Communism - should it be banned??

[Wedge]

So quit bullshitting me.The question in this thread is "Should Communism be banned", and you've come down firmly in the affirmative.

It seems to me, that it is you who don't understand or don't read carefuly.
I'm not bullshiting anyone. I have remarked several times, that i would ban ONLY a partie (communist or whatever) if it ATTENTS AGAINST the democracy and constitution. So I am NOT contradicting myself.

"Should Communism be banned", my answer is NO, the movement and ideology shouldn't be banned and the partie should also be legal as long as it does NOT attent against the democracy or constitution. As I also remarked before, there should NOT be PUNISHMENT or PERSECUTION
for communist or other ideologies. OF COURSE their right to campaign for public office would be removed if they are antidemocratic but their would still have the right to vote.

You are advocating banning a political party because its views are undemocratic. This is a violation of freedom of speech, association, and the press. It's obviously a violation of freedom of association because you've taken away a group of people's right to assemble and organize because they hold a position the government doesn't like.

YOU should pay fucking attention. I am saying to not allow any partie in the parlament that is antidemocratic. It restringes the freedom of association, but I am not saying that they shouldn't have their meetings, commies weekend excursions or whatever they want. So they can have a political partie, but without having the right to present to office.

It's a violation of freedom of the press because by outlawing the party, you've prevented the individuals within it from pooling resources to have their voices heard--and please, no horse shit about "Well, they're free to publish individually." I worked on an underground college newspaper for three years and it cost us $1200 a month to print 7000 16 page issues in black and white on the cheapest possible grade of newsprint, and we had to have it shipped from 700 miles away to get it that cheap.
Unless you've got money to burn, publishing costs a shitload of money and needs more than one person's resources.

Since they would remain with the freedom of association they would have enough resources to publish a newspaper or if they have enough money a fucking radiostation or tv channel or whatever they fucking want.

Finally comes freedom of speech, which you insist is protected, yet you'd punish certain individuals for holding undesireable views by taking away their right to run for office or form a political party. PUNISHING SOMEONE FOR HOLDING A VIEW YOU DON'T LIKE VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PUNISHMENT IS

I am only taking them away the right to run for office, so they can't take away ALL of our rights. It's like I would not let have a guy a weapon, knowing he wants to kill me with it.

Now, if you want to take up Axis Kast's position and say, yes, banning Communism will violate freedom of speech but it's worth it, fine, we'll take up the argument from there. And if you want to join Darth Wong, myself, and several others and say, "Communism is a shitty ideology, but it's wrong to punish people simply for believing in it," that's fine too. What YOU'RE trying to do, however, is have it both ways--you want to ban Communism and shout to the heavens how much you love free speech, and that's not going to work no matter how many times you insist it will.

In my opinion, not allowing an ANTI-DEMOCRATIC partie present to ellection is not violating the freedom of speech of someone. If for you both things are the same, then we won't never end this discussion.

[Wedge]

30% does not give a antidemocratic party the ability to do more than ask quetions in the house. They cannot obstruct the forming of government, letalone stop the passing of legisaltion. You need to learnhow a democratic government works.

You are thinking of the rest 70% as a single block, but it's not. There would be numerous parties maybe not willing to cooperate, because they simply don't share the same ideology. They don't totally freeze the system, but they would slow it down. The democratic parties would have to form a bigger and instable coalition and passing of legislation would be more difficult.

[Wicked Pilot]

Then why are so many communists well-educated??

ROTFLMAO!
Educated in what, the arts? That's like asking why so many creationist are well-educated.

[AdmiralKanos]

In my experience, communists and communist sympathizers are almost always liberal arts-educated. There was not a single communist in any of my engineering classes, but there were numerous communists in the philosophy, history, and English literature courses (not surprising; engineers tend to go with what WORKS, while the others go with what moves their emotions).

In any case, most of these communists quickly lose their foolish ideas once they graduate university and enter the workforce. Moving off the government dole and into the position of taxpayer tends to do that to a person, and in fact, having worked in many factories over the years, I can say without hesitation that there is MORE open hostility toward communism among blue-collar workers (ie- the proletariat) than there is among ivory-tower intellectuals, not less.

Communism is a hothouse flower. It can only thrive in a protected environment. That applies to both the system itself and its intellectual support. Fears of society collapsing if you don't outlaw the communist party are moronic.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In my experience, communists and communist sympathizers are almost always liberal arts-educated. There was not a single communist in any of my engineering classes, but there were numerous communists in the philosophy, history, and English literature courses (not surprising; engineers tend to go with what WORKS, while the others go with what moves their emotions).

