As usual, you have no clue what you’re talking about. ::shrug::

It's a fascinating topic to me, how leftism succeeded post war, and how we ended up here. I'm just not going to discuss it with a rabid dog.

In the grand scheme of things, a conservative view is more about practicality.
— frank

"Jesus Guns Babies" are each rather impractical, truth be told.
— praxis

Is it? — frank

Well, when you put it that way, sure, those things are very practical for those that know how to use them effectively, but not for those that don't.

I'm not sure which kind of liberalism you're referring to. I was using the word in the American sense. American liberals do fervently want to impose their view on others. — frank

No, they want to liberate everyone from the oppression of others. The hallmark of American progressive politics is the striking down of conservative laws and limitation set on the power of the ruling class.

If slavery is wrong, it's wrong for everyone. — frank

More like "In a nation based on holding "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Therefore, everyone should be free.
(Also, the suffragette movement, and the abolitionist movement and the temperance movement and, as previously noted, the union movement were all pretty well organized. Revolutions, too, at the beginning, but they get out of hand.)

I agree that rule of law evolved from earlier forms of government, but the phrase specifically means a society in which no one is above the law.

No, laws were always laws, whether formulated by a king or a chief or a prelate or a council of elders. And the law is never applied equally to rulers and ruled; in fact there are often sections that are entirely different, both in the letter of the law and in its execution, for sub-groups of people. Sometimes there are specific exemptions; sometimes it's a systemic variance of enforcement.
There is no actual "rule of law"; that's just a picturesque phrase; rule is done by rulers, laws are enforced by the armed agents of the rulers. Once a constitution is written, there is a known framework for how laws are made and applied - which framework in not adhered-to by all administrations - which officially limit the powers of the ruling class and even the monarch - but unofficially, the elite are nearly always better able to escape its consequences. Except, once every couple of generations, the ruled get fed up and punish them all.

That’s perfectly fine. I’m not interested in discussing anything with you, given your history. In case you need it explicitly stated … which you do.

There is no actual "rule of law"; that's just a picturesque phrase; rule is done by rulers — Vera Mont

Democracy requires supporting institutions to function, such as 'the rule of law'. It's true that those with wealth and power enjoy a privileged position but there are still limits under the rule of law.

Democracy requires supporting institutions to function, such as 'the rule of law'. It's true that those with wealth and power enjoy a privileged position but there are still limits under the rule of law. — praxis

Every form of government requires supporting institutions: the civil service, the judiciary, the enforcement agencies, the taxation branch, trade and commerce, municipal and road maintenance, shipping and marine traffic.... 'the rule of law' is neither and institution nor an agency: it is an idea. A nebulous one, open to interpretation.

there are still limits under the rule of law. — praxis

There are limits under every kind of legal system. In most, obligations of each tier of the ruling classes are also laid out. Human societies all, without exception, operate under a rule of law...
... except when they're collapsing or breaking down; then there is brief period of chaos and lawlessness, until a new order is established and formulates its own legal code.

'the rule of law' is neither and institution nor an agency: it is an idea. A nebulous one, open to interpretation. — Vera Mont

It's pretty specific. It means that no one is above the law. It's a feature of democratic arrangements that lack aristocracy or monarchy.

It means that no one is above the law. — frank

Where is it written and how and by whom is it enforced?

It's a feature of democratic arrangements that lack aristocracy or monarchy. — frank

It's a feature of human organizations.

Where is it written and how and by whom is it enforced? — Vera Mont

I'm kind of surprised you haven't googled it.

It's a feature of human organizations. — Vera Mont

Nope.

Every form of government requires supporting institutions: the civil service, the judiciary, the enforcement agencies, the taxation branch, trade and commerce, municipal and road maintenance, shipping and marine traffic.... — Vera Mont

No. Kinship groups, for instance, don’t even require a military.

In any case, the topic is specifically about democracies. Democracy requires a lot of support in order to effectively function as a democracy.

There are limits under every kind of legal system. — Vera Mont

No. In a totalitarian society, the leaders can legally do pretty much anything.

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Trump remarked at a campaign stop at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa. "It's, like, incredible."

I think he was right about that as far as his moronic base goes, but not for the majority of the country.

I think some people here have no knowledge of the rest of the world and how lucky they are to be in a democratic society where human rights are protected and the quality of life is high compared to some more conservative countries where might makes right, not the rule of law.

In any case, the topic is specifically about democracies. Democracy requires a lot of support in order to effectively function as a democracy. — praxis

All cultures live by social agreements. I am glad I am not living in a conservative Muslim society where a woman can be killed because her head was not properly covered. I am glad I live in a country where someone who acts like Hitler can be put on trial and hopefully prevent what happened when Hitler was in a power in a more authoritarian country, perverting the teaching of Nietzsche and embracing the mentality of thugs who make killing people who are seen as defective, acceptable.

