Liberal Democracies have only existed for like 200 years, but have created globalization leading to extreme poverty falling from 90 percent to less than 10 percent.They have most innovations.Never had a major famine.Are shown to have better economic results.
>>18029426"Liberal Democracies" did all that, huh?
>>18029426Carl the quarter nigger Benjamin?
>>18029426This is biased since liberal democracies took up power during the times of mass industrial, medical, and technological advancements where other systems failed due to war. WW1 killed monarchies, WW2 killed fascism, the Cold War killed communism. American supremacy led to countries taking up similar systems due to their dominance.
The west did that in spite of liberal democracy. The business create the innovation, create all the value and raise the standard of living. The liberal democracy part is so that housewives can feel good using the surplus value from the businesses to feed those that create nothing. It is white guilt for the successes that our relatively free market brings.
>>18029481Cold war killed western manufacturing and turned every western country into lazy services economies that will suffer increasingly more carastrophic economic downturns until they lose their place in the world as a power.
>Britbong says liberal democracy never had a major faminethis is like a German youtuber going on about how the holocaust isn't realWe haven't forgotten what Britain did from Ireland to Bengal
>>18029426>Liberal Democracies have only existed for like 200 yearsStill better than National Socialism which was as good as dead after10 years kek.
>>18029426social democracies used to be the most advanced countries and the best places to live.but their open policy is leading to national suicide, there is no country left in Europe that is not now filled with immigrants who are currently destroying it.
>>18029426>posts the guy that is now on a crusade to destroy liberalismI unironically like Carl.He’s one of the few rightist media people that doesn’t suck big company, Israeli or Thiel cock.
>>18029426We've only had a real liberal democracy since the 60sAnd in that time birth rates have collapsed to unsustainable levelsLiberalism is "Fall of Rome"-tier as a civilization-ending concept
Yeah breeding dysgenics wholly reliant on the west financially is really cool
>>18029611Back in 2017-2018 Carl was still in denial about race-realism and was obsessed with reigniting momentum for Gamergate("We should get Trump to tweet about GG!") this resulted in some unsavory moments for him, like when he stood by and watched as Kraut and Tea doxxed race-realists on Youtube, and when he didn't speak up as Youtube itself cracked down and censored race-realist content. The Biden years opened up many people's eyes, Carl was one of them. He's all grown up now.
>>18029426Liberal Democracy and Capitalism have unilaterally DESTROYED Yugoslavia and the rest of Eastern Europe, barring Poland. Before you run your scabby mouth at me with Ad Hominem, I'm Norwegian, and I majored in geoeconomics and demographic economics. Suppose Liberal democracy and capitalism were a NET BENEFIT for former Communist Europe. In that case, they'd have above-replacement-level births and economies at the level of Italy and above, rather than where they are today.
>>18029426>Never had a major famine.India
Well, liberal democracies are kind of political but does it really have much to do with economics? That seems like that separate category
Liberalism is end-stage of a civilizationA few generations of extreme luxury and individualism before it all collapses
>>18029426Francoist Spain experienced the same "economic miracle" as the liberal-democracies of the time. It had little to do with ideology and much to do with abundant and cheap energy.
>>18029772Birth rates are plummeting everywhere.
>>18029426
>>18029439yes
The United States as originally conceived is not strictly a democracy, nor is it a monarchy, it's a Secret Third Thing that I've taken to calling an "aristocratic republic." Like Republican Rome and the Republic of Venice. Strictly limited input from the masses in governance, with most decisions made by an aristocracy that was well-educated and held property so they had a stake in the country.China currently employs a similar system of governance, with the CCP basically functioning as the country's landed gentry.
>>18030845No one today considers the young republic to be a 'liberal democracy' lol. Selective suffrage and slavery? Not exactly what Fukuyama talked about
>>18030869But the entire point of this thread is that liberal democracy is trying to take credit for political, economic, technological, and military achievements that really belong to other systems of government. As stated above, the United States has only really been a liberal democracy since the middle of the 20th Century, and that's just about when everything good about it started to go to shit.
>>18030893You have to explain that part about it not being a liberal democoracy a bit better. Britian and the United States are liberal through and through. People bitching about libs are libs who are too stupid or dishonest to know that they are libs.Furthermore, I contend that post 1950s u.s. is less of a liberal democoracy than it was prior. And became less of a liberal democoracy after the Civil War as well.
>>18029780Carlos acts concerned about cultural continuity. But seems half blind as to its realities.
>>18029426The Greeks who created democracy wouldn't consider the representative systems to be democratic, and it is explicitly stated by Aristotle that voting for magistrates is oligarchic as opposed to the democratic sortition.Rousseau, the modern origin of the idea that democracy is politically desirable made it clear that the will of the people could not be represented.The creators of the modern representative system in America famously disliked democracy and created the representative system to specifically and deliberately not be democratic.Representative systems are not democracies, that is all there is to say on the matter and if you disagree you have fallen victim to retarded propaganda which aims to trick people into buying into a system which gives them no actual power. there are no democracies in the world and only the Swiss deserve to even be considered adjacent to democracy. Furthermore liberal democracy, as Schmitt argued, is fundamentally an incoherent idea even if it was actually in existence.
