Graps:
Quote:"It's called sell-out/betrayal/refusing to abide by the will of the majority in a democracy"
But why did the governing party "refuse to abide by the will of the majority"?
After all, they want to get re-elected, like all polies... (requiring at least 50%+1).
Graps:
Quote: No - MINE is based on support for the rules of law on behalf of prosperity for ALL"
ROTFL, ...but let's see if you can present an argument to back up that delusional assertion...
Note; "prosperity" first refers to access to the essentials of living, for all.
Quote:YOURS is based on artificially promoting the interests of a few - in classical Fascist manner -
Wrong, by definition: I'm arguing for common prosperity (not the same as equality of outcome); you are arguing for outcomes based on individuals' abilities, driven by self-interest, iow based on
survival of the fittest ideology.
Quote: and over-riding the wishes and will of the majority, using force if necessary.... the force of lawfare meaning law wrongfully used for a purpose it was never intended.
1. the wishes of
self-interested individuals in the aggregate (c. 50%+1) is THE problem. The greed-based "invisible hand" market alone can never create
prosperity for all. because the most competitive will naturally claim the largest share of resources.
2. Certainly, law guaranteeing housing and jobs for all is a precondition of prosperity for all, "force" is moot.
Quote: It's a favourite of Fascists like you, Xi, Albo and countless others.
You forgot Franco and all RW fascist dictators protecting the wealthy class. Albo at least is concerned with better outcomes for the low/middle class.
Quote:EVERYTHING the Nazis did was according to their rule of law....
correct; law which served the interests of German nationalism and (hoped for) imperialism, not the common prosperity of the German people.
Quote:you and all those and more abuse law and its intended use, and cloak your Fascism behind smarmy comments about 'disadvantage' and such.
Refuted above, with argument; we are still waiting for your argument to support your statement " MINE is based on support for the rules of law on behalf of prosperity for ALL".
You might start by defining what YOU mean by "prosperity
for ALL".
The significance of that last capitalization is intriguing, no doubt it doesn't mean "for all"..... or do I have the meaning of prosperity wrong; do I have to google a definition for you?