Neo-Nazis Fly Under Radar

[Tiberius]

Isn't it weird how all the libertarians in this thread are ALL springing to defend nazis? It's almost like they've been trained to respond to nazi protests with arguments of free speech......and isn't amazing how left-wingers are actaully giving them great arguments AGAINST free speech, sure hope the libertarians don't use these arguments against us, to let's say ban free speech of homosexuals, or better yet get rid of free speech for communists after all they're just as bad, right?

Sorry, but defending the free speech of Nazis (and free speech in general) does not equate "defending Nazis". I can defend a Nazi's right to believe whatever they want and express themselves without having to agree with them.

Libertarians would never ban free speech of homosexuals, communists, or any group of people for the simple reason that Libertarians are individualists. We believe that free speech should be just that...free.

Your continued use of the "Libertarians == Nazis" argument just gets more and more absurd the each time you bring it up.

[thesummerqueen]

Sorry Summer. I've had a rather angry month, and it doesn't seem to be ending. I jumped the gun and went straight for aggression. I shouldn't have done that.

Quite all right.

The reason I asked the question was because you made it sound as if there were no reasons ever that a people should revolt against their government, and I wanted to make sure of what you were meaning using America as an example, as I do think America's reasons were valid (at least the public ones).

[Autumnlicious]

Isn't it weird how all the libertarians in this thread are ALL springing to defend nazis? It's almost like they've been trained to respond to nazi protests with arguments of free speech......and isn't amazing how left-wingers are actaully giving them great arguments AGAINST free speech, sure hope the libertarians don't use these arguments against us, to let's say ban free speech of homosexuals, or better yet get rid of free speech for communists after all they're just as bad, right?

Sorry, but defending the free speech of Nazis (and free speech in general) does not equate "defending Nazis". I can defend a Nazi's right to believe whatever they want and express themselves without having to agree with them.

Libertarians would never ban free speech of homosexuals, communists, or any group of people for the simple reason that Libertarians are individualists. We believe that free speech should be just that...free.

Indeed, however, what about the right of a group to lobby for the overthrow of the government and replacement with an undemocratic institution?

Knowing that said hypothetical party would deny the rights it uses now to others, does it still deserve a fair hearing?

I think not, as their rights end at someone else's in my view. And their right to lobby for changes in law ends at attempting to steal the rights of others.

[Something completely different]

Isn't it weird how all the libertarians in this thread are ALL springing to defend nazis?It's almost like they've been trained to respond to nazi protests with arguments of free speech......and isn't amazing how left-wingers are actaully giving them great arguments AGAINST free speech, sure hope the libertarians don't use these arguments against us, to let's say ban free speech of homosexuals, or better yet get rid of free speech for communists after all they're just as bad, right?

liberterians defending nazis?! Show me the liberterian who tries to cut a left-wingers right to free speech? show me the liberterian who is homophobic?!

Our current foreign minister Guido Westerwelle is from the liberterian party (FDP) and he`s a homosexual.
To me it seems as if you are just trying to attribute negative adjectives to a political group you disagree with, wich doesn`t make you that much different from people who accuse jews of "running the world".
I`m not a liberterian, but I`m a proud citizen of a republic, and as such I value parlament and reasonable political discurse and reject the constant repeating of ones ideological talking points and the factless dehumanisation of ones oposition, I consider that the real life equivalent of trolling.

[Tiberius]

Indeed, however, what about the right of a group to lobby for the overthrow of the government and replacement with an undemocratic institution?

Knowing that said hypothetical party would deny the rights it uses now to others, does it still deserve a fair hearing?

I think not, as their rights end at someone else's in my view. And their right to lobby for changes in law ends at attempting to steal the rights of others.

In my opinion, they do deserve free speech. In order to have free speech, we must run the risk of losing it. The problem I have with your argument is that you can adjust it to cover anything you (or the government) doesn't like. Say gay marriage is legal; should it be made illegal to protest gay marriage, or to lobby for a law that bans gay marriage? That would surely be an attempt to steal the rights of others, so why not ban that?

Then you get a very slippery slope. People see their rights differently to others. Rights often conflict with each other too.

[Autumnlicious]

You're essentially arguing for the right to dehumanize someone under the assumption that if we don't allow that, we lose out.

The German view is different -- that the preservation of their democracy takes precedence as it was undemocratic parties with undemocratic policies that were democratically elected to begin the German descent into the Holocaust.

What is lost if you prohibit anti-democratic parties and policies from obtaining power?

[Tiberius]

I'm not arguing for a right to dehumanize; I'm arguing for a right to hold such views and express them.

The undemocratic parties were as you say, elected via democratic means. It was only once they were in power that they revealed their true nature (though admittedly, a few did have suspicions beforehand). Prohibiting anti-democratic parties hardly does anything. It is doubtful that parties running on such a platform would ever be elected in a democratic system. The prohibition doesn't target the real problem: parties that get into power and then become drastically undemocratic.

[Something completely different]

I'm not arguing for a right to dehumanize; I'm arguing for a right to hold such views and express them.

But isn`t someone who would for example publicly state:
"Homosexuals are a public health risk! they will steal your children and seduce them into homosexuality, whilest speading deseases and takeing your civil liberties!"

a public risk factor.
During the Clinton administation the opposition in congress blew the horn of constant, sometimes eaven violent anti goverment rethoric, to then act suprised after the Oklahoma bomings.
I am not saying that if one uses violent rethoric will always lead to violence, but a constant repeating of such rethoric will certainly highten the risk of politicaly motivated crime.

