On the Necessity of Militancy for Democracy

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

One of the inherent flaws in the democratic system is that in most democratic systems it can be infiltrated and dismantled from within. This is precisely how the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany managed to come to power: by winning elections and destroying democracy from within using the powers legally prescribed to them. This isn't unique to Fascists, either. There are numerous examples in both the previous and current century of anti-democratic forces infiltrating and bringing down democratic institutions with within. Russia and the United State in particular are fine examples of this occurring in the modern day. Often times these acts are justified as being "the will of the people". After all, the people elected these people (presumably, though not necessarily) and thus it must be their will to remove democracy.

The problem with this argument is assumes the candidate won fair and square (which can dubious) and that the will of the people must inherently be a good thing. I reject both these notions. No, the dismantling of democracy is never in the best interests of the people - even if the people themselves want it. It is therefor my belief that such a loophole or exploit must be annihilated. Democracies, if they are to survive, must not allow anti-democratic forces to infiltrate and dismantle them from within. Undemocratic factions and candidates must be prohibited from participating directly in a democratic government via running for an elected office, and should they be discovered within these hallowed halls of governance they must be rooted out, expelled, and barred from re-entry into them. Democracy is in and of itself the inherent will of the people made manifest; to oppose or obstruct it is to become an enemy of the people, and an enemy of the people should not be permitted to ruler over them.

It is therefor my intent to express not only the necessity of Militant Democracy, but also to praise it as an inherently virtuous thing. Militant Democracy is not a recent invention for it exists in many countries, such as Germany in the form of Streitbare Demokratie. Democracies intend on defending themselves are not new, nor are they alien, nor are they unwelcome. Quite the opposite. They are a necessity for the survival of democracy. We have seen what happens when we allow authoritarians and totalitarians to infiltrate the democratic system. It is the best interests of the people to protect their democratic systems by whatever means necessary and the laws of a democratic government must reflect and permit this. The people have a right to democracy and a right to defend it.

What say ye, NSG? Do you believe in Militant Democracy? Or is OP another fringe-lunatic extremist?

[Kowani]

A strong democracy must be defended not by force of arms, but by a militancy in the war of ideas. Those who would propose anti democratic ideas must be shouted down and kept from the expression of the same, if a democracy is to long last. The issue, thus, is not merely the existence of those who would express such ideas, but also the circumstances that lead them to gain traction, and in the eradication of the latter there can be no less vigilance than that of the former. The mechanisms of the state, must be kept free from graft, the government must work to the satisfaction of the people, the law must apply to all. Only then can a democracy last. It is a constant struggle, not one of relaxation. A democracy cannot hope for a great msn, but it must build the machinery to where ordinary men may triumph over the incentives of corruption.

[Telconi]

One of the inherent flaws in the democratic system is that in most democratic systems it can be infiltrated and dismantled from within. This is precisely how the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany managed to come to power: by winning elections and destroying democracy from within using the powers legally prescribed to them. This isn't unique to Fascists, either. There are numerous examples in both the previous and current century of anti-democratic forces infiltrating and bringing down democratic institutions with within. Russia and the United State in particular are fine examples of this occurring in the modern day. Often times these acts are justified as being "the will of the people". After all, the people elected these people (presumably, though not necessarily) and thus it must be their will to remove democracy.

The problem with this argument is assumes the candidate won fair and square (which can dubious) and that the will of the people must inherently be a good thing. I reject both these notions. No, the dismantling of democracy is never in the best interests of the people - even if the people themselves want it. It is therefor my belief that such a loophole or exploit must be annihilated. Democracies, if they are to survive, must not allow anti-democratic forces to infiltrate and dismantle them from within. Undemocratic factions and candidates must be prohibited from participating directly in a democratic government via running for an elected office, and should they be discovered within these hallowed halls of governance they must be rooted out, expelled, and barred from re-entry into them. Democracy is in and of itself the inherent will of the people made manifest; to oppose or obstruct it is to become an enemy of the people, and an enemy of the people should not be permitted to ruler over them.