>>18030951That's why America is a democratic republic and not a republican democoracy. Though its still liberal. Meaning founded and heavily influenced by liberalism. And democratic in that it votes in a proportionally representative system. It has these things to a greater degree than non democratic liberal governments.Athenian democoracy was full of chaos and strife. By the peloponesian war they seem to have become power hungry elites craving riches.
>>18029780>the guy who is 1/4 black isn't into race realismCan't think why...
>>18030970> Athenian democoracy was full of chaos and strife. By the peloponesian war they seem to have become power hungry elites craving riches.If you don't like "Athenian democracy" then you don't like democracy, there is nothing to be ashamed of, most people in history had the same dislike for the same reasons.> democratic republic and not a republican democoracyGenuinely meaningless semantics. The people in America have less influence over their government than people did in Rome (by far), and no one calls that any kind of democracy.> democratic in that it votes in a proportionally representative system.Representative systems are not democratic, having representation doesn't make a system more democratic, it makes it less democratic because it is a different system.
>>18030997Dmocoracy is when you vote for things unless there is a better way to achieve the collective will of the people that i am unaware of. So it's democratic in that respect, you cant deny that.
>>18031002>Dmocoracy is when you vote for things unless there is a better way to achieve the collective will of the people that i am unaware of. So it's democratic in that respect, you cant deny that.>>18030951The creators of democracy, the most important modern proponent of democracy, and the creators of the representative system all disagree with that.Democracy (as we know) comes from the Greek roots "demos" and "kratos". Democracy means rule by the people, not that the peoples will is carried out by an actual ruler who could be a monarch or dictator or anything else (Unless you want to agree with thesis of "Hitler Democrat" by Dagrelle, in any account, are you seriously, SERIOUSLY, going to pretend that the people ever get what they want in America?). The ruler in a representative system is the representative(s), the ruler in a democracy is the people. In actual democratic systems laws are passed when the people vote for them, in representative systems they are passed when representatives vote for them, they are the ones with power. I will go exactly so far as to say that in the circumstances where referendums are automatically adopted in America these are a democratic element (I understand this is sometimes true).
>>18031021The people democratically decide who will represent them through election and those people then represent the interests of the most powerfull people that have access to them. Sounds more or less like the way Democoracy has always worked. Having representatives protects the people from democoracys turbulent ebs and flows.
>>18031121>Hey democratic Athenians we have to go to war! Should we elect some Generals to lead the army?>No bro, our soldiers are Democrats, thier sacred will shall be represented on the battlefield through thier combined decision making.No wonder they lost the Pelloponesian war.
>>18029426Any real man is one that values freedom AND uses that freedom in the most productive way possible, by becoming the best possible version of himself. The best form of government for this is a liberal (the focus being on private property) democratic - Republic. Through the open process of valuing this freedom, people are able to openly debate issues as they come up and through consensus (and not mere popular vote) reach ways to address these issues. Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the serpation of powers in the government and the overall valuing of "fair play for the other guy" are the bedrocks of a prosperous nation. Only dysgenic freaks and brainless mobs desire a despot (far right or far left) and out themselves as a hopeless lost people who need a master to wipe their ass for them. All self prfessed commie or nazi or fascist ect LARPers are essentially saying they want to be slaves of a "kind" owner. >>18030845>it's a Secret Third Thing that I've taken to calling an "aristocratic republic."This is all republics throughout time, its not some secret thing. Voting is never EVER a "right" but a privilege in a society, one that can be taken away and is only acquired upon reaching certain milestones.
>>18029443>>18030975???Is this true?
>>18029788Not a liberal democracy in 1800s, 60s or whenever else they ran out of curry.
>>18031241bump
>>18030845I've never understood this idea that landowners are the only people with a "stake in the country." If you're poor, you have as big a stake as anyone because if the country goes to hell, you'll be the first to starve. Especially when landowners are the minority, the idea that the majority of the people have no stake in whether the country succeeds or fails is absurd, they ARE the country.
>>18029426The only reason liberal democracy has ever worked is due to the demographic profile of the people that formed them. There's a reason liberal democracies work in high-trust, culturally homogenous societies with strong sense of identity like Japan, Korea, and the pre-1960s West, but are disasters in places like Mexico, Iraq, Nigeria, India or Indonesia. This is also why liberal democracy is failing now, because these places with some exceptions are no longer high-trust societies that are governed by universally agreed upon moral and cultural codes. Whether democracy itself is the reason that erosion happened is the real big question, and I increasingly think so given my experience as an American.
>>18031241>Freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, the serpation of powers in the government and the overall valuing of "fair play for the other guy" are the bedrocks of a prosperous nation.The bedrock of a prosperous nation is competent government, cultural consensus, and unifying, commanding leadership; all the things you're meming about without those fundamental factors just results in balkanization or corruption.