In any case, most of these communists quickly lose their foolish ideas once they graduate university and enter the workforce. Moving off the government dole and into the position of taxpayer tends to do that to a person, and in fact, having worked in many factories over the years, I can say without hesitation that there is MORE open hostility toward communism among blue-collar workers (ie- the proletariat) than there is among ivory-tower intellectuals, not less.

Communism is a hothouse flower. It can only thrive in a protected environment. That applies to both the system itself and its intellectual support. Fears of society collapsing if you don't outlaw the communist party are moronic.

My thoughts and experiences coincide with that too, like anarchists, it's usually those that think they can radically alter the world and are the first to think this, usually liberal and practically always humanities majors or potential ones.

[Axis Kast]

Communism is a hothouse flower. It can only thrive in a protected environment. That applies to both the system itself and its intellectual support. Fears of society collapsing if you don't outlaw the communist party are moronic.

Making Communism illegal would impede its ability to be spread and/or advocated on the public forum. While I don't honestly believe that the power of Communists in this nation is such that they can mount a credible threat, I'd certainly rather they weren't allowed to expound on their doctrine at all.

[Gerard_Paloma]

In that case, I fully advocate hypocrisy, as you suggest.
One must always make an argument that is convincing, but never necessarily satisfying (or, in most cases, even logical).

This is fucking hilarious. It's going in my sig.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Grr. Damn auto-logging in. That was me, not Gerard.

[Axis Kast]

This is fucking hilarious. It's going in my sig.

Do you deny that a convincing argument must always be logical?

[Axis Kast]

Er, that a convincing argument does not always have to be logical.

[Cpt_Frank]

Er, that a convincing argument does not always have to be logical.

If an argument is not logical then it's invalid anyways, so what should be convincing about it???

[Axis Kast]

If an argument is not logical then it's invalid anyways, so what should be convincing about it???

Since when does an argument’s being invalid necessarily render it unconvincing?

Nothing should be unconvincing, but that’s unfortunately not always the case.

Take, for example, human fear. Often, illogical arguments and ridiculous conclusions fuel conflict between different ethnic or social groups worldwide. Only in isolated cases can these people actually expound upon the basis for their hate and rage in a logical manner. Pogroms are the perfect example. Is, “These people use human babies for sacrifice,” actually a logical argument? How about, “Jews have horns on their head,” or, “All gypsies are money-grubbing pagans?” Does that mean people didn’t listen to and act out based on said fears?

[Tom_Aurum]

So... uhm... nice way to take my words out of context and claim that I'm admitting something I'm not. Did you miss the word I put in the middle of the sentence? IF. Some people need to take some english.

“Even if” is generally the precursor to an admission. Not to mention that you continually allude – as in your next quote – to the violent results of Communism, or in your opinion, its derivatives.

Hi. I'm saying this once and only once.

I said something and I said what I said. Not what you think I said, and no, I was making no such admission. Do not missattribute what I say.

Oh, and the only reason the paris commune was unsuccessful was because a bunch of armed twits decided to come in and kill everyone responsible. This is why communism after was so militant.

[RedImperator]

So quit bullshitting me.The question in this thread is "Should Communism be banned", and you've come down firmly in the affirmative.

It seems to me, that it is you who don't understand or don't read carefuly.
I'm not bullshiting anyone. I have remarked several times, that i would ban ONLY a partie (communist or whatever) if it ATTENTS AGAINST the democracy and constitution. So I am NOT contradicting myself.

You can split hairs all you like, but you're still punishing people for holding an undesireable viewpoint. Taking away someone's right to be represented in Parliament or Congress or the National Assembly or the Duma or anything else because of his THOUGHTS, rather than his ACTIONS, is a blatant infringement of free speech. I understand this just fine, and so does everyone else in this thread, including those who are in favor of outlawing Communism. You can't, for some reason upon which I refuse to speculate.

And by the way, since Marxism is inherently undemocratic, banning all undemocratic parties would involve banning all Marxist parties. So concession accepted.

"Should Communism be banned", my answer is NO, the movement and ideology shouldn't be banned and the partie should also be legal as long as it does NOT attent against the democracy or constitution. As I also remarked before, there should NOT be PUNISHMENT or PERSECUTION
for communist or other ideologies. OF COURSE their right to campaign for public office would be removed if they are antidemocratic but their would still have the right to vote.