It is therefor my intent to express not only the necessity of Militant Democracy, but also to praise it as an inherently virtuous thing. Militant Democracy is not a recent invention for it exists in many countries, such as Germany in the form of Streitbare Demokratie. Democracies intend on defending themselves are not new, nor are they alien, nor are they unwelcome. Quite the opposite. They are a necessity for the survival of democracy. We have seen what happens when we allow authoritarians and totalitarians to infiltrate the democratic system. It is the best interests of the people to protect their democratic systems by whatever means necessary and the laws of a democratic government must reflect and permit this. The people have a right to democracy and a right to defend it.

What say ye, NSG? Do you believe in Militant Democracy? Or is OP another fringe-lunatic extremist?

The entire principle behind democratic government is that people ought to have the government of their choosing.

Thus, maintaining democracy in the face of public opposition is tyrannical and, oddly enough, undemocratic.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

One of the inherent flaws in the democratic system is that in most democratic systems it can be infiltrated and dismantled from within. This is precisely how the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany managed to come to power: by winning elections and destroying democracy from within using the powers legally prescribed to them. This isn't unique to Fascists, either. There are numerous examples in both the previous and current century of anti-democratic forces infiltrating and bringing down democratic institutions with within. Russia and the United State in particular are fine examples of this occurring in the modern day. Often times these acts are justified as being "the will of the people". After all, the people elected these people (presumably, though not necessarily) and thus it must be their will to remove democracy.

The problem with this argument is assumes the candidate won fair and square (which can dubious) and that the will of the people must inherently be a good thing. I reject both these notions. No, the dismantling of democracy is never in the best interests of the people - even if the people themselves want it. It is therefor my belief that such a loophole or exploit must be annihilated. Democracies, if they are to survive, must not allow anti-democratic forces to infiltrate and dismantle them from within. Undemocratic factions and candidates must be prohibited from participating directly in a democratic government via running for an elected office, and should they be discovered within these hallowed halls of governance they must be rooted out, expelled, and barred from re-entry into them. Democracy is in and of itself the inherent will of the people made manifest; to oppose or obstruct it is to become an enemy of the people, and an enemy of the people should not be permitted to ruler over them.

It is therefor my intent to express not only the necessity of Militant Democracy, but also to praise it as an inherently virtuous thing. Militant Democracy is not a recent invention for it exists in many countries, such as Germany in the form of Streitbare Demokratie. Democracies intend on defending themselves are not new, nor are they alien, nor are they unwelcome. Quite the opposite. They are a necessity for the survival of democracy. We have seen what happens when we allow authoritarians and totalitarians to infiltrate the democratic system. It is the best interests of the people to protect their democratic systems by whatever means necessary and the laws of a democratic government must reflect and permit this. The people have a right to democracy and a right to defend it.

What say ye, NSG? Do you believe in Militant Democracy? Or is OP another fringe-lunatic extremist?

The entire principle behind democratic government is that people ought to have the government of their choosing.

Thus, maintaining democracy in the face of public opposition is tyrannical and, oddly enough, undemocratic.

Yet the alternative is to allow dictators to rule without question, to allow them to break down the barriers needed to protect the people from their government and thereby opening the door to all manner of atrocities.

And that is reckless and immoral.

[Telconi]

The entire principle behind democratic government is that people ought to have the government of their choosing.

Thus, maintaining democracy in the face of public opposition is tyrannical and, oddly enough, undemocratic.

Yet the alternative is to allow dictators to rule without question, to allow them to break down the barriers needed to protect the people from their government and thereby opening the door to all manner of atrocities.

And that is reckless and immoral.

Almost as immoral as maintaining a government the people oppose under some foolish notion that the system of governance. And not the actual governance is of moral value.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yet the alternative is to allow dictators to rule without question, to allow them to break down the barriers needed to protect the people from their government and thereby opening the door to all manner of atrocities.

And that is reckless and immoral.

Almost as immoral as maintaining a government the people oppose under some foolish notion that the system of governance. And not the actual governance is of moral value.

I don't consider keeping a system that benefits the people against their well to be as equally immoral as letting dictators arrest, torture, and execute whoever they please.