>>18029515>The business create the innovation, create all the value and raise the standard of livingYea because the government liberally allows them to because the government is a liberal democracy that doesn't directly interfere in every single business enterprise.
>>18031911>doesn't directly interfere in every single business enterpriseThe postwar West interferes in business more than nearly any other political system in history.
>>18029426>extreme povertyyou earn $1.01 a day, not $1.00 so now you're not in extreme poverty even though nothing about your life changedwe did it, we saved the world!
>>18031923>retard comparing feudal monarchies to centralized bureaucratic industrial states and wondering why the feudal monarchy didn't invent business regulations
>>18031939>comparing feudal monarchies to centralized bureaucratic industrial states I'm not the one in the first place who argued that liberal democracies were the most economically free political system ever instituted, retard
>>18031933If making your point requires an extreme strawman, then you're not making any points
>>18031944>>18031947>The postwar West interferes in business more than nearly any other political system in history.retard, no other political system in history had the ability to "interfere in business"its like saying nuclear bombs split more atoms than nearly any other weapon in history. a completely vacuous truth
>>18031949>no other political system in history had the ability to "interfere in business"Centralized monarchies like Russia, Austria, Spain, France, and Imperial Germany definitely did; as did 20th century totalitarian regimes like the Nazis or USSR. Liberal democracies do so more than any other political system with the exception of the totalitarians and even that is debatable.
>>18031944>the most economically free political system ever institutedNo, disingenuous liar, that wasn't the claim, the claim was that the liberal governments don't take direct control of every single business as a matter of principle.
>>18031958>Liberal democracies do so more than any other political systemThey don't, though, unlike communism, socialism, and fascism, the government doesn't own direct controlling stakes in all the businesses in their district.
>>18031959>liberal governments don't take direct control of every single business as a matter of principle.They do, they just do so through manufacturing consent and social policy instead. Do you really think every Western country all at once post-Cold War deciding we needed an infinite amount of cheap labor from foreign countries at the same time we were offshoring manufacturing wasn't liberal regimes interfering with every single business?>>18031961>the government doesn't own direct controlling stakes in all the businessesBecause trusts instead control the government, retard.
>>18031967>every Western country all at once post-Cold War deciding we needed an infinite amount of cheap labor from foreign countriesNo, you just see it that way in hindsight because the companies that didn't use cheap labor couldn't compete against the ones that did and went out of business and/or got bought out by their competitors.>Because trusts instead control the governmentThe discussion wasn't about if businesses have a say in the government, it was about if government directly controls the businesses.
>>18031984>companies that didn't use cheap labor couldn't compete against the ones that didUh-huh, and why was that the case? Was it perhaps because big businesses undercut small businesses by manipulating economic and social policy to their benefit?>it was about if government directly controls the businessesAnd I'm arguing that liberal governments do directly control business, just that they do so in the name of different interests than other regimes do.
>>18031987>because big businesses undercut small businessesSo now you have moved the goalposts from the government to big business?>And I'm arguing that liberal governments do directly control businessNo, you just changed the goalposts to big businesses control small businesses in liberal governments.
>>18031998>moving the goalpostsNo I'm not, I'm saying liberal governments are primarily controlled by corporate trusts and thus behave in an authoritarian manner in favor of those corporate trusts.
>>18031999Liberal governments are controlled by constitutions, though, you are abusing language to make retarded points that don't actually make sense were you not to abuse the language.
>>18032011>Liberal governments are controlled by constitutionsLol and who interprets constitutions, or in the case of newer countries/governments writes and amends them? Judges, appointed by elected officials, who are propped up and funded via lobbying from corporate trusts.
>>18032016Those judges wrote corporate law into existence too meaning that the corporate law is subject to judicial interpretations of the constitution, not the other way around, any law maker in any of the three branches is tasked with interpreting the constitution, its not just a judiciary thing, they all check and balance each other.
>>18032038>Those judges wrote corporate law into existence too meaning that the corporate law is subject to judicial interpretations of the constitution, not the other way aroundYeah, and who supported those judges during their ascent to the supreme court, and who confirmed them?>they all check and balance each otherIn theory yes, in reality no.
>>18032043The catholic church for the most part if you are only retardedly looking at only supreme court justices instead of the judiciary branch as a whole.>In theory yes, in reality no.Sure, only the judicial branch has power, none of the others matter, and the judicial branch is actually more captured by corporate interest than the others. Makes total sense if you don't look into it.
>>18029426OP is fucking stupid, his reasons are stupid. But the premise isn't wrong. It's why the developed world is dominated by liberal democracies and why they whupped both the soviets and the fascists asses, and why it'll rebound once all the boomers are fucking gone.Liberal Democracy allows the peaceful transfer of power, and multipolar governance.Modern society is too complicated to be governed by autocrats and authoritarians. There's simply too many points of power, economic, cultural, and beyond.Part of the reason we have so many problems right now is that those in power refuse to give it up. They refuse to fix anything or reform anything.The average age of world leaders is like 60 or 70.Most of these guys are older than the internet.
