by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:34 am
by Kowani » Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:45 am
by Telconi » Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:48 am
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote: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?
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:50 am
Telconi wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote: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.
by Telconi » Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:53 am
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Telconi wrote:
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.
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:03 pm
Telconi wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
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.
by Outer Acharet » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:06 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Telconi wrote:
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?
News? What news? News is for people who don't have a bloated military-industrial complex strangling their apparatus of state. Wait, that sounds like a bad thing, doesn't it?
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:13 pm
Outer Acharet wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
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?
by Nuroblav » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:17 pm
by North German Realm » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:17 pm
5 Nov, 2020
Die Morgenpost: "We will reconsider our relationship with Poland" Reichskanzler Lagenmauer says after Polish president protested North German ultimatum that made them restore reproductive freedom. | European Society votes not to persecute Hungary for atrocities committed against Serbs, "Giving a rogue state leave to commit genocide as it sees fit." North German delegate bemoans. | Negotiations still underway in Rome, delegates arguing over the extent of indemnities Turkey might be made to pay, lawful status of Turkish collaborators during occupation of Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Syria.
by Outer Acharet » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:23 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Outer Acharet wrote: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.
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?
News? What news? News is for people who don't have a bloated military-industrial complex strangling their apparatus of state. Wait, that sounds like a bad thing, doesn't it?
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:27 pm
Outer Acharet wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
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.
by Outer Acharet » Sat Aug 15, 2020 12:38 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote: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.
News? What news? News is for people who don't have a bloated military-industrial complex strangling their apparatus of state. Wait, that sounds like a bad thing, doesn't it?
by Telconi » Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:50 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Outer Acharet wrote: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.
by Outer Acharet » Sat Aug 15, 2020 2:59 pm
Telconi wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
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.
News? What news? News is for people who don't have a bloated military-industrial complex strangling their apparatus of state. Wait, that sounds like a bad thing, doesn't it?
by Asle Leopolka » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:08 pm
by Liriena » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:17 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:28 pm
Outer Acharet wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote: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 wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
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.
Asle Leopolka wrote:Totally misread that as "Necromancy of Militancy for Democracy"
Liriena wrote: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.
by Telconi » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:34 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Outer Acharet wrote: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.Telconi wrote:
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?Asle Leopolka wrote: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.Liriena wrote: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.
by Liriena » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:59 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:02 pm
Telconi wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:
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?
by Telconi » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:02 pm
by Telconi » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:03 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Telconi wrote:
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.
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:06 pm
by Telconi » Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:08 pm
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:Telconi wrote:
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?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Ayushvandra, Battadia, Castelia, Daphomir, Eahland, El Lazaro, Merriwhether, New Temecula, Norse Inuit Union, Ravemath, Rusozak, San Lumen, Soviet Unionstates, Spirit of Hope, The Jamesian Republic, The Two Jerseys, The Vooperian Union, Tiami, Verkhoyanska, Xind
Advertisement