Russia is a democracy

@wildgrass said
I thought the breakdown of recent political history in Russia provided a very useful framework for this discussion. Sorry you didn't have time to read it. It doesn't seem like a Democracy by the standards of political scientists.

Provide the relevant excerpts. I have my doubts it contains any.

@no1marauder said
If the People support "one vision" it should "grab power" for as long as they wish.

very good. as long as it is another individual holding the power stick. Orrin freakin Hatch was senator for 40 years

@no1marauder said
For almost 18 years on this Forum, I've made clear I believe in Natural Rights theory (look at my Forum avatar though I doubt you know who it is).

In case you don't know what that is: "Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even gi ...[text shortened]... and%20property.%22

Maybe you can figure out the answer to your question based on those sentences.

Since 2012 you’ve come across as a mass of contradictions, like now you believe that limited terms are a restriction of democracy which you rightly gave a dictionary based definition of, no where in that definition was Locke mentioned. A discussion on democracy does not revolve around your personal preferences but as your first sentence indicates your probably too ignorantly arrogant to grasp that.
Putting aside Lockes dependence on a mythical creature as a source of these ‘inalienable’ rights only one of them is not open to circumstantial and legal challenge. We have yet to conclude that liberty even exists in reality or whether it’s a complex construct that enables us to keep reality at bay.
I suspect many arrogant US constitution junkies find themselves moribund philosophically speaking due to their need to pretend that their constitutional document is still relevant to the wider world.
Every nation has a creation myth No1. I have King Arthur and you have the preamble to the constitution, ironically written at the time of mass slavery for a slavery based economic system of governance.

@metal-brain said
As usual you didn't prove anything. Neither did wildgrass.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. If it was you would have accepted this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_vaccine

You undermined your own source of information. You have to prove Political opponents are jailed and repressed, independent media are intimidated and suppressed, and electo ...[text shortened]... utin's rule. Saying it is not enough. Everybody says things they cannot prove. You need to prove it.

I provided 3 links for you.
You can buy those books, study them, then come back and talk like an adult.

@no1marauder said
No, it's still three out of three:

"Locke is unambiguous about the meaning of “property.” In Chapter IX of his Second Treatise he specifically says that he means the word to include one’s life and freedom as well as one’s physical possessions. All of Chapter V is devoted to explaining what property is, and here too, his quite clear that “every man has a property in his ...[text shortened]... ple's labor. They do recognize the right to obtain tangible and nontangible things by our own labor.

Property as an own person I can comprehend. The same goes for privacy: you have to the right physical privacy.
So, that you own your own hands, yeah. Seems reasonable enough to me.

The second part you write gets murkier. Suddenly you state (well, Locke does) that besides the property of the physical self, you have the right to an x-amount of property, measurable as in how much one needs, and at the same time always leaving enough for others.

At face value that sounds fair enough. But what decides what is enough?
And what when resources get scarce and there is <1 per person? Who decides the level of need then? And how do you combine the right with the need then?

@shavixmir said
Property as an own person I can comprehend. The same goes for privacy: you have to the right physical privacy.
So, that you own your own hands, yeah. Seems reasonable enough to me.

The second part you write gets murkier. Suddenly you state (well, Locke does) that besides the property of the physical self, you have the right to an x-amount of property, measurable as in h ...[text shortened]... per person? Who decides the level of need then? And how do you combine the right with the need then?

That's what democratic institutions are for.

@kevcvs57 said
Since 2012 you’ve come across as a mass of contradictions, like now you believe that limited terms are a restriction of democracy which you rightly gave a dictionary based definition of, no where in that definition was Locke mentioned. A discussion on democracy does not revolve around your personal preferences but as your first sentence indicates your probably too ignorantly ...[text shortened]... n, ironically written at the time of mass slavery for a slavery based economic system of governance.

You seem too dumb to understand that Natural Rights theory answers the question you posed.

Locke didn't write the Constitution BTW, though he had a sizable philosophical influence on it.

@no1marauder said
You seem too dumb to understand that Natural Rights theory answers the question you posed.

Locke didn't write the Constitution BTW, though he had a sizable philosophical influence on it.

