Communism - should it be banned??

[Stuart Mackey]

Who said that? That is NOT a direct consecuence of banning dangerous political parties. Like I said before, freedom of speech should (and would) be preserved.

How is freedom of speech intact if you say that certain ideas must be forcibly removed from politics?

I want to make myself clear at this point.
An example for NOT having freedom of speech would be the witchhunt of communists in USA in the 50's .
What I am refering, is that someone can declare himself communist, christ, anarquist, moron or whatever he wants without being persecuted for that. But he should have no right to form a political partie whos intention is to destroy democracy.

If someone with this pov is so popular then no amount of banning will help you. The very essence of a free society is the choice of political ideals to follow. Who the fuck are you to say what I can and cannot beleive is best for my nation?

[RedImperator]

Thereby muzzling freedom of speech, press, and association in order to "protect" democracy from itself.

Who said that? That is NOT a direct consecuence of banning dangerous political parties. Like I said before, freedom of speech should (and would) be preserved.

YOU said that, dipshit, whether you're smart enough to realize it or not. By preventing people with similar political views from organizing, you HAVE placed a restriction on freedom of speech because you've restricted the freedom of a group of people based entirely on thier political views. Get that? Outlawing Communist parties punishes Communists for their views by taking away their right to associate, their right to publish, their right to organize, and their right to campaign for public office.

[Axis Kast]

No, he's arguing that Marx and Engels got their inspiration from the Parisians. The Communist Manifesto is a short introduction to Communism; Das Kapital is the basis you're thinking of, and THAT was heavily inspired by the Paris Commune.

About which Paris Commune are we talking? What comes immediately to mind is the Franco-Prussian War’s result – which, mind you, occurs after 1848.

(sigh) I forgot that Axis Kast thinks hypocrisy is a good thing.

If you define hypocrisy as the breaking of tradition in certain situations, I fail indeed to see how it is wrong.

[Darth Wong]

(sigh) I forgot that Axis Kast thinks hypocrisy is a good thing.

If you define hypocrisy as the breaking of tradition in certain situations, I fail indeed to see how it is wrong.

I define hypocrisy as principles which are selectively applied, whenever it is convenient to let you reach pre-determined conclusions. You defended this practice in the post to which I was replying.

Stop distorting things, asshole. No one is appealing to tradition by asking you not to be a fucking hypocrite. Failure to treat Christianity and Communism with the same principles is hypocrisy. Tradition has not one goddamned thing to do with what I've said.

[Keevan_Colton]

I think someone here's got tradition and precedent rather muddled....

[Andrew J.]

About which Paris Commune are we talking? What comes immediately to mind is the Franco-Prussian War’s result – which, mind you, occurs after 1848.

Probably the Franco-Prussian War one-Marx and Engels apparently thought it was some sort of success, but they thought a lot of other stupid stuff, too.

Das Kapital was published long after 1848 and the Manifest; in fact, some portions were only published after Marx's death, IIRC.

[Axis Kast]

I define hypocrisy as principles which are selectively applied, whenever it is convenient to let you reach pre-determined conclusions. You defended this practice in the post to which I was replying.

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).

Stop distorting things, asshole. No one is appealing to tradition by asking you not to be a fucking hypocrite. Failure to treat Christianity and Communism with the same principles is hypocrisy. Tradition has not one goddamned thing to do with what I've said.

Accusing somebody or some institution of hypocrisy is akin to implying a break with tradition or precedent (which are more or less the same thing).

And I didn’t say it wasn’t hypocrisy. Merely that it didn’t matter to me. The accusation of hypocrisy is an appeal to emotion. It has nothing to do with the validity of a given argument. For the second time, your argument that it would be “hypocritical” to ban one and not the other seemingly rests on an unstated belief that rendering Communism illegal would be unnecessary or even self-defeating. If this is so, state as much. The cry of “hypocrisy” is otherwise insufficient to justify your position.

[Axis Kast]

And the argument is that only Das Kapital established the precedent for violence and that it was itself predicated on the Commune?

[Darth Wong]

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).

I would insult you here, but simply quoting you is sufficient.

Accusing somebody or some institution of hypocrisy is akin to implying a break with tradition or precedent (which are more or less the same thing).

Wrong. Tradition and precedent are historical events used to colour the present. Hypocrisy is the uneven application of PRINCIPLES. Are you so dense that you can't figure that out?

And I didn’t say it wasn’t hypocrisy. Merely that it didn’t matter to me. The accusation of hypocrisy is an appeal to emotion.

