"Democracy is the first step to a totalitarian communist dictatorship"

Go to bed grampa

>can be reversed at a moments notice.
Can...may....
>the BBC is autonomous from the government
Wrong
>So, you don't want total government control, and now you do? the organization's autonomous, they decide what the broadcast and what not to, if you're criticism of modern democracy is that it allows your fellow citizens to vote for taxes that pay for things you don't like then you've got a pretty fucking weak argument.
Obviously not but the state hires the private company and the private company do whatever the bureaucrats tell them to do: they receive money from the state and the one who pays decides what's going to be broadcast. The people pay the bill, the govt decides what is acceptable and what isn't.
>votes are counted by private citizens
Wrong. Only registered organizations can count the votes.
>Check out Switzerland's gun laws
Which is a small country and irrelevant to europe. Switzerland is not even the banking capital of europe as of 2017

Nah

>some idiot with coloured hair = first signs of communist takeovers
You retards make more stretches than olympic gymnasts.

That's fucking stupid. The countries that turned into communist dictatorships were the ones that were the least democratic.

>You fund a television channel and radio programmes with the license fee, the BBC is autonomous from the government, and often brodcasts criticisms of the government and even itself, i would like you to find a modern instance of the government being able to manipulate the BBC into doing what they want.
How will people know if they like if they can't even discuss what their broadcast content?
State TV in Sweden: archive.org/details/youtube-VMhfmxTvdt0

They aren't the communist takeovers though

Where is that german that always come in these threads to say that even though society is falling apart everything but everything else is fine because the inflation is low?
Shit I might even think he left Veeky Forums after Merkel won another term

>Can...may....
Mate, it is getting reversed with Brexit.
>Wrong
Proof please?
>Obviously not but the state hires the private company and the private company do whatever the bureaucrats tell them to do: they receive money from the state and the one who pays decides what's going to be broadcast. The people pay the bill, the govt decides what is acceptable and what isn't.
Again, proof please?
>Wrong. Only registered organizations can count the votes.
If my friend Jim Barton was allowed to count the votes, fucking anyone can.
>Which is a small country and irrelevant to europe. Switzerland is not even the banking capital of europe as of 2017
Switzerland lies in the heart of Europe, there is not some unversal european standard on most policy issues, most european states (and their voters) prefer gun control over the freedom to own firearms, nothing is preventing you from convincing people about the benefits of owning guns and getting your fellow citizens to vote for pro-gun politicians.

Damn, this guy posted 3 images? How can us liberals even compete? These 3 pictures showing a total of 6 random women are definite proof that communism is just around the corner.

>a website describing what happened then saying "like alywas, we're silenced"
>with absolutely no proof he was being silenced
Epic dude.

>brexit
>happening
Nah.
>Switzerland lies in the heart of Europe
Geographically
> nothing is preventing you from convincing people about the benefits of owning guns and getting your fellow citizens to vote for pro-gun politicians.
Even if people wanted guns the state wouldn't allow vote to take place just like they didn't ask the people to ban guns in UK. The law was passed, the ''different'' parties made an agreement, and done

>making fun of something is making me look smart XD
That's why even the muslims hate western europeans.

>Nah.
I take it you went to the "Epic twitter comeback" school of debate?
>Geographically
It was a broader point that Europe is not a single bloc, and have a variety of different approaches to issues, such as gun violence.
>Even if people wanted guns the state wouldn't allow vote to take place just like they didn't ask the people to ban guns in UK. The law was passed, the ''different'' parties made an agreement, and done
Moron, you don't understand Parliament in the slightest, we don't (and never fucking have) made the laws in the country, Parliament has, we never get a vote on issues apart from the general election, elections of the local councils, and the odd refferendum (Which are essentially concessions given by parties in a weak position, see the conservatives AV refferendum to appease the lib dems or brexit refferendum to handle the UKIP surge.)
The parties are different, anyone who claims otherwise is a moron.

That's right, the EU is baaaaaasically the same as the USSR.

user the brexit won't happen
What makes you think otherwise? In 2 years people will forget about all of this and focus on something else
>The parties are different, anyone who claims otherwise is a moron.
Then why all of them voted for banning guns? Restrict guns is a serious thing, why not ask the people what their opinion?

The people obviously want to restrict guns, otherwise parties that support strong gun ownership rights would be getting tons of votes. Personally, I like having arms ownership writes written into the constitution like it is in the US, but the fact is that there's no argument to be made for the idea that the European people oppose gun control.

