Should democracy get tough on communist party's in the west?

[Ovisterra]

Don't like that some guy is racist and owns a business? Then don't go there.

He can be racist all he likes and that's all very well and good, but if his business is actually discriminating based on race, we have a problem.

[Individual]

So, you're a minarchist, amirite? Then we seem to have a nice slice of common ground underneath us, excluding my anarcho-egoist attitude of not caring much about the regime, since I will still abuse the hell out of it as long as it rejects inviolable liberties every individuals ought to have, with me being at the head. As long as I'm doing well, the state can stay, but if not, thing are going to get a little bit more anarchic. As with civil liberties, answer me straight. Are you libertarian or minarchist on them, too? Or are you a liberal/libertarian conservative? Tell me more.

I tend not to classify myself as a minarchist due to my anti-drug ideals and neoconservative foreign policy. I prefer to call myself a moderate conservative.

National Coalition of Finland -style, eh? I'm from Finland as well, to tell the truth.

Stalinists in my opinion are all the same as fascists and all other authoritarians from left to right. I deem anarchist and libertarian leftists a lot more desirable than authoritarian right-wingers though. Objectivists, libertarians andd individualists in general are the most desirable to me, since I see objectivism, libertarianism, ancap, voluntaryism, individualism and the like as appropriate transitional stages to egoism.

I agree, I really don't see much difference between stalinism, hitlerist national socialism or most extreme forms of fascism; they are all authoritarian left-wing ideologies.

Economically, stalinism is on the extreme left. But nazism (excluding strasserism, which is economically left-wing as well) and fascism are neither on the left nor on the right; their economics are on the Third Position/Third Camp, which exercises radically nationalist economics. Fascism merges the state and corporate powers, forcing the private corporations to cooperate with the state, with strict governmental intervention being exercised.

[Ovisterra]

Banning a party for any reason is anti-democratic. Anyone who can drum up enough support to be on the ballot has the right to be on the ballot.

Interesting concept! Do you believe that for any situation?

Yes.

[Individual]

Banning a party for any reason is anti-democratic. Anyone who can drum up enough support to be on the ballot has the right to be on the ballot.

Interesting concept! Do you believe that for any situation?

Why should he not?

[Hippostania]

He can be racist all he likes and that's all very well and good, but if his business is actually discriminating based on race, we have a problem.

No, we don't. It's his business, and nobody is forced to go there. It's the same concept as with gay marriage; sure, it may offend some people but legalizing it does not violate anyone's rights. The fact that a private individual might deny someone access to his own business is completely acceptable; it's his business and he has a full right to do it. If someone doesn't like it, then they're not forced to go there. If enough people start boycotting him, he has to change his policy.

Of course, this kind of behavior should not be acceptable in schools or other government offices, where everyone should be treated equally.

[Individual]

Personally, being a Marxist-Leninist, i wish they'd just imprison all the "communists" in the parliament.

True communism is not obtained in the parliament of a corrupt, capitalist nation, rather in the streets, in the factories, in the demonstrations and in the revolutionary circles.
Accepting Democracy as we intend it today is just defecting the cause.

Ah, but what is 'true' communism, grasshopper?

[Souseiseki]

Surely you shouldn't interfere with other people's private business?

you'll probably say that people doing illegal things is different, but hey, that still includes interfering with peoples private business. that alone provides a massive number of times where even you will be dong a lot of interfering.

As I said, taxation a necessary evil that must be strictly kept at the lowest possible level.

some people would argue that higher taxation for the rich is also a necessary evil. the fact you are arguing that this violation of peoples property rights is a necessary evil doesn't really change the fact that you're still advocating violating peoples property rights, which is illegal under hippolaw.

unless you are willing to rescind the ban on violating property rights or just tell them they don't have full property rights.

[Individual]

He can be racist all he likes and that's all very well and good, but if his business is actually discriminating based on race, we have a problem.

No, we don't. It's his business, and nobody is forced to go there. It's the same concept as with gay marriage; sure, it may offend some people but legalizing it does not violate anyone's rights. The fact that a private individual might deny someone access to his own business is completely acceptable; it's his business and he has a full right to do it. If someone doesn't like it, then they're not forced to go there. If enough people start boycotting him, he has to change his policy.