No, it is an identification of an argument which is based on premises which you only apply where convenient.

It has nothing to do with the validity of a given argument.

It does when it concerns the formation of rules, since rules must be consistent in order to be useful.

For the second time, your argument that it would be “hypocritical” to ban one and not the other seemingly rests on an unstated belief that rendering Communism illegal would be unnecessary or even self-defeating. If this is so, state as much.

Of course it's unnecessary. Do you see communists taking over the US?

The cry of “hypocrisy” is otherwise insufficient to justify your position.

My position is only that a uniform application of your argument will lead to consequences you don't want, so you do not support the principles incorporated into your own argument. Instead, it is a mere flimsy justification for a pre-existing conclusion.

[Wedge]

If someone with this pov is so popular then no amount of banning will help you.

You are right, if anti-democratic movements become very popular then no amount of banning will help and I would leave the country.

The very essence of a free society is the choice of political ideals to follow.

You let them vote the democratic parties they want, so they have a choice, and if they want to vote a govern that would take them this priviledge away, why they vote in the first place?

They should get the right to a referendum if they collect a certain amount of signatures, so if the majority doesn't want democracy they would have
a way to get rid of it. A democracy doesn't work anyway if the majority doesn't want it.

Who the fuck are you to say what I can and cannot beleive is best for my nation?

What the hell, I am not fucking forcing you to believe anything. I am just advocating to ban anti-democratic parties in a democratic parlament. It would be just a meassure to protect democracy.

The best way to preserve democracy is with a good education system, like DW said before. In my opinion banning anti-democratic parties from parlament, would help to preserve democracy.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

The very essence of a free society is the choice of political ideals to follow.

You let them vote the democratic parties they want, so they have a choice, and if they want to vote a govern that would take them this priviledge away, why they vote in the first place?

How would I know? Why did germans vote for Hitler? The thing is it is the peoples choice, not the state's.

They should get the right to a referendum if they collect a certain amount of signatures, so if the majority doesn't want democracy they would have
a way to get rid of it. A democracy doesn't work anyway if the majority doesn't want it.

Or they can elect the people they want into office with a clear mandate..ie democracy

Who the fuck are you to say what I can and cannot beleive is best for my nation?

What the hell, I am not fucking forcing you to believe anything. I am just advocating to ban anti-democratic parties in a democratic parlament. It would be just a meassure to protect democracy.

I wrote that wrong, sorry, I shall rephrase it. By banning the political party of my choice you are effectivly forcing a undemocratic ideal onto me. Who gave you this right?

The best way to preserve democracy is with a good education system, like DW said before.

Correct

In my opinion banning anti-democratic parties from parlament, would help to preserve democracy.

Your education aint to great then is it? it is not the position of a democratic state to judge who is fit for office and who is not. This is something that can only be detirmined by the people, for the people.

[Wedge]

Thereby muzzling freedom of speech, press, and association in order to "protect" democracy from itself.

Who said that? That is NOT a direct consecuence of banning dangerous political parties. Like I said before, freedom of speech should (and would) be preserved.

YOU said that, dipshit, whether you're smart enough to realize it or not. By preventing people with similar political views from organizing, you HAVE placed a restriction on freedom of speech because you've restricted the freedom of a group of people based entirely on thier political views. Get that? Outlawing Communist parties punishes Communists for their views by taking away their right to associate, their right to publish, their right to organize, and their right to campaign for public office.

Only the last one, is what I want.
Like I said before

I have no problem with a communist party, if they swear to preserve the constitution and we can vote another partie to office in the next election.

Doesn't your president have to swear over the constitution to preserve democracy ?

[Axis Kast]

I would insult you here, but simply quoting you is sufficient.

Wow. You’ve wounded me so!

Wrong. Tradition and precedent are historical events used to colour the present. Hypocrisy is the uneven application of PRINCIPLES. Are you so dense that you can't figure that out?

Hypocrisy is the breaking of precedent. When two situations are not handled in the same manner, it is considered a form of hypocrisy.

No, it is an identification of an argument which is based on premises which you only apply where convenient.

Which is amoral but ultimately useful in many cases.

It does when it concerns the formation of rules, since rules must be consistent in order to be useful.

Correcting. Rules must be consistent in order to be respectable. That’s to say nothing of their popularity or enforceability.

For the third time: the chief problem is that Communism would be next-to-impossible to control even if illegal.

Keep in mind that nicotine and alcohol aren’t illegal despite the medical evidence that proves they are extremely harmful and addictive. The same problem lies with Christianity. Forget about Communism – banning Christianity would be outright dangerous.

