The solution to retarded political groups is stronger education. If the general populace knows what a politician means when he says things, they can discern all of the crazy groups from all of the ones with a legitimate solution. It takes longer, but immediate change is not to be expected when running a nation.
Education is the key. I remember when there was a referendum to change the British voting system to the Australian one the people at my work were against it because of a supposed impartial flier, which said that the voting system was unpopular and used by only three countries in the world.
This leaflet was actually endorsed by the Conservatives through one of their lawyers.
Only if we can remove anyone who might potentially fuck up the nation.
Which would be...everyone. How about we use those taxes funding political campaigns for something useful? And how about private funding for similar political campaigns also be used for something useful? You donated how much to lobbying and a political campaign, and are now bitching about how you can't pay an extra $0.03 an hour for cost of living raise without laying off half your employees? I think you need to be firing someone...and it's not the people who're working to put food on the table. It's whoever is in charge of your money because clearly, you have money to burn pissing money away like that.
Well that's the point here. What's wrong with saying those things? The Daily gets away with it nearly every damn minute by simply sidestepping slurs and a lack of seriousness on it's part, but it does so.
The freedoms of the people, cosmopolitan or not, must be absolute, or else they are not free to begin with, but barely there.
It's the same hypocrisy that happens out with people who're proponents of "Freedom of Speech". People will happily support the whole "Free speech" thing until somebody doesn't agree with them. Then they try to silence them.
It's Hypocrisy for a whore government leading a nation into democracy and multiculturalism to ban groups of ANY nature, thats what.
And legally, the US has not banned any parties. McCarthy tried against the Communists, but it was nothing legal, just a blacklist and so. The Communists, The Nazis, all legal here and can be voted for. Nor the Spanish, as far as I can tell.
A democracy holds freedom when every idiot, from Anarchist to Nazi, can speak his mind, free from retribution, so long as he causes no bodily or criminal harm himself.
Is there not a pretty big space between "banning" a group and "shutting them up"? You mentioned that the U.S. has not legally banned any parties yet I think that most would agree that all nation states make attempts at 'shutting up' groups that they feel are a threat to themselves.
The original poster spoke of a debate that was ongoing in Europe. He made no suggestion that anyone was planning on some sort of a legal ban.
Your reference to the McCarthy hearings is interesting. The U.S. made no ban in regards to the Communists yet it was quite successful at "shutting them up".
Is this hypocrisy, or the usual business of a so called democracy?
Opinions are supposed to be valued in a democracy, even if you don't like them. I don't like the extreme left, nor aspects of the extreme right, nor aspects of favoritism groups that try to be superior to others, but I won't ban them if I had the chance - it'll make me look like a dictator, it will spit on the faces of the millions of followers those parties/groups have, and thus, to the people, in some extent, and so on.
The opinions that are valued most in a democracy are the opinions of the majority. Often, favored opinion will be contrary to what is in the best interest of the populace. One does not have to look far to see that this is so.
Having observed modern democracy for decades, I am now inclined to think that a benevolent dictatorship would likely be a more efficient and a more just system. Like yourself I am uncomfortable with extremists having an equal voice in matters of state. A dictatorship can ensure that extremists are unable to shout their way to power.
The one catch is the "benevolent" part. Not sure where to find a benevolent dictator.
A Gandhi type dictator will fall into the right wing. Gandhi cared for the Indian people and the Indian people alone. Now imagine a European one.
Now, if you want an egalitarian one, that's much harder, for good men start out with good intentions and then are trapped by the claws of power. A sort of balance must be needed to ensure a benevolent one stays benevolent, and then it goes on and on on where the line is and etc...this is why I'm going straight into political theory in college.
I can see a pretty good call for it, beyond simply "we don't like them". The BNP have long-established ties with terrorist and hate groups that engage in street-level violence, most notably Combat 18. They also have ties to neo-Nazis in Europe, who on one notable occasion terrorised the small West Country village that the BNP were holding their festival in. BNP activists and their allies have engaged in extensive campaigns of intimidation against political opponents, with a website called Redwatch devoted to broadcasting these people's identities and addresses with exhortations to attack them.
Can we really give money to them when there's the possibility that by doing so we are indirectly funding political violence?
