On the Necessity of Militancy for Democracy

[Nuroblav]

Shocking, I know. People forming their own opinions instead of molding them to fit into asinine ideologies?

Madness.

Wow. Imagine trying to mould them into ideologies

[Loben III]

To refute human rights is to stand morally repugnant

No, it's to be able to look at the world and see that shit doesn't exist in practice. Even in the US, how's the constitution treating us? Does it stop gun control, mass spying, assassination of citizens? The answer to all is no.

The constitution is more like a battered wife at this point.

[The Emerald Legion]

This of course assumes that only dictatorships can be oppressive totalitarian states.

What you're saying is that we should make an oppressive, totalitarian, Democracy, rather than an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship.

And at that point, what's the point?

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

Parliamentary systems shouldn’t be idolized and intertwined with democracy, they should be changed and remolded or not exist at all

[Telconi]

This of course assumes that only dictatorships can be oppressive totalitarian states.

What you're saying is that we should make an oppressive, totalitarian, Democracy, rather than an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship.

And at that point, what's the point?

Surely it hurts less when one is kicked by the boot of the 'people'.

[Outer Acharet]

Democracy requires elections, dude. How else are the people going to rule? You're being pointlessly semantic here.

We could have everyone vote on every minor thing. Surely that won't lead to voter apathy when faced with constantly managing their own government and the phenomenon of voting along straight party lines on issues Average Joe doesn't care about or have no stake in. That would work fine.

Right?

[Kowani]

This of course assumes that only dictatorships can be oppressive totalitarian states.

What you're saying is that we should make an oppressive, totalitarian, Democracy, rather than an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship.

And at that point, what's the point?

Surely it hurts less when one is kicked by the boot of the 'people'.

“When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick".

[Telconi]

Surely it hurts less when one is kicked by the boot of the 'people'.

“When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick".

Lately 'the people' seem to prefer guns.

[The Marlborough]

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?

Oh god the irony.

[Punished UMN]

Democracy, like all other forms of government, has problems. Whatever system of government results in the best conditions for the most people possible is the ideal system. That is certainly democracy in many countries, but the assumption that it can only be democracy is an absurdity.

[Outer Acharet]

Democracy, like all other forms of government, has problems. Whatever system of government results in the best conditions for the most people possible is the ideal system. That is certainly democracy in many countries, but the assumption that it can only be democracy is an absurdity.

All hail Caesar?

There are indeed multiple modes of society. They tend to reflect what the people want, regardless of if the people officially have a choice in their representatives or not.

[Punished UMN]

Democracy, like all other forms of government, has problems. Whatever system of government results in the best conditions for the most people possible is the ideal system. That is certainly democracy in many countries, but the assumption that it can only be democracy is an absurdity.

All hail Caesar?

If Caesar is best, then yes. If Caesar is not, then fall.

[Telconi]

All hail Caesar?

If Caesar is best, then yes. If Caesar is not, then fall.

Basically this, In the context of governmental system, the ends justify the means.

[Punished UMN]

If Caesar is best, then yes. If Caesar is not, then fall.

Basically this, In the context of governmental system, the ends justify the means.

I wouldn't say that. What I mean is that the goal of a well-functioning state supersedes the necessity for the people to elect representatives. If the government represents the popular interest without requiring elections, it is a well-ordered hierarchical state.

[Outer Acharet]

All hail Caesar?

If Caesar is best, then yes. If Caesar is not, then fall.

The reality of government described in two sentences

[Telconi]

Basically this, In the context of governmental system, the ends justify the means.

I wouldn't say that. What I mean is that the goal of a well-functioning state supersedes the necessity for the people to elect representatives. If the government represents the popular interest without requiring elections, it is a well-ordered hierarchical state.

I think we're talking past one another. My opinion is that a responsible, benevolent government is the goal, and how we achieve that goal is irrelevant, rather we elect leaders who are good, have a king who is good, etc. etc.

[Genivaria]

The Weimar Republic was also very quick to crack down on left-wing radicals but was very passive if not cooperative towards right-wing radicals.

are you implying this was bad?

Yes enabling the rise of Nazism was a bad thing.

[Punished UMN]

I wouldn't say that. What I mean is that the goal of a well-functioning state supersedes the necessity for the people to elect representatives. If the government represents the popular interest without requiring elections, it is a well-ordered hierarchical state.

I think we're talking past one another. My opinion is that a responsible, benevolent government is the goal, and how we achieve that goal is irrelevant, rather we elect leaders who are good, have a king who is good, etc. etc.

What I mean is that the way you are wording it is paradoxical. The means by which a government is responsible and benevolent are necessarily responsible and benevolent, so it is a redundancy of language.

[Telconi]

I think we're talking past one another. My opinion is that a responsible, benevolent government is the goal, and how we achieve that goal is irrelevant, rather we elect leaders who are good, have a king who is good, etc. etc.