Yeah I actually do know who Locke is you halfwit. Nothing that relies on terms such as ‘God Given’ and ‘Natural Rights’ answers anything unless we first agree on which God we are referring to and what the hell Natural means. You clearly have not kept up with the critiques of Lockean philosophy.
How’s the weather there in the 17th century?

@shavixmir said
I provided 3 links for you.
You can buy those books, study them, then come back and talk like an adult.

I am not wasting my money on books I don't have time to read. A book means nothing. People have written books that are a pack of lies.

As usual you have failed to prove anything.

https://tass.com/politics/1381099

@kevcvs57 said
Yeah I actually do know who Locke is you halfwit. Nothing that relies on terms such as ‘God Given’ and ‘Natural Rights’ answers anything unless we first agree on which God we are referring to and what the hell Natural means. You clearly have not kept up with the critiques of Lockean philosophy.
How’s the weather there in the 17th century?

Actually a wealth of scientific advances in psychology, anthropology, biology and other disciplines in recent decades have only strengthened the case for the core idea of Natural Rights theory i.e. that humans have a hardwired sense of right and wrong that equates to an idea of Rights for everyone. The Nuremberg Tribunal meted out punishments for violations of Natural Law principles even where no written law existed.

Sorry you missed out on this while lapping up neocon propaganda.

Locke was a religious man and believed in a Creator that gave humans a certain nature. But Grotius well before him had pointed out you could have a Natural Law even without a God. Guess you're behind even 17th Century philosophers.

@metal-brain said
I am not wasting my money on books I don't have time to read. A book means nothing. People have written books that are a pack of lies.

As usual you have failed to prove anything.

https://tass.com/politics/1381099

Yeah. Don’t bother reading or studying. Just keep repeating your retarded mantras. It serves you so well.

@no1marauder said
Actually a wealth of scientific advances in psychology, anthropology, biology and other disciplines in recent decades have only strengthened the case for the core idea of Natural Rights theory i.e. that humans have a hardwired sense of right and wrong that equates to an idea of Rights for everyone. The Nuremberg Tribunal meted out punishments for violations of Natural Law ...[text shortened]... you could have a Natural Law even without a God. Guess you're behind even 17th Century philosophers.

Who’d have thunk an MB thread could turn into an actually interesting discussion?

However, I do agree to a large extent with natural law theory. But, I do not comprehend how it should extend to ownership.
A natural state has nothing, besides the body and mind itself, to do with owning.

So, one would suggest that ownership of the food needed to survive is a form of natural survival, but to project that further to encompass crops is stretching it a little. To escalate that towarss ownership not just of the food needed and the crops, but to the land the crops are on, can no longer be presumed to be any form of natural state.

@shavixmir said
Who’d have thunk an MB thread could turn into an actually interesting discussion?

However, I do agree to a large extent with natural law theory. But, I do not comprehend how it should extend to ownership.
A natural state has nothing, besides the body and mind itself, to do with owning.

So, one would suggest that ownership of the food needed to survive is a form of na ...[text shortened]... crops, but to the land the crops are on, can no longer be presumed to be any form of natural state.

Have you ever read Proudhon's What is Property?

Here's a useful distinction from it:

""Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. . . But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount - that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour - then property changed its nature .........." pp. 395-96

"I. Individual possession[15] is the condition of social life; five thousand years of property demonstrate it. Property is the suicide of society. Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession, and, by this simple modification of the principle, you will revolutionize law, government, economy, and institutions; you will drive evil from the face of the earth."

From § 3. — Determination of the third form of Society. Conclusion. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch05.htm

Or as anarchists put it:

"Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property.

While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists tend to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to a transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very different impacts upon society."

http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secB3.html#secb31

One shouldn't fall into that trap.

@metal-brain said
I am not wasting my money on books I don't have time to read. A book means nothing. People have written books that are a pack of lies.

As usual you have failed to prove anything.

https://tass.com/politics/1381099

Did you actually just link to Tass?

Nice puppet. Goooooood puppet.

@shavixmir said
Yeah. Don’t bother reading or studying. Just keep repeating your retarded mantras. It serves you so well.

Did you read the part where he said the Netherlands makes the USA look like a dictatorship? Of course not, you don’t bother reading or studying anything and you project it onto others.

Try reading it this time.

https://tass.com/politics/1381099