Wasn't there also something in the media about posting the BNP supporters names and addresses online, or in areas the public could have access to, just like in every other major party, but there was an outcry by the BNP to prevent this?
If there was clear-cut evidence and enough abuse carried out I think it would result in police investigations and the conviction of several members, possibly enough to cripple the party.
I don't there's any need to ban such groups, since in any country where the majority of the population aren't idiots there's no danger of any radical far-right or far-left parties gaining any real power.
At the moment I think the worry comes from the fact that Greece have 12% of their "voting" population in favor of the extreme right parties. Due to the EU and Germany attempting to regulate the taxes and economical problems in that country.
GalacticGoatFeatured By OwnerFeb 10, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
As much as I hate dicks like those describe if you're going to remove funds based on ideologies you need to stop funding everyone. Unless you can prove if these people come into power they're going to murder everyone then you can't really legitimately take their funding away and in that case I think you should arrest them for admitting they plan to murder people rather then just defunding them.
Democracy isn't democracy if you say that certain people don't have the right to advocate for their opinion.
Racists, anti-inclusionists, ultra-nationalists. Sure some of these people are jerks, and yeah, they probably hold opinions you find wholly offensive.
But isn't that their right? What's the difference between telling people they can't participate equally because their opinions aren't government-approved, and telling people they have the wrong skin-color?
How are YOU any different from THEM? Their goal is to exclude people who don't share their opinions/race/nationality/favorite candy, and YOUR goal is to exclude people who don't share YOUR opinions/ideas on race or nationality.
It's funny when people attempt to advance democracy by advancing tyranny. It's doomed to fail, it always has, it always will and yet people still try so, so hard.
Opinions can be unpopular, opinions can be ugly and hurtful, but they can't be outright wrong. That's why they're opinions and not facts. Facts can be wrong. Opinions can by "wrong" only so much in that someone finds them morally objectionable.
But it's probably best that the only reason you have to say someone can't express their opinion is that YOUR morals are superior to theirs, I mean, that's why we're in most of these social messes to begin with.
Actually an opinion can be wrong when it's actually a fact that's being incorrectly touted as an opinion. For example, a person can have the "opinion" that blacks are inferior to whites, but that doesn't make it opinion or make them right.
That's still an opinion, it's a generalization, it's a stereotype, and it's not a fact.
Now, if they said "blacks are genetically inferior to whites" Sure, that's checkable by facts. If they said "Blacks are stupider than whites" that's checkable by facts.
But if all they're saying is "I think the social value of a black person is less than the social value of a white person." That's not a fact, that's an opinion. Society may disagree, but that doesn't make their opinion WRONG.
You are confusing "not being wrong" with being right. "Not being wrong" is different from being right, you can not be wrong, and also still not right.
So a person can hold an opinion such as: "I think Germany should be populated only by people with Germanic ancestry and only those who hold specific traits." And owing to the fact that it's an opinion, be neither right, nor wrong.
The fallacy that there are "right" and "wrong" opinions is what leads to this kind of freedom-oppressing bullshit.
The extreme left would become the left, the left would become a middle ground, the right would become the extreme right, the new left would be pedobear, and liberals would continue to force take over politics with dirty campaigns. IE: They would be screwed.
I think Jello Biafra (ex-frontman of the Dead Kennedys) makes a good point in the following quote:
"People say, "How do we take this music out of circulation?" I’m glad the 1st Amendment says you can’t. The best way to fight hate speech is with more and better speech and better education. The only way you can identify people succeptible to this message is if the message can be freely expressed. I’ve argued repeatedly with people in Germany that banning the swastika or banning people saying the Holocaust never happened is doing nothing to deter neo-Nazis. They just go further underground where you can’t figure out who they are until they’ve killed an innocent Turkish immigrant. If David Duke hadn’t been allowed to publish his racist literature, he’d have been elected governor of Louisiana. He was a very slick animal, he would say, "Oh, you have nothing to fear from me, I'm not what people say I am, I just don’t like welfare cheats.” Duke denied being a racist or anti-Semite before his opponent came out and said, "Look what you wrote in this book," and Duke was finally and deservedly crushed in the runoff. Duke was stopped because he was allowed to express his opinions publicly."