On the one hand it makes no sense, on the other you associate it with laissez-faire policy. In other words you still don't know what liberalism is.
you describe a social democratic-capitalist economic system as liberal. it is not a term i would ever use to describe an economic system. the word "liberal" when used to do with the economy has laissez-faire connotations. that doesn't mean that someone describing a super-capitalist economy as "liberal" would be making much sense.
as far as not knowing what liberalism is, to be honest, it means different things to different people. the right claims it, the left claims it, and everything in between claims it. i know what my understanding of it is, and i can usually fathom an understanding of it when other people use the word. like i said above, i just wouldn't use it as a label for an economic system.
So what's your solution? Forget the democratic system, resolve issues through protests. Maybe count the number of people that take to the streets or measure the size of the banners. Better yet, measure the cost of economic disruption.
I can't believe I'm the one defending democracy here. I've always said it's far from perfect but compared to what you're suggesting I'm very glad for the system we live in.
i'm not suggesting anything. i'm not suggesting that protests and demonstrations should have more power. i am merely defending the right of people to protest (although you also concede that it should be allowed) and defending the people who do protest, who you refer to as whiners, malcontents and anarchists. i'm not saying that there aren't some people who regularly protest against everything under the sun, for whom i have little time, but the majority of people on mass protests are people who feel passionately about an issue and wish to raise that and let their feelings be known. demonstrations are a medium through which the average person can show how they feel about something, i'm not saying that they should be more than that.
likewise i wasn't criticising the democratic processes that you mentioned. just stating that demonstrations are somewhat different in how they can affect things.
Scary thing is Stalin and Mao uttered very similar words. This is precisely the attitude that incites hate, destruction, insanity and suffering. The day I see people like you "fighting for change" will be the day I finally agree to take to the streets if only to fight you.
i didn't mean literally. i mean that if people care about something, it is much healthier for a democracy and potentially better for them in general if they pursue an issue through whatever legal means are on offer (such as casting a vote even) rather than shrugging their shoulders and deciding that they can't do anything about the way things are.
What's the difference between xenophobic and nationalistic? Or did you run out of cheap false accusations?
No doubt you've presumed I support all of UKIP's policies just because I would vote for them (which I can't because I'm not British). Strange attitude from someone who rants about party manifestos not containing voters' priorities.
nationalism isn't necessarily a negative thing and many people claim to be nationalists or nationalistic. xenophobia is a fear/dislike of foreigners, etc and is clearly a negative thing.
i didn't say or think that you supported everything that they stand for. however, i find some of their views so distasteful that i would take a negative view of someone who could overlook those views because they agree with ukip on other matters.
and by the way, im not criticising party manifestos for not including everything. it is impossible to predict what is going to happen over a 4 or 5 year term in office, so as long as a party doesn't go directly against their manifesto, then they can do what they like. they just have to bear in mind that people haven't voted for them on those grounds, and should be held to account and scrutinised more closely in those instances.