>>18032048>The catholic churchHuh? No, I'm talking about the educational institutions as well as the political alignment of the judges, as well as the entities that influence their decision making. I know that you think judges in the U.S and Western countries are impartial entities but that just isn't true. >Sure, only the judicial branch has power, none of the others matterThe judiciary of Western countries are uniquely powerful given parliaments/congresses are either deadlocked to the point of uselessness like in France, the Netherlands, the U.S, or Germany or rubber stamps like Spain and the UK/commonwealth countries depending on where you are. In the case of the former the judiciary de facto becomes the legislature given parliament doesn't function, which is where we are today.In the case of the latter though, the party and parliament remain all-powerful, though they also stack the courts for future adiministrations, thus continuing the process.Regardless, the feature of this is that the elites and the heads of state they back ultimately centralize power and authority.
>>18032061>I'm talking about the educational institutions as well as the political alignment of the judgesYes, over half of the supreme court went to catholic schools and are politically aligned with the globalist catholic church.> In the case of the former the judiciary de facto becomes the legislature gNo it doesn't, the judiciary has no power to write laws or create new departments, they can only interpret existing laws and give their interpretations to existing government departments and institutions to enforce.>Regardless, the feature of this is that the elites and the heads of state they back ultimately centralize power and authority.Which isn't actually legally possible when you are using a constitution that fundamentally decentralized power and authority from the start.
>>18032072>over half of the supreme court went to catholic schools and are politically aligned with the catholic churchTrue, but Catholicism isn't the sole factor motivating why they vote the way they vote. Catholic social teaching for example has some pretty harsh words about usury, laissez faire economics, money in politics, and Zionism, yet the court always votes in a certain line on these issues.>they can only interpret existing laws and give their interpretations to existing government departments and institutions to enforce....and when Congress can't pass any laws, what happens? Presidents enact policy through executive orders, which are then challenged in the courts and almost always go a certain way depending on who is on the bench and which president is giving the orders. Usually they only go against the president if he goes against something the establishment wants, i.e campaign finance law or education reform.>isn't actually legally possible when you are using a constitution that fundamentally decentralized power and authorityWell, like you just said...>they can only interpret existing laws and give their interpretations to existing government departments and institutions to enforceWhich means if you have the right people on the bench, they can determine the constitution to mean whatever the fuck they want regardless of what it actually says or means.You'll wake up from the idea that "liberal democracy" as it is practiced in the post-1991 world order is some magical, inherently morally moral, just, transparent, and innately superior political system one of these days.
>>18032060>the developed world is dominated by liberal democracieThe developed world is dominated by liberal democracies because the dominant power since 1945 (and especially since 1991) has been a liberal democracy. If the U.S were a monarchy or a communist regime we would've seen those systems dominate.
>>18032098>but Catholicism isn't the sole factor motivatingBut according to your logic, catholicism is just a corporate trust among many since the government has given them the status of nonprofit corporation.>PresidentsThey aren't part of the judicial branch, so you just debunked your earlier claims.>on the benchSo still nothing to do with corporate trusts as you were originally claiming and the legislative and executive branches can both put pressures on the courts if they want?>You'll wake up from the idea that "liberal democracy" as it is practiced in the post-1991 world order is some magical, inherently morally moral, just, transparent, and innately superior political system one of these days.Not unless some other system of government proves to function in a more moral more transparent superior way until then at best you can imply that liberal government will devolve into some other inferior government system because of the failure of checks and balances written into the liberal governments.
>>18032106NTA but sounds like circular logic>The developed world is dominated by liberal democracies because the dominant power is a liberal democracy because the developed world is dominated by liberal democracies.Why do you think it ended up being liberal democracies to dominate the world big guy?
>>18032106US was a monarchy (but didn't gain power until getting rid of that) and it incorporates numerous communist things like social security because liberal democracies with decentralized mechanics are much more flexible to allow for more rapid change to evolve more rapidly to changing external socioeconomic factors than heavily centralized governance.
>>18032118>according to your logic, catholicism is just a corporate trust among manyCatholicism is a cultural/religious force, not an economic one. It hasn't been economically influential in centuries. I do agree that it is an influential cultural/social faction though (and one that I am a part of, hence why I'm not a fan of liberal democracy or really any major power atm).>so you just debunked your earlier claimsWtf are you on about? I'm saying that the system of checks and balances you describe right out of a high school government class simply don't function the way they are supposed to in theory, especially in the U.S given congress is de facto inert and non-functional as an entity. So as a result, the president ends up legislating through executive orders that are then upheld by the courts.>still nothing to do with corporate trusts as you were originally claimingI just mentioned campaign finance law and education reform as a pair of exhibit A examples for why the court is dominated by those that serve the economic establishment, I can name several other examples if you'd like.>the legislative and executive branches can both put pressures on the courts if they wantDe jure, yes; and they can to an extent when it comes to picking judges or determining the size of the court. De facto, the judges that get selected and promoted within the system tend to be those that serve its interests and are not concerned with interpreting the law impartially.>Not unless some other system of government proves to function in a more moral more transparent superior wayI like monarchies as well as mercantile, technocratic authoritarian city-state regimes like Singapore given these regimes tend to be more politically flexible and serve the interests of the people given they lack the opacity and lack of accountability democracies do. Though imperfect and not without flaws, they seriously do fear their populations and are more concerned about them in a patriarchal way.