So we're back around to where we started. You'll undermine democracy by punishing people for their thoughts, not their actions. All this argle-bargle is just a smokescreen for that basic point. At least Axis Kast is honest enough to admit up front he wants to restrict freedom of speech.

YOU should pay fucking attention. I am saying to not allow any partie in the parlament that is antidemocratic. It restringes the freedom of association, but I am not saying that they shouldn't have their meetings, commies weekend excursions or whatever they want. So they can have a political partie, but without having the right to present to office.

I am paying attention, and what I see is a wall of ignorance. You refuse to see that banning people from political representation for their thoughts is undemocratic, not to mention a lousy precedent (in American law at least, there's no punishment of any kind for holding ANY thought, no matter how repugnant, and I assume it's the same is the rest of the West).

By the way, nice of you to add all these qualifiers now and claim you've been saying them all along. Your understanding of what happens when a political party is banned is apparently different from mine. I say when a party is banned, the party is forbidden to undertake any political activities. You've come up with a chickenshit definition when all that's verboten is for a member of a banned party to serve in elective office--they can still meet, hold rallies, publish, etc.

So let's see who's right, shall we? I believe someone in this thread (possibly you) mentioned a Basque nationalist party recently outlawed in Spain. What was the result?

Court ruling
Public rallies and demonstrations banned
Offices to be closed, with water, electricity and telephones cut off
Party representatives barred from next year's local elections
All assets seized and bank accounts frozen

Source

That sounds like a hell of a lot more than simply being forbidden to send a representative to Parliament. In this party's case, they're even having their assets siezed, which would be a major violation of due process of law in this country. However, since the Spanish government is alledging that this party is merely the political arm of the ETA, perhaps they're a special case. So let's look at another example, this one from your own country.

The German Government has banned the German branch of an international white supremacist group called Blood and Honour.
The German Interior Minister, Otto Schily, said the group was spreading Nazi messages.

He said some of those arrested after a recent spate of attacks on foreigners in Germany had been inspired by music played at concerts organised by the group.

But he said there was no evidence directly implicating Blood and Honour in the attacks.

The ban comes as a German Government commission considers whether to outlaw the biggest far-right group in Germany, the National Democratic Party (NPD), because of the racist attacks.

Blood and Honour has about 200 German members, Mr Schily said.

Raids

In a series of raids, police confiscated propaganda material and bank books listing deposits "in five figures," he said.

"Germany is the first nation to fight this organisation this way," Mr Schily said of the ban against Blood and Honour.

The group was founded in the UK and spread to Germany in 1994, where it has ties to the NPD. It is now active worldwide.

"It's enough that they adopted the goal of spreading Nazi ideology," Mr Schily said, justifying the ban. The group's activities "poison the bodies and hearts" of young people, he said.

"We are looking into whether it will be necessary to ban other groups," Mr Schily added.

Germany is currently engrossed in a wide-ranging debate over ways to tackle right-wing extremism.

Last month three German skinheads were sentenced to long jail terms for the murder of a Mozambican man in a vicious racist attack in the east German town of Dessau.

The murder was one of three this year blamed on extreme-right groups.

Such attacks were further highlighted at the end of July when a bomb in Duesseldorf seriously injured 10 foreigners - six of them Jews.

Emphasis mine.
Source

This wasn't even a political party that was banned. Are you still insisting that "banned" means that a group is denied the legal right to place members in parliament? One more just for fun, again from Germany:

A senior member of the German government is calling for a ban on extreme right-wing parties in Germany, following a wave of attacks on Jews and foreigners.

The Green Party Environment Minister, Juergen Trittin, proposed court action and raised the prospect of a ban on groups like the far-right National Party, the NPD.

Similar proposals were made by politicians from the state of Bavaria and the police officers' trade union.

Public pressure for action has grown after a bomb blast last week at a railway station in Duesseldorf, which injured 10 recent immigrants, six of them Jews. The attacks were blamed on neo-Nazi groups.

Mr Trittin is on record as saying that the death toll now from right-wing attacks has already exceeded the number of killings by extreme left groups during their campaign of violence in the 1970s.

Outspoken

"There has always been hostility toward foreigners, but what we are now experiencing is beginning to take on a new dimension," said Mr Trittin.

"Many radical-right culprits believe they are acting in consensus with the population. We must destroy the belief that they are secretly acting on behalf of the population."

Mr Trittin is regarded as one of the more outspoken members of Chancellor Schroeder's government. A ban has traditionally been regarded as potentially counter-productive.


But the deputy leader of the police officers' trade union, Konrad Freiberg, has already given the idea his backing.

