Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend.
That does not make it a 'democracy', and the fact that you refer to politicians as your 'masters' suggests that you don't believe that it's a democracy yourself.
It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy)
The Roman Republic was neither capitalist nor a democracy, unless you are going to mutilate these terms beyond human recognition.
The fact that you assume I am talking about a public politician when I say "master" is so cute
It's irrelevant to the point. If you claim that you have 'masters', whoever they be, you are admitting that you do not live in a democracy, as you do not.
That is literally not at all irrelevant to the point. You seem really concerned with getting some snazzy sounding last word in, like you are ignoring me and the conversation at hand and pandering to some third party reader who you happen to assume is stupid.
That is literally not at all irrelevant to the point.
Show its relevance then, rather than just asserting. While you are at it, you can also explain to me how the Roman Republic was either 'capitalist' or 'democratic'.
You seem really concerned with getting some snazzy sounding last word in
Look, I don't care if you think that da JOOOZ are your masters (if you do). My intent was to combat your claim that the US is a democracy, that's all.
some third party reader who you happen to assume is stupid.
If he were smart and well-informed on the matter, he'd be able to recognize some of these absurdities that you posted without my aid.
Democracy is a buzzword that means votes are cast. There's no need to pretend that the technical distinction between a direct democracy and some form of constitutional republicanism has any bearing on what I said about that. Pretend I typed the same sort of thing about capitalism also.
This is about as far as I will go to address pilpul. Like if you have a counterargument you want to explore lets ahead. But get (or keep) it in your head that reclaiming the definition of words with the aim of changing or invalidating the intended meaning of your partner's argument without addressing it is not proper argumentation.
Offer the word you wish I had used- because I am not playing a game over that- and then use it to address what I clearly said.
Democracy is a buzzword that means votes are cast.
It isn't. 'Votes' are cast everywhere, North Korea included. The word is a buzzword to try to disguise oligarchies as somehow conferring power on the people.
There's no need to pretend that the technical distinction between a direct democracy and some form of constitutional republicanism has any bearing on what I said about that.
The Roman Republic was not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that you do not know how it functioned, and why it was finally overthrown, if you pretend otherwise.
Like if you have a counterargument you want to explore lets ahead
How can I have a 'counterargument' to a bare assertion that the Roman Republic was democratic and capitalistic, when it was offered without argument?
But get (or keep) it in your head that reclaiming the definition of words with the aim of changing or invalidating the intended meaning of your partner's argument without addressing it is not proper argumentation.
What was the intended meaning?
Offer the word you wish I had used- because I am not playing a game over that- and then use it to address what I clearly said.
I think Machiavelli said the same thing that you did in the Discourses, that republics are expansionistic. The example of the British Empire (which qualifies as a republic the way he and many ancient writers use the term), the Third Republic and the US confirmed this further.
Guy likes the USA: "this is a democracy"
Guy who dislikes the USA: "this is not a democracy"
Guy who likes NK: "this is a democracy"
Guy who dislikes NK: "this is not a democracy"
By George this is just the strangest phenomenon. Come on. It is clearly a buzzword. I have used it in proper with the popular lexicon wherein its only coherency the the concept of vote casting. You are practicing pilpul to avoid my argument.
what was your original meaning?
Really asking me to retype this shit huh. Why don't you reread it instead, since I already typed it. Wowzers, efficiency galore.
You don't care and probably didnt read any in the first place. You'll reply to me with some snazzy last word pilpul, and I will call it again ad infinitum
The ability for a genuine democracy to operate runs downriver from its economic function. And I'm stressing "genuine" as a qualifier, not trying to slip it in unnoticed. See democracy in african "countries" versus the lifecycle of American democracy. Now the thing that disgusts me about your attitude, is the assumption of democracy as both a goal and a lost cause, and how we must all turn to hippy dippy economic floof promises that progress one way or another into underclass starvation and slaughter. Say what you want about the American system, but the height of what Americans have enjoyed and how greatly our masters have shaped the world is the stuff of historical legend. It happened so close to the British Empire that it will outshine even that People in the future will talk about the rise and fall of the Roman Republic (a capitalistic democracy) and the United States of America, and the iterations of empires that happened in their growth and in their wake (coming soon in our case, one would imagine). It's just gonna crumble into a "dictatorship" (Empire), crumble further, and spring up in some new form. All that matters is the money when that happens. It must be based on a commodity, the rest will form itself around that, laying in wait for the next Big Dupe to keep the cycle of entropy going. I don't like talking about a preferred system like it is a football team. To be honest, if YOU were King of the World and could implement whatever system you wanted, but the bean counters in a utopia of your design were competently game-locked, the rest would fall into place without your consent in function and, save for the event of my total failure, I would be left exactly where I am now laboring for basic needs and bitching about Worst Thing.