Of course, this kind of behavior should not be acceptable in schools or other government offices, where everyone should be treated equally.

*AHEM* Public schools. Not private.

[Souseiseki]

He can be racist all he likes and that's all very well and good, but if his business is actually discriminating based on race, we have a problem.

No, we don't. It's his business, and nobody is forced to go there. It's the same concept as with gay marriage; sure, it may offend some people but legalizing it does not violate anyone's rights. The fact that a private individual might deny someone access to his own business is completely acceptable; it's his business and he has a full right to do it. If someone doesn't like it, then they're not forced to go there. If enough people start boycotting him, he has to change his policy.

Of course, this kind of behavior should not be acceptable in schools or other government offices, where everyone should be treated equally.

what if large numbers of people in town support it and don't boycott? what if every business in town tells the jews to get out? you're not forced to live in this town! hell, you're not forced to live in this country. if you don't like it well...

[Hippostania]

you'll probably say that people doing illegal things is different, but hey, that still includes interfering with peoples private business. that alone provides a massive number of times where even you will be dong a lot of interfering.

With interfering, I meant interfering in affairs which do not directly involve you. You don't like it? Well too bad. But if someone commits a crime or violates other person's right, then interfering is justified.

some people would argue that higher taxation for the rich is also a necessary evil. the fact you are arguing that this violation of peoples property rights is a necessary evil doesn't really change the fact that you're still advocating violating peoples property rights, which is illegal under hippolaw.

unless you are willing to rescind the ban on violating property rights or just tell them they don't have full property rights.

Killing is usually illegal too, but it can be legal in certain circumstances like self-defense. Still, that doesn't mean that you can go around killing everyone and claim that it's self-defense. In the same way, extremely limited taxation is acceptable.

[Imperiatom]

surely the market will solve the problem

i'm almost definitely going to force you to eat in the same building as jews and negros. i'm sorry but that's just the way it is. ):

hell, might be some gay people in there too. eww.

Surely you shouldn't interfere with other people's private business?

so you admit that taxation requires violating peoples property rights, but will do it anyway? are you sure you're not going to end up banning yourself?

As I said, taxation a necessary evil that must be strictly kept at the lowest possible level.

A little bit of taxation stops the Plebs from rebelling and gives the government the means of control (army, police). Too much taxation and the economy becomes too inefficient and breeds a sense of entitlement.

[Ovisterra]

He can be racist all he likes and that's all very well and good, but if his business is actually discriminating based on race, we have a problem.

No, we don't. It's his business, and nobody is forced to go there. It's the same concept as with gay marriage; sure, it may offend some people but legalizing it does not violate anyone's rights. The fact that a private individual might deny someone access to his own business is completely acceptable; it's his business and he has a full right to do it. If someone doesn't like it, then they're not forced to go there. If enough people start boycotting him, he has to change his policy.

Of course, this kind of behavior should not be acceptable in schools or other government offices, where everyone should be treated equally.

You're making a terrible comparison. Being racist is not like gay marriage, being racist is like outlawing gay marriage. It's the opposite of what you said.

"Well, if you don't like homophobic marriage laws, don't get married."

Because in the case of marriage equality, any two consenting adults can get married. It's equality. It's good. But when there's no marriage equality, same-sex couples can't get married. That's bad.

Because in the case of the racist shopkeeper, the issues is not that I have a problem with his/her beliefs, it's that his/her beliefs actively restrict the rights of people. You say "don't go to the shop", and you're right in a way because some people cannot. It's the opposite of marriage equality because the issues is that some people cannot do things.

Or, to put it more bluntly: your comparison makes no fucking sense, so kindly cut the crap and stop defending racists. You claim to champion "freedom" and yet here you are, tapdancing on the line of racism-by-proxy and claiming you're "defending rights" and using bullshit examples and comparisons to defend it. I'm sick and tired of this sort of shit.

[Hippostania]

what if large numbers of people in town support it and don't boycott?