He said it would help with what he called the logistics of breaking up the neo-Nazi scene.

The authorities in Germany have already drafted plans to curb right-wing violence against foreigners.

State and federal interior ministry officials have agreed to concentrate their efforts on known neo-Nazi organisations, as well as improving security at Jewish sites.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed action
Ban far-right groups
Shut down neo-Nazi internet sites
Improve security for Jews
Compile racists list
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This would include, where possible, shutting down neo-Nazi sites on the internet, which is being used to link different extremist groups.
The officials said they would also set up a national database listing people convicted of racist offences to help the police concentrate their efforts.

There have also been demands for tougher penalties for offenders.

However, the German Justice Minister, Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, said that new laws were not needed, but existing ones must be more strictly enforced.

Punished

She said that anyone who committed an anti-foreigner crime must know that they would be severely punished.

Statistics released by the German Government on Monday show an increase in anti-Semitic offences in the past three months to 157, compared with 110 cases during the same period last year.

Other offences by right-wing extremists, generally against foreigners, also rose.

The problem is particularly severe in eastern Germany, which is still suffering from high unemployment and the huge social changes that followed the collapse of communism.

Emphasis mine.
Source

Given these examples, it seems my interpretation of "to ban" in a European political context is much closer to reality than yours. So you'll forgive me if my psychic powers were unable to discern that you'd changed the meaning of "ban" to suit your own purposes after you'd been challenged. You're either a poor communicator or you're trying to make it look like you're not backtracking. All of this, however, is just a sideshow, since you conceded above and you'll concede below that you'll punish people for holding undesireable political views.

Since they would remain with the freedom of association they would have enough resources to publish a newspaper or if they have enough money a fucking radiostation or tv channel or whatever they fucking want.

That's funny--according to the entire rest of the world's definition of "banning" a party, they CAN'T do this AT ALL.

I am only taking them away the right to run for office, so they can't take away ALL of our rights. It's like I would not let have a guy a weapon, knowing he wants to kill me with it.

Concession accepted. You DO advocate punishing people for their thoughts rather than their actions.

In my opinion, not allowing an ANTI-DEMOCRATIC partie present to ellection is not violating the freedom of speech of someone. If for you both things are the same, then we won't never end this discussion.

What the fuck kind of statement is that? How is banning someone from political representation based solely on an undesireable political view NOT a violation of freedom of speech? This isn't yelling "fire" in a cowded theater, something that puts other people's lives in immediate jeopardy, or inciting a riot, which does the same--this is holding an undesireable political view that, according to your loose definition, might not even advocate putting anyone's rights in danger aside from their right to vote (a party in favor of a benevolent dictatorship that brings peace and justice to all without hurting anyone or taking anyone's property away is, technically, anti-democratic).

You're right, though, that this discussion will never end if we don't resolve that last point--I'll just be banging on a wall of ignorance all day, and I've got better things to do. In case you haven't noticed, you're the ONLY person in this thread to make the ridiculous claim that banning Communism doesn't violate freedom of speech (among other rights)--the others on your side simply admit that it does and argue that it's worth the trade-off.

[Axis Kast]

I said something and I said what I said. Not what you think I said, and no, I was making no such admission. Do not missattribute what I say.

It’s a matter of opinion. I’m not responsible for the words that come out of your mouth.

Oh, and the only reason the paris commune was unsuccessful was because a bunch of armed twits decided to come in and kill everyone responsible. This is why communism after was so militant.

… And you’ve done it again. “This is why Communism after was so militant>” You’ve just admitted that Communism is a violent movement in practice.

“Armed twits?” The Paris Commune was a “concerned citizens’” defense taken to the point of disaster. It was a wartime effort to scavenge for food and maintain order during a siege.

So we're back around to where we started. You'll undermine democracy by punishing people for their thoughts, not their actions. All this argle-bargle is just a smokescreen for that basic point. At least Axis Kast is honest enough to admit up front he wants to restrict freedom of speech.

This entire affair is about hairsplitting. Any law would have to specifically target pamphlets advocating violent Marxism or Communism – ie, references to liquidation of the bourgeoisie or class warfare. The obvious legal channel is that Marxism is a challenge to the general peace.

As for hypocrisy? It’s inevitable. The point is that Communism is one of the few violent movements outside Fascism that can be banned without too much backlash.

[Raptor 597]

Then why are so many communists well-educated??

ROTFLMAO!
Educated in what, the arts? That's like asking why so many creationist are well-educated.