I have used it in proper with the popular lexicon wherein its only coherency the the concept of vote casting.
There's more to it than that even in 'popular lexicon', but as long as we agree that it in no way implies that the power is with the people, and that ancient Rome is in the same category as both the US and North Korea (because 'votes are cast'), then it's OK.
That does not make it a 'democracy', and the fact that you refer to politicians as your 'masters' suggests that you don't believe that it's a democracy yourself.
The Roman Republic was neither capitalist nor a democracy, unless you are going to mutilate these terms beyond human recognition.
The fact that you assume I am talking about a public politician when I say "master" is so cute I don't even have the spirit to be mean to you about it
It's irrelevant to the point. If you claim that you have 'masters', whoever they be, you are admitting that you do not live in a democracy, as you do not.
That is literally not at all irrelevant to the point. You seem really concerned with getting some snazzy sounding last word in, like you are ignoring me and the conversation at hand and pandering to some third party reader who you happen to assume is stupid.
Show its relevance then, rather than just asserting. While you are at it, you can also explain to me how the Roman Republic was either 'capitalist' or 'democratic'.
Look, I don't care if you think that da JOOOZ are your masters (if you do). My intent was to combat your claim that the US is a democracy, that's all.
If he were smart and well-informed on the matter, he'd be able to recognize some of these absurdities that you posted without my aid.
Democracy is a buzzword that means votes are cast. There's no need to pretend that the technical distinction between a direct democracy and some form of constitutional republicanism has any bearing on what I said about that. Pretend I typed the same sort of thing about capitalism also.
This is about as far as I will go to address pilpul. Like if you have a counterargument you want to explore lets ahead. But get (or keep) it in your head that reclaiming the definition of words with the aim of changing or invalidating the intended meaning of your partner's argument without addressing it is not proper argumentation.
Offer the word you wish I had used- because I am not playing a game over that- and then use it to address what I clearly said.
It isn't. 'Votes' are cast everywhere, North Korea included. The word is a buzzword to try to disguise oligarchies as somehow conferring power on the people.
The Roman Republic was not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. It seems to me that you do not know how it functioned, and why it was finally overthrown, if you pretend otherwise.
How can I have a 'counterargument' to a bare assertion that the Roman Republic was democratic and capitalistic, when it was offered without argument?
What was the intended meaning?
I think Machiavelli said the same thing that you did in the Discourses, that republics are expansionistic. The example of the British Empire (which qualifies as a republic the way he and many ancient writers use the term), the Third Republic and the US confirmed this further.
Guy likes the USA: "this is a democracy" Guy who dislikes the USA: "this is not a democracy" Guy who likes NK: "this is a democracy" Guy who dislikes NK: "this is not a democracy"
By George this is just the strangest phenomenon. Come on. It is clearly a buzzword. I have used it in proper with the popular lexicon wherein its only coherency the the concept of vote casting. You are practicing pilpul to avoid my argument.
Really asking me to retype this shit huh. Why don't you reread it instead, since I already typed it. Wowzers, efficiency galore.
You don't care and probably didnt read any in the first place. You'll reply to me with some snazzy last word pilpul, and I will call it again ad infinitum
There's more to it than that even in 'popular lexicon', but as long as we agree that it in no way implies that the power is with the people, and that ancient Rome is in the same category as both the US and North Korea (because 'votes are cast'), then it's OK.
Any argument I cared about, I replied to.