>>18031911>You're only free because we LET you be freeSays the abusive partner.
>>18032127>Why do you think it ended up being liberal democracies to dominate the worldBecause of a series of bizarre freak incidents such as the U.S becoming completely independent from the UK, the U.S getting involved in WWI, the Bolsheviks rising to power in Russia, Hitler rising and falling largely as a result of his delusions of grandeur, and communism being pretty much the only political system with a worse track record than liberal democracy when it comes to governance and sustainability.Liberal democracy has only been an influential political system since the end of WWI and hegemonic since 1991, and yet it's already unravelling under its own inherent contradictions and shortcomings not unlike classical democracy did in Greece and Rome.And again, historically wealthy, developed, educated, and influential areas that were not historically liberal democracies like Germany, Eastern Europe, Iberia, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea are only democracies because of the U.S.
>>18032141>It hasn't been economically influential in centuries.Wrong, it is the second largest landholder in the world and the bank of vatican is the one of the largest banks in europe. No point talking to an absolute retard who is just going to tell abject lies in bad faith.
>>18032127Liberal democracy spawned out of white people being fucking sick of the british crown and then they made their own country where the individual had rights and then that country become the dominant power over millennia old dynasties in 200 years and now everyone tries to copy their liberal democracy while keeping kings in position (they fail to understand the point).
>>18032143Also said by the cops that freed you from your abusive husband, silly lady.
>>18032153The catholic church also has significant economic control of the global healthcare and pharma industries for what its worth.
>>18032153>second largest landholder in the worldLand can't vote, chud.>bank of vatican is the one of the largest banks in europeYeah in 15th century, they're fucking peanuts just compared to other major Italian banks, let alone other European ones now lol.Quick aside, are you descended from WASPs or something? This anti-Catholic and vehemently pro-establishment liberal bent seems to be indicative of you being descended from blue bloods in the Northeast.
>>18032150>Because of a series of bizarre freak incidentsSounds pretty reductionist to frame it that way. Also the US was already the largest economy in the world by the 1880s
>>18031404they were a colony of Britain (inventors of liberalism and very much a liberal state at the time)
>>18032160>Land can't vote, chud.What does that have to do with economic power, disingenuous bad faith arguer?> they're fucking peanutsNo, they hold some of the most valuable works of art and have never been audited since they have autonomous control of their bank, you have not idea exactly what they are worth, but you know for a fact they have their hands in every modern industry and have control over most of the healthcare sector.>WASPsReaching for retarded ad hominems since your retarded bad faith argument got BTFO so quickly?
>>18032106If it had been any of those things, it wouldn't have risen to power. Because the US would not have been able to create, nor sustain, such economic and cultural power.Mind you communism is an economic system. The USSR, and modern china, both have a sort of democracy. But it's not a liberal one. The party members vote for the party bosses leaders afterall.This is before we factor in the nepotism and corruption ect.So the divide between the US and USSR wasn't autocracy VS democracy so much as Limited Democracy + State Control economy VS Liberal Democracy + hybrid capitalisim.With the USSR defeated the US and other western countries shifted towards Libertarian economics.Mixing Liberalism with Libertarianism, is how we got neoliberalism That didn't work out, Which is why we're on our 4th recession in the last 45 years.
>>18032162>Sounds pretty reductionist to frame it that wayIs it? Was it really pre-ordained that the U.S was going to be the most dominant, powerful country in the world from 1776? The founders of the country sure as hell didn't, they didn't even want that in the first place. That sounds ver much like you're playing into the "American Exceptionalist" mythology.>the US was already the largest economy in the world by the 1880sAfter Rome fell China and India traded places as the world's largest economy until the rise of British Empire nearly 1500 years later. Being the largest market doesn't directly correlate to political power or cultural influence.
op is a merch
>>18032170>Which is why we're on our 4th recession in the last 45 years.Eeh, that's actually far less unusual than you think it is.
>>18032171>Was it really pre-ordained that the U.S was going to be the most dominant, powerful country in the world from 1776?No, it became so because of the success of Liberalism
>>18032167>What does that have to do with economic powerIt is ridiculous to claim the Catholic Church has anywhere near the influence of major banks or corporations, especially in the U.S and the West where Christianity itself is barely relevant culturally, let alone in a predominantly Protestant country like the U.S.>Reaching for retarded ad hominems since your retarded bad faith argument got BTFO so quicklyI'm not the one who's arguing that the Cathloic Church runs the world in 2025 using arguments from the 17th century. If anything you're the one that isn't worth engaging with.