Well, I was. Though I qualify as far above average intelligence. I didn't really care as there was no opposition to argue with so I justsat back and learned other things.

[RedImperator]

I've met a few Communist engineers, but the vast majority of university science and engineering departments are composed pragmatists who don't have any tolerance for that crap--a lot of them strike me as nearly libertarian, or else their political position consists of "A pox on both your houses". Most of the hardcore lefties turn up in the humanities--philosophy, literature, i.e. things that can't be applied at all in the real world. Business majors are conservatives almost to the last. The soft sciences--political science, sociology, anthropology, and psychology--tend to lean left but aren't usually outright Commies (the exception being Econ majors, who are much more conservative). History majors tend to lean left but have seen too many body counts to go hard left (the exception is the military types--a military history class or a class about a particuar war will be practically a Republican redoubt).

[Wedge]

You can split hairs all you like, but you're still punishing people for holding an undesireable viewpoint. Taking away someone's right to be represented in Parliament or Congress or the National Assembly or the Duma or anything else because of his THOUGHTS, rather than his ACTIONS, is a blatant infringement of free speech. I understand this just fine, and so does everyone else in this thread, including those who are in favor of outlawing Communism. You can't, for some reason upon which I refuse to speculate.

So we're back around to where we started. You'll undermine democracy by punishing people for their thoughts, not their actions. All this argle-bargle is just a smokescreen for that basic point. At least Axis Kast is honest enough to admit up front he wants to restrict freedom of speech.

Banning a party IS undemocratic, I know it, and I have admit it before.
I've also never negated that I am taking away someone's right to run for office for his thoughts rather than for his actions.

I am paying attention, and what I see is a wall of ignorance. You refuse to see that banning people from political representation for their thoughts is undemocratic,...

emphasis mine

Hmm, and what is this?:

Hmm, so I am supporting an undemocratic ideal, yes but only to defend democracy (even if it is a paradox).

As you can see I already said that I knew it was undemocratic, next time pay more attention.

...not to mention a lousy precedent (in American law at least, there's no punishment of any kind for holding ANY thought, no matter how repugnant, and I assume it's the same is the rest of the West).

Here in Germany the freedom of speech is not absolute, it is punished to hold Nazi propaganda speeches.
IIRC in the USA you also have some hate-speech laws.

By the way, nice of you to add all these qualifiers now and claim you've been saying them all along. Your understanding of what happens when a political party is banned is apparently different from mine.

Yes, that's the main problem here, but since the begining I have been saying how it SHOULD be. I will REPEAT it once again, I think we ONLY should remove them their right to run for office. Preserving the right of freedom of speech.

For me the right to run for office is separated from the freedom of speech. My definition of freedom of speech is, when you can think and preach what you want, without being persecuted or put in jail. Also I THINK hate-speech should not be tolerated.

So let's see who's right, shall we? I believe someone in this thread (possibly you) mentioned a Basque nationalist party recently outlawed in Spain. What was the result?

Court ruling
Public rallies and demonstrations banned
Offices to be closed, with water, electricity and telephones cut off
Party representatives barred from next year's local elections
All assets seized and bank accounts frozen

Source

Yes, they weren't only not allowed to run for office, also their rallies and demonstrations were banned, but they actually passed to ACTION, there were proves that members of this party were also E.T.A. terrorist.
The party was banned not only because their believes or having links with E.T.A., because it's E.T.A. itself. So that's why their bank accounts where frozen, I think it's logical they don't want terrorist to have money.
If E.T.A. wouldn't do terrorist acts like planting bombs (actions) I'm sure this party wouldn't have been banned.

So let's look at another example, this one from your own country.
snip article

The white supremacist group has been prohibited for spreading Nazi propaganda which is illegal in Germany.

This wasn't even a political party that was banned. Are you still insisting that "banned" means that a group is denied the legal right to place members in parliament?

Maybe I should have used another word instead of banned, but I am not negating that groups have been completely banned. I only told how I think it should be, since the beginnig I said that they should remain with there freedom of speech and should only be removed from their right to run for office.

Given these examples, it seems my interpretation of "to ban" in a European political context is much closer to reality than yours So you'll forgive me if my psychic powers were unable to discern that you'd changed the meaning of "ban" to suit your own purposes after you'd been challenged.

Bullshit, I didn't change my definition of "ban" after I was challenged as you are trying to make it seem. Since my first post reffering to this theme I think I made myself clear.

I think that all political parties that promulgate the end of democracy should be banned, wether they are fascist, communists or others. Of course there should have freedom of speech, but i think they should not have a representation in the parlament if they want to destroy democracy.

