I’m being honest. I just don’t understand how you would make the distinction because they are all republicans. What about tankies, where would they fit in these? They are leftist but fascists all the same imo. Would Christians be killed as well? What about Muslims which have even more restrictive views on civil rights?
Where do you draw the line between who is defined as a fascist or isn’t I guess is the question, and how would you be able to tell them apart from a regular conservative?
Logistically this ends with everyone who identifies as republican getting killed. It’s the same situation with Trump and immigrants, he wants them all out but he can’t get them all out with due process because it’s impossible to do so, so the only way to get what he wants is to break every law in the process and send them to foreign gulags.
Either we believe in the democratic process or not. And let’s be clear, the democratic process means that if a majority votes for a tyrant, then democracy is working as intended. Using violence to avert such a result is inherently anti democratic. You can argue that it is the morally correct thing, which is arguably true, but we must also suspend the pretense that you believe in true democracy.
It’s also the kind of rhetoric that has given Trump the fuel to convince the masses that there’s a “radical left” plotting to destroy the country. Because this sort of idea does end with the destruction of the country and it is not clear to me that it ends in a liberal democracy and not in an illiberal democracy or a dictatorship of some kind.
Either we believe in the democratic process or not. And let’s be clear, the democratic process means that if a majority votes for a tyrant, then democracy is working as intended. Using violence to avert such a result is inherently anti democratic.
Bottom line: democracy has limits when it comes to groups that would dismantle democracy, even if they are voted in, because if elected, no one would ever have a voice again. Likewise, a free and fair society must be intolerant of intolerance.
I don’t think that free, fair society is necessarily equivalent with democracy. Democracy is simply the rule of the majority, and the majority can certainly choose to live in a society that is unfair and free except for a few. In fact that is mostly how democracy has operated for most of it’s history. You can also impose a free , fair society from the top down but it would require the ever elusive Philosopher King.
I’m just saying that if you’re willing to strike first against a political faction in what is still a free and democratic country, you’re better off not pretending that democracy is your North Star. Maybe it’s equality, or freedom, or fairness or any other ideal. But whatever the ideal is if you are willing to overturn violently what has been decided peacefully through elections, then you’re not a true believer of democracy.
I’m not the person you were originally replying to, but I think laws should be put in place to prevent extremist parties from being put on the ballot at all. Germany has the right idea.
But failing that, if a democratically-elected government comes to power and then proceeds to dismantle democracy, then it is in the most literal sense a tyrannical government, and tyrants must be overthrown by any means necessary.
I agree. It is a good mechanism to have though I worry that it can be abused.
This is why I always end up going to a more libertarian view of things. When there are rules, especially rules that are quite literally designed to be weapons, then there is a big risk for abuse. That’s why state sovereignty for me is such an important component of avoiding the bullshit Trump is (unsuccessfully I might add) trying to pull off. If the states are strong, then no tyrant can really fuck with them. Of course this also runs the risk of tyranny forming within a state, but in that case I think there are mechanisms to combat it, like the other states could embargo it etc.
My hope is that dems can recognize this and become the party of state sovereignty, though I think that ship has sailed for both parties.
I’m being honest. I just don’t understand how you would make the distinction because they are all republicans. What about tankies, where would they fit in these? They are leftist but fascists all the same imo. Would Christians be killed as well? What about Muslims which have even more restrictive views on civil rights?
Where do you draw the line between who is defined as a fascist or isn’t I guess is the question, and how would you be able to tell them apart from a regular conservative?
Logistically this ends with everyone who identifies as republican getting killed. It’s the same situation with Trump and immigrants, he wants them all out but he can’t get them all out with due process because it’s impossible to do so, so the only way to get what he wants is to break every law in the process and send them to foreign gulags.
Either we believe in the democratic process or not. And let’s be clear, the democratic process means that if a majority votes for a tyrant, then democracy is working as intended. Using violence to avert such a result is inherently anti democratic. You can argue that it is the morally correct thing, which is arguably true, but we must also suspend the pretense that you believe in true democracy.
It’s also the kind of rhetoric that has given Trump the fuel to convince the masses that there’s a “radical left” plotting to destroy the country. Because this sort of idea does end with the destruction of the country and it is not clear to me that it ends in a liberal democracy and not in an illiberal democracy or a dictatorship of some kind.
This is at best a deeply naive take.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Bottom line: democracy has limits when it comes to groups that would dismantle democracy, even if they are voted in, because if elected, no one would ever have a voice again. Likewise, a free and fair society must be intolerant of intolerance.
I don’t think that free, fair society is necessarily equivalent with democracy. Democracy is simply the rule of the majority, and the majority can certainly choose to live in a society that is unfair and free except for a few. In fact that is mostly how democracy has operated for most of it’s history. You can also impose a free , fair society from the top down but it would require the ever elusive Philosopher King.
I’m just saying that if you’re willing to strike first against a political faction in what is still a free and democratic country, you’re better off not pretending that democracy is your North Star. Maybe it’s equality, or freedom, or fairness or any other ideal. But whatever the ideal is if you are willing to overturn violently what has been decided peacefully through elections, then you’re not a true believer of democracy.
I’m not the person you were originally replying to, but I think laws should be put in place to prevent extremist parties from being put on the ballot at all. Germany has the right idea.
But failing that, if a democratically-elected government comes to power and then proceeds to dismantle democracy, then it is in the most literal sense a tyrannical government, and tyrants must be overthrown by any means necessary.
I agree. It is a good mechanism to have though I worry that it can be abused.
This is why I always end up going to a more libertarian view of things. When there are rules, especially rules that are quite literally designed to be weapons, then there is a big risk for abuse. That’s why state sovereignty for me is such an important component of avoiding the bullshit Trump is (unsuccessfully I might add) trying to pull off. If the states are strong, then no tyrant can really fuck with them. Of course this also runs the risk of tyranny forming within a state, but in that case I think there are mechanisms to combat it, like the other states could embargo it etc.
My hope is that dems can recognize this and become the party of state sovereignty, though I think that ship has sailed for both parties.