However, the steps taken in the US following 911 might give a person reason to be concerned. Who ever thought in the US people would be denied public transportation if they did not have the required Identification? Or that thugs could come so close to taking over the Capitol Building with a belief that this could become an overthrow of our established government.

No. Kinship groups, for instance, don’t even require a military. — praxis

They're not exactly governments, either. And they all become a military when need arises. But they still have rules of behaviour, understood by all members.

In any case, the topic is specifically about democracies. Democracy requires a lot of support in order to effectively function as a democracy. — praxis

In large groups, yes. But then, so does monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy. A military dictatorship does, too, but the military structure already contains mechanism to carry out those functions. In small numbers, those functions don't require an agency; they can be carried out by individuals. But that doesn't depend on a form of government: a kinship group can be autocratic or democratic or situational.

I think he was right about that as far as his moronic base goes, but not for the majority of the country. — praxis

And yet, he's still at large. Rule of law doesn't work any more consistently than deposing totalitarian leaders when they overstep the acceptable limits.

His organizational backbone was religious. I explained this earlier. — frank

His organizational backbone was democracy coming out of the enlightenment and the belief that science and preparing everyone to be good citizens would improve our lives, which it has.

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” The US stands for liberty and justice. That is a higher morality but there is a problem with not preparing the young for good moral judgment because without education for that there can not be liberty as that leads to authoritarianism and looks more like what happened to Germany's republic when Hitler took control by appealing to people's anger and frustration.

Your point is lost on me. Nixon, for example, was impeached for abuse of power, obstruction of justice, etc. If a US president is above the law then how could Nixon have been impeached?

Are you suggesting that a democracy doesn’t require the rule of law?

Are you suggesting that a democracy doesn’t require the rule of law? — praxis

No. I'm stating that all forms of government, in order to be effective, do need the rule of law. Some codes are not to our our taste, but they are nevertheless legal codes that are the rule in nations. Some codes contain unfair, https://www.thoughtco.com/property-rights-of-women-3529578discriminatory https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2010/may.htmand unenforceable laws. (https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/decriminalization-sodomy-united-states/2014-11They're still laws - until the code is changed.
I am further asserting that laws are never fairly and equally applied. The innocent are convicted by mistake, prejudice or callous indifference; law enforcement is lax or overzealous, corrupt or violent; jurisprudence is politically tainted or financially motivated; legislation is partisan or self-serving.
Rule of law may approach efficacy every now and then, but is never perfect.

Nixon was impeached in the legislature, but suffered no legal consequences - didn't go to prison, wasn't even indicted - unlike his minions. The DOJ seems to be dragging this Trump business out - maybe hoping he'll die of natural causes before they have to act - even though the worst of his crimes are glaringly obvious, committed on camera, with millions of witnesses.

His organizational backbone was democracy coming out of the enlightenment and the belief that science and preparing everyone to be good citizens would improve our lives, which it has. — Athena

No, it really wasn't. He wasn't included as a beneficiary of the American vision of the free society. His kind weren't allowed to vote. His foundation was the community of the African
American church.

I think some people here have no knowledge of the rest of the world and how lucky they are to be in a democratic society where human rights are protected and the quality of life is high compared to some more conservative countries where might makes right, not the rule of law. — Athena

:clap: and if you look back into the history of the most democratic nations today, their 'upper class,' used to refer to the majority of people who lived there, as 'peasants' or 'serfs,' or even just 'scum.'

:clap: and if you look back into the history of the most democratic nations today, their 'upper class,' used to refer to the majority of people who lived there, as 'peasants' or 'serfs,' or even just 'scum.' — universeness

:clap: and if you look back into the history of the most democratic nations today, their 'upper class,' used to refer to the majority of people who lived there, as 'peasants' or 'serfs,' or even just 'scum.' — universeness

I really think that is a matter of power, who has it and who does not. With power comes respect and the more important education is to getting things done, the more power and respect educated people have. I think our democracy and universal education has greatly increased individual power but we seem to be developing an attitude that destroys human dignity, appreciation, and respect. I am afraid our republic has been on the same path the German republic took. Our materialistic focus has damaged our values and our past goal of human dignity a priority. There was a time when we valued people for their character.

Martin Luther King, would not have the huge success he has today if his principles were not coming from our documents such as our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Martin Luther King is winning even in death because only a hypocrite would argue against his dream being universal justice and liberty for all. Perfect harmony with democratic principles. World wars increased the strength of the struggle for justice and liberty for all because we called on people of color to defend those values in war. We sent them into war to fight for what we denied them and Martin Luther King organized the movement to make justice and liberty for all a reality for all.