Of course it's unnecessary. Do you see communists taking over the US?

No. Do I see them conspiring? Yes.

My position is only that a uniform application of your argument will lead to consequences you don't want, so you do not support the principles incorporated into your own argument. Instead, it is a mere flimsy justification for a pre-existing conclusion.

That’s a matter of opinion.

I’ve never once discussed banning Communism in relation to the “democratic question” about which so much other debate on this thread has revolved. You can’t know my principles, Wong, because I’ve stated nothing outside my belief that Communism is a danger.

[Wedge]

How would I know? Why did germans vote for Hitler? The thing is it is the peoples choice, not the state's.

The majority did not vote for Hitler (with the majority i mean more then 50%). The votes were splited in other parties. NSDAP never had enough seats in the parlament to govern on its own.

They should get the right to a referendum if they collect a certain amount of signatures, so if the majority doesn't want democracy they would have
a way to get rid of it. A democracy doesn't work anyway if the majority doesn't want it.

Or they can elect the people they want into office with a clear mandate..ie democracy

If there is a communist partie with 30% of the parlament seats,
the majority still wants democracy, but this 30% would it make virtually imposible to keep the parlament functioning, this happend in the Weimar Republik with the nazis.

I wrote that wrong, sorry, I shall rephrase it. By banning the political party of my choice you are effectivly forcing a undemocratic ideal onto me. Who gave you this right?

Hmm, so I am supporting an undemocratic ideal, yes but only to defend democracy (even if it is a paradox). But you are bitching about that undemocratic ideal while you are proclaming an undemocratic state? also a paradox?

Your education aint to great then is it? it is not the position of a democratic state to judge who is fit for office and who is not. This is something that can only be detirmined by the people, for the people.

Doesn't your president swear over your constitution to protect democracy? So that means that in theory there couldn't be an undemocratic president.

[Wedge]

Of course it's unnecessary. Do you see communists taking over the US?

No. Do I see them conspiring? Yes.

ROFL. That just knocked me out of my seat

[Wicked Pilot]

Doesn't your president swear over your constitution to protect democracy? So that means that in theory there couldn't be an undemocratic president.

He or maybe a future she swears to defend the constitution of the United States. That includes all the admendments, including admendment numero uno. Outlawing political parties is not only undemocratic, but unconstitutional.

[Wedge]

Doesn't your president swear over your constitution to protect democracy? So that means that in theory there couldn't be an undemocratic president.

He or maybe a future she swears to defend the constitution of the United States. That includes all the admendments, including admendment numero uno. Outlawing political parties is not only undemocratic, but unconstitutional.

Yes, maybe in the USA it's unconstitutional outlawing political parties,
but a undemocratic leader would never have the right to govern, because he/she has to swear to defend your constitution. So in theory you could never have a anti-democratic communist president even if the majority voted for him/her, but democratic parties would be srewed in parlament if there were a large percentage of antidemocratic representation.

[Wicked Pilot]

but a undemocratic leader would never have the right to govern,

If they are elected and they meet other age and residency requirements, then they have that right. You can unfortunately look no farther than Jesse Helms to see that this is the case.

because he/she has to swear to defend your constitution.

Talk is cheap. He/she also has to swear to cut taxes and improve education to get elected. That doesn't always happen does it?

So in theory you could never have a anti-democratic communist president even if the majority voted for him/her, but democratic parties would be srewed in parlament if there were a large percentage of antidemocratic representation.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the system of U.S. government, so I will try to educate you as to how it works. The president cannot change the constitution. If after four years this "undemocratic" president isn't reelected and refuses to step down, he/she will escorted out of the white house my armed members of a number of different federal agencies.

[Wedge]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the system of U.S. government, so I will try to educate you as to how it works. The president cannot change the constitution. If after four years this "undemocratic" president isn't reelected and refuses to step down, he/she will escorted out of the white house my armed members of a number of different federal agencies.

You are saying the same thing I do, he/she couldn't change the constitution or change the democracy into a dictatorial state legally, even with the approval of the majority of the population right? (sorry if i could not make myself clear)

So if the majority of the population of the USA wanted to change the govern into non-democratic (a dictatorship or a theocracy for example)they couldn`t do it LEGALLY, or did I get that wrong? If this is right, it wouldn't be to democratic don't you think? So in some democracys there are undemocratic "things" (don't know how to call it) and my proposal of banning antidemocratic parties wouldn't be that dramatical (as some want to make it see) in a democracy.