The undemocratic parties were as you say, elected via democratic means. It was only once they were in power that they revealed their true nature (though admittedly, a few did have suspicions beforehand).

Yes the national socialist party clearly and always said it was undemocratic.
But Stalin aswell as Lenin kept holding fake "elections" throughout their rule. Actualy one can clearly say that most of todays authoritarian states and parties constantly try to appeal to their subjects as democratic, eaven or actualy especialy whilest in power. Hiding ones totalitarian goals eaven whilest in goverment is a essential part for a modern totalitarian movement, because the days in wich people daughted that democracy works are over.

Prohibiting anti-democratic parties hardly does anything. It is doubtful that parties running on such a platform would ever be elected in a democratic system. The prohibition doesn't target the real problem: parties that get into power and then become drastically undemocratic.

Yes it does solve that problem, in a democracy the only way to power is through election and if the party is forbidden ergo. cannot set up a canidate or array of canidates - it cannot gain power.
I agree that forbidding totalitarian movements to join in into a democratic process will drive them into a more dangerous underground, but there they are more likely to show their real undemocratic face instead of posing as democratic participants, wich makes it less likely for them to gain any power in a democratic system.

[Tiberius]

Way to totally miss my point. I understand that forbidding anti-democratic parties from elections will result in those specific parties not gaining power. I never said any different.

However, it doesn't solve the bigger problem, which is where such parties emerge from already elected parties, whether that emergence is planned or not. The Nazi's rose to power democratically; they never had any public policy which was inherently undemocratic prior to taking office. For any party to announce such a position would be political suicide. Rather, they gained the majority in government, and then systematically went around destroying their remaining political enemies (blaming the Reichstag fire on communists, forcing other parties to endorse Hitler, and murdering them in the Night of the Long Knives).

In short, you cannot easily predict whether a party is going to do this or not. If the Republican party gained a majority in Congress, and then they all decided to pass legislation that effectively made them the only party that could get power, you'd have the same thing.

[Something completely different]

Way to totally miss my point. I understand that forbidding anti-democratic parties from elections will result in those specific parties not gaining power. I never said any different.

please understand that english is not my mothertounge and that misunderstandings will occure. I will of course appologise and clarify myself if you should feel accused of saying something wich you didn`t say

However, it doesn't solve the bigger problem, which is where such parties emerge from already elected parties, whether that emergence is planned or not. The Nazi's rose to power democratically; they never had any public policy which was inherently undemocratic prior to taking office.

it always amazes me how little people outside of germany seem to know about national socialism or fashism in general.

The "Weimar Republik" the German republic which existed between 1918 and 1933, was notoriously unstable. In fact, it is called Weimar republic because there were so many attemptet coup`d ètat`s and streetfights between the political parties, that the city of Berlin was considered to be to unsafe to be germans capital - so the capital and parlament were moved to the city of Weimar.
The notorious braunshirts aswell as communist movements would ravage through all german streets in all german cities, mercilessly beating up and murdering opposition figures. The Weimar republic was more about wich parties militia could violently inforce it`s views, than about votes.
In fact before Hitler took over power his party had lost votes and he was forced to join a coalition with the conservatives, where he than seized the opertunity to gain power through a coup`d ètat.

I`ll give you a small example with one of Hitlers election speeches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sKyAmzeDVI

For any party to announce such a position would be political suicide. Rather, they gained the majority in government, and then systematically went around destroying their remaining political enemies (blaming the Reichstag fire on communists, forcing other parties to endorse Hitler, and murdering them in the Night of the Long Knives).

Hitler gained power through the Reichstag fire and then used his newly gained goverment power to brutaly crush the opposition. But as I showed you before, he was "intolerant" of democracy eaven before he came to power.
That is very importent to understand! Because otherwise one could say "the germans were tricked into national socialism" - wich wouldn`t be true. Those who voted Hitler were well aware that they were voting a dictatorship.

To publicly claime democracy isn`t working might sound stupid to you.
But in the 1920s and 1930s it didn`t sound that stupid at all, after a catastrophic world war and especialy after a finacial crisis a lot of people believed that democracy and maybe eaven capitalism doesn`t work.
eaven today you will find people who claim that democracy has failed - but they are simply given less attention, live next to Tienamen square or are bombed with drones.

In short, you cannot easily predict whether a party is going to do this or not. If the Republican party gained a majority in Congress, and then they all decided to pass legislation that effectively made them the only party that could get power, you'd have the same thing.

Do you realy believe that in a modern democracy, with so many institutions of governance: Head of state, head of goverment, leader of opposition, leader of parlamentary majority, high court of justice, executive and more... a democracy will simply be undone by a party wich "simply posed as democraticly legitimate".
I can say from my countries history that since we have been a democracy, every single chancelor, except for two (Willy Brandt, Ludwig Erhard) lost power because they had overstept their limits of power.

I am not a friend of conspiracy theories and I think neighter are you, so I dought that any party would be capable of staging a conspiracy of posing as "democratic" to gain power, in order to then turn totalitarian.
I dont just think in theoretical but also in logistical terms.