>user the brexit won't happen
>What makes you think otherwise? In 2 years people will forget about all of this and focus on something else
I take it you haven't been following politics whatsoever, the triggerring of Article 50 means that legally the UK is out of the EU by the 29th of march 2019, regardless of whatever's being brokered, just saying "OOOH, everyone's just going to forget aren't i an intellectual beacon" isn't going to change that legal fact.
>Then why all of them voted for banning guns? Restrict guns is a serious thing, why not ask the people what their opinion?
Because Parliament, not the people, is soverign.

If a majority of Brits seriously wanted to keep their rights to bear arms you'd think there would be some protests or at least a popular petition, but they didn't react. If anything there were only campaigns and petitions to ban guns following mass shootings.

>but the fact is that there's no argument to be made for the idea that the European people oppose gun control.
I know most of them support it, still a consulting the public in things like this should be done. You can't simply ban guns of X million citizens because the parties made agreements
That's the opposite of democracy
>by the 29th of march 2019
Which exactly why I said everyone will forget this in two years.
>Because Parliament, not the people, is soverign.
Good, amazing, confiscate/allow/ban guns just like other serious matters shouldn't be done without a referendum (or even a simple public consultation where people can vote yes or no)

That's why democracy even in it's purest form (like actually asking the citizens) is dumb but that's another topic I don't want to get into
However read here why serious things that affect ALL citizens should be treated with more decency than simply allowing the parties to decide:

Can't be assed to hit every point here - you've already been taken to task for the ones about the EU, I don't need to get into that. As to a couple of the others,

>Citizens being arrested for opinions: check
Free speech isn't absolute in any democracy and it never has been. There have always been laws against slander and libel, threats, inciting violence etc, and that's obviously what laws against hate speech, Holocaust denial, etc, are meant to prevent. The fact that you can't say whatever you want doesn't mean you live in a dictatorship.

Obviously limitations on free speech can be excessive, and even reasonable laws can be misapplied. And I actually agree with you that that's happening way too often these days. That's still not even in the same fucking universe as the limits on free speech you get in actual communist dictatorships. You know how you know you don't live in one? You're able to have this conversation with me, without it being quietly censored; and we could have a very similar conversation in a bar or on your college campus or wherever without fear of being "invited" down to the police station for a "friendly cup of tea." And if you're able to convince enough people that you're right, you can elect politicians who agree with you, as has happened in plenty of western countries in the past couple of years.

Yeah, there have been cases of people being jailed for what we'd probably all agree was legitimate free speech - but by and large people can organize and distribute material criticizing the government. And tens of millions of people do so every day.

If you think you live in anything even approaching a dictatorship you're a first worlder with absolutely no perspective.

>The right to bear arms is restricted to a few elite policemen: check
The idea that democracy entails the right to own guns is a very American one and there's NEVER been general agreement on that.

And that's way more effort than I should have put into replying to you.

Under democracy, the people impose their will on the state. Under totalitarianism, the state imposes its will on the people.

I fail to see how functional opposites are "steps" towards each other. Is this some kind of idiot libertarian or anarchist meme?

>Which exactly why I said everyone will forget this in two years.
Read the rest of my post, you dumb fuck, law doesn't stop applying because the public stop giving a shit about the issue the law effects.
>Good, amazing, confiscate/allow/ban guns just like other serious matters shouldn't be done without a referendum (or even a simple public consultation where people can vote yes or no)
And who determines what's "An important issue"? You? Children were gunned down in a school, Parliament acted, we elect the Parliament to ensure that we aren't burdened with the importance of tact and form in international policy issues and domestic issues, if someone's solution to crime was to murder all criminals, regardless of severity, and that had a majority, should that go through? Become law?

You don't know fuck all about British legal history, fuck all about general legal history, and (i strongly expect) fuck all about any history, get the fuck off this board.

>things SHOULD be done like I say in a democracy otherwise it's not democracy even though most people feel this is how the democracy is supposed to function and don't see anything wrong with it
Yeah okay.

>Which exactly why I said everyone will forget this in two years.
You're awfully fond of authoritatively making baseless claims aren't you?

>The fact that you can't say whatever you want doesn't mean you live in a dictatorship.
But when you say you are against immigration and/or against leftists and end up in prison it is dictatorship
> You know how you know you don't live in one? You're able to have this conversation with me, without it being quietly censored
Yes but we are being censored outside of this chinese board. Even if there is no official censoring we still have to deal with fear of people suing us for simply exposing an opinion
In other cases like German and France it can get you killed.

At least in communism you know what to expect. In this phony democracy people live it can go to dictatorship really fast and in that dictatorship you'll never know who even the real president is
>And who determines what's "An important issue"?
Common sense: confiscating/banning or allowing X million people to own guns is a serious matter. Not something which must be acted based on TV news or hysteria about recent shooting
Don't you agree?

