Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Why Democracies Always Fail" video.

There have not in fact been a significant number of "democracies" that turned into dictatorships. Under the Roman Empire, the dictator was the chief commander for expeditionary war. In times of war "democracies" will elect a leader with unified powers to deal with the war or perhaps some other real or imagined emergency. But again, there are not that many examples from history until you count the Marxists/anarchists. The French Jacobins didn't have "democracy". The earliest "liberal democracy" was probably the British republic formed by Cromwell and "voted away" after Cromwell died. But they didn't "vote in a dictator". But the idea of popular movements for wealth redistribution always lead to dictatorships because redistribution schemes end up killing the proverbial golden-egg laying geese. Because they're idiots that don't understand "redistribution" is inherently destructive of wealth. Funny how the Marxists and the "Libertarian" professors are all so bad at explaining fact-based history to support their musings.
22
@whodarboilebamnames3990 The ones that claim "property is theft" in order to justify stealing it in the name of "redistribution" are "illegitimate" crooks and liars.
17
@conscientiousobjector5988 Give me an example from history. Just one.
2
@thodan467 Just cite whatever historical record you're alluding to. AFAIK, Parliament continued to vote even after the king officially dissolved it.
1
@thodan467 Lord Protector replaced the inherited monarchy. They didn't have a "political movement" hatched in order to deliver Utopian governance. And the people at large were not governed by this "dictator". The French Jacobins certainly didn't try to learn anything from Cromwell, that's for sure. My overall point is that everyone seems to be discussing very ignorant and simplistic 'harbingers' of things that must really only exist in the imaginations of "Political Scientists". There's no such thing as a "dictator personality" or any stupid thing like that. People rise up and hover near permanent political power and if the conditions seem to warrant it then the people look for serious problem solvers and don't want to wait around for "democratic consensus" at each stage. Most people can't control their own ego if called on to "save the republic" or whatever. If so called "Liberals" love a leader, they lionize him even if he acts like a dictator. If they are offended by his lack of "socialist" bona fides then this leader is smeared. The most dictatorial US President by far was FDR. His BFF was Stalin. It's hard to find anyone on any modern campus that will call either one of them a dictator. But they were. And they will smear Churchill at any chance because of "colonialism". As if that is something that can be defined "scientifically".
1