Then surely they have a right to support this private business, right? Freedom of association and assembly and all that shit. Besides, that is such a hypothetical scenario that could never take place in the modern world.

what if every business in town tells the jews to get out? you're not forced to live in this town! hell, you're not forced to live in this country. if you don't like it well...

Yeah, that is eextreeemely plausible scenario! Once again, as long as the government does not discriminate against anyone, I don't see the problem with private individuals choosing their customers.

[Conserative Morality]

No, we don't. It's his business, and nobody is forced to go there. It's the same concept as with gay marriage; sure, it may offend some people but legalizing it does not violate anyone's rights. The fact that a private individual might deny someone access to his own business is completely acceptable; it's his business and he has a full right to do it. If someone doesn't like it, then they're not forced to go there. If enough people start boycotting him, he has to change his policy.

Of course, this kind of behavior should not be acceptable in schools or other government offices, where everyone should be treated equally.

Except he doesn't. You see, funny thing about American law...

[Souseiseki]

you'll probably say that people doing illegal things is different, but hey, that still includes interfering with peoples private business. that alone provides a massive number of times where even you will be dong a lot of interfering.

With interfering, I meant interfering in affairs which do not directly involve you. You don't like it? Well too bad. But if someone commits a crime or violates other person's right, then interfering is justified.

some people would argue that higher taxation for the rich is also a necessary evil. the fact you are arguing that this violation of peoples property rights is a necessary evil doesn't really change the fact that you're still advocating violating peoples property rights, which is illegal under hippolaw.

unless you are willing to rescind the ban on violating property rights or just tell them they don't have full property rights.

Killing is usually illegal too, but it can be legal in certain circumstances like self-defense. Still, that doesn't mean that you can go around killing everyone and claim that it's self-defense. In the same way, extremely limited taxation is acceptable.

"As long as the communists work within the framework of a representative democracy, denounce all forms of violent activity and do not intend to violate anyone's property rights, for example, by nationalizing companies or unfairly taxing high-wealth individuals or organizations. Well, unless I personally think it's ok, then you can violate peoples' property rights after all."

don't worry i've already taken the liberty of updating your post. this is the first draft.

[CTALNH]

Two university students and a couple of pamphlets on Stalin are a real threat to the status quo. Always have been.

So I am the enemy of the status quo?


I don't get it....

[Imperiatom]

Interesting concept! Do you believe that for any situation?

Yes.

So we were wrong to fight the Nazi's? They had a right to be there on the ballot paper and in government. You don't accept that democracy sometimes needs protection?

[Conserative Morality]

Then surely they have a right to support this private business, right? Freedom of association and assembly and all that shit. Besides, that is such a hypothetical scenario that could never take place in the modern world.

No, because that private business is not operating according to the law of the land. And do you really think that racism is so dead here?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Personally, being a Marxist-Leninist, i wish they'd just imprison all the "communists" in the parliament.

True communism is not obtained in the parliament of a corrupt, capitalist nation, rather in the streets, in the factories, in the demonstrations and in the revolutionary circles.
Accepting Democracy as we intend it today is just defecting the cause.

Or how about no.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Yes.

So we were wrong to fight the Nazi's? They had a right to be there on the ballot paper and in government. You don't accept that democracy sometimes needs protection?

Except the Nazis abandoned democracy, were elected without a majority and then subverted the German Constitution.

It's kind of not a democracy when you outlaw all other parties, as they did, and it became right to fight the Nazis once they got into power. I mean, Hitler and the other old guard members should have been banned from politics forever after the Munich Putsch and any organisation led by them declared illegal because of their leading it, which would have not been anti-democratic.

Two university students and a couple of pamphlets on Stalin are a real threat to the status quo. Always have been.

So I am the enemy of the status quo?


I don't get it....

Sarcasm.

[Souseiseki]

what if large numbers of people in town support it and don't boycott?

Then surely they have a right to support this private business, right? Freedom of association and assembly and all that shit. Besides, that is such a hypothetical scenario that could never take place in the modern world.

what if every business in town tells the jews to get out? you're not forced to live in this town! hell, you're not forced to live in this country. if you don't like it well...