Are we to allow healthcare to be abolished if the majority of people no longer wish for it? Are we to abolish our military if the people so wish even when we are surrounded by hostile and militant countries? Where does it end? At point does what the people need outweigh what they want when those two are no longer the same? How many people have to suffer and die before a government by the people, for the people, with the people has to put it's foot down in order to protect the people?

[Outer Acharet]

Almost as immoral as maintaining a government the people oppose under some foolish notion that the system of governance. And not the actual governance is of moral value.

I don't consider keeping a system that benefits the people against their well to be as equally immoral as letting dictators arrest, torture, and execute whoever they please.

Are we to allow healthcare to be abolished if the majority of people no longer wish for it? Are we to abolish our military if the people so wish even when we are surrounded by hostile and militant countries? Where does it end? At point does what the people need outweigh what they want when those two are no longer the same? How many people have to suffer and die before a government by the people, for the people, with the people has to put it's foot down in order to protect the people?

Would you be in favor of a benevolent dictatorship not wanted by the people, then? If it benefits the people, why does it matter what they want?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I don't consider keeping a system that benefits the people against their well to be as equally immoral as letting dictators arrest, torture, and execute whoever they please.

Are we to allow healthcare to be abolished if the majority of people no longer wish for it? Are we to abolish our military if the people so wish even when we are surrounded by hostile and militant countries? Where does it end? At point does what the people need outweigh what they want when those two are no longer the same? How many people have to suffer and die before a government by the people, for the people, with the people has to put it's foot down in order to protect the people?

Would you be in favor of a benevolent dictatorship not wanted by the people, then? If it benefits the people, why does it matter what they want?

No, I wouldn't. A benevolent dictatorship - which is super rare to begin with - is not an ideal government model. Dictators cannot be held accountable unlike elected officials in a transparent democratic republic. Dictators can change their methods on a whim whenever they like, and can go from benevolent to malevolent whenever they like. The only way to get rid of a dictatorship is through violence; you can't vote out dictators.

While I have no real problem with a dictator who is benevolent, unless they intend to establish a democratic system after their death then I can't reasonably trust the dictatorship. The next dictator may not be so charitable.

[Nuroblav]

Not my cup of tea.

A state democracy could do with some regulation but it would need to be done carefully.

[North German Realm]

I do believe that for a democratic system to survive, a major aspect of it must be intolerance of and constant action against ideologies that are naturally opposed to it. To that extent, militancy both in ideas and in practice must exist, and not just at a grass-roots popular level.

[Outer Acharet]

Would you be in favor of a benevolent dictatorship not wanted by the people, then? If it benefits the people, why does it matter what they want?

No, I wouldn't. A benevolent dictatorship - which is super rare to begin with - is not an ideal government model. Dictators cannot be held accountable unlike elected officials in a transparent democratic republic. Dictators can change their methods on a whim whenever they like, and can go from benevolent to malevolent whenever they like. The only way to get rid of a dictatorship is through violence; you can't vote out dictators.

While I have no real problem with a dictator who is benevolent, unless they intend to establish a democratic system after their death then I can't reasonably trust the dictatorship. The next dictator may not be so charitable.

I agree with you, then. I feel that a militant democracy like you propose, though, runs the risk of using its militancy to self-perpetuate itself in the event that the populace decides to replace it with a different system of government. And that to me is just one step away from the leadership deciding to suspend the democratic process and simply setting themselves up as a dictatorship.

And, addressing this:

Are we to allow healthcare to be abolished if the majority of people no longer wish for it? Are we to abolish our military if the people so wish even when we are surrounded by hostile and militant countries? Where does it end? At point does what the people need outweigh what they want when those two are no longer the same? How many people have to suffer and die before a government by the people, for the people, with the people has to put it's foot down in order to protect the people?

Yeah. Democracies produce sub-optimal results and don't change quickly. But they're not dependent on leadership to change. If what the people want is ignored over a better result, even if I can verifiably show that what the people want is pants-on-head retarded, then that is a non-democratic result. I believe NS calls that a Father-Knows-Best State.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

No, I wouldn't. A benevolent dictatorship - which is super rare to begin with - is not an ideal government model. Dictators cannot be held accountable unlike elected officials in a transparent democratic republic. Dictators can change their methods on a whim whenever they like, and can go from benevolent to malevolent whenever they like. The only way to get rid of a dictatorship is through violence; you can't vote out dictators.