As you can see when I used the word "ban" I meant only banning their representation in the parlament.

You're either a poor communicator or you're trying to make it look like you're not backtracking.

Maybe I am a poor communicator, I don't know, english isn't my mother language, but I am not backtracking as you seem to accuse me.

All of this, however, is just a sideshow, since you conceded above and you'll concede below that you'll punish people for holding undesireable political views.

I admited that since the beginnig too, if with punish you mean take them their right to run for office.

That's funny--according to the entire rest of the world's definition of "banning" a party, they CAN'T do this AT ALL.

As I said above maybe the word "ban" wasn't the apropiate, but I think I made it clear that I meant only removing the partie from parlament.

Concession accepted. You DO advocate punishing people for their thoughts rather than their actions.

Yes, I never negated it, if with punish you mean take them their right to run for office, not another form of higher punishment.

...This isn't yelling "fire" in a cowded theater, something that puts other people's lives in immediate jeopardy, or inciting a riot, which does the same--this is holding an undesireable political view that, according to your loose definition, might not even advocate putting anyone's rights in danger aside from their right to vote (a party in favor of a benevolent dictatorship that brings peace and justice to all without hurting anyone or taking anyone's property away is, technically, anti-democratic).

Yes, it could happen that a party would be in favor of a benevolent dictatorship, but along the history there haven't been to many examples for dictators that brought peace and justice without hurting anyone. So I preffer not to take that risk.

[Wicked Pilot]

I think that all political parties that promulgate the end of democracy should be banned, wether they are fascist, communists or others.

Quit backpeddling and just shut up. Everytime you post, that hole you dug simply gets one foot deeper.

[Wedge]

I think that all political parties that promulgate the end of democracy should be banned, wether they are fascist, communists or others.

Quit backpeddling and just shut up. Everytime you post, that hole you dug simply gets one foot deeper.

I think if you quote the next sentence too it is easier to understand what I meant with banning a party, here it is again:

I think that all political parties that promulgate the end of democracy should be banned, wether they are fascist, communists or others. Of course there should have freedom of speech, but i think they should not have a representation in the parlament if they want to destroy democracy.

I suppose you understood me wrong.

[RedImperator]

You can split hairs all you like, but you're still punishing people for holding an undesireable viewpoint. Taking away someone's right to be represented in Parliament or Congress or the National Assembly or the Duma or anything else because of his THOUGHTS, rather than his ACTIONS, is a blatant infringement of free speech. I understand this just fine, and so does everyone else in this thread, including those who are in favor of outlawing Communism. You can't, for some reason upon which I refuse to speculate.

So we're back around to where we started. You'll undermine democracy by punishing people for their thoughts, not their actions. All this argle-bargle is just a smokescreen for that basic point. At least Axis Kast is honest enough to admit up front he wants to restrict freedom of speech.

Banning a party IS undemocratic, I know it, and I have admit it before.
I've also never negated that I am taking away someone's right to run for office for his thoughts rather than for his actions.

Well, we're finally getting a coherent position out of you. It's a shitty position, but a position nonetheless. So, kindly explain how if the government makes it a crime to have certain THOUGHTS (and since you've already conceded people can be punished for having these thoughts, you have created a thoughtcrime, even if the punishment seems fair to you), that is somehow less dangerous for democracy than Communists, Fascists, fundamentalist theocrats, and what have you being allowed to express their views and expose them to public scrutiny? Are you saying the public is too stupid to be trusted with dangerous ideas? Do you believe that government, given the power to define what ideas are too dangerous to be allowed, is somehow less dangerous than these groups? What's to stop the ruling party from arbitrarily labeling a pesky opponent as "undemocratic" and banning it, other than the whim of the majority? How do you protect the rights of the minority if the government can silence viewpoints it considers dangerous?

There's a reason my own country doesn't allow the government to muzzle its opponents: every now and then, the radicals are right. Under your system, abolitionists couldn't have run for political office in the 1850's because they openly advocated infringing on the property rights of slaveowners, and some, like John Brown, advocated violence against slaveowners directly (he actually attempted to set off a slave rebellion, but he failed miserably and was hanged). And don't think for a minute that had they the power, a Southern-controlled Democratic party and a southern-sympathizing Supreme Court wouldn't have done it, either.

I am paying attention, and what I see is a wall of ignorance. You refuse to see that banning people from political representation for their thoughts is undemocratic,...

emphasis mine

Hmm, and what is this?:

Hmm, so I am supporting an undemocratic ideal, yes but only to defend democracy (even if it is a paradox).