[AdmiralKanos]

Wedge, banning political discourse which fails to meet a standard is completely different from banning ACTIONS which fail to meet a standard. Think about this.

[Stuart Mackey]

How would I know? Why did germans vote for Hitler? The thing is it is the peoples choice, not the state's.

The majority did not vote for Hitler (with the majority i mean more then 50%). The votes were splited in other parties. NSDAP never had enough seats in the parlament to govern on its own.

I did imply they had enough to govern, I said why did germans vote for Hitler.

They should get the right to a referendum if they collect a certain amount of signatures, so if the majority doesn't want democracy they would have
a way to get rid of it. A democracy doesn't work anyway if the majority doesn't want it.

Or they can elect the people they want into office with a clear mandate..ie democracy

If there is a communist partie with 30% of the parlament seats,
the majority still wants democracy, but this 30% would it make virtually imposible to keep the parlament functioning, this happend in the Weimar Republik with the nazis.

In a modern democracy, 30% of the seats does not equate to having the ability to control the bussiness of parliment by virtue of only having 30% of the seats. You analogy is patently incorrect as those with 30% of the seats do not have enough seats to govern.

I wrote that wrong, sorry, I shall rephrase it. By banning the political party of my choice you are effectivly forcing a undemocratic ideal onto me. Who gave you this right?

Hmm, so I am supporting an undemocratic ideal, yes but only to defend democracy (even if it is a paradox). But you are bitching about that undemocratic ideal while you are proclaming an undemocratic state? also a paradox?

I am complaining that you would eliminate the right of people to vote for whom they please, no democratic state has that right. Also I am not proclaiming an undemocratic state, just the right to vote for whoever I want.

If people want a undemocratic state, who are you to say otherwise?

Your education aint to great then is it? it is not the position of a democratic state to judge who is fit for office and who is not. This is something that can only be detirmined by the people, for the people.

Doesn't your president swear over your constitution to protect democracy? So that means that in theory there couldn't be an undemocratic president.

I am a New Zealander, we do not have a president, we are a constitutional monarchy on the British pattern.

[Wedge]

Wedge, banning political discourse which fails to meet a standard is completely different from banning ACTIONS which fail to meet a standard. Think about this.

Yes, you are right, but for example if someone is saying he is going to kill me I will try to make it illegal for him to own a weapon, of course he could get it illegaly, but I will try my best to difficult him the access to a weapon that could kill me.


Like I said before, if there is a anti-democratic partie in the parlament who's only objective is to destroy the current democracy and constitution, and they have for example 30% of the votes, they would only disturb and make it nearly imposible for the democratic parties to build a functioning government and they would make it difficult to produce new laws. That's a reason why I propose the ban option.

[RedImperator]

Outlawing Communist parties punishes Communists for their views by taking away their right to associate, their right to publish, their right to organize, and their right to campaign for public office.

Only the last one, is what I want.
Like I said before

I have no problem with a communist party, if they swear to preserve the constitution and we can vote another partie to office in the next election.

Ahem.

You can bann communist parties, without banning christianity and it would not be hypocritical. Because a communist partie that attents against democracy has no right to exist in a democracy ( in my opinion).

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

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

I'm going to try to explain this to you one last time. Pay attention, okay?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't your president have to swear over the constitution to preserve democracy ?

They swear to protect the Constitution (usually over a Bible, which they're not legally required to do), which means if by some horrible accident of history a Communist was elected, he would have to abandon certain tenets of his ideology or face impeachment by Congress, watch his programs go down in flames in front of the Supreme Court, or, at worst, a military coup (since they ALSO take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution).

[Stuart Mackey]

Wedge, banning political discourse which fails to meet a standard is completely different from banning ACTIONS which fail to meet a standard. Think about this.

snip

Like I said before, if there is a anti-democratic partie in the parlament who's only objective is to destroy the current democracy and constitution, and they have for example 30% of the votes, they would only disturb and make it nearly imposible for the democratic parties to build a functioning government and they would make it difficult to produce new laws. That's a reason why I propose the ban option.

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

[Peregrin Toker]

But the question is: Is this as bad as repackaging despotism as freedom?

Many forms of despotism advertise themselves as freedom. Why would we want to be as bad as they are?

But is it despotism to ban an ideology which eventually leads to despotism if it becomes too popular?? Or just hypocritical??

No communist party will ever gain votes in a well-educated, knowledgeable populace.

Then why are so many communists well-educated??