While I have no real problem with a dictator who is benevolent, unless they intend to establish a democratic system after their death then I can't reasonably trust the dictatorship. The next dictator may not be so charitable.

I agree with you, then. I feel that a militant democracy like you propose, though, runs the risk of using its militancy to self-perpetuate itself in the event that the populace decides to replace it with a different system of government. And that to me is just one step away from the leadership deciding to suspend the democratic process and simply set themselves up as a dictatorship.

And, addressing this:

Are we to allow healthcare to be abolished if the majority of people no longer wish for it? Are we to abolish our military if the people so wish even when we are surrounded by hostile and militant countries? Where does it end? At point does what the people need outweigh what they want when those two are no longer the same? How many people have to suffer and die before a government by the people, for the people, with the people has to put it's foot down in order to protect the people?

Yeah. Democracies produce sub-optimal results and don't change quickly. But they're not dependent on leadership to change. If what the people want is ignored over a better result, even if I can verifiably show that what the people want is pants-on-head retarded, then that is a non-democratic result. I believe NS calls that a Father-Knows-Best State.

The problem, thus, is a moral one. Do we contradict our own system to give the people what they need, or do we follow their will even if it negatively affects them?

It's not a difficult choice for me but I can understand how it would be for some. Democracy is a net benefit to Mankind, but if it can't defend itself then there's no point in achieving it if it'll just be repealed by the first strongman that rigs an election.

[Outer Acharet]

The problem, thus, is a moral one. Do we contradict our own system to give the people what they need, or do we follow their will even if it negatively affects them?

It's not a difficult choice for me but I can understand how it would be for some. Democracy is a net benefit to Mankind, but if it can't defend itself then there's no point in achieving it if it'll just be repealed by the first strongman that rigs an election.

I would support a militant democracy if I could be sure that it wouldn't get strongmen on the inside perpetuating it.

My feelings on the matter are similar to what you said about benevolent dictatorships- they rarely exist, and even when they do, there's no assurance that the next dictator will be any good. Giving a democracy the power to self-perpetuate itself in this manner just seems to be asking for a corrupt politician to take advantage of the system for their own benefit. And, historically, a good percentage of politicians that make it to the top have been at least somewhat corrupt, or at least otherwise indebted to some interests.

If the government decides what's best for us, and we don't have a choice in telling them no, then what's stopping them from substituting "best for us all" with "best for me"? Maybe I'm just too cynical about the whole thing, I don't know, but that question just keeps repeating itself in regards to this proposal.

I want to trust a government to do what's best. But to me the graves of hundreds of failed states shows otherwise in regards to their abilities to do so.

[Telconi]

I agree with you, then. I feel that a militant democracy like you propose, though, runs the risk of using its militancy to self-perpetuate itself in the event that the populace decides to replace it with a different system of government. And that to me is just one step away from the leadership deciding to suspend the democratic process and simply set themselves up as a dictatorship.

And, addressing this:

Yeah. Democracies produce sub-optimal results and don't change quickly. But they're not dependent on leadership to change. If what the people want is ignored over a better result, even if I can verifiably show that what the people want is pants-on-head retarded, then that is a non-democratic result. I believe NS calls that a Father-Knows-Best State.

The problem, thus, is a moral one. Do we contradict our own system to give the people what they need, or do we follow their will even if it negatively affects them?

It's not a difficult choice for me but I can understand how it would be for some. Democracy is a net benefit to Mankind, but if it can't defend itself then there's no point in achieving it if it'll just be repealed by the first strongman that rigs an election.

The moral gymnastics necessary to insist on a dictatorship being better than democracy are truly mind boggling.

[Outer Acharet]

The problem, thus, is a moral one. Do we contradict our own system to give the people what they need, or do we follow their will even if it negatively affects them?

It's not a difficult choice for me but I can understand how it would be for some. Democracy is a net benefit to Mankind, but if it can't defend itself then there's no point in achieving it if it'll just be repealed by the first strongman that rigs an election.

