 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:28
|
|
The problem if you ban parties like the Nazi party is that they change their names into something innocuous. For example, today we have many Communist who call themselves "Socialists" in United States because is no not possible to be Communist in United States and have any credibility at all let alone get security clearances are be gainfully employed. I note for example that in France, the Communist Party is not only tolerated, it is respected. This flows primarily, according to French Communists here on Apolyton, from the fact that the Communist were allies against the Nazis in World War II.
This is not to say that one cannot ban a party that does more than just exercise their free-speech rights but which has or remains active in the overthrow of legitimate government. Thus we banned Confederate officers and above from participation in government or voting at the close the Civil War. We also banned the Nazi party in Germany, the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we have now banned the Baath ("National") Socialist Party in Iraq.
The question then pertains, how long should the ban continue once imposed? To us in United Statesthe continued ban on the Nazi party in France and Germany is a puzzle because no one seriously believes the Nazis remain a viable threat to again take over the governments of Germany or France. In fact, the only place I can see that ban on Nazi party would be told acceptable today will be in Israel for obvious reasons.
By the way, I believe that most of parties in Europe that have "national" as part of their party name or in fact Nazi parties. This illustrates my original point does it not?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
So you'd overturn democracy in its own name? Even if the Nazis had the support of the majority of citizens I still think it would be justifiable to suppress them. My reason is that a democracy isn't "anything goes" but a political form that has definite limits. If we believe in the preservation of democracy more than we believe in this or that temporary government then suppressing the Nazis is the rational thing to do.
You can't tell me that you care about freedom of speech if you think that it is OK to allow a course of action that leads to more free speech violations (by the Nazis) than a course of action that requires less (you suppressing them). |
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, can't the Nazis say "even though you have the majority, we should still suppress your opinions." Also, we have the constitution. If the Nazis have the support to change the CONSTITUTION to allow their activities...
You have to see that you have to CONVINCE the people that you are right. You can't just act out on your own, without their consent. That sort of thinking is used to justify THEIR actions.
quote:
In fact, if each moral viewpoint is subjective and has no binding claim on others, then the purported "right" for these people to hold their own views is also subjective and therefore a figment of your imagination. So if you are a subjectivist you cannot find an objectively binding reason why I shouldn't shoot the Nazis. |
I'm not arguing MORAL subjectivity. I'm arguing that the objective morality that we SHOULD follow is the one that is decided by the majority. Note that I'm not saying that the morality ITSELF would be "right", or that you shouldn't PROTEST the current morality, but that you SHOULD obey it.
quote:
That's a fair comment. However, my example only holds when things have got out of hand and there is a realistic prospect of them getting in whatever arguments people put forward. |
I'm saying that, if you arrest them when they commit crimes, they won't get out of hand, unless they have the support of the majority.
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious [/SIZE}
Unfortunately people break the law and get away with it. |
Well, that's not an argument for making more things illegal (ESPECIALLY constitutionally protected rights) but for trying to improve our police, etc. so that people don't get away with breaking the law.
Finally, if they ADVOCATE violence, their views should be heard. Violence is only illegal because there are laws against it (tautology  ) but they should be free to petition to change the laws.
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
Originally posted by Imram Siddiqui
Hammered out in forms of free discourse and pointing out the fallacies. |
And what if that doesn't work? |
Then they have the support of the majority! They have convinced the people that they are correct.
quote:
Originally posted by Gepap
No. Unless a party advocates violence against others, it should be allowed to remain active. |
No, unless a party incites violence against others. It is their right to petition for a change in the law.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I agree GePap, but Imran is saying that we should do nothing, even if the Nazis were on the verge of seizing power. I find that a bit strange. |
No, Imram is saying, as I do, that we should do nothing unless they try to seize power illegally. If they do so by convincing the majority, they SHOULD be in power. Also, we can argue against their views. The net result is, the set of views the majority finds the most logical/valid/convincing will be selected!
(must be the 10th or 20th time I've made that point in this thread  )
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, can't the Nazis say "even though you have the majority, we should still suppress your opinions." Also, we have the constitution. If the Nazis have the support to change the CONSTITUTION to allow their activities...
You have to see that you have to CONVINCE the people that you are right. You can't just act out on your own, without their consent. That sort of thinking is used to justify THEIR actions. |
If you are going to have a liberal-democracy because it's the best form of goverment then it is non-negotiable. Presumably, what justifies any party being in power is that they represent the will of the majority. Unfortunately, if the Nazis get in and act true to form they will disband democracy, thus making themselves an illegitimate government. Similarly if you let them get in they will abolish the various rights and freedoms that are supposed to be protected.
At some point in any political system certain values are non-negotiable if the system is to be preserved. That's why it's justifiable to suppress the Nazis if they become too powerful.
quote:
I'm not arguing MORAL subjectivity. I'm arguing that the objective morality that we SHOULD follow is the one that is decided by the majority. Note that I'm not saying that the morality ITSELF would be "right", or that you shouldn't PROTEST the current morality, but that you SHOULD obey it. |
If a Nazi government told me to gas Jews, I sure as hell wouldn't do it, and damn the majority.
quote:
I'm saying that, if you arrest them when they commit crimes, they won't get out of hand, unless they have the support of the majority. |
And if they do, what then. It would be an act of terrible irresponsibility not to stop the Nazis from taking power by any means possible.
quote:
Then they have the support of the majority! They have convinced the people that they are correct. |
Then democracy will be destroyed. You can't defend the destruction of democracy on democratic grounds - it's irrational and self contradictory to do so.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-05-2003 22:45
.
.
|