Yeah, that is eextreeemely plausible scenario! Once again, as long as the government does not discriminate against anyone, I don't see the problem with private individuals choosing their customers.

why could it not take place in the modern world? look at how people treat the roma.

please, don't dodge it. what if the homeowners association decides there will be no juden in the area? is that a-ok, because hey, it's your private rights?

you also don't see the problem wi- no souseiseki, bad.

[CTALNH]

Personally, being a Marxist-Leninist, i wish they'd just imprison all the "communists" in the parliament.

True communism is not obtained in the parliament of a corrupt, capitalist nation, rather in the streets, in the factories, in the demonstrations and in the revolutionary circles.
Accepting Democracy as we intend it today is just defecting the cause.

Or how about no.

You do know that Marxist Leninist is how Stalinists call each other right?

[Ovisterra]

Yes.

So we were wrong to fight the Nazi's? They had a right to be there on the ballot paper and in government. You don't accept that democracy sometimes needs protection?

The Nazis had every right to be on the ballot. If a Nazi party were set up in my country today, I would agree they had a right to be on the ballot.

It was what they did afterwards that was wrong.

[Jassysworth 1]

I think there should be another option... where you diagnose all self-declared and genuine communists as mentally problematic and put them away.

It's healthier than the other poll options, prison or execution. It's not about punishing them for their beliefs... it's about simultaneously protecting society from them while helping them get over the mental blocks and become normal citizens again (rehabilitation).

It's not that communists WANT to be bad... it's not that they just want to cause chaos and destruction and advocate unrealistic policies. It's that something is different with them... unlike the 90%+ of the rest of the population, something is wired wrong and they for whatever reason... they think it's actually POSSIBLE to create a large scale classless, moneyless, and stateless society. This is a very dangerous disorder because the most serious sufferers of this madness will actually use violence to achieve their goals; the rest of them are equally dangerous because their instability makes them a liability to everyone else. One wrong trigger and they could snap and rise up against the government... for what they honestly believe are realistic, feasible, and possible objectives (while everyone else systematically and rationally rejects these utopian formulations).

It's clearly a sign of insanity if you believe in the possibility and feasibility of implementing a large scale stateless, moneyless, and classless society. We need to help these communists regain their rationality... they need our help and we as a society in the west should provide it.

Rehabilitation > Punishment

We can help them...

Think about it... it's much more realistic and feasibly than imprisoning or outright executing communists. It should be added as a poll option... I'd vote for it.

[Hippostania]

You're making a terrible comparison. Being racist is not like gay marriage, being racist is like outlawing gay marriage. It's the opposite of what you said.

No, racists and ultra-egalitarians are quite similar in this aspect. Both people want to ban something that doesn't directly concern them, and quite frankly, is none of their business. They both want to restrict people's freedoms: Racists want to ban gay marriage, ultra-egalitarians want to restrict mutual trade and co-operation between individuals.

"Well, if you don't like homophobic marriage laws, don't get married."

Because in the case of marriage equality, any two consenting adults can get married. It's equality. It's good. But when there's no marriage equality, same-sex couples can't get married. That's bad.

Because in the case of the racist shopkeeper, the issues is not that I have a problem with his/her beliefs, it's that his/her beliefs actively restrict the rights of people. You say "don't go to the shop", and you're right in a way because some people cannot. It's the opposite of marriage equality because the issues is that some people cannot do things.

Except that this means that you somehow have an inherent right to go to a shop owned by a private person. The government discriminating against someone (in this case, gays) violates their inherent rights and means that people aren't equal under the law. However, the same concept does not apply to private individuals, because they're, well, private. You can do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

Or, to put it more bluntly: your comparison makes no fucking sense, so kindly cut the crap and stop defending racists. You claim to champion "freedom" and yet here you are, tapdancing on the line of racism-by-proxy and claiming you're "defending rights" and using bullshit examples and comparisons to defend it. I'm sick and tired of this sort of shit.

Oh, it made a lot of sense. It's your comparision that you somehow think that two different people who both want to restrict individual people's rights (in this case, an ultra-egalitarian and a racist) are somehow in the opposite ends of the spectrum while in reality, they both want to interfere with other people's lives and restrict them.