As you can see I already said that I knew it was undemocratic, next time pay more attention.

You STILL don't get it. The idea itself isn't just anti-democratic. OUTLAWING UNDESIREABLE POINTS OF VIEW PRECLUDES DEMOCRACY. By outlawing any and all parties that stand in favor of ending democratic government, you have taken away from the people the right to govern themselves as they see fit. The only thing the people ought to be prevented from doing is infringing on the rights of minorities (be they ethnic, economic, religious, political, or what have you), and you do that by punishing actions taken against those minorities, not outlawing any belief that would infringe on those rights if put into policy.

...not to mention a lousy precedent (in American law at least, there's no punishment of any kind for holding ANY thought, no matter how repugnant, and I assume it's the same is the rest of the West).

Here in Germany the freedom of speech is not absolute, it is punished to hold Nazi propaganda speeches.
IIRC in the USA you also have some hate-speech laws.

The closest thing we have are longer sentences for when acts of violence against individuals are motivated by racism or homophobia. If the Nazis want to march down Broadway, all they need is a permit from the city to block traffic.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, and that includes the freedom to hold repugnant beliefs.

By the way, nice of you to add all these qualifiers now and claim you've been saying them all along. Your understanding of what happens when a political party is banned is apparently different from mine.

Yes, that's the main problem here, but since the begining I have been saying how it SHOULD be. I will REPEAT it once again, I think we ONLY should remove them their right to run for office. Preserving the right of freedom of speech.

Do I have to draw a fucking picture here? Removing someone's right to do ANYTHING based on the opinions they hold is a violation of freedom of speech. You don't have to fine them or throw them in jail for it to be a violation.

For me the right to run for office is separated from the freedom of speech.

Tough. It's not separated if you take away the right to run for office because of someone's political opinions. You are punishing someone for their beliefs, and that's a violation of free speech no matter how minor or unconnected you consider the punishment. You could say that Nazis aren't allowed to plant pink roses in their gardens because of their beliefs, and that's STILL violating freedom of speech.

My definition of freedom of speech is, when you can think and preach what you want, without being persecuted or put in jail. Also I THINK hate-speech should not be tolerated.

And yet you violate your own definition by taking away people's right to run for office because of their beliefs. That's persecution too, you know, even if they're not rotting in prison or being hanged in the town square.

As for hate speech, it shouldn't be tolerated BY INDIVIDUALS. With the right to say whatever you want comes the responsibility to face the consequences, and by all means part of those consequences should be universal revulsion on the part of civilized people if your views are repugnant enough. However, the government has no right to tell those people what they can and cannot say. Neither the government nor a tyranny of the majority has the right to decide what is and what isn't acceptable to think.

<snip stuff related to the definition of "ban">

Maybe I should have used another word instead of banned, but I am not negating that groups have been completely banned. I only told how I think it should be, since the beginnig I said that they should remain with there freedom of speech and should only be removed from their right to run for office.

Fair enough; you only want to prevent people with undesireable opinions from running for office, even though elsewhere in this reply you also say that hate speech shouldn't be tolerated (presumably by the government). This whole issue is basically a sideshow anyway, since even this watered-down ban is undemocratic and violates free speech.

Given these examples, it seems my interpretation of "to ban" in a European political context is much closer to reality than yours So you'll forgive me if my psychic powers were unable to discern that you'd changed the meaning of "ban" to suit your own purposes after you'd been challenged.

Bullshit, I didn't change my definition of "ban" after I was challenged as you are trying to make it seem. Since my first post reffering to this theme I think I made myself clear.

You didn't make yourself clear at all. You made very unambiguous statements that you thought anti-democratic parties should be banned and it wasn't until you were challenged on them did you say that rather then the definition of banned that everyone else uses, you had concocted your own watered-down version that magically let you ban people from political office for their opinions and preserve free speech simultaneously.

I think that all political parties that promulgate the end of democracy should be banned, wether they are fascist, communists or others. Of course there should have freedom of speech, but i think they should not have a representation in the parlament if they want to destroy democracy.

As you can see when I used the word "ban" I meant only banning their representation in the parlament.

For the final time, you can't preserve free speech if certain minorities are going to be punished for their views, no matter how minor you think the punishment is or how repugnant those views are.

You're either a poor communicator or you're trying to make it look like you're not backtracking.