>>18032171>After Rome fell China and India traded places as the world's largest economyIndia wasn't even a contiguous entity yet. You tend to run your mouth a lot when you're against a wall my guy
>>18032175>the success of LiberalismIf that's the case then why has liberalism only worked temporarily in already homogenous, educated, wealthy societies and failed everywhere else?>>18032170>The USSR, and modern china, both have a sort of democracyThey're republics beholden to an ideology, not democracies.>the US would not have been able to create, nor sustain, such economic and cultural power.The U.S had that power because it was a massive, minerally rich country with perfect geography that had been settled by the most intelligent and industrious people in the world at the time, and it is declining with the population of those people due to an ideology it has followed to its logical end and unbrideled extreme out of hubris.
>>18032180>India wasn't even a contiguous entity yet.There have been several times where the area now known as "India" has been largely ruled under a single authority be they the Guptas or Mughals, Mr. Pedant.
>>18032178>It is ridiculous to claim the Catholic Church has anywhere near the influence of major banks or corporationsNo, its based on the fact that they hold more land than any other organization except one and they hold more precious artifacts than any other organization and have more USD than many US based banks.> especially in the U.S and the West where Christianity itself is barely relevant culturallyExcept they only got brought up because they have successfully captured the US Supreme Court and the majority of current justices along with the last president were all more loyal the their rhetoric than to the US itself.> especially in the U.S and the West where Christianity itself is barely relevant culturallyExcept you are the retard trying to say the supreme court has all the power in the US while admitting that it is captured by the Catholic Church.No you are definitely not worth engaging with if you think owning the most land of any organization in the world doesn't indicate any economic influence in world affairs.
>>18032155>At least we're better than the other abuser!Said the abusive partner
>>18032196You are always free to go back to your abusive partner if you really think that being saved from slavery has harmed you.
>>18032187>If that's the case then why has liberalism only worked temporarily in already homogenous, educated, wealthy societies and failed everywhere else?Loaded question. Liberalism works anon. Sorry this fact bothers you.
>>18032199The point is not "hey you need to pick what leash to wear" the point is "hey why do all these people want others to wear leashes so badly" and the answer is "they hate humanity". It's tiring having to spell this out for indians.
>>18032207Yet here you are complaining to the ones trying to convince you to take your leash off and quit begging to be a slave and convincing yourself you will always be a victim.
>>18032195>that they hold more land than any other organization except oneYou realize that the Catholic Church is a religious organization and not a state or a for profit company, right?>have more USD than many US based banksThey're not making any money off of those artifacts outside of fees for museums, and it's obvious to me at least that they make little money off the land that they hold given most churches right now are struggling financially.>they have successfully captured the US Supreme Court and the majority of current justices along with the last president were all more loyal the their rhetoric than to the US itself.Lol you reallly are a former WASP.Let me tell you some hard truths once and be very blunt: the Catholic Church does not directly control the United States government and never has. The U.S is not a Catholic country and never has been (though it might in the future as a result of the U.S becoming majority Latin American after the Boomers die off), and Catholics in the U.S themselves are a bunch of balkanized, bickering retards that can't get anything done politically given you have everyone from AOC to Nick Fuentes and everyone inbetween trying to claim the mantle of being the "Catholic" political figure in the U.S. They're only overrepresented on the court because Catholics are the only Christians left in the country that value higher education.>it is captured by the Catholic ChurchIf the U.S were captured by the Catholic Church we'd have a universal healthcare system, a ban all abortions, and recognize Palestine.
>>18032201>Liberalism works anon.It only works in countries that are already wealthy and educated and has negative long-term effects on them.
>>18032214A democracy that lets you vote your way into someone else's wallet is not a "take your leash off you" state. The productive will end up serving the unproductive, which is happening all over the west.
>>18032225Nobody is doing that, western government can print as much money as they want, they don't need your wallet to raise more money.
>>18032234>we're not having you pay for unproductive enterprises! we just devalue your money so we can make more to pay for it!That's just voting themselves into your wallet with extra steps. Stop being disingenuous.