In the present, it may be people of color who save our democracy because they have to fight for a more perfect manifestation of that democracy and sadly they have to fight against some of our most patriotic citizens who are still prejudiced and in denial of the wrongs done.

We have been in transition ever since we left the wilds.
Humans are far more curious than cats. We want to know where every path leads., so, after a few thousand years of trying to, we have not got there yet but we will.
I have a very simplistic overview of human beings. I see two main types.
1. Those who care as much/more about that which exists outside of themselves as they do about themselves or they can be convinced to.
2. Those who only care about their own lives and those they love.

When we do unite and organise and push for change, it works very well and progress is made.
It's true that this is often short lived, corrupted and even reversed at times but overall, we are progressing. I am in the Pinker camp with:

Steven Pinker urges us to step back from the gory headlines and prophecies of doom, which play to our psychological biases. Instead, follow the data: In 75 jaw-dropping graphs, Pinker shows that life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge, and happiness are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. This progress is not the result of some cosmic force. It is a gift of the Enlightenment: the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing.

I don't think he is suggesting we can all rest comfortably in the knowledge that the human race IS slowly breaking through into a better way of life for all humans and for all objects in the universe that come into our sphere of influence. But I really dont think our species is totally toxic, do you?
I really think we need to talk about all the positives and not always focus on 'the gory headlines.'

Yes. We were talking about his organization, not his goals.

To back up to the OP, could there, even if all studied politics and so on exist anything as - a people?

In something as big as a nation, even the small one I am a Citizen of, there will be very different habitats depending on the fortunes of different people. And is there any chance that an immigrant in a no-go area stuggling to make ends meet taking multiple jobs, a striving family father in a lower middle class area, an a middle-aged woman, born in a habitat rich on cultural and social capital having chosen an occupation of interest and following progressive values to do something good with her life, could three persons like that be unified as a ”people”?

And is there any chance that an immigrant in a no-go area stuggling to make ends meet taking multiple jobs, a striving family father in a lower middle class area, an a middle-aged woman, born in a habitat rich on cultural and social capital having chosen an occupation of interest and following progressive values to do something good with her life, could three persons like that be unified as a ”people”? — Ansiktsburk

Whether the last two can both see themselves as members of the same group depends on the circumstances. There has to be a basis for unity like religion, ethnicity, or nationalism. Sometimes exterior threats unify people across economic lines.

The immigrants are a different story. They can be like invisible members of the community. For instance, there is slavery in the US, but few know about it. It's immigrants who have fallen prey to exploiters. Even if law enforcement tries to help them, they lie about the conditions they're in because they've been threatened. They have little hope except to know that their children will be American citizens.

One of the reasons they come to the US is that their own countries are in turmoil. In many cases this stems from previous American action designed to cripple them.

So ultimately, there needs to be a global authority who can put a stop to behavior of the kind the US has demonstrated. That would help immigrants everywhere.

I'm stating that all forms of government, in order to be effective, do need the rule of law. — Vera Mont

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. — praxis

I know what it's supposed to mean and is sometimes naively believed to mean in countries that are supposed to be and are sometimes naively believed to be democratic.
I contend that those beliefs are incorrect, which renders the phrase nothing more than a slogan.

Oh good grief.

Democracy starts with the government and the very act of voting only occurs when it's fairly organised by the government. The people will never rule over the government, and at best, we can task the government with serving our interests. In applying accountability to the government, upholding the law fairly and ensuring free and fair elections.

It's US propaganda to blame the voters, but when you look outside, to failed democracies around the world, the truth becomes clear. It's never the voters or the people who lack, their conviction and honesty and ability to see what needs to be done is never the problem.

Those parts of the government that were supposed to hold officials accountable are the people's spear and their rights and protections are their shield. When their spear and shield are faulty, that's a truly dire situation, and the democracy is already gone.

At best, the responsibility of the people is to try to their best ability, to maintain those weapons. To protest when they see it's not working. If we're going to talk about the US specifically, the problem is that there's a huge concern with the shield - rights and liberties and much less about ensuring government accountability. The US democracy is pretty fucking awful when it comes to doing that, despite the propaganda to the contrary.

There are democracies around the world that care about both and they're doing quite well, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

In a true democracy the government should serve (all) the people, so we have a system where the people are the master and the government the servant (not derogatory). — TheMadMan

Not possible because if some people want something, it has to come from someone else. Someone is always the loser in a democracy, and democratic elections are often decided by around 30% of the population.