>Common sense
That's not a legal term you dumb fucking retard, if i ban murder in the UK, i'm restricting 65million people their right to murder, does that require consultation?

It wasn't TV news, it wasn;t hysteria, Children had their lives ended under the freedom of someone, the British Parliament and Public decided that the freedom to bear armed was trumped by the general right to security, you have absolutely no proof that the British people want guns relegalized, and think that a complete overhaul of the legal system is good because it made a result you don't like, fuck off.

>when you say you are against immigration and/or against leftists and end up in prison

>That's not a legal term
but democracy can't be simplified to ''what the txt says''
The positivist mentality affected europeans like you so much you'll have to agree there was more democracy in the USSR than in your phony parliament.
> you have absolutely no proof that the British people want guns relegalized
They have the right to say yes or no.

In May 1945 the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill suggested holding a referendum over the question of extending the life of his wartime Coalition until victory was won over Japan, be allowed to continue in office. However, Clement Attlee refused citing ‘I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism.’ implying that referendums were a totally unknown and alien device to British politics. In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher also quoted Clement Attlee that referendums are "a device of dictators and demagogues" as Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler had exploited their use in the past.

In a sense, you're right, the UK is slowly turning into a dictatorship... because they're using referendums more and more now.

This is the same guy, right?

>In a sense, you're right, the UK is slowly turning into a dictatorship... because they're using referendums more and more now.
nah
The people have the right to live with the consequences of their actions
Will it lead to their destruction? we don't know
They have to right to destroy themselves instead of allowing a parliament to destroy them.
Besides the Nazi officials didn't ask the people about banning guns, entering the war or restricting tobacco, making of propaganda movies or anything else.
Regardless of the system, democracy is flawed and we will spend the next 48 hours talking about which democratic system is the lesser evil

>Clement Attlee
a socialist rat

just like thatcher

his economy policy post WW2 was so great it lead to 70s moral and economic destruction of UK

Rape has literally nothing to do with communism or dictatorships

This all major communist countries weren't a democracy. Cuba was ruled by a few rich mafiosi and Russia was one of the only countries who still had "slaves".

>blah blah i don't like democracy
>refute this

>Cuba was ruled by a few rich mafiosi
Just like Roosevelt ruled USA for 15 years
The thing is USA learned to entertain the public by changing the actor but keeping the system
The Cubans insist in keeping the leader.

>I don't like democracy
>[impassioned speeches about how Britain fails to be a perfect democracy]
>and this is why Britain sucks, it's not my ideal vision of a liberal democracy

samefag

>liberal democracy
what's the opposite of liberal democracy? totalitarian democracy?
This is some "The Democratic Popular Front Freedom From The Popular Country of Congo" shit

some words have more than one meaning user

The greatest definition of Democracy was given by Alex Baruch Rosenfield
"Democracy is the act of selling native people destructive things in the name of progress"

but democracy is secular and liberal by its own definition. Liberal democracy = democracy democracy
..............or not?

>6 random women
it's 3 women that was posted..
but if you want more, there's a whole twitter dedicated to the transition of them being indoctrinated, with around 1k tweets. but everything's just fine right? moron.

>but democracy is secular and liberal by its own definition.
no, not really

Yes, really.
Tell me why I'm wrong and I'll post my nipples with timestamp saying I'm sorry

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy
>the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves

now give me a link to your dictionary

>another /pol/tard who doesn't know what communism means but somehow hates it

>equality between people
secular, liberal and anti-clerical principle.
What's the other form of democracy other than ''democratic liberalism''?

Democracy just means popular rule. Liberal democracy encompasses the whole suite - constitutionally protected free speech/press/religion, secularism, separation of powers, safeguards to prevent tyranny of the masses, etc. Not just free elections.

In practice almost every modern democratic state at least pays lip service to the principles of classical liberalism but there's no reason democracy and liberalism HAVE to go together.

>secular, liberal and anti-clerical principle
sometimes yes, but equality is a broad term
>democratic liberalism
but that's something quite different from what we usually mean by liberal democracy

>no reason democracy and liberalism HAVE to go together.
democracy is inside liberalism, that's why I believe it's a mistake to call "social democracy" just like "popular democracy" or "popular democracy of the free people"

This is the stupidest picture I’ve seen all day.
All countries in 1942 were less diverse than in 2012. There is absolutely nothing to do with the nazi occupation. If anything, Paris in 1942 was less homogeneous compared to other contemporary metropolises due to the huge influx of Germans.

>democracy is inside liberalism
what does that even mean?

