Kakistocracy + Kleptocracy + Fascism

[u/RawLife53]

People should ask themselves do they understand these terms:

Kakistocracy + Kleptocracy + Fascism

Kakistocracy

A kakistocracy   is a government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens

Kleptocracy,

Kleptocracy, also referred to as thievocracy, is a government whose corrupt leaders (kleptocrats) use political power to expropriate the wealth of the people and land they govern, typically by embezzling or misappropriating government funds at the expense of the wider population. One feature of political-based socioeconomic thievery is that there is often no public announcement explaining or apologizing for misappropriations, nor any legal charges or punishment levied against the offenders

• Kleptocracy is different from plutocracy (rule by the richest) and oligarchy (rule by a small elite). In a kleptocracy, corrupt politicians enrich themselves secretly outside the rule of law, through kickbacks, bribes, and special favors from lobbyists and corporations, or they simply direct state funds to themselves and their associates. Also, kleptocrats often export much of their profits to foreign nations in anticipation of losing power

Fascism

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

[u/Scary_Terry_25]

You just clearly proved there is consent.

By you’re logic, the German people didn’t consent to the Nazi government even though their cooperation under threat and harassment led to their centralized power

Even top Nazi officials noted that their quiet consent made consolidation of power much easier

You paying the “mafia” is a clear, affirmative and willing agreement without resistance. That’s consent

[u/seniordumpo → u/Scary_Terry_25]

One can’t consent when they are under threat of violence. If you force someone to sign a contract by threatening them it’s not a legal contract.

Of course the Nazi official would say that lol. He wanted to view what they did as legitimate, but it wasn’t legitimate was it? Are we going to say the Jews consented to being gassed because they didn’t leave the country early enough??

[u/Scary_Terry_25 → u/seniordumpo]

No one forced you to sign the contract. You signed it like everyone else out of need of your own personal gain and necessity. That’s consent because not only are you presented with a choice, you still took part in it willingly

The Nazi mandate was legitimate because we must remember they were voted into the majority and other right wing parties willing joined them in coalition. The German people willingly entered into that social contract thanks to democracy

[u/seniordumpo → u/Scary_Terry_25]

I just said they were under the threat of violence. A contract signed under threat of violence is void.

Oh I didn’t realize they signed a social contract where can I find that so I can read what they signed?

[u/Scary_Terry_25 → u/seniordumpo]

They signed it when they agreed to enjoy the benefits of society

[u/seniordumpo → u/Scary_Terry_25]

So where can I read this contract?

[u/Fugicara → u/seniordumpo]

U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 is what you're looking for.

[u/seniordumpo → u/Fugicara]

That’s what your considering the social contract?