>>18032219Not by your logic where its a corporate trust since its designated as a nonprofit corporation by western governments.>They're not making any money off of those artifacts outside of fees for museumsYes, they make a lot of money on fees and visits and intellectual rights.>they make little money off the land that they hold Not true, they charge tithes and tax free use fees to inhabitants of the land and people who want to use it.>most churches right now are struggling financially.Not true at all.>the Catholic Church does not directly control the United States government and never has. They do according to your logic where the corporate trusts that judges are loyal to are in direct control.>The U.S is not a Catholic country Tell that to the supreme court and the last president and all the tax free land and resources the US gives to them along with control over a large part of the healthcare and education sectors.>They're only overrepresented on the court because Catholics are the only Christians left in the country that value higher education.Thanks for conceding yet again that catholics not only control US healthcare, but also the US education system.>If the U.S were captured by the Catholic Church we'd have a universal healthcare system,No we would be mandated to go through the catholic church for healthcare and in a lot of places they do hold monopoly and are the only hospital in town.>a ban all abortionsNo, that is only a recent catholic issue, they use to be quite pro abortion.>and recognize Palestine.Not at all, more bad faith retardation, everyone would be recognizing Palestine if they had signed any of of the two state peace proposals over the last few decades.
>>18032239No, its your wallet coming from their enterprises and you being a cuck that can't support yourself without them, go move to the ocean if you want so much more control of yourself.
>>18032244That's only if you are a somali immigrant leeching off the dole. My wallet is the surplus value of my labor, not that of another.
>>18032248>My wallet is the surplus value of my laborNo, that is what your personal resources and the property you own are, your wallet is always just a tab of government related debt.
>>18032251..which is a problem that needs fixing. Not a reason to preserve the status quo.
>>18029574>this is like a German youtuber going on about how the holocaust isn't realare you math illiterate or just some idealism instead of brains fundie?
>>18032258If you want to fix your problem then spend your money on personal property instead of hoarding it hoping the US government will keeps its hands off "your" USD.
>>18032187Bro are you just repeating /pol/ass talking points from twitter or some shit?A republic is a representive democracy. Both the US, China, and USSR have that form of government. The difference is who votes, and how.The ideal for a liberal democracy is that everyone votes. An Illiberal democracy only selective people can vote.The reason liberalism works, is because if you can vote you have buy in to the system. Everyone votes, everyone has a voice, everyone buys in. Everyone who buys in, is more productive and begins self organizing.As opposed to non-democratic systems, where the orders have to come from some out of touch ruler on high.That's the strength of liberalism, you don't need to tell people what to do. They just do it themselves.>homogenous, educated, wealthy societiesannon wants to say "white countries" so badly lmao. So he can excuse blue states like maine and oregon in the US or nordic countries when someone brings them up. Or maybe japan if he's a fuckin weeb.Sorry annon, multicultural states like rome or the british empire, or the united states fucking body monocultural counterparts. Though that also gets into how these empires created an super-national identity.Regardkess, take that 2018 reddit ass argument back to the dustbin. The current administration and russia's war in ukraine are proving in real time why autocrats don't work.Donny and his cabinet are all addicted to twitter and surround themselves with social media yes men, so they have no idea what's going on.Putin's much the same, with less social media and more yes men.Only autocrat that's got his shit together is Xi over in china, and that's tenuous at best given the daily riots.
>>18032266I have private property lmao. Problem is they tax that too. You pay government for the "right" to own your own property which you have to put your body into earning. The government owns your body and the fruits of your labor. The degree to which you are "allowed" to keep it is subject to committee.
>>18032266cont; the punchline is you call that "liberal" democracy.
>>18030924In case it wasn't clear, the United States made significant advancements before women could even vote, and while an entire race was disenfranchized and segregated(and enslaved for a good portion too). No, it wasn't the immigrants, the immigrants came in *because* America became an attractive place to be. Young America experienced explosive population and industrial growth consisting entirely of old colonial stock.
>>18032293Yes because like other governments, they don't completely dictate how you spend the money on your resources or who you labor for to get money.
>>18032352Which is the exact basis for my former comment (>>18032196). "I am the lesser of two evils therefore bend over" is not an argument, much less a declaration of good moral character. It is a threat, same as those who don't pretend to have my best interests at heart. Thanks for playing!
>>18032353The feel free to go to the greater evil if you are just going to paint everything as evil anyway.
>>18032369Or we could not initiate force on human beings. Actually advocate the definition of the word liberty, instead of lying :)
>>18029426Why do leaders in the west have awful approval levels then?
>>18029426I agree with this woth a few caveats.Liberal democracies are the best system available, currently. I'm sure in 1000 years we'll come up with improvements.>The most innovationsDefinitely the most rapid innovations, but there was a lot of time before liberal democracies took root. This is kind of pedantic, but I feel like this point does get targeted by illiberal folks, and can be completely sidestepped by giving that acknowledgement to previous cultures up front.>Never had a major famineThis only applies to the home front, one of the massive flaws with liberalism in it's current state is the reliance on colonialism, which does lead to wide spread famine, although technically being occupied means you aren't living in a liberal democracy...You can argue it's strategic to foment rebelion and gain consent to install a more liberal government, but I feel like there has to be a better strategy with less casualties we haven't explored...
