> You also use this word "democratic" in a way that does not mean "rule by the majority".

I’ll take the bait. “Democratic legal system” is, according to you, an oxymoron because of the “rule by the majority” part? A common sentiment although easily debunked, since there are always rulers in any system with legal codes. In any case this seems pretty off-topic.

Another in any case (since I can’t help myself): when political scientists talk about “modern democracies” they mean liberal democracies with rule of law etc. Even though very few modern countries are truely democracies.

I totally agree and questioned if I should just leave that part out.

However words are important and are used to disguise what is occurring. Had the parent wrote "presumably not compatible with a non-democratic legal system." they would have been more accurate.

Rule of law is not accurate either. Purely democratic states can fall well within rule of law. The issue here is that there is some law that democracies cannot pass because it violates a higher law.

Piketty writes about this issue in regard to slavery. To free slaves (in the USA) without compensation was regarded as not following within the higher law which is ~ the law of property.

The same issue would be faced with trying to free the "ill gotten gains" of "bankers" from their holdings. The childish subtext of our propertarian legal system is "new rules dont count".

I just meant legal systems as exist in developed democracies but that's more long-winded and potentially open to red-herring discussions on which countries are democratic etc.

Perhaps, "rule of law" is what you were looking for?

I think that probably also has room for interpretation. Anyway, hopefully most will have known what I meant.