(October 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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.
(October 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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.
(October 18, 2012 at 3:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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.