>>18032276>A republic is a representive democracyNo it isn't, a "Republic" is simply an umbrella term for any form of representative government that isn't a monarchy, military regime, or a theocracy. The Dutch Republic and Italian city-states are great examples of this in the pre-democratic age. Democracies are an entirely different thing even though most democracies are republics by default.>The ideal for a liberal democracy is that everyone votesWhy should I be beholden to what a bunch of retards want? I wouldn't trust any government that would let me vote, let alone all the other retards in my country.>Everyone votes, everyone has a voice, everyone buys in.Except people don't actually have a voice or any buy-in to the system, merely the illusion of choice and power while real power rests with the bureacracy and the elite. If people really had buy-in to the system, we'd get more than whoever the DNC or Trump anointed as successors and have actual competitive primaries, which Democrats haven't had since 2008 and Republicans haven't had since 2016.>you don't need to tell people what to doExcept you do, or else people simply become slaves to their desires and tribes as trust collapses alongside social norms and moral standards.>rome And where is Rome now? China is still here, Japan is still here, Persia is still here, the Arabs, Armenians, and Jews are still here.Also, Rome wasn't a republic after Caesar and by your standards would be an autocracy today. The rise of the Empire is proof in and of itself that democracy doesn't work for multicultural states and a proper regime is necessary.>British Empire>multiculturalLMAO, do yourself a favor and look at the demographic profile of the colonial service that actually governed and administered the empire, you fucking troglodyte. Do you seriously think the UK had the demographics it does today even 80 years ago?>2018 reddit ass argumentI'm not the one quixotically defending the 21st century West.
>>18032276The British Empire at its highest was not multicultural, and America at its largest leaps was not multicultural. Yes, including before Ellis Island.
Just a protip to any newfriends out there: If someone is dawning a username on an anonymous website it's usually an indication of a sense of unwarranted self-importance and a lack of ability to argue in good faith. I hope this helps!
>>18029426US stopped being truly democratic with the abolishment of lynch mobs. I get they got a bad name with what they did with the black folks, but only when the people have a right to gather and overthrow governmental authority to make justice it can be spoken of a real democracy.
>>18029426>Never had a major famine.Wasn't bongladesh a constitutional monarchy (a de-facto representative democracy) when the Irish potato famine happened
>>18031241>truth nuke
>>18033174>china still here>Japan still heredude you just don't study history do you?>>18033208That opinion explains a lot. You think white is a culture.
>>18033783>dude you just don't study history do you?China is still a homogenous, easily identifiable Chinese nation-state that is still a highly influential, powerful country. Japan likewise has pretty much been in the same boat since the Yayoi and Jomon mutted together to create the Japanese, and they've even had the same royal family since Late Antiquity. >white is a cultureIn the context of the U.S it was. Old Stock White Americans are a mutted mix of Irish, English, French, Scottish, and Dutch with some Spanish and Jews thrown in for good measure. They're definitely their own ethnicity, and that especially became the case when the Ellis Island wave came along and there was a clear distinction between them and the new arrivals until around WWII. Now White Americans are a mutted mix of the old stock Whites and the Ellis Island-era migrants.
>>18029426There's no denying it. Liberal democracy won. The post-war world order won. There is nothing to challenge it and there hasn't been an evolution in political thought in decades. The problem is that in this victory will come failure and the unraveling of liberalism through its contradictions. By the time it comes down to us needing to resolve these contradictions and continue the dialectic, humanity will have become too weak-willed and enslaved to plutocratic consumer technology to do anything. And that will be the true end of history -- a pathetic, whimpering stagnation that will see the dissolution of most world cultures, the collapse of fertility, severed relations between men and women and today's sprawling metropolises become barren. In order to prove liberals incorrect you have to work for it, and no one is willing to do it.
>>18033806>China is still a homogenouschina has 56 official ethnic groups of different sizes annon.>Japan has the same imperial familyThis is mostly japanese national myth. The imperial household has been ship of thesus'd a dozen times including entire branches of the family dying. Then a clan coming in like "Hey guys our 3 year old heir has a drop of blood! same dynasty." mideval king ass cope shit.> Irish, English, French, Scottish, and Dutch with some Spanish and Jews thrown inWhere are you getting this shit? the 19th century or the 50s.The US W.A.S.P. is 4 different ethnic groups that branch out across the country.Yankee, Dixie, Appalachian, Midwestern, and that's before the waves of immigrants,
>>18034233>china has 56 official ethnic groups of different sizesChina is 90% Han Chinese while it's largest minorities are subgroups of the Thai who are highly assimilated.>mideval king ass cope shit.Why do you dismissively talk like a nigger about anything that isn't American?>the 19th century or the 50s.Both. WASPs and old-stock Whites though having some regionalism were largely one coherent ethnic group, much like the Han Chinese.
>>18029426Funny, because China seems to have had the exact same outcome despite being a technocratic dictatorship. It's almost like 99% of the benefits attributed to "democracy" are actually just the benefits of modern technology, and are enjoyed by any technologically advanced society irrespective of their system of government.
>>18033783>That opinion explains a lot. You think white is a culture.Colonial stock Americans went through ethnogenesis, yes
>>18032410They're not liberal enough, you see
