06-23-2017, 09:13 AM
(06-23-2017, 03:34 AM)Dill Wrote: This is pretty bad. You claim there are plenty of journalists who, Fox-style, report just the facts.
I never claimed that this type of reporting was "Fox-style" nor did I imply it. Stop lying, it invalidates any point you're trying to make when you flat out lie.
Quote:While presuming my good faith in asking me "again" what a liberal democracy is (without showing you have understood anything I have written so far) you yourself won't respond in good faith by providing an example of "just the facts" reporting. Perhaps you realize you cannot.
Yes, i am too stupid to understand your erudite scribblings. Please explain to me as if I was a child.
Quote:Your remaining statements are unsupported, lazy impressions, starting with "the whole thing."
I think you cannot really engage the points I am making. But I'll give you another chance, by answering your question, since I can.
Nope, too stupid.
Quote:Liberal democracies emerged in North and South America and Europe from the late 18th to the 20th century, establishing states based on social contract theories laid out by philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, which framed government as a "contract" between people and a government of chosen representatives. In contrast to their feudal predecessors, these liberal democracies were "liberal" because they defined maximization of individual freedom as their raison d'etre, separating state from civil society and minimizing state interference in the economy. To varying degrees, they disestablished religion as well. These democracies take a range of forms, including two-party and parliamentary systems, some of the latter still "monarchial" to some degree. All tend to be tripartite, with separate and balancing judicial, executive and legislative branches. As monarchies were adapted to feudal economies, liberal democracies were a political form adapted to capitalism. There's your liberal democracy in a nutshell.
So in using the term liberal you admit that this has no connection to "liberal" ideology as in liberal versus conservatism? Because to the person paying attention your use of the term is a not so subtle way of pimping liberal ideology by claiming it is the foundation for our form of governance.
Quote:Do you see any errors here? Did I miss something? The picture becomes clearer when modern liberal democracies are contrasted with the ancient Greek variety or with contemporary "conservative democracies" or one-party "democracies" like China. Don't waste time with the copypasta thing again. You will avoid one line, unsupported generalizations, right?
As you state that "maximizing personal freedom" was the raison d'etre for such democracies then you'd be forced to admit that neither side in the left vs. right debate on our country could be considered "liberal'. Just making sure you're being consistent.