Maybe I am a poor communicator, I don't know, english isn't my mother language, but I am not backtracking as you seem to accuse me.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't get your ideas across the first few times, but it's not your language skills--I can understand what you're writing just fine, and there are plenty of non-native English speakers on this board who have no trouble getting their points across.

All of this, however, is just a sideshow, since you conceded above and you'll concede below that you'll punish people for holding undesireable political views.

I admited that since the beginnig too, if with punish you mean take them their right to run for office.

Yet you won't admit that violates freedom of speech, even though it does by any remotely reasonable definition of the term.

<snip more talk on the meaning of the word "ban">

Concession accepted. You DO advocate punishing people for their thoughts rather than their actions.

Yes, I never negated it, if with punish you mean take them their right to run for office, not another form of higher punishment.

That's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately, ANY punishment (no matter how slight) for holding certain views tramples on free speech rights.

...This isn't yelling "fire" in a cowded theater, something that puts other people's lives in immediate jeopardy, or inciting a riot, which does the same--this is holding an undesireable political view that, according to your loose definition, might not even advocate putting anyone's rights in danger aside from their right to vote (a party in favor of a benevolent dictatorship that brings peace and justice to all without hurting anyone or taking anyone's property away is, technically, anti-democratic).

Yes, it could happen that a party would be in favor of a benevolent dictatorship, but along the history there haven't been to many examples for dictators that brought peace and justice without hurting anyone. So I preffer not to take that risk.

In other words, a party doesn't even have to advocate infringing on the rights of other people--so long as it's opposed to democracy (however it's defined by the government), they lose their right to seek political office. You can be punished by the government not for actually harming others, not even for saying you wish to harm others, but just in the off chance you MAY harm others in some unspecified way at an unspecified time in the future (as if democratic governments don't pursue harmful policies--see the entire drug prohibition fiasco in the United States for one particularly rotten example). If you don't see what's wrong with this idea, then by your own standards, YOU ought not to be allowed to seek office, because you've utterly gutted the right of free people to say and think what they like without fear of reprisal of any kind from their government.

[Cpt_Frank]

Are you saying the public is too stupid to be trusted with dangerous ideas?

That, I believe, is indeed the point wedge is trying to make:
The problem the people who wrote the German constitution back in the 40s were facing, was how to prevent the Nazis or other radical groups from coming to power again.

The Weimar Republic had a constitution modeled after the US constitution, however most US citizens are almost fanatically democratic (a good thing), while many voters during the Weimar time actually wanted a dictatorship, and radical parties like the Nazis or the Communists got 30% of the votes at their best times.

To prevent that from happening again, the Grundgesetz sacrifices a part of the right of free speech - it was deemed necessary at that time.
They felt indeed that the German people should be kept away from such ideologies since they'd proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

(However I don't know if this is still necessary, with the NPD or Communists getting less than 1% at the last elections).

[Peregrin Toker]

What's to stop the ruling party from arbitrarily labeling a pesky opponent as "undemocratic" and banning it, other than the whim of the majority? How do you protect the rights of the minority if the government can silence viewpoints it considers dangerous?

Simple: In order to get a movement banned for being undemocratic, you will have to prove that it is undemocratic.

By outlawing any and all parties that stand in favor of ending democratic government, you have taken away from the people the right to govern themselves as they see fit.

No, you are taking away from "the people" the opportunity to legally establish dictatorship and oppress others.

What sort of person sees dictatorships as "governing people like the people see fit", other than one who endorses despotism? There will always be people who don't see the government type as fit, and under an undemocratic regime, these people will be persecuted for their opinions.

Face it, the term "benevolent tyrant" is an oxymoron.

[Axis Kast]

Just for the record - you know, in case anyone actually cares anymore -, I'm in favor of banning only Communism. And yes, it does run contrary to Democracy's ideals - but I'm also fairly positive that it's not the death blow so many fear.

[Dahak]

[
Banning a party IS undemocratic, I know it, and I have admit it before.
I've also never negated that I am taking away someone's right to run for office for his thoughts rather than for his actions.

Banning a party is not always undemocratic. Germany banned 2 parties in its post-Nazi history, because those parties where actively working against the democratic foundation. And in that case it is necessary for a democracy to defend itself from enemies within. (That's our FDGO)

Here in Germany the freedom of speech is not absolute, it is punished to hold Nazi propaganda speeches.
IIRC in the USA you also have some hate-speech laws.

The ban on Nazi-propaganda is only a small part of it. The bigger part of it is the general agreement that freedom of speech only goes so far as long it isn't infringing on your personal rights. That's why calling someone tosser is not protected by free speech.