In fact I didn't related to the nazi occupation until now :( I just thought it was better because it was before the 60s revolution(Paris 68 and the rise of moral relativism)

That you can't write the definition of democracy without going back to the definition of liberalism

What does any of that have to do with communism you olabicha

>definition of liberalism
which one?

>democracy is inside liberalism
This is awkwardly phrased but basically true. But I have no idea why you think that means that "liberal democracy" is redundant. It's not.

The idea that people have the right to rule themselves (democracy) is one of the main principles of classical liberalism, but it's just one of them. It's perfectly possible to believe in democracy without believing in the other principles. You could, in theory, have a state with free elections (a democracy) that didn't guarantee its citizens freedom of speech or assembly (i.e. you can vote for who you want but you can't talk about it). That would be pretty absurd, but it's conceptually possible.

More realistically, you could have a state with free elections that also was not secular. In fact, there are several countries like that today, although it's debatable how democratic any of them really are - but anyway, they CLAIM to be democracies, and don't CLAIM to be secular. Similarly you could have a representative democracy that had no checks on the representative's power once elected, etc.

"Liberal democracy" means the state adheres to ALL the principles of liberalism. Not just the one.

An illiberal democracy, like the ones in Africa, Russia and a few Asian nations.

equality and tolerance... but in my politic definition I'd define as ''lacking moral restraint ''

Your insight is not wrong, and it's honest.
Something rare on Veeky Forums.

The EU parliament is the weakest organ of the EU. It really has no independent power.

Did Olavo ever said this? I don't remember it.

This. Reality refutes the statement.

You have no idea what communism is, /pol/tard.

>

Name 100 political prisoners in Western countries who are jailed for being against immigration and leftism (and not because they shot people or insisted that the Holocaust is a hoax on TV)

Hot

This picture is biased af. The picture to the right was taken in the african district of Paris, of course you'll see only blacks. That's like posting a picture of Chinatown and claiming that there are only chinks in [inesrt city/country].

Samefag here, that was for the guy claiming this. [spoiler]Posting on phone is a pain in the ass.[/spoiler]

Western Universal Democracies are still young. The major parties you vote for share the same goals (egalitarianism, globalism, multiculturalism) - they merely disagree over methods of achieving said goals. In many European countries it's impossible for smaller parties that don't ascribe to these virtues to form a majority, even if they get the most votes. The established parties (supposed left/right) will band together and prevent them doing so. Democracy is a fading illusion. The mainstream of Western politics serves to support banking and global finance.

Because there were so many Africans in Paris in the 30s right?

Uh, why would you post a picture of your nipples specifically?

>society is falling apart
Seek a psychiatrist. You're mentally ill.

No case of it happening. Ever.

>They don't let me exploit children or have large amounts of explosives/arms
>That's caaaamunism
/pol/tard level of knowledge

>b-b-but Batista did nothing wrong and Cuba was a tropical island paradise with living standards similar to Europe before those damn communist Democrat liberal totalitarians took over and stole everyone's food and healthcare and made it literally hell on Earth!!! David Horowitz, Stefan Molyneux, and fidelcastrowasliterallystalin.blogspot.com said so!

>Laws are made in Brussels(not by the people): check
Most laws aren't. The ones that are are mostly petty shit
>Citizens being arrested for opinions: check
Depends on the country
>You must pay tax to fund a state TV and state radio: check
>This radio and TV promote things you can't decide. The state hires private marketing groups to decide the schedule: check
This is true in Germany and extremely annoying
Although
>private marketing groups to decide the schedule
isn't like communism at all. Get a grip.
>People can't count the votes: check
I literally did that during the German election in 2013 when I worked at a election office.
>The right to bear arms is restricted to a few elite policemen: check
Literally every policeman here has at least a pistol and a truncheon. Also, you can own most handguns that aren't full-auto, you just have to get a permit for it.
>If someone rapes your daughter you have to call the police; you can't use violence against the aggressor: check
Lmao

All empires rise and fall. The only thing we can do is enjoy it for brief moments.

>you post on the same board as drooling mongoloids like this

I need to get a hobby.

((((((Social democracy))))) is.

...

Its a question of time before they send the tanks in Britain.

>le (((meme)))
hahahahaha (((hahahaha))) le so le (((epic))) le (((funny meme))) le (((le))) XDDDDD(((DDD)))!!!!!!!!(((!!!!!!!)))

kys

>control+f /pol/
>60 results
when will this stop? you browse /v/ too?

why are you anti white subhumans so obsessed with /pol/?

>society is falling apart
In the history of the world, things have never been this good. You are living in a continuous fucking golden age.