The moral gymnastics necessary to insist on a dictatorship being better than democracy are truly mind boggling.

Not really.

If we accept the following axiom- that fulfilling basic human needs is more important that giving an individual the choice in how they are fulfilled- then the most optimal form of government is an omniscient, benevolent dictatorship. That way, individual satisfaction can be maximized, as the government knows how to fulfill everyone's needs in a way that the freedom of the individual in simple choices is respected. In a democracy, no one will ever be truly satisfied, as there will always be a minority group that has their opinions not represented, while in an omniscient, benevolent dictatorship everyone's needs are at least partially fulfilled. Now, that axiom may not be true, and indeed falls firmly within the field of philosophy. However, I don't believe it's a coincidence that what is described matches up quite closely with how many religions portray their God.

Of course, all that goes out the window if having a choice in how you fulfill your needs is more important than a guarantee that they are in some way fulfilled. But that's not complex moral gymnastics- it is prioritizing safety over freedom. One choice.

[Asle Leopolka]

Totally misread that as "Necromancy of Militancy for Democracy"

[Liriena]

As a democratic socialist (of sorts), I do see a lot of value in a democracy that makes an active effort to combat authoritarian and totalitarian infiltration.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The problem, thus, is a moral one. Do we contradict our own system to give the people what they need, or do we follow their will even if it negatively affects them?

It's not a difficult choice for me but I can understand how it would be for some. Democracy is a net benefit to Mankind, but if it can't defend itself then there's no point in achieving it if it'll just be repealed by the first strongman that rigs an election.

I would support a militant democracy if I could be sure that it wouldn't get strongmen on the inside perpetuating it.

My feelings on the matter are similar to what you said about benevolent dictatorships- they rarely exist, and even when they do, there's no assurance that the next dictator will be any good. Giving a democracy the power to self-perpetuate itself in this manner just seems to be asking for a corrupt politician to take advantage of the system for their own benefit. And, historically, a good percentage of politicians that make it to the top have been at least somewhat corrupt, or at least otherwise indebted to some interests.

If the government decides what's best for us, and we don't have a choice in telling them no, then what's stopping them from substituting "best for us all" with "best for me"? Maybe I'm just too cynical about the whole thing, I don't know, but that question just keeps repeating itself in regards to this proposal.

I want to trust a government to do what's best. But to me the graves of hundreds of failed states shows otherwise in regards to their abilities to do so.

Germany seems to have handled it well enough, though that may be because of the unique circumstances that led to the fall and restoration of democracy in Germany in the early 20th century.

The problem, thus, is a moral one. Do we contradict our own system to give the people what they need, or do we follow their will even if it negatively affects them?

It's not a difficult choice for me but I can understand how it would be for some. Democracy is a net benefit to Mankind, but if it can't defend itself then there's no point in achieving it if it'll just be repealed by the first strongman that rigs an election.

The moral gymnastics necessary to insist on a dictatorship being better than democracy are truly mind boggling.

Cool.

Except I'm not advocating dictatorship. You're free to disagree with the idea of a Militant Democracy - that is, one that legally defends itself from anti-democratic forces - but please don't start equating it with a dictatorship. They're not the same thing. Not even remotely similar.

Unless you consider modern Germany a dictatorship?

Totally misread that as "Necromancy of Militancy for Democracy"

When you think about it, democracy was 'dead' for centuries before being 'brought back to life' so technically it fits.

As a democratic socialist (of sorts), I do see a lot of value in a democracy that makes an active effort to combat authoritarian and totalitarian infiltration.

It's pretty attractive when you're watching the death of your non-militant democracy in real time.

[Telconi]

I would support a militant democracy if I could be sure that it wouldn't get strongmen on the inside perpetuating it.

My feelings on the matter are similar to what you said about benevolent dictatorships- they rarely exist, and even when they do, there's no assurance that the next dictator will be any good. Giving a democracy the power to self-perpetuate itself in this manner just seems to be asking for a corrupt politician to take advantage of the system for their own benefit. And, historically, a good percentage of politicians that make it to the top have been at least somewhat corrupt, or at least otherwise indebted to some interests.