What I mean is that the way you are wording it is paradoxical. The means by which a government is responsible and benevolent are necessarily responsible and benevolent, so it is a redundancy of language.

The means of selecting a government are not morally weighted. They simply are.

[Loben III]

are you implying this was bad?

Yes enabling the rise of Nazism was a bad thing.

you'd think Antifa wouldve taken care of that.

pity.

[Anurial]

This is a really interesting question. To what extent should democracy eschew democratic principles to preserve itself?

If we are to agree that democracy is a good thing, which I would certainly agree with, it should be preserved. But if we also agree that freedom of speech and association is a good thing, should we not also preserve this too?

---

This is a question given to us in A-Level politics. Not precisely one about democracy, but about conflicting rights. For instance, when a newspaper hacks into a phone to uncover personal secrets about a celebrity, which right should be upheld? Right to privacy, or freedom of the press? What about if a newspaper hacks into a phone to uncover political secrets about a politician?

I'm honestly not sure about the celebrity example, but I'd argue in the case of the politician, freedom of the press must be upheld over privacy since it holds politicians accountable to keep politics in the interests of the people, and the violation of a politician's privacy would be worth far less than keeping politics in the interests of the people. When we look at the conflict between the survival of democracy and freedom of speech and association, we should similarly judge the impact of both and see which one is more important.

---

What we'll have to assume is that autocrats and totalitarians wishing to bring down democracy would be successful in gaining power without curbing freedom of speech and association. Otherwise, this post is going to be significantly longer.

I would argue that, from a utilitarian perspective, having a democracy with less freedom of speech and association that likely wouldn't affect the vast majority of people assuming the measures are effective at stopping the rise of popularity of anti-democratic forces is infinitely preferable compared to a totalitarian state with no freedom of speech and association completely. You would have a far greater amount of freedoms.

However, I don't think arguments against this position are utilitarian anyway, they're usually based on the idea that it is undemocratic to use those measures to preserve democracy and that is inherently bad if we are to remain democratic. While I personally don't really care for this argument, I understand others do. Therefore, I'd like to make an argument for militant democracy on a similar philosophical basis.

It is inherently more democratic to prevent autocracy than allowing it to be voted in. Much like in the spirit of the Allies of WWII, defending democracy is one of the most democratic things a society can do. If you allow autocracy to take hold then people can no longer elect their government, which is one of the most inherently undemocratic actions you can make.
You should also keep in mind that even if an autocratic government is elected by a majority of the population, it cannot be democratically changed back when the people no longer want an autocratic government.
Lastly, not all elected autocrats do it through completely democratic means. The NSDAP consolidated it's power by merging the positions of Chancellor and President when Hindenburg died, as well as slowly banning political parties and muscling out the left-wing. It only got about 33% in the last free and fair legislative election. Mussolini marched on Rome after gaining a significant minority of political support and took over the government in a coup. If autocrats always use semi-legal means to achieve power, they cannot claim legitimacy and so it would be unreasonable to claim that they should be respected in the democratic process.

Either way, I'd argue that militant democracy is necessary for the survival of democracy and the survival of democracy is far more important than the right of some fascists to brutalise minorities using state violence. I would advise that militant democracy ought to be about the survival of democratic processes generally, rather than specifically liberal democracy. I do worry that some would prefer for the preservation of liberal democracy over an even more democratic system, though I think that even in Germany's case, the concept of militant democracy has been used to combat only Nazism.

[UniversalCommons]

The problem is that the nazis adjust like all the political parties. Because they are wearing polo shirts and slacks and carrying tiki torches is just a change in uniform. People forget that Mussolini loved the corporations and so did Franco. There is more than one type of fascism.

[Bassoe]

Your logic is faulty, standing armies have been functionally obsolete since 1945, an actual war, not just the american military/industry complex drumming up sales by bribing their puppet politicians to attack some powerless middle eastern nation would consist of 'nukes fall, everybody dies'. Any nation that wants an absolute guaranteed 'nobody will invade us' defense needs atomic bombs not footsoldiers. Footsoldiers are only useful for invasion and occupation.

[Punished UMN]

Your logic is faulty, standing armies have been functionally obsolete since 1945, an actual war, not just the american military/industry complex drumming up sales by bribing their puppet politicians to attack some powerless middle eastern nation would consist of 'nukes fall, everybody dies'. Any nation that wants an absolute guaranteed 'nobody will invade us' defense needs atomic bombs not footsoldiers. Footsoldiers are only useful for invasion and occupation.

Standing armies are necessary due to the possibility of war, not just for wars being currently fought.

Nuclear weapons take a long time to build and usually earn the condemnation of the international community, as well as having less utility.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I think it's because human nature is warlike.So the democratic system will embody the characteristics of its people.It's easy for people to be aggressive about a lot of things. Belligerence is also inevitable.