our Constitution.  In fact "Democracy" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.  Liberty is what the founders cared about.  Liberty protects the rights of the individual.  Liberty insures that there is no tyranny of the majority.  What is a purely Democratic system if not a tyranny of the majority.  That is why we are a Federal republic, not a Democracy.  In truth, Democracy is not that far away from anarco-communism in principle.  

OK, I will make my point again. Democracy means that political decisions are made by the people, or their elected representatives. It does not mean or imply that the state has supreme powers, it's just claimed by socialists to mean that. A democracy can have a very small and power less state, as long as that state is democratically run. The liberties of individuals are perfectly compatible with democracy, that's a whole other issue. Authoritarian regimes are generally less respectful of individual liberties than democracies, I think that is undisputable and no coincidence.

No, no, you are missing my point.  My point is that when you have a Absolute Democract, it usual dissolves into an authoritarin regime, because of human nature.  And those regimes are usually Marxist in theory.

[Gustaf]

Indeed, RP. I for one can't think of a single example where a 'hyper-democratic' nation turned to Marxism.

More often than not, Communist dictatorships were born out of another form of dictatorship (Russia, Cuba, China, etc).

France and Germany are two good examples.  They might not be full blown communistic, but they are very socialistic.  Several of the small countries in Africa.  Usually, ths happens very quickly, over a very short period, so quickly that we often don't notice; because giving people ultimate political power usually causes them to turn on the wealthy.

Yeah, France and Germany have really strong democratic traditions, super-democracies indeed...[SARCASM]

And Africa is positively RIDDLED with democracies... [MORE SARCASM]

You're yet again mixing up the issue of political power with that of political system. There's nothing "super-democratic" about mob rule or state control. That's authoritarian or socialist.

Perhapes I am not making myself clear.  If you have a system that gives suppream political power to the people (in sort Absolute Democracy), then what ALWAYS happens is you will get a majority leader, who the majority will put their faith in, who will oppress the minority, usually the wealthy, because absolute Democracies almost always become Marxist states because of the urge of the poor and middle-class to "get even" with the wealthy.

Another effect is what I call the "Socrates Effect" when the majority are totally unconcerned with the rights of the minority.  This is what happened in Athens 3000 years ago and thus you have the Trail and Death of Socrates.  Absolute Democray is little better than mob rule.  It is not the basis for our Constitution.  In fact "Democracy" isn't even mentioned in the Constitution.  Liberty is what the founders cared about.  Liberty protects the rights of the individual.  Liberty insures that there is no tyranny of the majority.  What is a purely Democratic system if not a tyranny of the majority.  That is why we are a Federal republic, not a Democracy.  In truth, Democracy is not that far away from anarco-communism in principle.  

OK, I will make my point again. Democracy means that political decisions are made by the people, or their elected representatives. It does not mean or imply that the state has supreme powers, it's just claimed by socialists to mean that. A democracy can have a very small and power less state, as long as that state is democratically run. The liberties of individuals are perfectly compatible with democracy, that's a whole other issue. Authoritarian regimes are generally less respectful of individual liberties than democracies, I think that is undisputable and no coincidence.

No, no, you are missing my point.  My point is that when you have a Absolute Democract, it usual dissolves into an authoritarin regime, because of human nature.  And those regimes are usually Marxist in theory.

I don't know your defintion of Absoulte democrat? I have made my points on that.