If the government decides what's best for us, and we don't have a choice in telling them no, then what's stopping them from substituting "best for us all" with "best for me"? Maybe I'm just too cynical about the whole thing, I don't know, but that question just keeps repeating itself in regards to this proposal.

I want to trust a government to do what's best. But to me the graves of hundreds of failed states shows otherwise in regards to their abilities to do so.

Germany seems to have handled it well enough, though that may be because of the unique circumstances that led to the fall and restoration of democracy in Germany in the early 20th century.

The moral gymnastics necessary to insist on a dictatorship being better than democracy are truly mind boggling.

Cool.

Except I'm not advocating dictatorship. You're free to disagree with the idea of a Militant Democracy - that is, one that legally defends itself from anti-democratic forces - but please don't start equating it with a dictatorship. They're not the same thing. Not even remotely similar.

Unless you consider modern Germany a dictatorship?

Totally misread that as "Necromancy of Militancy for Democracy"

When you think about it, democracy was 'dead' for centuries before being 'brought back to life' so technically it fits.

As a democratic socialist (of sorts), I do see a lot of value in a democracy that makes an active effort to combat authoritarian and totalitarian infiltration.

It's pretty attractive when you're watching the death of your non-militant democracy in real time.

You're advocating that you, specifically, ought to have the capacity to override the will of a group of people, as expressed via democratic referenda, and dictate governmental operations to them unilaterally.

How isn't that a dictatorship?

[Liriena]

As a democratic socialist (of sorts), I do see a lot of value in a democracy that makes an active effort to combat authoritarian and totalitarian infiltration.

It's pretty attractive when you're watching the death of your non-militant democracy in real time.

It's specially attractive if you know how bad it can get if enough people become apathetic and neglectful towards democracy.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Germany seems to have handled it well enough, though that may be because of the unique circumstances that led to the fall and restoration of democracy in Germany in the early 20th century.



Cool.

Except I'm not advocating dictatorship. You're free to disagree with the idea of a Militant Democracy - that is, one that legally defends itself from anti-democratic forces - but please don't start equating it with a dictatorship. They're not the same thing. Not even remotely similar.

Unless you consider modern Germany a dictatorship?



When you think about it, democracy was 'dead' for centuries before being 'brought back to life' so technically it fits.



It's pretty attractive when you're watching the death of your non-militant democracy in real time.

You're advocating that you, specifically, ought to have the capacity to override the will of a group of people, as expressed via democratic referenda, and dictate governmental operations to them unilaterally.

How isn't that a dictatorship?

Cool.

Not what I said at all, though.

[Telconi]

It's pretty attractive when you're watching the death of your non-militant democracy in real time.

It's specially attractive if you know how bad it can get if enough people become apathetic and neglectful towards democracy.

If democracy weren't so shitty, people wouldn't neglect it.

[Telconi]

You're advocating that you, specifically, ought to have the capacity to override the will of a group of people, as expressed via democratic referenda, and dictate governmental operations to them unilaterally.

How isn't that a dictatorship?

Cool.

Not what I said at all, though.

How is it not? Your entire premise is to subvert democracy if the people vote wrong. How is that not dictatorial?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Cool.

Not what I said at all, though.

How is it not? Your entire premise is to subvert democracy if the people vote wrong. How is that not dictatorial?

No, it isn't.

My entire premise is to protect democracy from undemocratic forces within the legal frameworks of democracy by enshrining certain articles within the national constitution that permit certain authorities to take action to hinder the advance of undemocratic interests. This is not a revolutionary or niche idea. Germany already does this and has done this for a good, long while now.

So I'll ask again: do you consider modern Germany to be a dictatorship?

[Telconi]

How is it not? Your entire premise is to subvert democracy if the people vote wrong. How is that not dictatorial?

No, it isn't.

My entire premise is to protect democracy from undemocratic forces within the legal frameworks of democracy by enshrining certain articles within the national constitution that permit certain authorities to take action to hinder the advance of undemocratic interests. This is not a revolutionary or niche idea. Germany already does this and has done this for a good, long while now.

So I'll ask again: do you consider modern Germany to be a dictatorship?

So what I said, but with a hefty coating of sugar.

It certainly has dictatorial tendencies.